Redding City Council
September 17, 2024

REVISED September 16, 2024, at 10:37 a.m.:

Item 9.10(a) – attached First Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract (C-9463)
Agenda
Regular Meeting
Redding City Council
Council Chambers
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA
September 17, 2024
6:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER - MAYOR TENESSA AUDETTE
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation - Rev. Ray Simon, Campus Pastor for Good News Rescue Mission C. Roll Call

2. PRESENTATIONS
2A. Presentation by Ted Bambino, Redding Rodeo Association President, providing an update of Redding Rodeo Association activities.
2B. Presentation by Danny Orloff, Visit Redding Tourism Marketing Director, providing a quarterly report regarding tourism marketing and promotion efforts for the City of Redding.

If anyone wishes to address the City Council on any item considered at this meeting before or during Council’s consideration of that item, please fill out a blue Speaker Request Form, located in the lighted alcoves at the back of the Council Chambers, and submit it to the City Clerk. The City Council will allocate up to a maximum of three minutes per speaker for each agenda item. Staff reports are available on-line at the City’s web site at www.cityofredding.gov and in the Public View binder located on the podium at the north side of the Chambers.

PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES. THANK YOU.

Redding City Council September 17, 2024

3. PUBLIC COMMENT - for non-agendized matters within the city’s jurisdiction.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains items considered routine and/or which have been individually scrutinized by City Council Members and are anticipated to require no further deliberation. If a member of the public wishes to address an item on the Consent Calendar, please fill out a Speaker Request Form and submit it to the City Clerk before the Consent Calendar is considered. It shall be the prerogative of any Council Member, before the Consent Calendar is acted upon, to: (1) comment on an item; (2) respond to any public comment on an item; (3) request the record reflect an abstention or nay vote on an item; or (4) remove an item and place it on the Regular portion of the agenda for delivery of a staff report and/or an extended discussion or deliberation. 4(a). Approve City Council Minutes: Special Meeting – Closed Session of September 3, 2024; and Regular Meeting of September 3, 2024.
4(b). Accept City of Redding Accounts Payable Register No. 2; and Payroll Register Nos. 3 and 4.

4.5(a). Authorize and approve the following actions regarding Bid Schedule No. 5513, Inspection and Overhaul of the Unit 9 Hydroelectric Turbine and Auxiliaries:
(1) Authorize an amount not to exceed $884,000 for Unit 9 Hydroelectric Turbine overhaul;
(2) Award Bid to Stephen’s Mechanical Corporation in the amount not to exceed $844,000 ($543,320.20 for overhaul services and $300,679.80 for potential replacement of components);
(3) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute change orders up to the total amount of the project contingency to address unforeseen work items discovered during the overhaul process; and
(4) Find that this project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction).

PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT, CITY COUNCIL CANNOT TAKE ACTION ON PUBLIC

COMMENT ITEMS
The City Council will allocate up to a maximum of three minutes per speaker for 30 minutes total, at the beginning of the meeting for Public Comment for non-agendized matters within the City’s jurisdiction.

The Mayor will determine the order of the speakers. If 30 minutes is not adequate to accommodate all of the individuals who have submitted a Speaker Request Form to the City Clerk, the Council will trail this item to the end of the open session agenda. The remaining speakers will address the City Council at that time.

Redding City Council September 17, 2024

4.5(b). Authorize the following relative to Bid Schedule No. 5507, 200- & 600-Amp Elbows and Assemblies for the City of Redding Electric Utility:
(1) Award Bid Group I, II, and III to OneSource Supply Solutions for an annual evaluated price of $291,484.50;
(2) Award Bid Group I and II to Anixter, Inc. as a secondary provider, to be used when the primary provider cannot supply the materials in time to meet project deadlines;
(3) Authorize the Purchasing Officer to extend the bid award annually with OneSource Supply Solutions and Anixter, Inc. through July 31, 2027, if mutually agreeable, with all terms and conditions remaining the same and price adjustments in direct proportion to a Producer Price Index; and (4) Authorize the City Manager or designee to approve an additional $60,000 to the bid award as a contingency per fiscal year.

4.11(a). Accept update regarding the Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Project and, in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22050(c)(1), make a determination by a four-fifths vote that there is a need to continue the emergency work.

4.11(b). Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Negotiation No. 5468 (Job No. 5636-32), Redding Library Generator Addition Project:
(1) Award to SnL Group Inc. in the amount of $449,992;
(2) Approve $160,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees;
(3) Approve $37,000 for project development costs;
(4) Approve $50,000 to provide construction contingency funding; and (5) Find that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15301 – Existing Facilities.

4.11(c). Accept an update regarding the City of Redding’s COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package projects.

4.11(d). Authorize and approve the following for the Public Works Department, Streets Division’s sole-source acquisition of all City of Redding 2070 traffic signal controllers from Cubic; all power pedestals from Tesco Controls, Inc.; and all accessible pedestrian signal push buttons from PedSafety/Campbell:
(1) Make a finding that designates the identified products are necessary to match other products in use; and
(2) Approve the sole-source acquisition of the identified products.

Redding City Council September 17, 2024

4.11(e). Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Negotiation No. 5494 (Job No. 9248), Redding City Hall Occupied Office Carpet Replacement Project:
(1) Award to Continental Flooring Company, in the amount of $283,444 for the Base Bid, an additional $92,222 for Additive Alternate 1, an additional $200,460 for Additive Alternate 2, and an additional $30,535 for Additive Alternative 3;
(2) Approve $65,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; (3) Approve $14,000 for project development costs;
(4) Approve $30,500 to provide construction contingency funding; and (5) Find that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15301 – Existing Facilities.

4.11(f). Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Negotiation No. 5499 (Job No. 3697), Fire Station Alerting System Installation Project:
(1) Determine the sole bid received as nonresponsive; and (2) Proceeding with direct negotiation and execution of a contract per Public Contract Code Section 20166 by staff and the City Manager, respectively.

4.11(g). Accept Bid Schedule No. 5255 (Job No. 2658), Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project, awarded to Cox and Cox Construction, Inc., as satisfactorily complete, with a final cost of $1,109,081.71.

RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPT, ACKNOWLEDGE, ADOPT, APPROVE,
AND/OR AUTHORIZE ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

Redding City Council September 17, 2024

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A court challenge to action taken by the City Council on any project or decision may be limited to only those issues raised during the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council during, or prior to, the public hearing.

6.1. Public Hearing to consider adopting Uncodified Ordinance No. 2670 approving a Development Agreement (AGREE-2024-00962) with Greenview Development Company and Mark Guiton relative to the Westridge Master Plan.

Recommendation:

Conduct a Public Hearing, and, upon conclusion, authorize and approve the following actions:
(1) Adopt Ordinance No. 2670, an uncodified ordinance of the City of Redding approving the Development Agreement (AGREE-2024-00962) with Greenview Development Company and Mark Guiton relative to Westridge Estates Subdivision I (S-2018-00938), Westridge Estates II (S-04-04), and Westridge Estates III (S-19-13), whereby the expiration date of the previously approved Tentative Subdivision Maps (S-19-03, S-04-04, and S-2018-00938) would be extended in exchange for the construction of Spicewood Drive prior to or concurrent with the final map recordation of Westridge Estates I; for second reading by title only and waive the second reading. The subject properties are located at 9489 Placer Street, 16989 and 16991 Campo Calle Street, 950 Canyon Creek Road, 3000 Dartmouth Drive, and 2286 Adirondack Drive;
(2) Adopt the Addendum to the Westridge Master Plan Environmental Impact Report; and
(3) Direct the City Attorney to prepare and the City Clerk to publish a summary ordinance according to law.

9. REGULAR CALENDAR: REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS OF DEPARTMENTS,

BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
City Manager

9.1(a). Consider report regarding tobacco retailing in the City of Redding.

Recommendation:

Accept the report on tobacco retailing and provide direction to staff regarding next steps.

Redding City Council September 17, 2024

Assistant City Manager

9.2(a). Allocation of Housing Homelessness Incentive Program Funds Recommendation:

Authorize and approve the following actions:
(1) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate a Financing Agreement with C&M Opportunities, LLC for the redevelopment of 2171 Market Street (APN 102-510-019) that includes negotiating the scope of work, and the term, rate, and conditions of a Housing and Homelessness Incentive Program Funds loan in an amount not-to-exceed $1,200,000;
(2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the Financing Agreement and any other necessary documents to complete the transaction;
(3) Find that the aforementioned actions are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption; and
(4) Find that administrative and management activities such as allocating funding are exempt under 24 CFR §58.34(a)(3) administrative and management activities under the National Environmental Policy Act. The C&M Opportunities, LLC redevelopment project will be reviewed for compliance once the scope of work is finalized.

Electric Utility

9.5(c). Consider Redding Electric Utility's Fiscal Year 2023-24 Financial Report and Industry Activities Update.

Recommendation:

Accept City of Redding Electric Utility’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Financial Report and Industry Activities Update.

Finance

9.10(a). Consider City of Redding Mid-Cycle Budget Report and associated Resolution.

Recommendation:

Approve the following actions:
(1) Accept the City of Redding’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 and 2024-25 Mid-Cycle Budget Report;
(2) Adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 51st Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2023-060 increasing appropriations by $7,565,380 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 and increasing appropriations by $4,853,450 for Fiscal Year 2024-25; and
(3) Approve City Manager to execute change order for contract with BerryDunn LLC for project and change management services.

Redding City Council September 17, 2024

11. COUNCIL TRAVEL REPORT(S)
City Council Member attendance at conference/meetings reimbursed at City expense. {Requirement of Assembly Bill 1234}
[A-050-060]
Information Only

12. SUGGESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS RELATIVE TO POTENTIAL TOPICS

FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

13. ADJOURNMENT
Pursuant to the Brown Act, non-confidential materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for inspection during normal business hours at the Office of the City Clerk, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California.

City Council Meetings will be televised live on Shasta Community Access Channels via Charter/Spectrum Cable channel 181, and will be rerun on Thursday at 12:30 p.m. during the week in which the meeting is held. Additionally, the meeting can be viewed online at the following: https://www.shastaartscouncil.org/scactv. Video of the City Council meetings can also be viewed on the City’s web site at http://www.cityofredding.gov/. Open the Services tab, and select City Council Videos.

In compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Redding will make available to persons with disabilities modifications or accommodations including auxiliary aids or services necessary to participate in public meetings. A person needing assistance should contact the Redding City Clerk by telephone at (530) 225-4447 or in person, or by mail at 777 Cypress Avenue, 3rd Floor, Redding, California 96001 at least three (3) working days in advance.

The City of Redding will ensure that no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any of its projects, activities, services, or business opportunities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability, as afforded by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes as amended. All persons, regardless of their citizenship status, are covered under this regulation.

Questions, complaints, or requests for accommodations or additional information may be forwarded to the ADA & Title VI Coordinator at 777 Cypress Avenue, Attn: Personnel Dept., Redding, California 96001, Phone (530) 225-4065.

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Presentation by Ted Bambino, Redding Rodeo Association President, providing an update of Redding Rodeo Association activities.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 2A
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected]
[email protected]
SUBJECT: 2A--Presentation providing updates for the Redding Rodeo Association.

Barry Tippin, City Manager
Packet Pg. 8

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Presentation by Danny Orloff, Visit Redding Tourism Marketing Director, providing a quarterly report regarding tourism marketing and promotion efforts for the City of Redding.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 2B
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 2B--Presentation by Danny Orloff of Visit Redding regarding Redding tourism updates.

Travis Menne, Director of
Community Services
Packet Pg. 9

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Approve City Council Minutes: Special Meeting – Closed Session of September 3, 2024; and Regular Meeting of September 3, 2024.

Attachments
^Unofficial Minutes - Special Meeting - Closed Session of September 3, 2024 ^Unofficial Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 3, 2024 MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected]
[email protected]
SUBJECT: 4(a)--Approve City Council Minutes.

Sharlene Tipton, City Clerk
Packet Pg. 10
412
09/03/2024
Unofficial Minutes Redding City Council, Special Meeting Civic Center Council Chambers
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
September 3, 2024, 5:15 PM
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Tenessa Audette with the following Council Members present: Joshua Johnson, Mark Mezzano, Jack Munns, and Julie Winter. Council Member Johnson arrived at 5:24 pm.

Also present: Assistant City Manager Steve Bade, City Attorney Christian M. Curtis, City Clerk Sharlene Tipton, and Executive Assistant Erin Barnhart.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Audette determined that no one present wished to address the items agendized for Closed Session.

CLOSED SESSION
At the hour of 5:15 p.m., Mayor Audette opened the Special Meeting and announced that the Council would adjourn to Closed Session.

Council Member Johnson went into Closed Session at 5:24 p.m.

At the hour of 5:39 p.m., Vice Mayor Winter reconvened the Special Meeting to Open Session and reported that in reference to:
3A. Closed Session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6:

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Designated Agency Representative: Personnel Director Kibler Employee Organization: Redding Independent Employees’ Organization – Supervisory & Confidential Unit
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1(a), the City Council took no reportable action on this item.
3B. Closed Session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1):

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Lieberman v. City of Redding, et al.; Shasta County Superior Court Case No. 197061 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1(a), the City Council took no reportable action on this item.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business at the hour of 5:41 p.m., Mayor Audette declared the meeting adjourned.

APPROVED:
_______________________________
Tenessa Audette, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Sharlene Tipton, City Clerk
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: ^Unofficial Minutes - Special Meeting - Closed Session of September 3, 2024 (4(a)--Approve City Council Minutes) 413
09/03/2024
Unofficial Minutes Redding City Council, Regular Meeting Civic Center Council Chambers
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
September 3, 2024, 6:00 PM
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Tenessa Audette with the following Council Members present: Joshua Johnson, Mark Mezzano, Jack Munns, and Julie Winter.

Also present: City Attorney Christian M. Curtis, Assistant City Manager Steve Bade, City Clerk Sharlene Tipton, and Executive Assistant Erin Barnhart.

Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Audette.

The Invocation was provided by Redding Police and Fire Chaplain Debbie Ivey.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Debbie Starr opined Redding Electric Utility has been great to work with and expressed her appreciation for the kind staff.

Leland Barlow shared his appreciation for the downtown artwork, the uplifting feeling of hope in the new Downtown area, and that he is praying for the safety of firefighters and positive solutions for the homeless.

Nancy Maas stated her concerns with the County of Shasta’s (County) involvement with the Redding Regional Airport (Airport) and cautioned the City Council about entering into any agreements with the County regarding operations of the Airport.

Janet Bollinger noted past issues with nuisance neighbors using drugs, and commended the City of Redding’s Mayor and expressed her sincere appreciation for the level of service provided by the Redding Police Department.

CONSENT CALENDAR/OFF-AGENDA ITEM
City Attorney Curtis stated that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b), as both provisions contained within this code are met, inclusion of item no. 4(b). on the Consent Calendar along with item no. 9.11(g) on the Regular Calendar, regarding a funding increase request for the Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Project, needs to be approved by a two-thirds vote to be added to the agenda after publication for consideration by the Council.

A MOTION WAS MADE by Council Member Mezzano, seconded by Council Member Munns, to add item nos. 4(b) and 9.11(g) to the Agenda for consideration. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes.

CONSENT CALENDAR
4(a). Approve City Council Minutes: Special Meeting – Closed Session of May 21, 2024; Regular Meeting of May 21, 2024; Special Meeting – Redding Riverfront Specific Plan of June 13, 2024; Regular Meeting of June 18, 2024; Special Meeting of June 18, 2024; Special Meeting of July 9, 2024; Special Meeting of July 29, 2024; Special Meeting of August 7, 2024; Special Meeting – Closed Session of August 20, 2024; and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2024.
4(b). Approve adding an off-agenda item after publication, Item No. 9.11(g), regarding the Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Project, to the regular calendar by a two-thirds affirmative vote, pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2), as both provisions contained within this code have been met.

4.6(a). Adopt Resolution No. 2024-072, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding, approving and adopting the 50th Amendment to the City of Redding (City) Budget Resolution No. 2023-060 appropriating $0 for the reclassification of the City’s Recreation Division’s part-time Clerk I - Status 9 position to Clerk I - Status 8A.

Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: ^Unofficial Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 3, 2024 (4(a)--Approve City Council Minutes) 414
09/03/2024

4.7(a). Adopt Resolution No. 2024-073, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding to: (1) authorize the City Treasurer to open an account with Square as a payment processing solution; (2) designate the following authorized account signers: Greg Robinett, Director of Finance/City Treasurer; Bailey Worley, Finance Officer; Tammy Mann, Finance Officer; and Tessa Wayda, Management Analyst; and (3) authorize the City of Redding City Manager, or his designee, to appoint a new signer to replace an authorized signer who has either left employment with the City of Redding or their job responsibilities have changed.

4.8(a). Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement for Temporary Assignment of Vehicle and Equipment between the City of Redding Fire Department (RFD) and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the assignment of the 2017 HME Ahrens-Fox Type I Hazardous Materials Vehicle to RFD.

4.11(a).Authorize the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement with Sierra Pacific Land and Timber Company; and approve the final map for Shastina Ranch Subdivision, Unit 7 (S-7- 03/PD-5-04), thereby instructing the City Clerk to file the map with the Shasta County Recorder.

4.11(b).Accept update regarding the Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Project and, in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22050(c)(1), make a determination by a four-fifths vote that there is a need to continue the emergency work.

4.11(d).Authorize the following related to the purchase of one 2025 Peterbilt 579 Transfer Truck for the City of Redding’s Transfer and Recycling Facility: (1) the purchase using Sourcewell contract pricing with a net delivered cost of $221,530.77 including all applicable taxes and fees; and (2) the City Manager to approve future pricing adjustments, terms, and policy changes as needed due to inflation and unstable economic conditions up to a total of $30,000.00.

4.11(e).Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Negotiation No. 5508, Construction on State Highway in Redding on Route 273 from Yuba Street to Tehama Street and on California Street from Tehama Street to Eureka Way: (1) award to S.T. Rhoades Inc., in the amount of $2,954,838.50; (2) approve $400,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; (3) approve $750,000 for project development costs; (4) approve $300,000 to provide construction contingency funding; (5) authorize the City Manager to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amount up to a total of $50,000; and (6) find that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15301 – Existing Facilities and Section 15302 – Replacement or Reconstruction.

4.11(f).Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Negotiation No. 5500 (Job No. 3697), American Rescue Plan Act Storm Drain Project: (1) award to RTA Construction Inc., in the amount of $826,640 for the Base Bid, an additional $125,400 for Additive Alternate 1, and an additional $79,000 for Additive Alternate 2; (2) approve an additional $155,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; (3) approve $103,000 to provide construction contingency funding; (4) approve $306,447 for project development costs; (5) authorize the City Manager to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $25,000; and (6) find that the Project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15301– Existing Facilities and Section 15302 – Replacement or Reconstruction.

A MOTION WAS MADE by Council Member Mezzano, seconded by Council Member Munns, that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be accepted, acknowledged, adopted, approved, and or authorized as recommended.

The Vote:

AYES: Council Members – Johnson, Mezzano, Munns, Winter, and Audette NOES: Council Members – None
ABSTAIN: Council Members – None
ABSENT: Council Members – None
Resolution Nos. 2024-072 and 2024-073 are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: ^Unofficial Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 3, 2024 (4(a)--Approve City Council Minutes) 415
09/03/2024
REGULAR CALENDAR: REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS OF DEPARTMENTS,

BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES

9.1(a). Formation of an Ad-Hoc Committee to develop various elements of a long-term lease for the Redding Rodeo Grounds.

Assistant City Manager Bade provided an overview of the Report to City Council (staff report), incorporated herein by reference.

The following spoke in favor of a long-term ground lease for the Redding Rodeo Association: Tom Spade, Don Conley, Ginger G. Salido, Marjy Cantrell, Kurt Heuer, Linda Glass, Gary Cadd, Steve Kohn, Nancy Maas, Sandy Winters, Susan Murray, Robert Trygar, David Shoffner, David Backues, Jenny, Ted Bambino, and Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson.

Ted Bambino presented the Council with a letter from their attorney regarding a long-term lease, and a 40-year timeline plan, both incorporated herein by reference.

Council Member Johnson explained his rationale for bringing this item forward to create an ad-hoc committee to discuss the specifics of a long-term lease for the Redding Rodeo Association versus just voting for a long-term lease.

In response to Mr. Johnson’s questions, City Attorney Curtis explained that by obtaining the California Housing and Community Development’s opinion that this does fit within the exception as set forth in the guidelines, that would provide the City of Redding substantial protection from litigation going forward.

A discussion amongst the Council ensued. [BE1]
Each Council Member expressed their appreciation and love of the Redding Rodeo and want to see it continue long in to the future.

Council Member Mezzano expressed frustration with the City Council that a long-term lease has not been agreed to by now.

A MOTION WAS MADE by Council Member Winter, seconded by Council Member Munns, to: (1) approve the formation of an ad-hoc committee consisting exclusively of two appointed City Council members to develop elements of a long-term lease for the Rodeo Grounds which will accelerate any future negotiations with the Rodeo Association should the City Council determine, at a later date, it wishes to consider approval of a long-term lease. The ad-hoc committee will be temporary in nature and is expected to complete its task no later than July 1, 2025; and (2) appoint Mayor Tenessa Audette and Council Member Joshua Johnson to the ad-hoc committee.

The Vote:

AYES: Council Members – Johnson, Munns, Winter, and Audette NOES: Council Members – Mezzano
ABSTAIN: Council Members – None
ABSENT: Council Members – None
A SECOND MOTION WAS MADE by Council Member Johnson, seconded by Council Member Mezzano, to: (1) approve the formation of an ad-hoc committee consisting exclusively of two appointed City Council members Mezzano and Johnson, to develop elements of a long-term lease for the Rodeo Grounds which will accelerate any future negotiations with the Rodeo Association should the City Council determine, at a later date, it wishes to consider approval of a long-term lease. The ad-hoc committee will be temporary in nature and is expected to complete its task no later than July 1, 2025; and (2) appoint Council Members Johnson and Mezzano to the ad-hoc committee.

The Vote:

AYES: Council Members – Johnson and Mezzano
NOES: Council Members – Munns, Winter, and Audette
ABSTAIN: Council Members – None
ABSENT: Council Members – None
Motion failed.

Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: ^Unofficial Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 3, 2024 (4(a)--Approve City Council Minutes) 416
09/03/2024

9.6(b). Oral report regarding the planned City Fair for City of Redding utilities and other services to be held at the Sundial Bridge on October 19, 2024.

Community Services Director Travis Menne summarized the Report to City Council (staff report), and along with Redding Electric Utility Customer Service Manager Lisa Bryan, and Public Works Director Michael Webb, provided a PowerPoint presentation, both incorporated herein by reference.

They each highlighted the many educational and recreational activities that will be present at the event.

The City Council took no formal action on this informational item.

9.11(g).Increase to the Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Project Budget.

Public Works Director Michael Webb provided an overview of the Report to City Council (staff report), and a PowerPoint presentation, both incorporated herein by reference.

Mr. Webb noted that the Contractor had a weekend open in their schedule where they could dedicate 24 hours a day for three days to complete the paving on Placer Street from California Street to Pleasant Street, November 6-9, 2024. The street will be blocked off to non-residents for this weekend only. There is an increase to the budget cost to do this, but with the longevity of this project, Mr. Webb stated that this was the best path forward to finally get this project to the finish line.

A discussion amongst the Council ensued.

A MOTION WAS MADE by Council Member Mezzano, seconded by Council Member Munns, to approve increases to the budget in the amount of $935,000 for the continuation of the agreement with Cox and Cox Construction, Inc. (C-10387), Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Project and, in accordance with Public Code Section 22050(c)(1), make a determination by a four-fifths vote that there is a need to continue the emergency work.

The Vote: Unanimous Ayes.

SUGGESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS RELATIVE TO POTENTIAL TOPICS FOR

FUTURE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
At Council Member Joshua Johnson’s suggestion, a consensus of the Council directed staff to return to Council for consideration at a future Council Meeting to include municipal code language to require short-term rental booking vendors such as VRBO, Vacasa, Expedia, Airbnb and others, to automatically collect Transient Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business Improvement District taxes from guests when they make a reservation to ensure that all short-term rental bookings are paying their share regardless of their permit with the City of Redding.

At Mayor Tenessa Audette’s suggestion, a consensus of the Council directed staff to return to Council with a report to discuss updating the City of Redding’s Vision and Mission statement at a future Council Meeting.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business at the hour of 7:56 p.m., Mayor Audette declared the meeting adjourned.

APPROVED:
_______________________________
Tenessa Audette, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Sharlene Tipton, City Clerk
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: ^Unofficial Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 3, 2024 (4(a)--Approve City Council Minutes)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept City of Redding Accounts Payable Register No. 2; and Payroll Register Nos. 3 and 4.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to accepting the registers.

Alternative Action
The City Council could choose to not accept the registers and provide alternate direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
Attached are the Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers as follows:

Accounts Payable:
(1) Register No. 2 for the period August 1, 2024 – August 31, 2024, in the amount of $22,451,521.69.

Payroll:
(1) Register No. 3 for the period July 21, 2024 – August 3, 2024, in the amount of $5,310,313.19, and Register No. 4 for the period August 4, 2024 – August 17 2024, in the amount of $5,282,241.20.

Environmental Review
This is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4(b)--City of Redding Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers.

Greg Robinett, Director of
Finance/City Treasurer
Packet Pg. 16
Report to Redding City Council September 4, 2024
Re: 4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers Page 2 Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 Packet Pg. 17
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers) Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Accounts Payable Register No. 2 and Payroll Register Nos. 3 & 4 (4(b)--Accounts Payable and Payroll Registers)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize and approve the following actions regarding Bid Schedule No. 5513, Inspection and Overhaul of the Unit 9 Hydroelectric Turbine and Auxiliaries:
(1) Authorize an amount not to exceed $884,000 for Unit 9 Hydroelectric Turbine overhaul; (2) Award Bid to Stephen’s Mechanical Corporation in the amount not to exceed $844,000 ($543,320.20 for overhaul services and $300,679.80 for potential replacement of components);
(3) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute change orders up to the total amount of the project contingency to address unforeseen work items discovered during the overhaul process; and
(4) Find that this project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction).

Fiscal Impact
Description Estimated
Cost
Overhaul Services - Stephen's Mechanical Corporation $543,320.20 Potential Replacement of Components (Equipment and Parts), Including Contingency - Stephen's Mechanical Corporation $300,679.80 Other Ancillary Parts $40,000.00
TOTAL $884,000.00
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4.5(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.5(a)--Unit 9 Hydroelectric Turbine Overhaul
Nick Zettel, Director of
Redding Electric Utility
Packet Pg. 71
Report to Redding City Council September 11, 2024
Re: 4.5(a)--Unit 9 Hydroelectric Turbine Overhaul Page 2 The contract cost of overhaul services is $543,320.20. The potential replacement cost of parts and equipment components, including a contingency for unforeseen expenses and change orders, is estimated at $300,679.80. Additionally, $40,000.00 is anticipated for ancillary parts that, while not major components, are essential for the system's overall functionality. This brings the total projected cost of the project to $884,000.00.

Redding Electric Utility (REU) initially budgeted $600,000 in Major Maintenance funds for this Fiscal Year 2024-25 project, based on historical activity. However, due to inflationary pressures and supply chain disruptions affecting major parts and equipment, the costs of industrial work have significantly increased. The necessary funds for the project, including contingency and additional work, are available within REU’s Major Maintenance Fund. The replenishment and adjustment of the Major Maintenance Fund and the funding plan will be addressed during the Fiscal Year 2026-27 biennial budget. At that time, actual project expenditures will be reviewed and considered.

Alternative Action
The City Council could choose to reject the proposed pricing, which would prevent the overhaul and inspection of the Unit 9 Hydroelectric Turbine and Auxiliaries.

Background/Analysis
The City of Redding (City) owns and operates a 3.5-megawatt Vevey hydroelectric turbine designated as Generating Unit 9. Unit 9 provides renewable energy to the City on a continuous basis. The hydroelectric plant is located at the base of Whiskeytown Dam and consists of a turbine, generator, penstock isolating valve, and an auxiliary oil system for hydraulics and control oil. The turbine runs exclusively on water from Whiskeytown Lake and generates power with no carbon footprint.

The hydroelectric plant has operated approximately 125,000 hours since the last overhaul.

Although the equipment is still operational, certain components such as the turbine shut-off valve are exhibiting the beginning signs of failure. The continued delay of maintenance reflects an increase in operational risk to equipment as internal parts wear over time.

If maintenance is postponed, the possibility of an unplanned or catastrophic failure increases.

Failure will result in the cost of equipment replacement as well as the cost of replacement power during downtime. Cost associated with this scenario will be significantly higher than that of the overhaul.

The bid review team evaluated two proposals submitted in response to RFP 5513 for technical qualifications, schedule, and budget. Stephen’s Mechanical Corporation’s bid represents the best overall value to the City as their proposal demonstrated they have the best understanding of the project needs, the criticality of project timing, and the lowest cost, all of which reduce the potential for change order requests during the overhaul process.

Packet Pg. 72
Report to Redding City Council September 11, 2024
Re: 4.5(a)--Unit 9 Hydroelectric Turbine Overhaul Page 3 Environmental Review
This project is providing major maintenance on an existing turbine at the Whiskeytown hydrogeneration facility and, therefore, is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction).

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
This is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Attachment A - Final Proposal Rankings
Packet Pg. 73

ATTACHMENT A

FINAL PROPOSAL RANKINGS

RANK BIDDER COST

MINIMUM PROPOSAL

REQUIREMENTS MET

TECHNICAL

EVALUATION

COST EVALUATION
SCORE
TOTAL
SCORE
1 Stephen's Mechanical Inc $543,320.20 Yes 68.33 28 96.33 2 NMI $812,665.00 Yes 49.67 20.25 69.92 NA Ethos NA No NA NA NA
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: ^Attachment A - Final Proposal Rankings (4.5(a)--Unit 9 Hydroelectric Turbine Overhaul)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following relative to Bid Schedule No. 5507, 200- & 600-Amp Elbows and Assemblies for the City of Redding Electric Utility:
(1) Award Bid Group I, II, and III to OneSource Supply Solutions for an annual evaluated price of $291,484.50;
(2) Award Bid Group I and II to Anixter, Inc. as a secondary provider, to be used when the primary provider cannot supply the materials in time to meet project deadlines; (3) Authorize the Purchasing Officer to extend the bid award annually with OneSource Supply Solutions and Anixter, Inc. through July 31, 2027, if mutually agreeable, with all terms and conditions remaining the same and price adjustments in direct proportion to a Producer Price Index; and
(4) Authorize the City Manager or designee to approve an additional $60,000 to the bid award as a contingency per fiscal year.

Fiscal Impact
The purchase of 200- and 600-amp elbows and assemblies was included in Redding Electric Utility’s (REU) General System Improvements Fiscal Year 2023-25 Biennial Budget. If capital expenses related to these efforts are projected to exceed the approved budget, staff will return with additional recommendations related to budgetary adjustments and financing options.

Alternative Action
The City Council could choose not to award the bid to OneSource Supply Solutions and Anixter, Inc. and provide alternative direction to staff.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4.5(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.5(b)--Award of Bid Schedule No. 5507 - 200 & 600 Amp Elbows and Assemblies
Nick Zettel, Director of
Redding Electric Utility
Packet Pg. 75
Report to Redding City Council September 9, 2024
Re: 4.5(b)--Bid Schedule No. 5507, 200- & 600-Amp Elbows and Assemblies Page 2 Background/Analysis
This routine annual bid to purchase 200- and 600-amp elbow assemblies allows REU to order materials as needed based on evaluated quantities and warehouse inventory. These elbow assemblies are necessary to support REU’s residential and commercial development and provide emergency replacement availability for existing facilities. These assemblies are also required to support REU’s planned infrastructure replacement projects, contributing to increased system reliability.

Staff separated Bid Schedule No. 5507 into three separate bid groups: (1) Bid Group I – 200Amp Elbows and Assemblies, (2) Bid Group II – 600Amp Elbows and Assemblies, and (3) Bid Group III – Mounting Bracket and Parking Stands. This format allows for more competitive pricing for different groups of similar equipment.

On August 14, 2024, staff opened two bid proposals. Based on overall cost and product pricing analysis, staff recommends awarding Bid Groups I, II, and III to OneSource Supply Solutions.

Staff recommends awarding Bid Groups I and II to Anixter, Inc. as a secondary provider, to be used when the primary provider cannot supply the materials in time to meet project deadlines.

Environmental Analysis
This is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Bid Schedule 5507 Results
Packet Pg. 76

CITY OF REDDING

PURCHASING DIVISION - TABULATION OF BIDS
BID: 200-Amp / 600-Amp Elbows & Assemb
BID SCHEDULE NO. DATE OF OPENING
5507 Wednesday, August 14, 2024
Wyatt Hopwood TIME OF OPENING
Nick Zettel 3:00 P.M.

QTY
$95,129.50 $93,997.30
$165,135.50 $165,137.00
$32,400.00 $32,350.20
$292,665.00 $291,484.50
Anixter OneSource
Supply

DESCRIPTION
Group I
Group II
Group III
Evaluated Total For All Groups
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: ^Bid Schedule 5507 Results (4.5(b)--Bid Schedule No. 5507, 200- & 600-Amp Elbows and

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept update regarding the Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Project and, in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22050(c)(1), make a determination by a four-fifths vote that there is a need to continue the emergency work.

Fiscal Impact
The Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Project (Project) costs will be funded by the City of Redding’s (City) Wastewater, Water and Streets Divisions. The updated, estimated total project cost of the repairs is $3,405,000.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to accept the project status report and provide further direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
On May 7, 2024, Council adopted an emergency resolution for the project and authorized the negotiation of an emergency public works contract. Cox & Cox Construction (Contractor) completed all underground repairs at all locations by August 30, 2024. The contractor also completed repaving of Placer Street on September 9, 2024. The remaining work to be performed includes, restriping of Placer Street and various locations around Placer Street, Court Street and Tehama Street along with the raising of manhole and valve lids along Placer Street.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4.11(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(a)--Update Regarding Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 78
Report to Redding City Council September 10, 2024
Re: 4.11(a)--Update of Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Page 2
The below table provides further details of the contractor’s progress based on the number of locations that need to be addressed and estimated costs. Costs billed through August 2024 are $1,040,697. Staff will continue to update Council as the project progresses.

Original
Locations
Additional
Locations
Total
Locations
Completed
Locations
Costs to Date
(Estimated)
96 0 96 63 $1,040,697
The project proposes to replace substandard sewer pipe, associated infrastructure, failing asphalt concrete and other miscellaneous public health and safety work, on Placer Street and within the Magnolia Area Sewer Improvement Phase I project limits.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no further action is required. On May 7, 2024, the Council determined that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the CEQA Guidelines, per Section 15269(b)-Emergency Projects.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” Attachments
Previous Staff Report
Packet Pg. 79

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to the Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Project (Project):
(1) Adopt Resolution, by not less than four-fifths affirmative vote, authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and award an emergency public works contract for the Project in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000;
(3) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to approve construction contingency amounts up to a total of $300,000;
(4) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to approve construction management and inspection amounts up to a total of $175,000; and
(5) Find that the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15269(b) – Emergency Projects.

Fiscal Impact
The estimated Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Project (Project) total cost is $2,475,000. These costs include construction, construction contingency and staff time for construction management and inspections. The project will be funded with remaining Magnolia Area Sewer Improvements Phase 1 funds. Including withheld retention, liquidated damages and uncompleted work items which is approximately $2,160,000. Supplemental funding of $315,000 will come from the Wastewater, Water and Streets Division’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 budgets which have sufficient funds appropriated.

MEETING DATE: May 7, 2024
ITEM NO. 9.11(f)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.11(f)--Emergency Construction Contract to Repair and Replace Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Placer Street Michael Webb, Public Works
Director

APPROVED
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Previous Staff Report (4.11(a)--Update of Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt) Report to Redding City Council May 2, 2024
Re: 9.11(f)--Emergency Repair and Replace Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Pavement on Placer St. Page 2
Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to not authorize the award of an emergency contract, and instead have staff prepare plans and specifications to award a contract to the low bidder in accordance with state and local contracting procedures. Or, Council could provide alterative direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
On April 1, 2024, Council voted to enter into a Contract Amendment, Settlement Agreement and Release with the contractor for the Magnolia Area Sewer Improvements Phase 1 project. This settlement agreement was partially due to the contractor’s refusal to make required repairs to substandard work done on the project. This substandard work has the potential to create public health and safety issues.

Staff has considered repackaging the project plans and specifications for bidding; however, this process would likely require a minimum of six months in order to obtain an executed contract and ultimately provide a contractor with a notice to proceed. This timeline is unacceptable given the condition of the installed sewer infrastructure and would jeopardize being able to complete all the repair work, including re-paving Placer Street, prior to the onset of winter. In addition, current Magnolia Area Sewer Improvement Phase 1 project site conditions present potential impacts to public health, property and safety. Therefore, staff proposes an emergency contract to replace the substandard sewer pipe and associated infrastructure, failing asphalt concrete and minor associated public health and safety work on Placer Street and within Magnolia Area Sewer Improvements Phase 1 project limits. Staff estimates the work will be complete within four months of commencement of construction activities.

It is noted that the Public Contract Code (PCC) (Section 20168) provides that the local government’s legislative body may pass a resolution by a four-fifths vote of its members declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health and property. Further, the PCC (Section 22050) provides that “in case of emergency, a public agency, pursuant to a four-fifths vote of its governing body, may repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes without giving notice for bids to let contracts.”
It is in the public’s interest and necessity to repair the sewer system, pave Placer Street and repair or replace other associated minor items of work immediately to ensure protection of the public’s health, safety and personal property occurs.

The Resolution has been approved as to form by the City Attorney.

Environmental Review
Staff has determined that the project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15269(b) – Emergency Projects. Section 15269(b) includes emergency repairs to publicly and privately-owned service facilities necessary to maintain service essential to the public health, safety, or welfare. The emergency repair and replacement will occur in areas of previous disturbance, and the repairs are necessary to maintain service essential to public health.

APPROVED
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Previous Staff Report (4.11(a)--Update of Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt) Report to Redding City Council May 2, 2024
Re: 9.11(f)--Emergency Repair and Replace Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Pavement on Placer St. Page 3
Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” Attachments
^Resolution
^Location Map
^Notice of Exemption

APPROVED
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Previous Staff Report (4.11(a)--Update of Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt) RESOLUTION NO. 2024-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING TO

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD AN EMERGENCY
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO REPAIR AND REPLACE SUBSTANDARD SEWER PIPE AND FAILING ASHPHALT CONCRETE

PAVEMENT ON PLACER STREET
WHEREAS, Public Contract Code section 22050 and Redding Municipal Code 4.22.120(A) provide that, in the case of emergency, a public agency may repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes without giving notice for bids to let contracts; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2024, Council voted unanimously to enter into a Contract Amendment, Settlement Agreement and Release regarding the Magnolia Area Sewer Improvements – Phase I project; and WHEREAS, portions of the underground sewer improvements constructed as part of the Magnolia Area Sewer Improvements – Phase I project were not constructed in accordance with the contract documents; and
WHEREAS, proper sewer infrastructure is critical to public health; and WHEREAS, if not repaired immediately, the improperly installed sewer infrastructure has a high potential for failure during high-flow periods, winter, potentially ultimately causing significant disruptions in service, failures and damage to associated public and adjacent private infrastructure; and WHEREAS, Placer Street is a primary arterial with moderate traffic volumes and the asphalt concrete pavement is in a failing condition as a result of longitudinal and transverse sewer trench pavement patches within the roadway section presenting a public safety concern; and WHEREAS, a competitive solicitation for bids is anticipated to require six (6) months and would further delay the needed repairs to prevent sewer blockages, sink holes and further damage to the public and private infrastructure until 2025; and
WHEREAS, continued pavement failure and blockage of the sewer conveyance system would threaten the safety and property of roadway users and persons nearby; and WHEREAS, isolation of the impacted area so that the delay due to competitive bidding could be accommodated would not mitigate or eliminate the threat to persons and property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. The City Council of the City of Redding finds that the recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby adopted as findings of fact.

2. The public interest and necessity require the immediate expenditure of public money to restore the sewer conveyance system to full capacity, protect the public health, safety and welfare, and prevent further damage to the roadway.

APPROVED
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Previous Staff Report (4.11(a)--Update of Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt)

3. The City Council of the City of Redding therefore authorizes the City Manager to award an emergency construction contract to repair the sewer system and roadway along Placer Street.

4. The action authorized herein shall be reviewed by the City Council at all regular meetings of the Council until such time as the City Council determines that the emergency is abated.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 7th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________
TENESSA AUDETTE, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVED:
_________________________________ _____________________________________ SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney

APPROVED
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Previous Staff Report (4.11(a)--Update of Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt) CITY OF REDDING LOCATION MAP MAGNOLIA AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 1 EMERGENCY REPAIRS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT LOCATION PROJECT ORIGINAL REPAIR AREA EMERGENCY APPROVED Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Previous Staff Report (4.11(a)--Update of Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt) APPROVED Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Previous Staff Report (4.11(a)--Update of Emergency Repair and Replacement of Substandard Sewer Pipe and Failing Asphalt)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Negotiation No. 5468 (Job No. 5636-32), Redding Library Generator Addition Project:
(1) Award to SnL Group Inc. in the amount of $449,992;
(2) Approve $160,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; (3) Approve $37,000 for project development costs;
(4) Approve $50,000 to provide construction contingency funding; and (5) Find that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15301 – Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The Redding Library Generator Addition Project (Project) is completely funded by a $1,626,790 Building Forward Grant from the California State Library and no additional funding is required.

The project budget amount shown in the table below, $700,000, is within the overall amount of the grant awarded to the City.

Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $37,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $499,992
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $160,000
Total Project Costs $696,992
Project Budget $700,000
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the project within the approved budget.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4.11(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(b)--Award Bid Negotiation No. 5468 (Job No. 5636-32) Redding Library Generator Addition Project
Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 87
Report to Redding City Council September 11, 2024
Re: 4.11(b)--Award Bid Negotiation No. 5468 Redding Library Generator Addition Page 2 Alternative Action
The City Council may choose not to award the project and provide alternate direction. If the project does not move forward, the Redding Library will not receive a generator allowing it to be used as an emergency shelter if the power goes out for an extended period. In addition, the City of Redding may not receive reimbursement for money spent and not yet invoiced, and the remaining grant funds may be forfeited.

Background/Analysis
Attached is a tabulation of bids opened on July 11, 2024. The low bid in the amount of $449,992 was received from SnL Group Inc. of Redding, California. The engineer’s estimate was $287,541. Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $37,000. Project development costs include engineering, surveying, right-of-way, environmental, and consultant services.

The Project includes the installation of a new standby generator as well as the associated infrastructure. The existing service conductors are being intercepted with a new electrical service that will be installed at the location of the generator along with an automatic transfer switch. In addition, the area around the generator and electrical equipment will be enclosed within a concrete block walled area.

Environmental Review
Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15301. Class 1 exemptions include the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing facilities, structures, or equipment involving negligible or no expansion of use. The project is a minor alteration of the existing library to provide continuous service during a power outage, which result in a negligible expansion of use. The project area is within the existing library property and environmental resources are not present. The project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Location Map
^Bid Tab
NOE Redding Library Generator
Packet Pg. 88
GRAPE

FAVRETTO AVE

TATE ST

LANNING AVE

GRAPE AVE PARKVIEW AVE

CITY OF REDDING

LOCATION MAP

EXHIBIT A

REDDING LIBRARY

PUBLIC WORKS GENERATOR PROJECT

DEPARTMENT

PROJECT

LOCATION
Redding
Library 1100
Parkview Ave X:\Projects\Library Grant_Roof_Solar_Generator_Redding_Burney_Anderson\Design\City Council Reports (PR)\Redding Library Generator Project Loc Exhibit 2024.dwg, 8/30/2024 9:31:31 AM Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(b)--Award Bid Negotiation No. 5468 Redding Library Generator Addition) BID TABULATION FOR:

REDDING LIBRARY GENERATOR ADDITION
ENGINEER'S EST SnL Group, Inc
7/11/2024 UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 1 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 2 EXCAVATE ENCLOSURE

FOUNDATION AND INSTALL
ENGINEERED FILL LS 1 $3,312.00 $3,312.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $19,500.00 $19,500.00 3 REINFORCED CONCRETE
FOUNDATION, SLAB & SIDEWALK LS 1 $15,136.00 $15,136.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $27,000.00 $27,000.00 4 MASONRY WALL LS 1 $23,978.00 $23,978.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 5 METAL DOOR AND FRAME LS 1 $1,320.00 $1,320.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 6 GENERATOR LS 1 $94,627.00 $94,627.00 $175,742.00 $175,742.00 $174,250.00 $174,250.00 7 AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH LS 1 $31,066.00 $31,066.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 8 MAIN SWITCHBOARD LS 1 $29,540.00 $29,540.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 9 CONDUIT/CONDUCTORS LS 1 $85,122.00 $85,122.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $109,250.00 $109,250.00 10 GROUND RODS EA 2 $470.00 $940.00 $1,775.00 $3,550.00 $250.00 $500.00 TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $287,541.00 $449,992.00 $460,500.00

AVERAGES

UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE
1 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LS 1 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $4,000.00 2 EXCAVATE ENCLOSURE

FOUNDATION AND INSTALL
ENGINEERED FILL LS 1 $17,250.00 $17,250.00 $15,583.33
3 REINFORCED CONCRETE
FOUNDATION, SLAB & SIDEWALK LS 1 $42,289.00 $42,289.00 $31,429.67 4 MASONRY WALL LS 1 $47,000.00 $47,000.00 $48,333.33
5 METAL DOOR AND FRAME LS 1 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,666.67 6 GENERATOR LS 1 $179,999.00 $179,999.00 $176,663.67
7 AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH LS 1 $22,064.00 $22,064.00 $30,688.00 8 MAIN SWITCHBOARD LS 1 $39,684.00 $39,684.00 $49,894.67 9 CONDUIT/CONDUCTORS LS 1 $232,029.00 $232,029.00 $135,426.33 10 GROUND RODS EA 2 $282.50 $565.00 $769.17
TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $590,180.00 $500,224.00
Bid Schedule No.: 5468
Bullert Industrial Electric
Inc
Hankins Group, Inc
Shaded areas indicate corrections made in
accordance with the special provisions.

Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: ^Bid Tab (4.11(b)--Award Bid Negotiation No. 5468 Redding Library Generator Addition) Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: NOE Redding Library Generator (4.11(b)--Award Bid Negotiation No. 5468 Redding Library Generator Addition)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept an update regarding the City of Redding’s COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package projects.

Fiscal Impact
The City Council (Council) previously approved an allocation of $9.5 million in Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade auction proceeds for projects that reap an energy savings benefit to the City of Redding (City). To date, the City Manager has authorized purchases and projects totaling approximately $3.9 million and a consulting services agreement for engineering and construction management support of more than $1.2 million. There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

Alternative Action
The Council may choose not to accept the Project Status Report and provide further direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
On April 21, 2020, the Council unanimously approved the City’s Economic Response Plan.

Included in the plan, is the allocation of $9.5 million in Cap and Trade auction proceeds to be used for several projects associated with the Local Economic Stimulus Package that equates to a savings in energy costs for the City. On May 5, 2020, the Council authorized the City Manager to execute agreements, purchase orders, and contracts associated with the program to ensure an expedited delivery schedule. The Council also directed staff to provide regular status updates of the program and ratify all City Manager awards.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4.11(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(c)--COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 92
Report to Redding City Council September 10, 2024
Re: 4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update Page 2 As directed by the City Manager, staff has endeavored to break up most of the work into smaller contracts, with values lower than $500,000, with the idea that local contractors and vendors will compete better due to lack of mobilization costs and other local advantages. However, the City has limited control because these are Public Works contracts and must be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder in accordance with State of California law.

To date, staff has awarded 17 projects totaling roughly $3.9 million that include:
• Projects for lighting improvements at sport fields, the Library, Corporation Yard, City Hall, the Police Department, the Civic Auditorium, fire stations, and various other City buildings;
• Projects to install solar power generation systems, including roof replacements, at various fire stations;
• A project for pumping efficiency improvements at the Redding Aquatic Center; and • Purchase orders and on-call contract services for lighting, plumbing, mechanical work, window replacements, and equipment.

There have been 15 projects completed, and 10 of the 17 projects have been awarded to local contractors. Only three projects for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) have yet to enter the construction phase, including HVAC upgrades at City Hall, the Corporation Yard, and the Caldwell Park Recreation Center. Staff plans to advertise the bid package for HVAC upgrades at City Hall in September 2024 and the Corporation Yard bid package in October 2024.

Staff is also working with its on-call contractor for a quote to complete the HVAC upgrades at the Caldwell Park Recreation Center and expects to complete its construction this winter. Due to extensive delays with the construction of the lighting project at the Civic Auditorium, staff is working to cancel this contract, as Building Maintenance staff have already replaced a majority of the existing lamps with new LED lamps and will continue to replace the few remaining lamps over time as they fail. The attached Project Status Report provides more detailed information on project status and costs. Staff will continue to return to the Council quarterly to provide progress updates, with the next update anticipated to be December 17, 2024.

Environmental Review
Accepting the Project Status Report is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and no further action is required. The individual projects within this report may be subject to CEQA and are individually analyzed.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
• Communication and Transparency – “Improve the quality of communication with the public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Packet Pg. 93
Report to Redding City Council September 10, 2024
Re: 4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update Page 3 Attachments
^Project Status Report
Previous Staff Report 04-21-20
Previous Staff Report 05-05-20
Packet Pg. 94
Project # Description Project Type Contract Method
Award/PO
Date
Ratification
Date Contractor
Local Contractor,
Sub, or Supplier? Cost Est Actual Cost
$ to Local
Contractors
Estimated
Completion
Date
Acceptance
Date Project Status

PROJECTS IN CONSTRUCTION
C19-L-06 LED Lighting Retrofit at Civic Auditorium Lighting Standard Bid 11/23/2021 12/21/2021 Fluoresco Services, LLC No $ 162,111 $ 77,387 $ - - Canceling contract due to delays. Building Maintenance staff will replace lights with LEDs as needed.

C19-P-03 Aquatic Center Pumping System Upgrade Plumbing Standard Bid 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 Tricon Construction, Inc No $ 250,356 $ 246,323 $ - 12/1/2024 Construction will start in October 2024, after swim season.

PROJECTS IN DESIGN
C19-M-03 Upgrade HVAC at City Hall & Police Department HVAC Standard Bid $ 888,430 3/1/2025 Jacobs finalizing bid package.

C19-M-04 Upgrade HVAC at Caldwell Park Rec Center HVAC Standard Bid $ 120,000 12/31/2024 City working with on-call contractor for improvement options.

C19-M-05 Upgrade HVAC at Corp Yard HVAC Standard Bid $ 195,000 5/1/2025 Jacobs finalizing bid package.

C19-S-03 Solar PV & Replace Roofs - Fire Stations 1 and 3 Solar Standard Bid $ 250,000 TBD Design on hold until future plan for these fire stations is determined.

C19-W-04b Replace Windows at Fire Stations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 Windows Standard Bid $ 153,000 TBD Design on hold until future plan for the fire stations is determined.

C19-M-06 Replace HVAC at Civic Auditorium HVAC Standard Bid $ 3,500,000 TBD Design on hold until City can determine if budget will be available.

C19-S-04 Install Solar and Replace Roof at Civic Auditorium Solar Standard Bid $ 1,600,000 TBD Design on hold until City can determine if budget will be available.

PROJECTS COMPLETE
C19-L-01 LED Lighting Retrofit at three Non Profit Buildings at Diestelhorst Landing. Lighting On-Call Contract 6/9/2020 7/21/2020 B&C Yes $ 48,000 $ 13,000 $ 13,000 7/9/2020 7/31/2020 Construction completed.

C19-L-02 LED Lighting Retrofit at Library Lighting Standard Bid 11/19/2020 12/15/2020 Clear Blue Energy Corp. No $ 194,263 $ 53,633 $ - 3/1/2021 2/22/2021 Construction completed.

C19-L-03 LED Lighting Retrofit at Corp Yard Lighting Standard Bid 12/15/2020 1/19/2021 Fluoresco Services, LLC No $ 391,117 $ 137,294 $ - 6/22/2021 8/6/2021 Construction completed.

C19-L-04 LED Lighting Retrofit at City Hall and Police Station Lighting Standard Bid 8/2/2021 8/17/2021 Fluoresco Services, LLC No $ 519,000 $ 189,367 $ - 10/1/2022 9/20/2022 Construction completed.

C19-L-05
LED Lighting Retrofit at Various Locations (Aquatic Center, Caldwell Park, Fire Stations, MLK Jr Center, Enterprise Park, Old City Hall, Senior Citizens Hall, and California Soccer Park)
Lighting Standard Bid 6/2/2022 6/21/2022 Advanced Lighting Services, Inc.

No $ 386,077 $ 145,255 $ - 1/31/2023 2/1/2023 Construction completed.

C19-PO-01 Sourcewell purchase order for stadium lighting (Equipment Only) at Alta Mesa Park, Softball Park, South City Park, Buckeye Park, and Caldwell Park Stadium Lighting Purchase Order
(Equipment Only) 7/16/2020 7/21/2020 Musco No $ 1,227,941 $ 1,227,941 $ - 12/31/2022 2/8/2023 Purchase order with Musco for equipment. Projects complete.

C19-LS-01 Installation of City purchased stadium lighting equipment at Alta Mesa Park, Softball park, South City Park Kiwanis 1, and Tiger Field Stadium Lighting Standard Bid
(Installation Only) 3/31/2021 4/20/2021 Builders Solutions, Inc. Yes $ 465,014 $ 750,691 $ 750,691 12/31/2022 2/8/2023 Construction completed.

C19-LS-02
Installation of City purchased stadium lighting equipment at Buckeye Park and Caldwell Park
Stadium Lighting Standard Bid
(Installation Only) 2/17/2021 3/16/2021 Builders Solutions, Inc. Yes $ 341,500 $ 319,647 $ 319,647 4/25/2022 5/10/2022 Construction completed.

C19-P-01 Replace Water Heaters in Fire Stations 2, 3, 4, and 6 Plumbing On-Call Contract 6/30/2020 7/21/2020 American Leak Detection Yes $ 49,000 $ 13,050 $ 13,050 9/16/2020 10/2/2020 Construction completed.

C19-P-02 Replace Laundry Facilities in Fire Stations 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 Plumbing On-Call Contract 6/25/2020 7/21/2020 American Leak Detection Yes $ 17,000 $ 12,759 $ 12,759 9/16/2020 10/2/2020 Construction completed.

C19-M-01 Replace HVAC Units in Fire Stations 1,2,4,6 HVAC On-Call Contract 6/9/2020 7/21/2020 ACCO Yes $ 92,109 $ 95,278 $ 95,278 12/1/2020 11/30/2020 Construction completed.

C19-M-02 Replace HVAC Units in Old City Hall HVAC On-Call Contract 6/15/2020 7/21/2020 ACCO Yes $ 135,755 $ 97,985 $ 97,985 1/20/2021 1/13/2021 Construction completed.

C19-S-01 Solar PV at Fire Stations 7 & 8 Solar Standard Bid 9/29/2021 10/19/2021 B & B Solar Inc. Yes $ 100,529 $ 98,900 $ 98,900 8/1/2023 9/22/2023 Construction completed.

C19-S-02 Solar PV & Replace Roofs at Various Fire Stations (Stations 2, 4, 5, and 6) Solar Standard Bid 11/23/2021 12/21/2021 Harbert Roofing, Inc. Yes $ 525,610 $ 372,068 $ 372,068 9/8/2023 12/18/2023 Construction Completed.

C19-W-04a Replace Windows at Fire Station 5 Windows On-Call Contract 3/1/2023 12/19/2023 Harbert Roofing, Inc. Yes $ 16,000 $ 15,526 $ 15,526 12/31/2023 12/22/2023 Construction Completed.

Sub Total: $ 11,627,812 $ 3,866,103 $ 1,788,904

PROJECT MANAGEMENT/DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES C-19-DC-01 Project Management, Design and Construction Services Engineering Consultant PSA 6/9/2020 7/21/2020 Jacobs Engineering Yes $ 1,240,816 On-going design and construction management services Total $ 12,868,628 $ 3,866,103 $ 1,788,904
Project Budget $9 M. Projects will be prioritized and delivered to fit within approved budget
Energy Efficiency Economic Response Plan (EEERP) Project Status Report Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: ^Project Status Report (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept the City of Redding Economic Response Plan and provide direction to staff as follows:
(1) Approve deferral of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) hotels and motels. (2) Approve modification of existing Community Assistance for Redding Electric Services (CARES) guidelines.
(3) Approve modification of amortization policy for City of Redding utility bills. (4) Approve the refund of all City of Redding utility deposits. (5) Rescind approval of allocation of Cap and Trade funds for the Wildfire Mitigation and Building Electrification programs; approve Cap and Trade auction proceeds to be distributed to electric customers; and adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 32nd Amendment to City of Redding Budget Resolution No. 2019-050 to appropriate a total of $9 million in Greenhouse Gas allotment for utility rebates. (6) Approve adoption of a utility grant program for small businesses utilizing $600,000 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding.
(7) Economic Stimulus Package
a. Approve additional use of $5 million of Greenhouse Gas allotment and adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 33rd Amendment to City of Redding Budget Resolution No. 2019-050 allocating money for projects designated as providing energy savings for the general fund.
b. Provide direction on projects involving utilities funding and borrowing.

Fiscal Impact
The amount of impact of this proposal depends on the City Council’s (Council) direction for staff. The programs implemented thus far are expected to impact the General Fund due to approximately $500,000 in missed revenue projections. Programs such as modifying the Amortization Program guidelines and deferring Transient Occupancy Tax will reduce reserves in the short term by providing cash flow relief to businesses. Using restricted revenue funds to modify existing CARES program guidelines, and also refunding City of Redding utility deposits MEETING DATE: April 21, 2020
ITEM NO. 9.1(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected]
[email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.1(b)--Consider Economic Response Plan related to the Covid-19 pandemic's impact on the City and provide direction regarding mitigation measures.

Barry Tippin, City Manager
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) Report to Redding City Council April 16, 2020
Re: 9.1(b)--Economic Response Plan Page 2
and creating a utility grant program for small business will not impact unrestricted reserves. If the additional utility credit is approved, $9 million in Cap and Trade auction proceeds would need to be allocated, some of which would be reallocated from previously funded projects, to bring the total allocation to $11 million for utility rebates. To complete projects listed in the Local Economic Stimulus Package, $5 million in Cap and Trade auction proceeds would need to be allocated in addition to the $4 million already allocated. The Council could also, through approval of this report, provide direction and identify an amount of money to reserve to pay for any potential borrowing for projects that would be approved through the Local Economic Stimulus Package.

Alternative Action
The Council has multiple options with this report. If it chooses to not accept the report in its entirety, all currently implemented programs would cease and no additional community assistance programming would take place at this time. The Council could choose to accept the report, and therefore all of the currently implemented projects as well, and provide direction to staff regarding which new projects to move forward.

Background/Analysis
The Covid-19 global pandemic has been a health catastrophe causing significant disruption in individual, community and societal norms while devastating the economy. The City of Redding, as the local governmental entity, needs to take bold action in line with the State and Federal Government to not only protect the health and welfare of the individual but also of the economy.

The City of Redding City Council will be presented with a number of proposed initiatives and projects to help individuals and businesses through this difficult time. The attached City of Redding Economic Response Plan is a report detailing programming currently implemented, as well as programming that could be implemented to assist the community. These items are varied in cost and source of funding.

Currently implementing
 Maintain City services
 Suspend Return to Owner fees for impounded animals
 Suspend late fees and interest on payments due to the City of Redding  Suspend City of Redding utility shut-offs due to non-payment  Suspend City of Redding utility payment late fees
 Cap and Trade distribution of $50 to every Redding Electric Utility (REU) account holder
Pending approval
 Deferral of Transient Occupancy Tax payment from hotel and motel businesses  Modify existing –Community Assistance for Redding Electric Services (CARES) program guidelines to provide opportunity for additional financial assistance to qualifying utility customers
 Modify Utilities Amortization program guidelines to extend the amortization period, and extend the program to commercial customers
 Refund City of Redding utility deposits to residential and commercial customers  Additional Cap and Trade distribution of $200 to every REU account holder  Utility grant program for small businesses
 Local Economic Stimulus Package containing multiple projects that will result in local contract work opportunities and energy savings to the City of Redding Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) Report to Redding City Council April 16, 2020
Re: 9.1(b)--Economic Response Plan Page 3
Council Priority/City Manager Goals
 Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
 Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.”  Communication and Transparency – “Improve the quality of communication with the public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
 Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
 Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Attachments
Resolution - GHG Customer Distribution
Resolution - Green House Gas Allotment
COR Economic Response Plan 2020
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) Resolution No. 2020 - ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 32ND AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2019-050 RESCINDING

APPROVAL OF ALLOCATION OF CAP AND TRADE FUNDS FOR THE WILDFIRE MITIGATION AND BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAMS; APPROVE THE APPROPRIATION OF $9,000,000 OF CAP AND TRADE AUCTION PROCEEDS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO RATEPAYERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2019-050 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
142 854 GHG Customer Distribution $9,000,000
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Decrease in Beginning Balance
142-851-01-0001-01 Beginning Balance $ 1,077,910
Decrease in Cap and Trade Revenues
142-851-01-4400-01 Environmental Attributes $ 2,022,090 Elimination of Building Electrification Project
142-854-8908-98 Building Electrification $ 4,000,000
Elimination of Wildfire Mitigation Project
142-854-8908-99 Wildfire Mitigation $ 1,900,000
Increase in GHG Customer Distribution
142-854-8908-90 GHG Customer Distribution $ 9,000,000
Total $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000
THAT the purpose is to rescind approval of allocation of Cap and Trade funds for the Wildfire Mitigation and Building Electrification programs; approve the appropriation of $9,000,000 of Cap and Trade auction proceeds to be distributed to ratepayers for fiscal year 2019-20.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 21st day of April, 2020 and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ADAM McELVAIN, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) Resolution No. 2020 - ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 33RD AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2019-050 APPROVE AND APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL USE OF $5,000,000 OF GREENHOUSE GAS

ALLOTMENT FOR PROJECTS DESIGNED AS PROVIDING ENERGY SAVINGS FOR THE GENERAL FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2019-050 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
142 854 Energy Efficiency Measures $5,000,000
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Decrease in Beginning Balance
142-851-01-0001-01 Beginning Balance $ 5,000,000
Increase in Energy Efficiency Measures
142-854-8908-96 Energy Efficiency Measures $ 5,000,000
Total $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000
THAT the purpose is to approve and appropriate additional use of $5,000,000 of Greenhouse Gas allotment allocating money for projects designed as providing energy savings for the General Fund for fiscal year 2019-20.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 21st day of April, 2020 and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ADAM McELVAIN, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) City of Redding Economic Response Plan – April 2020
1 Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................2 Plan Elements................................................................................................................................................2 Elements currently implemented .............................................................................................................2 Maintain City Services..........................................................................................................................2 Suspend Return to Owner fees............................................................................................................3 Suspend Late Fees and Interest on City Payments .............................................................................3 Suspend Utility Shut-Off ......................................................................................................................4 Suspend Utility Late Fees.....................................................................................................................4 Distribution of $50 to REU Account Holders.......................................................................................4 Pending the City Council’s approval .........................................................................................................4 Deferral of Transient Occupancy Tax...................................................................................................5 Modify Existing CARES Program Guidelines........................................................................................5 Modify Utilities Amortization Program Guidelines.............................................................................5 Refund City of Redding Utilities Deposits............................................................................................6 Additional Cap and Trade Distribution................................................................................................6 Utility Grant Program for Small Businesses ........................................................................................6 Local Economic Stimulus Package........................................................................................................7 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) City of Redding Economic Response Plan – April 2020
2 Executive Summary
The Covid-19 global pandemic is a health catastrophe causing significant disruption in individual, community and societal norms. While the direct human suffering owed to the disease itself is horrific, the damage to the economy due to necessary health precautions is equally devastating. The City of Redding (City), as the local governmental entity, needs to take bold action in line with the State and Federal Government to not only protect the health and welfare of the individual but also that of the local economy. The City of Redding City Council (Council) has directed that a plan be developed to assist the community in economic recovery to coincide with the cessation of the pandemic. This report provides detailed information on the various programs that have been developed to help foster the economy through this economic disaster.

Some programs have already been implemented while others still need final approval from the City Council. In brief, the programs are listed below.

Currently implement Plan Element Value
Suspend Return to Owner fees $200
Suspend late fees and interest on City of
Redding payments
$60,000
Suspend City of Redding utility shut-offs Increased Cash Flow Suspend City of Redding utility late fees $425,000
Distribution of $50 to REU account holders $2,200,000
Plan Element Pending approval
Deferral of Transient Occupancy Tax $250,000 Est. deferred Modify existing CARES program guidelines $1,500,000
Modify existing Utilities amortization
program guidelines
Increased Cash Flow
Refund City of Redding utility deposits $3,400,000
Additional Cap and Trade distribution $9,000,000
Utility grant program for small businesses $600,000
Local Economic Stimulus Package $20,000,000
Total Value of City Response Plan Est @ $37,500,000
Plan Elements
Elements currently implemented
Maintain City Services
City services provided to the community are critical in nature and are unable to cease in functionality. A multitude of projects, already in the works, have to continue processing in spite of the pandemic that has affected the nation. In order to keep projects moving forward, and to Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) City of Redding Economic Response Plan – April 2020
3 continue to serve the community in this critical capacity, City departments implemented immediate changes to comply with State and Federal directives. Personnel able to work from home were provided resources to do so. Meetings of large groups of staff and/or the public were eliminated, and preparations were made to provide access to public meetings without further endangering the community. As a result of the rapid response of staff, City services continue to function for the bulk of the community. In spite of the closure of City Hall and the diminished personnel in the Avtech and Corp Yard buildings, and the Transfer Station, critical City services such as police, fire, electric, solid waste removal, water and wastewater maintenance, and parks services still operate to the benefit of the community. Each position, whether working from home or in the office, is a critical component of maintaining the support of these services. Department directors monitor work product and load to ensure the City continues to function efficiently. The City is providing increased availability of cleaning supplies and sanitizing materials to offices and meeting spaces to maintain worker health.

To provide additional relief to residents and business owners, several programming decisions were implemented. Taking into consideration the varied economic status of Redding residents and businesses, the following steps were taken to provide some help financially.

Suspend Return to Owner fees
Effective March 23, 2020, Haven Humane Society suspended the charging of return to owner fees for animals impounded for running at large. A small portion of the fee is typically returned to the City to recoup costs of providing animal regulation services for the community. The total cost is expected to be less than $200 for the City. This allows Haven to reduce the number of animals left in the shelter while it is being operated at minimum capacity, and it is a benefit for community members who are unable to make the payment at this time.

Suspend Late Fees and Interest on City Payments
The City has initiated the suspension of late fees and penalties for payments and all General Accounts Receivable for items like hangar rents and imposed fines. This is made possible through individual review of accounts as payments are submitted and the reporting is analyzed. Both systems are housed in the legacy system so adjustments are applied manually to individual accounts. The $35 returned check and returned ACH payment fees have been suspended as well. Returned check and ACH fees are charged on an individual basis, and returned items are reported from the City’s banking system daily. When applicable, the returned item amount with the additional fee are typically charged back to established accounts. The fee will be eliminated from these charge backs.

The current plan is to suspend penalties and interest for receivables due in March and April 2020, which would include payments due in April and May. Based on last year’s activities, it is estimated that the loss of revenue to the general fund from the suspensions will be $55,000. The suspension of the returned check and ACH fees is estimated to be $5,000 for the same time period. If extended an additional month through the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2020), the savings to the community equates to an estimated $60,000 which will result in an equal amount of lost revenue for the City.

Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) City of Redding Economic Response Plan – April 2020
4 Suspend Utility Shut-Off
Effective March 18, 2020, the City of Redding Utilities Customer Service suspended the practice of utility shut-offs due to non-payment. Each month, under normal circumstances, approximately 220 utility accounts are disconnected after failure to pay for utility service received over the previous 60 days. Typically, 75 percent of these customers pay their past due amount and have their utilities reconnected within two weeks. With the Covid-19 pandemic and the anticipated increase in the number of utility customers having difficulty keeping up with all of their monthly expenses, it was decided that loss of utility service should not contribute to the stress and anxiety already experienced. Once the pandemic has passed, the Customer Services division will work with customers using various tools to bring the accounts into good standing. It is known that this effort will result in a temporary increase in accounts receivable and decreased cash flow for all utilities – resulting in an equal amount of temporary financial relief to residents of the City of Redding. This measure may result in an increase in bad debt expense, however, additional proposed measures, listed later in this report, could assist in reducing bad debt expense.

Furthermore, bad debt would be sent to a collection agency with a recovery rate of approximately 30 percent.

Suspend Utility Late Fees
Like shut-offs, late fees for utility payments have been suspended. Late fees, historically, amount to $1.7 million per year. While late fee collections are not always linear, it is a close approximation that the suspension will save customers in excess of $425,000 due to the high potential that there will be an increase in late payments. Late fees are an administrative penalty, and therefore, are deposited in the General Fund. If it is assumed that there will be no attempt to collect the past-due late fees, the General Fund will miss revenue projections in this category by at least $425,000.

Distribution of $50 to REU Account Holders
The City Council approved the distribution of excess reserves to be credited to every Redding Electric Utility customer in December 2019 in the amount of $50 per account. The funding source for the distribution is the Greenhouse Gas Allowance Auction Proceeds (also referred to as GHG or Cap and Trade), in an amount equal to about $2.2 million, and will be accomplished via a bill credit.

Pending the City Council’s approval
The following programming ideas were developed to provide additional options to provide financial relief to residents and businesses. These plan elements vary in how they target a diverse set of community members. Reaching as much of the community as possible is crucial for Redding to solidify its economic foundation. These proposals require the City Council’s approval to proceed. Some of the following items can be implemented immediately, while others will need to be further developed and brought back to the Council for further direction.

Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) City of Redding Economic Response Plan – April 2020
5 Deferral of Transient Occupancy Tax
Defer payment of TOT from hotel and motel business until August 1, 2020 (payment due August 19, 2020). This deferral would be interest free and full payback would be made by November 1, 2020. The TOT deferral program could provide for much need cash flow for the Hotel and Motel industry by allowing an estimated $250,000 to remain with the business for operating expense. This program would be limited to Hotels/Motels with Business Licenses of 65-40-1 or 65-50-1.

Modify Existing CARES Program Guidelines
Community Assistance for Redding Electric Services (CARES) provides up to $300 of emergency assistance for the electric portion of bills for City of Redding utility customers. The intent of the CARES program is to help customers who have suffered a temporary financial hardship and to bring their account to a current status. Customers are eligible for CARES assistance once every 12 months. This program is funded out of the Public Benefits charges included in each ratepayers’ bill. Staff recommends applying a $300 CARES credit to all residential customers enrolled in the Residential Energy Discount Program (REU’s low income program). This would provide $1.2 million of immediate utility cost relief to our lowest-income customers with an additional $600,000 of additional relief available to those who may apply due to becoming eligible due to impacts from covid-19. These funds would be replenished with the new budget year beginning on July 1, 2020. Should the Council choose to do this, staff recommends providing the Electric Utility Director authority to repeat this process, should the Stay at Home order continue through the summer, and also suspend the once-per-year limitation for applicants. This would have no impact on the Electric Utility’s financial metrics as defined in Council Policy 1414, as Public Benefit Programs are restricted.

Modify Utilities Amortization Program Guidelines
The City of Redding Utilities Customer Service provides amortization for residential customer bills that are past due. This allows customers to “catch-up” on their bill for up to 12 months by amortizing the past-due balance. Staff recommends temporarily expanding this to commercial customers and temporarily extending the amortization for a period of up to 24 months, which would essentially provide a zero percent loan to customers that are past-due and having trouble paying their bill. In addition, this would allow commercial customers who receive Small Business Administration Loans to focus on other essential costs. This would have a temporary impact on City of Redding Utilities, as cash would not be received for up to two years. The risk to the utilities would be any eventual non-performance of these loans; non-performance would mean not paying the full amortization over the 24-month period. Therefore, staff recommends establishing an “eligibility criteria” that the customer must have not been disconnected for nonpayment of utilities in the previous year to be automatically approved for the amortization.

Customers not eligible for automatic amortization may still request it and approval will be granted on a case by case basis. Should the Council choose to do this, Staff recommends providing the Electric Utility Director administrative authority to modify program elements as necessary. As this could affect water, wastewater, and solid waste utilities, the Public Works Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) City of Redding Economic Response Plan – April 2020
6 Director would collaborate in these decisions. This plan element will potentially provide millions of dollars in available cash flow for residents and businesses.

Refund City of Redding Utilities Deposits
Staff recommends returning all customer deposits held by Utilities Customer Services. This would return approximately $3.4 million to customers, including approximately $600,000 to commercial customers. The City holds utility deposits on customer accounts that present a higher credit risk to the utilities. By returning deposits, the City is returning monies to customers most in need. This would have no immediate impact on the Electric Utility’s financial metrics as defined in Council Policy 1414 as customer deposits are not included in unrestricted reserves for the purpose of calculating days of cash on hand. The risk to the utilities would be future bad debt accruals of non-payment of utilities by customers who have demonstrated difficulty paying bills.

However, this bad debt would be sent to a collection agency with a recovery rate of approximately 30 percent. Should the Council choose to do this, Staff recommends providing the Electric Utility Director authority to modify administrative processes for billing future utility deposits as defined in City Council Policy 1404. The deposit requirement will be reinstated at an unknown time in the future.

Additional Cap and Trade Distribution
Staff recommends a $200 credit on Electric utility bills to all customers out of Cap and Trade auction proceeds, which is similar to the $50 refund recently approved by Council. This would provide an additional $9 million in rebates to electric utility customers, bringing the total rebate amount, including the Council’s action on March 26, 2020, to approximately $11 million. To fund this program, the Council would need to allocate the balance of current year Cap and Trade revenues and cancel two Council-approved programs that have yet to launch: Wildfire Mitigation and Building Electrification. Wildfire Mitigation has yet to start due to the California Air Resources Board not providing a quantification methodology for reduced greenhouse gasses achieved through fuels reduction, thus the Cap and Trade funds are not available for this purpose. Building Electrification has yet to start due to staffing limitations. This would have no impact on the Electric Utility’s financial metrics as defined in Council Policy 1414 as Cap and Trade revenues are restricted.

Utility Grant Program for Small Businesses
As an entitlement city for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the City receives an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant funding which is used for public service and public improvements. Due to the Federal CARES act the City received an additional allocation of $447,450. This funding, combined with unused funding from past projects, for a total of $600,000 provides the City an opportunity to provide funding toward eligible small business utility payments for those in the most need or are unable to receive Federal assistance or grants. If approved, staff will present the program and the amount available as part of the required public hearing to approve the use of the funding.

Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) City of Redding Economic Response Plan – April 2020
7 Local Economic Stimulus Package
The Local Economic Stimulus Package is composed of multi-departmental projects intended to result in a combination of benefits to the City. In its infancy, this was a mass project designed to create an energy savings with each completed project. The City, however, has multiple deferred maintenance projects that must be completed to maintain the infrastructure stability of its assets.

Staff developed the following plan in a response to a need to merge the energy savings needs of the City with its deferred maintenance needs and infuse much needed capital into the local economy.

The projects in this package were specifically chosen as critical needs either in the realm of energy savings, which qualifies the project to be paid for through GHG auction proceeds, or for its contribution to eliminating the deferred maintenance needs of the City. A combination of GHG funding, utility reserves, municipal bond, and energy cost savings would be used to fund the package with little or no net budgetary impact to the General Fund. The total value of the economic stimulus package is estimated at approximately $20 million. Approximately $9.5 million of GHG money could be allocated for the completion of the projects that realize an energy savings for the City. The energy savings over time for the General Fund could be used to fund the deferred maintenance needs.

Several of the anticipated projects such as the work at various fire stations and lighting upgrades would be started immediately and put out to bid as soon as possible. Other projects, such as the replacement of the heating and air conditioning system at the Civic Auditorium will need to be analyzed further. The intent is to move quickly to infuse available GHG funds and provide economic benefit for the community.

The calculated energy savings from the energy savings projects could be used to secure bond funding to accelerate up to another $10 million in local projects including improvements to the Redding Aquatic Center, park facilities, required building maintenance, and other amenities.

Staff will return to the City Council with a full project list and borrowing options should the City Council provide direction to do so.

Completion of projects totaling up to $20 million is quite a large endeavor. However, the plan would be to bid multiple smaller projects to provide the best opportunity for local contractors to participate in the process, and thereby providing the local economy a direct opportunity to see quick and significant economic benefit in jobs and business activity. According to multipliers provided by the Shasta County Economic Development Corporation, the City of Redding would see a direct benefit equal to 328 jobs and $30 million of economic impact.

Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 04-21-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to award any public works contract, purchase order, or agreements, of any value, associated with the $ 9.5 million GHG funding approved as part of the Local Economic Stimulus Package.

Fiscal Impact
The City Council has previously approved the allocation of $9.5 million in Cap and Trade auction proceeds to be used for projects that reap an energy savings benefit to the City of Redding. There is no further fiscal impact to granting authority to the City Manager to execute the agreements, purchase orders, and contracts associated with these projects. There may, however, be an added benefit of seeing the money infused more rapidly into the local economy.

Alternative Action
The City Council could choose to not authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements, purchase orders, or contracts associated with the Cap and Trade distribution funds to expedite delivery of the work. This would lengthen the process to use the authorized funding.

Background/Analysis
On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, the City Council unanimously approved the Economic Response Plan. Included in the plan is the allocation of $9.5 million in Cap and Trade auction proceeds to be used for projects associated with the Local Economic Stimulus Package that equate to a savings in energy costs for the City of Redding. By authorizing the City Manager to negotiate, execute, and direct the agreements, purchase orders and contracts, staff can proceed with rapidly assigning the work and awarding bids. The benefit to this is being able to see the Cap and Trade action proceeds go to work as soon as possible in the community, and thereby providing the local MEETING DATE: May 5, 2020
ITEM NO. 9.1(b)
FROM:

APPROVED BY***
btippin@cityofredding. org
[email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.1(b)-- Consider authorizing the City Manager to award energy savings contracts, purchase orders, and agreements related to the Green House Gas ( GHG) funding approved by the City Council as part of the Local Economic Stimulus.

Barry Tippin, City Manager
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 05-05-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update) Report to Redding City Council April 28, 2020
Re: 9.1(b)--Authorize City Manager to award energy savings contracts Page 2 economy a direct opportunity to see a quick positive impact to jobs and business activity. The projects within the package may include, , LED light replacement in City facilities, reroofing and some solar installation at Fire Stations, replacing largely older and heavy energy using equipment with newer more efficient equipment, and additional energy saving projects to be determined
Council Priority/ City Manager Goals
Budget and Financial Management – “ Achieve balanced and stable 10- year Financial Plans for all funds.”
Public Safety – “ Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” Communication and Transparency – “ Improve the quality of communication with the public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
Government of the 21st Century – “ Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Economic Development – “ Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 05-05-20 (4.11(c)---COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Package Projects Update)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize and approve the following for the Public Works Department, Streets Division’s solesource acquisition of all City of Redding 2070 traffic signal controllers from Cubic; all power pedestals from Tesco Controls, Inc.; and all accessible pedestrian signal push buttons from PedSafety/Campbell:
(1) Make a finding that designates the identified products are necessary to match other products in use; and
(2) Approve the sole-source acquisition of the identified products.

Fiscal Impact
Necessary funds will be identified through the budget process and approved by City Council.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to make a finding to sole source the traffic control equipment. The City of Redding (City) would continue the current practice of using a variety of brands for this equipment, requiring additional inventory and training for each brand. This would make operations and maintenance of traffic signals more costly and time consuming.

Background/Analysis
The City owns and operates 82 traffic signals within the City, as well as manages five signals for Shasta County, two for the City of Anderson and one for Shasta Lake City under maintenance agreements. Caltrans manages traffic signals on the state highway system for the City and few others that are intertied with the state system. This uniformity of traffic signal equipment enables both jurisdictions to save money by sharing the maintenance responsibilities, and also saves time by allowing the limited staff to train on similar equipment.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4.11(d)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(d)--Sole-source traffic signal equipment including Cubic traffic signal controllers, Tesco power pedestals and Campbell Company push buttons.

Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 112
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 4.11(d)--Sole-source Compatible Traffic Signal Equipment Page 2 The City is looking to modernize the traffic controllers and power pedestals on the older traffic signals that require updates. The City of Redding has 29 traffic signals in operation utilizing the outdated Model 170 Controller and this 1970’s version controller does not allow for modern operations such as transit and emergency service vehicle preemption. Updating the existing controllers to the Cubic Model 2070 Controller will ensure that these signals have the capabilities needed to best serve the traveling public and improve reliability.

The Tesco power pedestal is utilized universally in the region for traffic signals, and this consistency has allowed the ease of sharing resources, and allowed maintenance staff to cross jurisdictional boundaries and utilize similar equipment. The Tesco power pedestal is required equipment for both upgrades and replacements of traffic signals and is widely installed at the various existing signal locations. In traffic accidents, the power pedestal is sometimes destroyed and a replacement needs to be ready in short order, which is why it is critical to have compatible spare equipment on hand. This consistency ensures that the traffic signals stay operational in a timely manner.

In addition, staff is in need to purchase replacement and new accessible pedestrian signal push buttons for traffic signals. The Campbell Company push or wave button called the “Guardian Wave” works with the existing traffic signal controllers and equipment that is already in operation around the City. The City currently utilizes the Campbell Company push button for many of the existing signals. The existing and new equipment utilize the “PedConnex” software which is used to operate and maintain the signal push buttons. This purchase would allow staff to purchase the compatible upgraded push or wave buttons to replace broken, damaged or new push buttons and utilize the same programming software.

For each of these pieces of traffic signal equipment, having limited manufacturers to replace equipment will keep replacement costs lower. In comparison to other manufacturers, each of these have proven to be reliable, the distributors are responsive, and the equipment is readily available.

In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 3400.C.2, the Council may make a finding for a material, product, or service by specific brand or trade name in order to match other products in use for public improvements.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s resident and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Packet Pg. 113

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Negotiation No. 5494 (Job No. 9248), Redding City Hall Occupied Office Carpet Replacement Project:
(1) Award to Continental Flooring Company, in the amount of $283,444 for the Base Bid, an additional $92,222 for Additive Alternate 1, an additional $200,460 for Additive Alternate 2, and an additional $30,535 for Additive Alternative 3; (2) Approve $65,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; (3) Approve $14,000 for project development costs;
(4) Approve $30,500 to provide construction contingency funding; and (5) Find that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15301 – Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The Redding City Hall Occupied Office Carpet Replacement Project (Project) will be funded by the Building Maintenance Division and Risk Management Division.

Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $14,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $637,161
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $65,000
Total Project Costs $716,161
Project Budget $716,161
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the project within the approved budget. Public Works has determined that this is a low risk project and has reduced the contingency rate to five percent (the standard contingency rate is 10%).

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4.11(e)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(e)--Award Bid Negotiation No. 5494 (Job No. 9248) Redding City Hall Occupied Office Carpet Replacement Project
Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 114
Report to Redding City Council September 10, 2024
Re: 4.11(e)--Award Bid Negotiation No. 5494 Redding City Hall Occupied Office Carpet Replacement Project Page 2
Therefore, should any unexpected expenses or costs arise, it may be necessary to return to City Council (Council) to budget additional funds.

Alternative Action
The Council may choose not to award the project and provide alternate direction. If the project does not move forward, the carpet will continue to deteriorate and require ongoing repairs and maintenance.

Background/Analysis
As approved by Council on May 7, 2024, the project includes the removal of existing carpet throughout City Hall staff occupied spaces and installing Mannington Tile Carpeting. In addition, the existing wall base will be removed and replaced with new material, and transition strips will be installed in locations where carpet tiles are placed against dissimilar flooring.

Attached is a tabulation of the bids opened on July 16, 2024. The low bid in the amount of $283,444 was received from Continental Flooring Company, of Scottsdale, Arizona. The engineer’s estimate was $238,095. Due to the limited budget for this project, staff designed it with a base bid and two additive alternates. While DFS Flooring’s overall project estimate is lower than Continental Flooring, pursuant to Public Contract code 20103.8, they are not being recommended the contact award. This section of the Public Contract Code allows for several options to award a project that includes additive alternates; however, staff elected, and subsequently included in the project contract documents, language stating that the lowest bid shall be the lowest base bid without consideration of the additive alternative bids.

Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $14,000. Project development costs include engineering, environmental, and consultant services (design support).

Environmental Review
Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15301. Class 1 exemptions include the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing facilities, structures, or equipment involving negligible or no expansion of use. The project is a regular maintenance activity and does not involve expansion of use. The project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Location Map
^Bid Tabulation
^Notice of Exemption
Packet Pg. 115
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(e)--Award Bid Negotiation No. 5494 Redding City Hall Occupied Office Carpet Replacement Project) BID TABULATION FOR:

Redding City Hall Occupied Office Carpet Replacement Project

ENGINEER'S EST AVERAGES
7/16/2024 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Furnish and Install Carpet LS 1 $238,095.00 $238,095.00 $283,444.00 $283,444.00 $283,550.00 $283,550.00 $283,497.00 TOTAL BASE BID $283,444.00 $283,444.00 $283,550.00 $283,550.00

ADDITIVE ALTERNATES
Additive Alternate 1
1 Furnish and Install Carpet LS 1 $76,005.00 $76,005.00 $92,222.00 $92,222.00 $92,640.00 $92,640.00 $92,431.00 Additive Alternate 2
1 Furnish and Install Carpet LS 1 $163,035.00 $163,035.00 $200,460.00 $200,460.00 $189,050.00 $189,050.00 $194,755.00 Additive Alternate 3
1 Furnish and Install Carpet LS 1 $25,245.00 $25,245.00 $30,535.00 $30,535.00 $26,895.00 $26,895.00 $28,715.00

TOTAL BID
ALTERNATES 1-3 $323,217.00 $308,585.00

TOTAL BASE BID PLUS
ADDITIVE ALTERNATES $502,380.00 $606,661.00 $592,135.00 $599,398.00 The lowest bid shall be the lowest bid price on the base bid without consideration of the prices on the additive alternate items.

Bid Schedule No.: 5494
Continental Flooring
Company DFS Flooring

Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(e)--Award Bid Negotiation No. 5494 Redding City Hall Occupied Office Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: ^Notice of Exemption (4.11(e)--Award Bid Negotiation No. 5494 Redding City Hall Occupied Office Carpet Replacement Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Negotiation No. 5499 (Job No. 3697), Fire Station Alerting System Installation Project:
(1) Determine the sole bid received as nonresponsive; and (2) Proceeding with direct negotiation and execution of a contract per Public Contract Code Section 20166 by staff and the City Manager, respectively.

Fiscal Impact
The Fire Station Alerting Project (Project) is being fully funded by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The table below provides a breakdown of the project costs assuming staff can successfully negotiate and execute a contract. Note, the construction contract plus the contingency amount of $260,000 is a not-to-exceed amount - meaning that if staff is unable to negotiate and execute a contract within this amount, the project will be re-advertised.

Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $37,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $260,0001
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $37,000
Additional City Manager Authority $15,000
Total Project Costs $349,000
Project Budget $565,150
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the project within the approved budget.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4.11(f)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(f)--Determine the sole bid as nonresponsive for Bid Negotiation No. 5499 (Job No. 3697), Fire Station Alerting System Installation Project.

Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 119
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 4.11(f)--Bid Negotiation No. 5499 Fire Station Alerting System Installation Page 2 Alternative Action
City Council (Council) may choose not to determine the sole bid received as nonresponsive or authorize staff to negotiate a contract and provide alternate direction to staff that could include re-advertising the project pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20166. If the project is not completed, then the recently acquired fire alerting equipment will not be installed and the Redding Fire Department (RFD) response times will not be reduced and the City of Redding (City) may lose the ARPA funds that have been set aside for this project.

Background/Analysis
Attached is a bid tabulation of the one bid opened on August 22, 2024. The apparent low bid at the time of the bid opening came from Exhibit One Corporation (Exhibit One) from Concord, California, in the amount of $200,670.80. The engineer’s estimate was $265,000.

After further review of their proposal, staff noticed that Exhibit One did not provide a signature on their bid as detailed in the instructions to bidders section of the specifications. In addition, the Exhibit One did not use the correct proposal forms and neglected to provide a bid for a contract item that was added by an Addendum. Due to these irregularities in the bid package, the bidder is deemed nonresponsive.

Exhibit One was notified that its bid was determined to be nonresponsive for the reasons stated above. By authorizing staff to negotiate and ultimately execute a contract in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 20341, there is a high potential to avoid a lengthy re-advertisement period as well as facilitate installation of the fire alerting equipment as expeditiously as possible.

In the event that, after 14 days, staff is unsuccessful in negotiation and execution of a contract the project will be re-advertised pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20166.

Environmental Review
Determining the bid as nonresponsive and re-advertising is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Location Map
^Bid Tab
Packet Pg. 120
8 6
1 2
3 4
5 7
ADMIN

CITY OF REDDING

LOCATION MAP

EXHIBIT A

PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF REDDING FIRE STATIONS

DEPARTMENT
1 2
6 8
7 5
3 4
INTERSTATE 5
INTERSTATE 5
HWY 299
HWY 299
HWY 44
HWY 273
LEGEND
#
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(f)--Bid Negotiation No. 5499 Fire Station Alerting System Installation) BID TABULATION FOR:

Fire Station Alerting System Installation

ENGINEER'S EST
8/22/2024 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 1 Primary Dispatch Fire
Station Alerting System LS 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $20,067.80 $20,067.80 2 Station 1 Fire Station
Alerting System LS 1 $47,500.00 $47,500.00 $20,067.00 $20,067.00 3 Station 2 Fire Station
Alerting System LS 1 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $200,267.00 $20,067.00 4 Station 3 Fire Station
Alerting System LS 1 $18,500.00 $18,500.00 $20,067.00 $20,067.00 5 Station 4 Fire Station
Alerting System LS 1 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $20,067.00 $20,067.00 6 Station 5 Fire Station
Alerting System LS 1 $39,500.00 $39,500.00 $20,067.00 $20,067.00 7 Station 6 Fire Station
Alerting System LS 1 $15,500.00 $15,500.00 $20,067.00 $20,067.00 8 Station 7 Fire Station
Alerting System LS 1 $37,000.00 $37,000.00 $20,067.00 $20,067.00 9 Station 8 Fire Station
Alerting System LS 1 $33,000.00 $33,000.00 $20,067.00 $20,067.00 10 Headquarters Fire Station
Alerting System LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,067.00 $20,067.00 11 Furnish and Install Fire
Station IDF LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $265,000.00 $200,670.80
Bid Schedule No.: 5499
Exhibit One Corp
Contractor did not submit bid on correct City proposal form and is therefore deemed non-responsive. Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: ^Bid Tab (4.11(f)--Bid Negotiation No. 5499 Fire Station Alerting System Installation)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept Bid Schedule No. 5255 (Job No. 2658), Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project, awarded to Cox and Cox Construction, Inc., as satisfactorily complete, with a final cost of $1,109,081.71.

Fiscal Impact
For Fiscal Year 2021-22, the Solid Waste Utility funding in the amount of $1,120,032 was approved for this project. The total project cost, including surveying, design, bidding, construction, field engineering, inspection, and contract administration is $1,109,081.71.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to not accept the project as satisfactorily complete, and advise staff on how to proceed.

Background/Analysis
Cox and Cox Construction, Inc. has completed all items of work on the Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project as of April 5, 2024, which was within the contract time frame. The project warranty period expires one year from the completion date. Subsequently, the Public Works Department filed a notice of completion with Shasta County.

On January 24, 2022 the Council awarded a construction contract to Cox and Cox Construction, Inc. for $732,032, and approved a $75,000 construction contingency fund. Also authorized was $158,000 for contract administration and construction inspection fees; $105,000 for project development costs; and the City Manager was authorized to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $50,000, for a total authorized amount of $1,120,032. Project development costs include engineering, environmental, and consultant services.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 4.11(g)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5255, Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project
Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 123
Report to Redding City Council September 10, 2024
Re: 4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5255, Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project Page 2
The project included additional scope of work that included:
• During construction, there were additional inspections and structural calculations required by the Building Department. On April 12, 2024, the City Engineer authorized a transfer of contingency funds in the amount of $20,000 to the contract administration and inspection fund for a total authorized amount of $178,000;
• On July 30, 2024, the City Manager approved an increase to contract administration and inspection of $50,000 to cover cost for City furnished materials, permits and project engineering costs for a total authorized amount of $228,000; • On September 3, 2024, the City Engineer authorized a transfer of contingency funds and contract administration and inspection funds in the amount of $29,504.41 to project development funds to cover the additional costs for City furnished materials, permits and project engineering.
• During construction, there were six change orders in the amount of $44,672.02, leaving a balance of $10,327.98 in the contingency fund.

The final project cost was $1,109,081.71.

Cost Summary
Awarded Amounts Actual Cost
Project Development Costs $105,000 $134,504.41
Construction Contract +
Contingency $807,032
Construction Contract + Contract
Change Orders $776,704.02
Contract Administration &
Inspection $158,000 $197,873.28
Additional City Manager Authority $50,000 $0.00
Total $1,120,032.00 $1,109,081.71
The project involved upgrades of the City’s wastewater lift station, which is located in its Transfer Station at 2355 Abernathy Lane, and replacement of its force main. The force main replacement involved installing approximately 1,200 linear feet of new 6-inch force main piping in Abernathy Lane and abandoning the existing 4-inch force main in place. In general, upgrades to the lift station included replacement of the packaged lift station, a new flow meter vault, rehabilitation of the existing wet well, complete replacement of the electrical and controls, and installation of a City furnished natural gas standby generator. Other improvements included replacement of the lift station shade structure, modifications and rehabilitation to existing manholes, cast-in-place concrete pads, and a new water service to the lift station for wash down.

Packet Pg. 124
Report to Redding City Council September 10, 2024
Re: 4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5255, Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project Page 3
Environmental Review
This action, project acceptance, is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On January 24, 2022, Council determined that the Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA, pursuant to Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities and Section 15302(c) - Replacement or Reconstruction. No further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Location Map
Previous Staff Report 012422
Transfer of Project Funds 041224
Transfer of Project Funds 073024
Transfer of Project Funds 090324
Packet Pg. 125
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5255, Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Schedule No. 5255 (Job No. 2658) Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project:
(1) Award to Cox and Cox Construction, Inc., in the amount of $732,032; (2) Approve an additional $158,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees and $105,000 for project development costs;
(3) Approve $75,000 to provide construction contingency funding; (4) Authorize the City Manager to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $50,000; and (5) Find that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities and Section 15302 (c) - Replacement or Reconstruction.

Fiscal Impact
The Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project is being funded by the Solid Waste Utility and sufficient funds are budgeted for the work.

Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $105,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $807,032
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $158,000
Additional City Manager Authority $50,000
Total Project Costs $1,120,032
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the project within the approved budget.

MEETING DATE: January 24, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5255 (Job No. 2658) Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 012422 (4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5255, Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project) Report to Redding City Council January 21, 2022
Re: 4.11(c)--Award Bid Sched. No. 5255. Abernathy Lift Station & Force Main Project Page 2 Alternative Action
The City Council may choose to not award the bid for the Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project and provide staff with alternative direction. Without this project, there is greater potential for increased maintenance costs, a decrease in reliability, and an increased risk of sanitary sewer overflows for City of Redding (City) customers.

Background/Analysis
Attached is a tabulation of bids received and opened on January 13, 2022, for the Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project. The low bid in the amount of $732,032 was received from Cox and Cox Construction, Inc., of Redding, California. The engineer's estimate was $782,826. Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $105,000. Project development costs include engineering, surveying, right-of-way, environmental, and consultant services.

The project includes upgrade of the City’s wastewater lift station, which is located in its Transfer Station at 2355 Abernathy Lane, and replacement of its force main. The force main replacement will involve installing approximately 1,200 linear feet of new 6-inch force main piping in Abernathy Lane and abandoning the existing 4-inch force main in place. In general, upgrades to the lift station will include replacement of the packaged lift station, a new flow meter vault, rehabilitation of the existing wet well, complete replacement of the electrical and controls, and installation of a City furnished natural gas standby generator. Other improvements will include replacement of the lift station shade structure, modifications and rehabilitation to existing manholes, cast-in-place concrete pads, and a new water service to the lift station for wash down.

Staff has determined that the project qualifies as Categorically Exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities and Section 15302(c) - Replacement or Reconstruction. The project will result in negligible or no expansion of use and the project will be located on the same site with substantially the same purpose. The project area has been reviewed and does not have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental resources. The project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
Bid Tabulation
Location Map
CEQA NOE (unfiled)
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 012422 (4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5255, Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Project) Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Transfer of Project Funds 041224 (4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5255, Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Transfer of Project Funds 073024 (4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5255, Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Transfer of Project Funds 090324 (4.11(g)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5255, Abernathy Lift Station and Force Main

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Conduct a Public Hearing, and, upon conclusion, authorize and approve the following actions:
(1) Adopt Ordinance No. 2670, an uncodified ordinance of the City of Redding approving the Development Agreement (AGREE-2024-00962) with Greenview Development Company and Mark Guiton relative to Westridge Estates Subdivision I (S-2018-00938), Westridge Estates II (S-04-04), and Westridge Estates III (S-19-13), whereby the expiration date of the previously approved Tentative Subdivision Maps (S-19-03, S-04- 04, and S-2018-00938) would be extended in exchange for the construction of Spicewood Drive prior to or concurrent with the final map recordation of Westridge Estates I; for second reading by title only and waive the second reading. The subject properties are located at 9489 Placer Street, 16989 and 16991 Campo Calle Street, 950 Canyon Creek Road, 3000 Dartmouth Drive, and 2286 Adirondack Drive;
(2) Adopt the Addendum to the Westridge Master Plan Environmental Impact Report; and (3) Direct the City Attorney to prepare and the City Clerk to publish a summary ordinance according to law.

Fiscal Impact
Entering into this Development Agreement (Agreement) has no fiscal impact to the City of Redding (City).

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) can determine to not enter into the proposed agreement, thereby not extending the subdivision maps for Westridge Estates I, II, and III.

MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 6.1
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 6.1--Public Hearing to consider adopting Uncodified Ordinance No. 2670 approving a Development Agreement (AGREE-2024-00962) with Greenview Development Company and Mark Guiton relative to the Westridge Master Plan.

Jeremy Pagan, Development
Services Director/Bldg
Official
Packet Pg. 132
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962) Page 2 Background/Analysis
The Redding Planning Commission held a public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting of August 27, 2024, and voted 6-1 to recommend that Council approve the Agreement.

As proposed, Green Development Company and Mark Guiton (collectively, referred to as Developer) would like to enter into an Agreement with the City for the development known as the Westridge Master Plan, an area of 400 acres in West Redding, lying between the Country Heights/Ridgeview Subdivisions and Placer Street. The Master Plan illustrates a concept for development of 271 single-family homes and a neighborhood park, with preservation of 260 acres in open space. Two subdivision maps, Westridge Estates II and III, were granted approval by Council on July 21, 2009. The approval consisted of the following:
• Certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR-2-03, an EIR prepared for development of the Westridge Master Plan. The final resolution certifying the EIR is attached;
• Annexation Application AN-1-04, annexation of approximately 52.58 acres on the east side of Placer Road, north of Power Line Road, and south of Campo Calle.

Subsequently, the annexation was reduced to 37.8 acres. The reduction eliminated the southern portion of the parcel, which will remain in Shasta County’s (County) jurisdiction. The developer has submitted a parcel map application with the County to divide the southern portion into four large single-family lots. The annexation of the project site was approved by Shasta Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on June 1, 2018. Shasta LAFCO issued the Certificate of Completion on October 8, 2018, thereby completing the annexation. The filing of a Statement of Boundary Change with the State Board of Equalization is still pending;
• General Plan Amendment Application GPA-7-03, to remove from the General Plan Transportation Element for the Canyon Creek Road extension to Placer Street and revise the Primary Growth Boundary identified in the Community Development and Design Element;
• General Plan Amendment Application GPA-3-04, to change the land use classification of approximately 24.6 acres within the Westridge master Plan Area from “Residential, 1 to 5 acres per unit” to “Residential, 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre;” and • Rezoning Application RZ-11-03, to prezone lands within the Westridge Master Plan Annexation Area to “RE-1” Residential Estate District, “RS-3” Residential Single-Family District, and “OS” Open Space District and to apply the “OS” Open Space District to open-space lands shown on the Westridge II and Westridge III Subdivision maps.

Subsequently, since the granting of the initial entitlements provided above, a third subdivision map, Westridge Estates I was approved by Planning Commission on July 23, 2019. Further, the following road improvements projects have been completed by the City:
• Traffic signal and associated pavement and marking at the intersection of Buenaventura Boulevard and Canyon Creek Road;
• Construction, widening, and restriping of Placer Street from Buenaventura Boulevard to Pleasant Street; and
• Construction, widening and restriping of Placer Street from Pleasant Street to Airpark Drive.

Packet Pg. 133
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962) Page 3 Both Westridge Estates II and III subdivisions will be expiring on September 29, 2024. These maps have expended all the state and local map extensions available. Westridge Estates I will expire on August 2, 2025, and is allowed one more three-year extension which would extend the expiration to August 2, 2028.

The proposed Agreement addresses the area of the three approved subdivisions totaling 348 acres. The remaining 52 acres of the master plan area, Westridge Estates IV, is under a separate ownership and a tentative map application has not been submitted. The Agreement will initially extend the maps five years, to September 29, 2029, thereby granting Westridge Estates II and III an additional five years and Westridge Estates I one additional year. An additional five-year extension of the map will be granted with the recordation of the final map for Westridge Estates I and completion of Spicewood Drive. This is reflected in the proposed milestone phasing plan provided below and attached to this staff report. The milestone phasing plan will grant a potential ten-year extension. Per Chapter 18.20 of the Zoning Ordinance, development agreements are limited to a maximum term of ten years; however, the development agreement may specify options to renew the term of the agreement. The proposed Agreement includes this option.

In August, when this item went before the Planning Commission, a Milestone Phasing Plan was provided which ultimately extended the subdivision maps to 20 years. Subsequently, staff has determined the milestone phasing plan was not consistent with Chapter 18.20 of the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore has revised the proposed Agreement as discussed above with a revised milestone phasing plan as shown below.

Task
#
Milestone Task (Complete task for
Extension)
Grant
Extension
Expiration Date
1 Execution of Development Agreement 5 years September 29, 2029 2 (1) Final Map Recordation of WR I
(2) Completion of Spicewood Drive
5 years September 29, 2034
Spicewood Drive is proposed as a full public road providing tertiary connection not only for the proposed subdivisions, but, more importantly, for the Country Heights Subdivision to the south.

Residents within the western section of Country Heights Subdivision are more than one mile from Blazingwood Drive and Riviera Drive; roads providing access to either Buenaventura Boulevard or Eastside Road. Taking into consideration these subdivisions are within the Very High Fire Severity Zone, the Spicewood Drive connection to Placer is a very important connection for public safety and of great benefit to the City’s residents.

Environmental Determination
Spicewood Drive will serve as an access point to the existing Country Heights Subdivision on the south side of the canyon and to the proposed Westridge project. The adopted EIR for the Westridge Master Plan included an analysis of the Spicewood Drive connection. The EIR identified feasible mitigations for all potential impacts in these areas that would reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. Mitigations have been adopted as a part of the project and are reflected in the existing subdivision conditions of approval. The existing conditions require the construction of Spicewood Drive prior to the occupancy of the 78th residence. The proposed Agreement would require Spicewood Drive in conjunction with the final map of Westridge Estates I; thereby accelerating the construction of Spicewood Drive to occur prior to Packet Pg. 134
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962) Page 4 the construction of any homes. Accelerating the construction of Spicewood Drive does not constitute a change in the project that would increase environmental impacts, therefore staff has determined the existing EIR is adequate for the Agreement application. Staff has prepared an addendum to the existing EIR and is recommending the Addendum be adopted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. A copy of the Addendum is attached and a link to the EIR is provided.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” • Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
c: Greenview Development, Applicant
Mark Guiton, Applicant
Attachments
^Ordinance No. 2670
^Location Map
^Development Agreement Master Plan Map
^Addendum to Westridge EIR
Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits
Westridge Master Plan EIR (Available ONLINE) <<CLICK HERE>> Packet Pg. 135
First Reading: 09/11/2024 JP (5-0)
Second Reading: 09/17/2024
Item No. 6.1
ORDINANCE NO. 2670

AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDDING

APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF REDDING AND GREENVIEW DEVELOPMENT AND

MARK GUITON RELATIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS
WESTRIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION I S-2018-00938, WESTRIDGE ESTATES II S-04-04, AND WESTRDIGE ESTATES III S-19-03
The City Council of the City of Redding does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Government Code Section 65867.5(a) states that a "development agreement is a legislative act that shall be approved by ordinance and is subject to referendum." SECTION 2. Government Code Section 65867.5(b) states that a "development agreement shall not be approved unless the legislative body finds that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan." SECTION 3. On August 27, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing pertaining to the Development Agreement, AGREE-2024-00962, By and Between the City of Redding and the property owners, Greenview Development and Mark Guiton, Relative to the Development Known as Westridge Estates Subdivision I S-2018-00938, Westridge Estates II S04-04, and Westridge Estates Subdivision III S-19-03, and recommended that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the Westridge Master Plan Environmental Impact Report and approve the Development Agreement.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement substantially in the form as attached to the staff report for the September 17, 2024, City Council meeting titled "Public Hearing re: Ordinance Effectuating a Development Agreement By and between the City of Redding and the property owners, Greenview Development and Mark Guiton, relative to the Development known as Westridge Estates Subdivision I S-2018-00938, Westridge Estates II S04-04, and Westridge Estates Subdivision III S-19-03 and on file with the City Clerk, subject to such minor and clarifying changes consistent with the terms thereof as may be approved by the City Attorney prior to execution thereof.

SECTION 5. The City Council adopts the following findings in conjunction with its approval of the Development Agreement:
(a) Public hearings have been held by the Planning Commission and the City Council, as required by California Government Code Section 65867, et seq., and Redding Municipal Code Section 18.20.030.
(b) Notice of the public hearings in the form of a notice of intention to consider approval of a development agreement has been given in compliance with state law, California Government Code Section 65867, and Redding Municipal Code Section

18.20.030.
(c) The Development Agreement is in the best interest of the City.

Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: ^Ordinance No. 2670 (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) First Reading: 09/11/2024 JP (5-0)
Second Reading: 09/17/2024
Item No. 6.1
(d) The Development Agreement will promote the public interest and welfare of the City.
(e) The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City's General Plan and all applicable specific plans.
(f) The Development Agreement is consistent with, and conforms to, the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5.

SECTION 6. The Mayor is authorized and directed to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the City of Redding.

SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption thereof and cause its publication according to law.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was introduced and read by the City Council at a special meeting on the 11th day of September, 2024; and was duly read and adopted at a regular meeting on the ____ day of ______________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_____________________________________
TENESSA AUDETTE, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVED:
_______________________________ ______________________________________ SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: ^Ordinance No. 2670 (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Placer Rd
Buenaventura Blvd
Teton Dr
Sunglow Dr
Power Line Rd
Record Ln
Cumberland Dr
Boston Ave
Wa
satch Dr
Tralee Ln
Lake Dr
Wicklow St Oconner Ave
Dream St
Villa Dr
Oak Glen Dr
Siskiyou S
t
Moyv
a
ne D
r
Meander Dr
Misty Glen Dr
Everest Dr
Crescent Moon Ct
Dartmouth Dr
Andes Dr
Winte
r Green Ct
Rainier D
r
Rush
m
ore Dr
Rut
gers
P
Na
l
ntucket Dr
Campo Calle
Thompson Ln
MTG. DATE:

ITEM:

ATTACHMENT:

LOCATION MAP GIS DIVISION

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
DATE PRODUCED:

P:\Housing\ProProjects\9489_Placer Street_Loc - AUGUST 13, 2024 GREENVIEW DEVELOPMENT/GUITON AGREE-2024-00962
0 500 1,000
US Feet
9489 Placer Rd
203-160-019
16989 Campo Calle St
203-170-002
3000 Dartmouth Dr
204-430-011
2286 Adirondack Dr
204-430-014
950 Canyon Creek Rd
203-190-022
16991 Campo Calle St
203-170-001

EXHIBIT A
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: ^Location Map (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: ^Development Agreement Master Plan Map (6.1--Development Agreement

ADDENDUM TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Westridge Master Plan Development Agreement
Development Agreement Application AGREE-2024-00962
Westridge Estates Subdivision, Unit I (S-2018-00938)
Westridge Estates Subdivision, Unit II (S-4-04)
Westridge Estates Subdivision, Unit III (S-19-03)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development Agreement Application AGREE-2024-00962 for Tentative Subdivision Maps Westridge Estates, Unit I (S-2018-00938), Westridge Estates, Unit II (S-4-04), and Westridge Estates, Unit III (S-19-03) associated with the Westridge Master Plan project (“Project”).

The Project, the “Westridge Master Plan,” is an area of 400 acres in West Redding, lying between the Country Heights/Ridgeview Subdivisions and Placer Street. The Master Plan illustrates a concept for development of 271 single-family homes and neighborhood park, with preservation of 260 acres in open space. The Plan and two subdivision maps, Westridge Estates II and III, were granted approval by City Council on July 21, 2009. The approval consisted of the following:
♦ Certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR-2-03, an EIR prepared for development of the Westridge Master Plan. The final resolution certifying the EIR is attached.
♦ Annexation Application AN-1-04, annexation of approximately 52.58 acres on the east side of Placer Road, north of Power Line Road, and south of Campo Calle. Subsequently, the annexation was reduced to 37.8 acres. The reduction eliminated the southern portion of the parcel, which will remain in the County’s jurisdiction. The developer has submitted a parcel map application with the County to divide the southern portion into four large single-family lots. The annexation of the project site was approved by Shasta Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on June 1, 2018. The filing of a Statement of Boundary Change with the State Board of Equalization (BOE) is still pending. ♦ General Plan Amendment Application GPA-7-03, to remove from the General Plan Transportation Element the Canyon Creek Road extension to Placer Street and revise the Primary Growth Boundary identified in the Community Development and Design Element.
♦ General Plan Amendment Application GPA-3-04, to change the land use classification of approximately 24.6 acres within the Westridge master Plan Area from “Residential, 1 to 5 acres per unit” to “Residential, 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre.” ♦ Rezoning Application RZ-11-03, to prezone lands within the Westridge Master Plan Annexation Area to “RE-1” Residential Estate District, “RS-3” Residential Single-Family District, and “OS” Open Space District and to apply the “OS” Open Space District to openspace lands shown on the Westridge II and Westridge III Subdivision maps.

Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: ^Addendum to Westridge EIR (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Addendum to EIR/Westridge Development Agreement 2
Subsequently, since the granting of the entitlements for the Project, a third subdivision map, Westridge Estates I was granted approval by Planning Commission on July 23, 2019. Further, the following actions occurred:
♦ Annexation. As mentioned above, the annexation was reduced from 52.58 acres to 37.8.

Shasta LAFCO approved the annexation on June 1, 2018. Shasta LAFCO issued the Certificate of Completion on October 8, 2018, thereby completing the annexation. ♦ Road Improvements. The following road improvement projects have been completed by the City.
• Traffic signal and associated pavement and marking at the intersection of Buenaventura Boulevard and Canyon Creek Road.
• Construction, widening, and restriping of Placer Street from Buenaventura Boulevard to Pleasant Street.
• Construction, widening and restriping of Placer Street from Pleasant Street to Airpark Drive.

The property owners, Greenview Development and Mark Guiton, are now requesting the City of Redding to enter into a development agreement, pursuant to local ordinance and state law, whereby the expiration date of the subdivisions would be extended in exchange for the construction of Spicewood Drive prior to or concurrent with the final map recordation of Westridge Estates I.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
Spicewood Drive will serve as an access point to the existing Country Heights Subdivision on the south side of the canyon and to the proposed Westridge project. The adopted EIR for the Westridge Master Plan included an analysis of the Spicewood Drive connection. The EIR addressed all areas of environmental concern. Subject area that were identified as having potential significant impacts included Geology, Soils and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Transportation and Circulation, Biological Resources, Noise, Community Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Visual Resources, Light and Glare, Cultural Resources, and Recreation. The EIR identified feasible mitigations for all potential impacts in these areas that would reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. Mitigations have been adopted as a part of the Project and are reflected in the existing approved subdivision conditions of approval. The existing conditions require the Project to construct Spicewood Drive at the 78th lot. The proposed development agreement would require Spicewood Drive prior to or in conjunction with the final map of Westridge Estates I, thereby; prior to the construction of any homes.

DETERMINATION
The City of Redding previously prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Project, which was adopted on July 21, 2009. Based upon a review of the proposed amendments to the Project, it has been determined that an Addendum to the previously adopted EIR is appropriate because none of the following conditions (pursuant to CEQA Section 15162) have occurred:

1. Substantial changes are proposed for the project that will require major revision of the previous Environmental Impact Report due to new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: ^Addendum to Westridge EIR (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Addendum to EIR/Westridge Development Agreement 3

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that involve new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

3. New information of substantial importance indicates that:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Environmental Impact Report.
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Environmental Impact Report.
c. Mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt them.
d. Mitigation Measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous Environmental Impact Report would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the project proponents decline to adopt them.

FINDINGS

1. The City of Redding has determined that an addendum is warranted, finding that none of the above conditions are in evidence and that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City, that the proposal will have a significant effect on the environment.

2. The Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City of Redding.

PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
Pursuant to Section 15164(c) of CEQA, an addendum does not require circulation for public review.

Copies of the Addendum, the Environmental Impact Report, and the original Initial Study may be obtained at the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Redding, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001. Contact Lily Toy at (530) 245.7231. ____________________________ ___________________________ Date Lily Toy, Planning Manager
Development Services Department
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: ^Addendum to Westridge EIR (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962))

RECORDING REQUESTED BY

CITY OF REDDING

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY CLERK

CITY OF REDDING
777 CYPRESS AVENUE
REDDING, CALIFORNIA 96001

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE

CITY OF REDDING AND
Greenview Development Company and Mark Guiton

RELATIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS
Westridge Master Plan
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is entered into this 17th day of October, 2024 (the “Effective Date”), between Greenview Development Company, a California corporation and Mark Guiton, an Unmarried Individual, (“Developers”), and the CITY OF REDDING, a municipal corporation, (“City”), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code of the State of California.

RECITALS:

A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864, et seq., of the California Government Code (the “Development Agreement Statute”).

B. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes the City to enter into a property development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such real property in order to establish certain development rights in the real property.

C. This Agreement is voluntarily entered into in consideration of the benefits to and the rights and obligations of the parties on the basis of the facts cited herein, understanding and intentions of the parties, and in reliance upon the various representations and warranties contained herein.
(Exempt from Recording Fees
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 27383 – Benefits City)

Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) D. Greenview Development Company, Developer is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California and is in good standing thereunder. Mark Guiton, Developer, is an Unmarried Individual.

E. Developers own in fee that certain parcels of land (the “Project Site”) as more specifically described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto.

F. Developers intend to develop the Project Site as the Westridge Master Planned Development (the “Project”).

G. The Project Site is located in the City and consists of a total of approximately 350 acres of land.

H. The Project Site is located in West Redding at the intersection of Placer Road and Thompson Lane as shown on Exhibit “A”.

I. The General Plan designates the area in which the Subject Property is located as Residential, 2 to 3.5 units per acre and Greenway.

J. Developers seek to comply with conditions of approval associated with the various tentative maps and develop the Subject Property in accordance with the land use policies and goals set forth in the City’s General Plan and with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

K. Developers presently contemplate not to apply for density increases for the Project, and the City presently contemplates not to revise the maximum density increase for the Project, and the City presently contemplates not to revise the maximum density and dwelling unit totals established by the Development Plan for the Project for the term of this Agreement, thus ensuring that appropriate facilities and services are planned and implemented.

L. Pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute, a City may establish procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements. The City, by adopting Redding Municipal Code Section 18.20, et seq., (City Enacting Ordinance) adopted such procedures and requirements, and the parties hereto desire to enter into such a development agreement pursuant thereto.

M. The Application for this Agreement was considered by the City at (a) duly noticed public hearing(s) in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and the City Enacting Ordinance.

N. For the reasons recited herein, the City has determined that the Project is a development for which this Agreement is appropriate under the Development Agreement Statute and City Enacting Ordinance.

O. This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and securing orderly development of the Project Site, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide public services appropriate to each stage of development of the Project Site, ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within the City at the least economic cost to its citizens, and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Statue was enacted.

P. In exchange for the benefits to the City, contained herein, the City has taken or will take all actions required so that Developers may begin and consummate development of the Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Project, including the approval, adoption or issuance of necessary development permits, and the future ministerial approval of building plans and ministerial issuance of final maps, appropriate building permits, lot line adjustments, and other necessary or desired approvals and entitlements which are consistent with the development of the Project (collectively, the “Ministerial Approvals”).

Q. In exchange for the benefits to City, Developers desire to receive the assurance that they may proceed with the Project in accordance with the existing land use ordinances, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, and to secure the benefits afforded Developers by Government Code Section 65865.3.

R. It is the intent of the parties that all acts referred to in this Agreement shall be accomplished in such a way as to fully comply with CEQA, the Development Agreement Statute, the City Enacting Ordinance, Conditions of Approval and the Development Permits.

S. The terms of this Agreement support the vital and best interests of the City ensuring the development of the Project, which will provide additional property tax revenue for the City and increase the housing stock.

T. The City has an expressed interest in ensuring the provisions of regional- and community-level infrastructure and in pursuing the use of development agreements as a method whereby a level of assurance can be achieved concerning the service demands within planned communities so that long-range plans for needed infrastructure can be developed and implemented.

U. This Agreement is made and entered into in consideration of the mutual covenants and in reliance upon the various representations and warranties contained herein. The parties acknowledge that, in reliance on the agreements, representations, and warranties contained herein, Developers will take certain actions, including making substantial investment and expenditures of monies, relative to the Project Site and the development thereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties herein contained, the parties agree as follows:

A G R E E M E N T:

SECTION 1. GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

The parties acknowledge that: (a) the City, which has adopted a valid General Plan, has entered into this Agreement pursuant to the Development Agreement Legislation and its police power in order to address public health, safety, and general welfare concerns, including those relating to the amount, density, intensity, and timing of development within the Subject Property, and the need for public facilities and infrastructure in connection with the Subject Property and other property in the area; (b) there is a certain authority under the police power to address public health and safety concerns that cannot be legally relinquished or restricted by this Agreement and that such authority intended to be reserved and hereby is reserved to City hereunder, provided that to the extent possible it shall be construed as to provide Developers with the assurances intended by this Agreement; and (c) nothing herein shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by the City of its power of eminent domain.

Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) SECTION 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

2.01 Property Description. The legal description of the Subject Property is specifically set forth on Exhibit “B” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

2.02 Location of Subject Property. The Subject Property is located in the City and consists of a total of approximately 350 acres of which Greenview Development Company owns approximately 274 acres and Mark Guiton owns approximately 76 acres.

2.03 Effective Date. This Agreement has been entered into by the parties as of the date and year first above-written and shall be effective as of such date (“Effective Date”).

2.04 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall extend for a total of ten (10) years thereafter, should all milestones set forth in the Milestone Phasing Plan on Exhibit “C” are achieved, unless said term is otherwise terminated, modified, or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the parties. The City and Developers agree that the term of this Agreement is necessary in order to permit the orderly and planned development of the Project.

2.05 Expiration of Term. Following the expiration of said term, the Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect without the need of further documentation from the parties hereto.

2.06 Time is of the essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof.

2.07 Enforceability of Agreement. City and Developers agree that unless this Agreement is amended or terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter in any applicable general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, Existing Rules, or any other land use ordinances or building ordinances, resolutions, or ordinances or other regulations adopted by the City which change, alter, or amend the Existing Rules applicable to the development of the Project Site at the time of the approval of this Agreement as provided by Government Code Sections 65866 and 65867.5. This Agreement shall not prevent City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent development project application by a third party not a successor-ininterest hereto on the basis of such existing or new rules, regulations and policies.

2.08 Further Assurances. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement in order to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder.

2.09 Singular and Plural; Gender. As used herein, and except where the context requires otherwise, the singular of any word includes the plural and vice versa, and pronouns implying the masculine gender shall include the feminine gender and vice versa.

2.10 Covenants Run With The Land. All of the terms, provisions, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns, and all other persons or entities acquiring all or any portion of the Subject Property, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and the rights thereof shall inure to the benefit of such parties and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns.

Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962))

2.11 Enforcement of Covenants. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California.

2.12 Constructive Notice. Every person who now or hereafter owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Project or the Subject Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Project or the Subject Property.

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS.

Reference in this Agreement to any of the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below for each such term.

3.01 Approvals. Any and all permits or approvals of any kind or character required under the terms of this Agreement to develop the Subject Property in the manner as described herein.

3.02 Building Ordinances. Those building standards, of general application and not imposed solely with respect to the Subject Property, in effect from time to time that govern building and construction standards, including, without limitation, the City's building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, grading, swimming, pool, sign, and fire codes.

3.03 CEQA. CEQA means the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.), as each is amended from time to time.

3.04 City. City of Redding, State of California.

3.05 Development. The subdivision or improvement of the Subject Property for purposes of constructing the structures, improvements, and facilities comprising the Project including, without limitation: grading, the construction and installation of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project, whether located within or outside the Subject Property; the construction of structures and building; and the installation of landscape; but not including the maintenance, repair, reconstruction, or redevelopment of any structures, improvements or facilities after the construction and completion thereof.

3.06 Development Agreement Legislation. Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Effective Date.

3.07 Development Approval(s). Site-specific permits and other entitlements to use of every kind and nature approved or granted by the City in connection with the Development including, but not limited to: subdivision approvals (including tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, final maps, parcel maps, and map waivers), development permits, conditional use permits, variances, oak tree permits, grading permits, building permits, and occupancy permits.

3.08 Development Fees. All City adopted fees and monetary exactions that are designed to pay for new or expanded public facilities needed to serve, or to mitigate the adverse effects of, a given development project and that are imposed by the City as a condition of approval Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) of discretionary or ministerial permits for, or in connection with the implementation of, that development project. The term "Development Fees" does not include processing fees and charges as described in this Agreement. The term "Development Fees" also does not include requirements that development be served by a public utility even if that public utility imposes a capital improvement fee or similar charge as a condition of providing service. All development fees shall be deposited in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66006.

3.09 Director. Development Services Department Director of the City of Redding.

3.10 Enacting Ordinance. Ordinance No. [XXX] enacted by the City Council on [date], approving this Agreement.

3.11 Exactions. All exactions, in-lieu fees or payments, dedication or reservation requirements, obligations for on-site or off-site improvements, construction requirements for public improvements, facilities, or services called in connection with the development of or construction on the Subject Property, whether such requirements constitute subdivision improvements, mitigation measures in connection with environmental review of any project, or impositions made under any applicable ordinance or in order to make a project approval consistent with the land use policies of the City's future General Plan.

3.12 Existing Land Use Ordinances. The Land Use Ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

3.13 General Plan. The City of Redding General Plan as duly adopted by the City Council.

3.14 Land Use Ordinances. The ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of City, governing the development of the Subject Property, including but not limited to, the permitted uses of land, the density and intensity of use of land, exactions, and the timing of development, all as applicable to the development of the Subject Property. Specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Land Use Ordinances shall include the City's General Plan, the Development Plan, the City's Zoning Code and the City's Subdivision Code. The term Land Use Ordinances does not include Regulations relating to the following: the conduct of business, professions and occupations generally; taxes and assessments; the control and abatement of nuisances; encroachment and other permits and the conveyances of rights and interests that provide for the use of or entry upon public property; and any exercise of the power of eminent domain.

3.15 Persons. As used herein, any reference to or use of the word "person" shall mean, in addition to a natural person, any governmental entity and any partnership, corporation, joint venture or any other form of business entity.

3.16 Project. The Westridge Master Plan Area, including Tentative Subdivision Map S-2018-00938, Westridge Estates Unit 1 Subdivision, Tentative Subdivision Map S-4-04 Westridge Estates Unit 2 Subdivision, Tentative Subdivision Map S-19-03 Westridge Estates Unit 3 Subdivision, as shown on attached Exhibits “D1,” “D2,” and “D3.” and associated amenities, and on-site and off-site improvements, contemplated by or embodied within the Westridge Master Plan to be constructed on the Subject Property, as the same may hereafter be further refined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962))

3.17 Regulations. Constitutions, statutes, City ordinances, and codes, City resolutions and official policies of the City.

3.18 Subject Property. That real property described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3.19 Certain Other Terms. Certain other terms shall have the meanings set forth for such terms in this Agreement.

SECTION 4. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

4.01 Project. The Project is defined and described as shown on the Tentative Subdivision Maps for Westridge Estates 1, Westridge Estates 2 and Westridge Estates 3, and the Conditions of Approval associated with each Tentative Subdivision Map, which specify all of the following aspects of the Project: (i) proposed uses of the Subject Property, (ii) density and intensity of use of the property; (iii) lot sizes and layouts of the tentative subdivisions; (iv) street alignments and necessary public improvements; and (v) requirements for reservation or dedication of portions of the Subject Property for public purposes.

4.02 General Development. Any development of the Project on the Project Site shall be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

4.03 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Project Site, the density and intensity of use, lot sizes and layouts of the tentative subdivisions, street alignments and necessary improvements, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and location of public improvements, and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Project Site shall be those set forth as shown on the Tentative Maps for Westridge Estates 1, Westridge Estates 2 and Westridge Estates 3 subject to the following:
(a) Conditions of Approval for each Tentative Subdivision Map, attached as Exhibits “E1,” “E2,” and “E3.”
(b) The City is bound with respect to the uses permitted by this Agreement, and as set forth in the Development Permits, insofar as this Agreement and the Westridge Estates 1, 2, and 3 Tentative Subdivision Maps so provide or as otherwise set forth in applicable laws, ordinances, rules or regulations.

4.04 Future Approvals. The City hereby agrees that land uses set forth in the Development Permits are approved pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, provided that Developers satisfactorily comply with all preliminary procedures, actions, payments and criteria applicable as of the effective date of this Agreement and generally required of developers by the City for processing applications for developments at such time. City agrees to grant and implement the necessary land use, zoning, site plan or subdivision approvals and to grant other approvals and permits, including the Ministerial Approvals, that will accomplish or facilitate development of the Project Site for the uses and to the density or intensity of development described and shown in the Development Permits and/or this Agreement pursuant to those rules, regulation policies and conditions in force on the effective date of this Agreement.

4.05 Applicable Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or as required by state or federal law, the rules, regulations, official policies, and conditions of approval governing the permitted uses of the Project Site, the density or intensity of use, and the design, improvement, construction, building and occupancy standards Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) and specifications applicable to the Project and the Project Site shall be those in force on the effective date this Agreement ("Existing Rules"). The City shall have the right to impose reasonable conditions in connection with such subsequent discretionary permit actions which are not deemed Ministerial Approvals, but such conditions and actions shall not prevent development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement and the Development Permits.

4.06 Amendment to Applicable Ordinances. In the event the City Zoning Code is amended by the City in a manner which provides more favorable site development standards than those in effect as of the Effective Date, Developers shall have the right to notify City in writing of their desire to be subject to the new standards for the remaining term of this Agreement. If City agrees, by resolution of the City Council or by action of a City official whom the City Council may designate, such new standards shall become applicable to the Subject property. Should City thereafter amend such new standards, upon the effective date of such amendment, the original new standards shall have no further application to the Subject Property, but Developers may notify City and City may agree by resolution to apply such amended new standards to the Property.

4.07 Application of New Rules, Regulations and Policies. This Agreement shall not prevent City in subsequent actions applicable to the Subject Property from applying new rules, regulations and policies which do not conflict with those rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the Subject Property and set forth herein; nor shall this Agreement prevent City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent development project application on the basis of such existing or new rules, regulations, and policies.

4.08 Approval of Subsequent Tentative and Final Maps. Although the Existing Land Use Ordinances shall determine the standards for granting or withholding approval of Tentative, Vesting Tentative and Final Tract Maps and Vesting Tentative and Tentative Final Parcel Maps, the procedures for processing approval of all such Maps shall be governed by such ordinances and regulations as may then be applicable.

4.09 Changes in State and Federal Rules and Regulations. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the application to the development of the Subject Property of changes in the City's laws, regulations, plans or policies, the terms of which are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations as provided in Government Code Section 65869.5.

4.10 Processing and Impact Fees. This Agreement shall not be construed to limit the authority of the City to charge processing fees for land use approvals, building permits or other similar permits or entitlements which are in force and effect on a citywide basis at the time application is made for such permits or entitlements or to charge impact fees at the time of certificate of occupancies.

SECTION 5. PERIODIC REVIEW.

City shall conduct a review of this Agreement as set forth in the following subsections.

5.01 Annual Review. City shall review the extent of good faith compliance by Developers with the terms of this Agreement at least once every 12-month period from the Effective Date of this Agreement.

5.02 Procedure. Such annual review shall be conducted in accordance with the City's duly adopted Development Agreement Procedures, Redding Municipal Code Section 18.20.

Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962))

5.03 Notice. City shall notify Developers in writing of the date of review at least thirty (30) days prior thereto.

5.04 Good-faith Compliance. During each annual review, Developers are required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement.

5.05 Production of Documents and Other Evidence. Developers agree to furnish such reasonable evidence and adequate documentation of good faith compliance as the City, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require.

5.06 Cost of Annual Review. The costs incurred by City in connection with the annual review shall be borne by Developers.

SECTION 6. OBLIGATIONS OF AND CONTRIBUTIONS BY DEVELOPERS.

6.01 Contributions. In consideration of City entering into this Agreement, Developers have agreed to comply with the applicable provisions of the Westridge 1, 2, and 3 Tentative Subdivision Maps in developing the Project and to perform certain obligations and provide certain contributions set forth therein, which City acknowledges will have an overall benefit to the public and surrounding area, including but not limited to:

Recordation of the Final recordation of Westridge Estate 1 by October 17, 2029.

Construction of Spicewood Drive to Placer Street, to standards approved by the City Engineer, prior to October 17, 2029. Completion of the Everest Fire Access Road with Unit 105 in the Westridge Master Plan area versus with the first lot as conditioned. These items with timelines are shown in Exhibit “C” as prepared by the City of Redding. Any Final Map recordation shall not include any bond/s to exceed $250,000.00.

6.02 Nexus/Reasonable Relationship Challenges. The Developers consent to, and waive any rights they may have now or in the future to challenge the legal validity of, the conditions, requirements, policies or programs required by the Existing Land Use Regulations or this Agreement including, without limitation, any claim that they constitute an abuse of the police power, violate substantive due process, deny equal protection of the laws, effect a taking of property without payment of just compensation, or impose an unlawful tax. In the event any other party may challenge the legal validity of such conditions, requirements, policies or programs required by the Existing Land Use Regulations and/or this Agreement, Developers specifically waive any right they may have to modification of any terms of this Agreement based on the results of any such challenge by any other party.

6.03 Cooperation by Developers. Developers will, in a timely manner, provide City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder, and cause Developers’ planners, engineers, and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all required materials and documents therefore.

6.04 Other Governmental Permits. Developers shall apply in a timely manner for such other permits and approvals from other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Subject Property as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project.

6.05 Reimbursement for City's Efforts on Behalf of Developers. To the extent that City, on behalf of Developers, attempts to enter into binding agreements with other entities in order to ensure the availability of certain permits and approvals or services necessary for development Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) of the Project as described in this Agreement, Developers shall reimburse City for all costs and expenses incurred in connection with seeking and entering into any such agreement. Any fees, assessments or other amounts payable by City pursuant to any such agreement described herein shall be borne by Developers except where Developers have notified City in writing, prior to City entering into such agreement, that they do not desire for City to execute such agreement.

6.06 City's Efforts to Defend and/or Enforce Multi Agency Agreements. Developers shall defend City in any challenge by any person to any such agreement, and shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses incurred by City in enforcing any such agreement.

SECTION 7. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY.

In consideration of Developers entering into this Agreement, City have agreed to the following with respect to the development of the Project Site:

7.01 Processing. Upon satisfactory completion by Developers of all required preliminary actions and payments of appropriate processing fees, if any, City shall promptly commence and diligently proceed to complete all required steps necessary for the implementation of this Agreement and the development by Developers of the Project Site in accordance with the approved Westridge 1, 2, and 3 Tentative Subdivision Maps including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) the holding of all required public hearings; and
(b) the processing and approval of all Ministerial Approvals and related matters as necessary for the completion of the development of the Project. In this regard, Developers will, in a timely manner, provide City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder as required by the Existing Rules and shall cause Developers’ planners, engineers and all other consultants to submit in a timely and complete manner, as determined by City, all required materials and documents therefore as required by the Existing Rules.

7.02 Standard of Review. The rules, regulations and policies that apply to any Ministerial Approvals which must be secured prior to the construction of any portion of the Project shall be the Existing Rules. Any Ministerial Approval, including without limitation a building permit, shall be approved by the City within a reasonable period of time after a complete application is made therefore.

SECTION 8. AMENDMENTS.

8.01 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the original parties or their successors in interest, with City's costs payable by amendment applicants, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65867 and 65868 and provided that: (i) any amendment to this Agreement which does not relate to the term, permitted uses, density or intensity of use, height or size of buildings, provisions for reservation and dedication of land, conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements relating to subsequent discretionary actions, monetary contributions by Developers or any conditions or covenants relating to the use of the Subject Property, shall not require notice or public hearing before the parties may execute an amendment hereto; and (ii) any other amendment of this Agreement shall follow the City's adopted procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements.

Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962))

8.02 Amendment Exemptions. Any amendment of the City's land use regulations that, pursuant to this Agreement, is applicable to the property, including, but not limited to, an amendment to the General Plan and zoning ordinances, shall not require an amendment to this Agreement. Instead, any such amendment shall be deemed to be incorporated into this Agreement at the time that such amendment is approved.

8.03 Amendment of Development Permits. Upon the written request of Developers, the Westridge 1, 2, and 3 Tentative Subdivision Maps may from time to time be amended or modified in the manner set forth in this Agreement and applicable State and City laws. Said amendments will have no bearing on the agreed upon dates and milestones agreed to in the Development Agreement unless explicitly agreed to in said amendment.

SECTION 9. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS.

9.01 City's Intent. Developers have demonstrated, and the City finds that Developers possesses, the experience, reputation and financial resources to develop and maintain the Subject Property in the manner contemplated by this Agreement. It is because of such qualifications, which ensure the development of the Subject Property to a high-quality standard contemplated by the General Plan that the City is entering into this Agreement. Accordingly, restrictions on the right of Developers to assign or transfer the rights and privileges contained in this Agreement are necessary in order to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the City's General Plan and this Agreement.

9.02 Developers’ Right to Assign or Transfer. Developers may assign or transfer any of their rights or interests under this Agreement subject to written consent of City.

9.03 Restriction on Assignment Does Not Constitute an Unreasonable Restraint on Alienation. Developers agree that the restriction on their right to transfer any of their rights or interests under this Agreement is not repugnant or unreasonable in that such a restriction is a material inducement to the City to enter into this Agreement since the restriction reserves for the City the power to prevent the transfer of any of the rights and obligations hereunder to an unreliable developer.

9.04 Restriction on Assignment Shall Not Prevent Developers From Conveying the Subject Property. The parties agree that the restriction on assignment without consent is limited solely to those certain vested rights created under this Agreement and such restriction shall not affect Developers’ right to convey the Subject Property itself. In such event, this Development Agreement will become null and void unless the City agrees, in writing, to the assignment.

9.05 Request Procedure. City shall administer the provisions of this Section through its Development Services Department Director. Developers shall notify the Director and the City Manager in writing of their request for City's consent to an assignment or transfer under this Section, together with a statement that if the Director does not notify Developers within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the request, the request will be deemed approved unless the Director notifies the Developers of a need for an extension of time to complete due diligence on the party to receive the assignment. Extensions shall be no more than forty-five (45) days and there shall be a limit of three (3) total extensions allowed.

9.06 45-Day Period. If within such 45-day period the Director does not so notify Developers, the request for consent shall automatically be deemed approved and no further action by Developers or the City shall be necessary. If within such 45-day period the Director notifies Developers that the request will be considered and acted upon by City, Developers shall furnish Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) such additional information as the Director may reasonably request at the time of such notice, and City shall proceed to consider and act upon the Developers’ request for City's consent to the proposed assignment or transfer. Failure by the City to act within thirty (30) days of giving such notice or of receiving the additional requested information shall automatically be deemed an approval of the request.

9.07 City Council Approval. In the event the Director determines that the assignment or transfer should be acted upon by the City Council, and the Director so notifies Developers within fifteen (15) days of giving the notice or receiving the information described herein, the matter shall be referred to the City Council. The City Council shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of such notice to approve or deny the requested transfer or assignment. Failure of City to act within the forty-five (45) day period shall automatically be deemed an approval of the request.

9.08 Assignment. The management control and responsibility of Developers and the expertise, competence, and financial strength of Developers are integral components of the consideration for City entering into this Agreement. In order to preserve such consideration for City and for City to receive full value, the parties hereto agree that the occurrence of any of the following events constitute, for purposes of this provision, an assignment:
(a) A change in the composition of ownership interests in and control of either Developer, the result of which diminishes Developers’ ownership interest to less than twenty percent (20%). (b) A change in the composition of ownership interests in and control of the Subject Property such that Developers’ equity in any part of the Subject Property is reduced to less than fifty-one percent (51%).

9.09 Notice of Proposed Assignment. Developers must provide City with adequate evidence that the proposed assignee, buyer or transferee is qualified using the standards and conditions described in this Section, and ability to comply with these standards and conditions will be the test of reasonableness.

9.10 Conditions and Standards. The conditions and standards referred to above are as follows:
(a) Such assignee or transferee possesses the experience, reputation and financial resources to cause the Subject Property to be developed and maintained in the manner contemplated by the City's General Plan and this Agreement; (b) Such assignee or transferee enters into a written assumption agreement, in form and content satisfactory to the City Attorney, expressly assuming and agreeing to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement;
(c) Such assignment or transfer will not impair the ability of City to achieve the objectives of its general Plan and this Agreement;
(d) Good cause exists for Developers to make such assignment or transfer. For purposes of this subsection, good cause shall include but is not limited to such causes as business reorganizations, financing arrangements for the development of the Subject Property, and exigent circumstances creating the need to generate capital to offset material business losses.

9.11 Financing Exemption. Mortgages, deeds of trust, sales and lease-backs, or other forms of conveyance required for any reasonable method of financing requiring a security Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) arrangement with respect to the Subject Property are permitted without the consent of the City, provided the City receives prior notice of such financing (including the name and address of the lender and the person or entities acquiring any such secured interest) and Developers retain the legal and equitable interest in the Subject Property and remains fully responsible hereunder. The words "mortgage" and "deed of trust," as used herein, include all other appropriate modes of financing real estate acquisition, construction and land development.

9.12 Notice of Assignment. Upon receiving approval of an assignment, Developers shall provide City with written notice of such assignment and as part of such notice the assignee must execute and deliver to City an assumption agreement in which the name and address of the assignee is set forth and the assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes the obligations of all the provisions set forth in the Agreement.

9.13 Unapproved Assignments. If City reasonably makes the determination not to consent to the assignment or transfer of the rights and privileges contained in this Agreement, and Developers convey the Subject Property to a third party, in whole or in part, Developers shall remain liable and responsible for all of the duties and obligations of this Agreement.

9.14 Notice of Sale of Subject Property. Developers shall give written notice to the city, within ten (10) days after close of escrow, of any sale or transfer of any portion of the Subject Property, specifying the name or names of the purchaser, the purchaser's mailing address, the amount and location of the land sold or transferred, and the name and address of a single person or entity to whom any notice relating to this Agreement shall be given. Such sale or transfer, if not done in accordance with this section, shall render this Development Agreement null and void.

SECTION 10. DELAYS IN PERFORMANCE.

10.01 Permitted Delays. In addition to any other provisions of this Agreement with respect to delay, Developers and City shall be excused for performance of their obligations hereunder during any period of delay caused by acts of God or civil commotion, riots, strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies, or damage to or prevention of work in process by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other casualties, litigation, acts or neglect of the other party, or restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental or quasi-governmental entities, enactment of conflicting provisions of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America or the State of California or any codes, statutes, regulations or executive mandates promulgated thereunder.

10.02 Third Party Actions. Any court action or proceeding brought by any third party to challenge this Agreement, or any other permit or approval required from City or any other governmental entity for development or construction of all or any portion of the Project, whether or not Developers are a party to or real party in interest in such action or proceeding, shall constitute a Permitted Delay under this Section.

10.03 Notice of Permitted Delays. If written notice of such delay is given to either party within (30) days of the commencement of such delay, an extension of time for such cause shall be granted in writing for the period of the enforced delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon.

SECTION 11. DEFAULT.

11.01 Events of Default. Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, and subject to the provisions of the Section regarding Permitted Delays, the failure or unreasonable delay by either party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement for a period of Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) thirty (30) days after the dispatch of a written notice of default from the other party shall constitute a default under this Agreement. If the nature of the alleged default is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such 30-day period, the commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure shall be deemed a cure within such period.

11.02 Notice of Default. Any Notice of Default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the alleged Event of Default and the manner in which such Event of Default may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

11.03 Cure Period. During the time periods herein specified for cure of an Event of Default, the party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of termination of this Agreement, institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or issuance of any building permit with respect to the Project.

11.04 General Default Remedies. After notice and expiration of the 30-day period without cure, the non-defaulting party shall have such rights and remedies against the defaulting party as it may have at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, the right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65868 or seek mandamus, specific performance, injunctive or declaratory relief.

11.05 Remedies Cumulative. Any rights or remedies available to non-defaulting party under this Agreement and any other rights or remedies that such party may have at law or in equity upon a default by the other party under this Agreement shall be distinct, separate and cumulative rights and remedies available to such non-defaulting party and none of such rights or remedies, whether or not exercised by the non-defaulting party, shall be deemed to exclude any other rights or remedies available to the non-defaulting party. The non-defaulting party may, in its discretion, exercise any and all of its rights and remedies, at once or in succession, at such time or times as the non-defaulting party considers appropriate.

11.06 Legal Action. Either party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy a default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, or enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the parties hereto.

11.07 No Damages Relief Against City. The parties acknowledge that City would not have entered into this Agreement had it been exposed to damage claims from Developers for any breach thereof. As such, the parties agree that in no event shall Developers be entitled to recover damages against City for breach of this Agreement.

11.08 Developers Default. No building permit shall be issued or building permit application accepted for any structure on the Subject Property after Developers are determined by City, to be in default of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and until such default thereafter is cured by the Developers or is waived by City.

11.09 Waiver. All waivers must be in writing to be effective or binding upon the waiving party, and no waiver shall be implied from any omission by a party to take any action with respect to such Event of Default. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party shall not constitute waiver of such party's right to demand strict compliance by such other party in the future.

11.10 Scope of Waiver. No express written waiver of any Event of Default shall affect any other Event of Default, or cover any other period of time specified in such express waiver.

Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962))

11.11 Attorneys' Fees. Should legal action be brought by the City for breach of this Agreement or to enforce any provision herein, the City if it is the prevailing party of such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and such other costs as may be fixed by the court. Reasonable attorneys' fees of the City Attorney's Office shall be based on comparable fees or private attorneys practicing in Shasta County.

11.12 Venue. In the event that suit shall be brought by either party to this contract, the parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the State courts of the County of Shasta or where appropriate, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento, California.

SECTION 12. TERMINATION.

12.01 Effect of Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, the rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereunder shall, subject to the following provisions, cease as of the date of such termination.

12.02 Termination by City. If City terminates this Agreement because of Developers’ default, then City shall retain any and all benefits, including money or land received by City hereunder.

SECTION 13. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES.

13.01 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project Site is a separately undertaken private development.

13.02 Independent Contractors. The parties agree that the Project is a private development and that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder.

13.03 No Joint Venture or Partnership. City and Developers hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making City and Developers joint venturers or partners.

13.04 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. The only parties to this Agreement are Developers and City. There are no third-party beneficiaries and this Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed, to benefit, or be enforceable by any other person whatsoever.

13.05 Ambiguities or Uncertainties. The parties hereto have mutually negotiated the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and this has resulted in a product of the joint drafting efforts of both parties. Neither party is solely or independently responsible for the preparation or form of this agreement. Therefore, any ambiguities or uncertainties are not to be construed against or in favor of either party.

SECTION 14. APPLICABLE LAW.

This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) SECTION 15. SUPERSEDURE OF SUBSEQUENT LAWS OF JUDICIAL
ACTION.

The provisions of this Agreement shall, to the extent feasible, be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with any new law or decision issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, enacted or made after the effective date which prevents or precludes compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement. Immediately after enactment of any such new law, or issuance of such decision, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of any such modification or suspension based on the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Agreement.

SECTION 16. COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE.

In the event of any legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any third party (including a governmental entity or official) challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Potential Subsequent Development Approvals, should any be obtained, the parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending said action or proceeding.

SECTION 17. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT.

Developers hereby agree to, and shall defend, save and hold City and its elected and appointed boards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees harmless from, any and all claims, costs and liability for any damages, personal injury or death, which may arise, directly or indirectly, from Developers’ or Developers’ contractors', subcontractors', agents or employees' operations under this Agreement, whether such negligent operations be by Developers or by any of Developers’ contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees.

SECTION 18. INDEMNIFICATION.

Developers shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City and its agents, officers and employees against and from any and all liabilities, demands, claims, actions or proceedings and costs and expenses incidental thereto (including costs of defense, settlement and reasonable attorneys' fees), which any or all of them may suffer, incur, be responsible for or pay out as a result of or in connection with any challenge to the legality, validity or adequacy of any of the following:
(i) this Agreement; (ii) the environmental impact report prepared in connection with the adoption of the Project; and (iii) the proceedings undertaken in connection with the adoption or approval of any of the above.

SECTION 19. NOTICES.

Any notice or communication required hereunder between City or Developers shall be in writing, and may be given either personally or by registered mail, return-receipt requested. Notice, whether given by registered mail or personal delivery, shall be deemed to have been given and received on the actual receipt by any of the addresses designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent. Any party hereto may at any time, upon written notice to the other party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below:

Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) To City:

City Manager
City of Redding
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, California 96001
To Developers:

Developers
SECTION 20. EXHIBITS.

20.01 Designation of Exhibits. The reference to a specified Exhibit in this Agreement is a reference to a certain one of the exhibits listed below, as determined by the accompanying letter designation.

Exhibit Designation Description
Exhibit A Location Map
Exhibit B Property Legal Descriptions
Exhibit C Milestone Phasing Plan
Exhibit D1 Westridge Estates 1 Tentative Subdivision Map Exhibit D2 Westridge Estates 2 Tentative Subdivision Map Exhibit D3 Westridge Estates 3 Tentative Subdivision Map Exhibit E1 Westridge Estates 1 Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions of Approval
Exhibit E2 Westridge Estates 2 Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions of Approval
Exhibit E3 Westridge Estates 3 Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions of Approval

20.02 Incorporation by Reference. All exhibits are deemed incorporated by reference into this Agreement.

SECTION 21. SEVERABILITY.

If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this Agreement as so invalidated would be unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all the circumstances or would frustrate the purposes of this Agreement.

SECTION 22. RECORDATION.

In order to comply with Section 65868.5 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section of the City Enacting Ordinance, the parties do hereby direct the City Manager to cause a copy of this Agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder of the County, within ten (10) days after passage by the City of the ordinance approving this Agreement.

SECTION 23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.

Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contain all the representations and the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto, any prior correspondence, memoranda, agreements, warranties or representations are superseded in total by this Agreement and Exhibits hereto.

SECTION 24. COUNTERPARTS.

This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterpart originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

Executed at Redding, California on
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed as of the dates written above.

DEVELOPER * see notes below
By By
Tenessa Audette, Mayor [Name of Officer, Title]

By
[Name of Officer, Title]
CONTENT APPROVED:

CITY OF REDDING DEVELOPER
By By
Tenessa Audette, Mayor [Name of Officer, Title]
By
[Name of Officer, Title]
FORM APPROVED: ATTEST:

Christian Curtis, City Attorney Sharlene Tipton, City Clerk * Notes: If the Developer is a Corporation, then this document must be executed by the Corporation's Chief Executive Officer, President or Vice-President, on the one hand, and the Corporations' Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer or Secretary on the other hand. Developer's signature must be notarized.

Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Placer Rd
Buenaventura Blvd
Teton Dr
Sunglow Dr
Power Line Rd
Record Ln
Cumberland Dr
Boston Ave
Wa
satch Dr
Tralee Ln
Lake Dr
Wicklow St Oconner Ave
Dream St
Villa Dr
Oak Glen Dr
Siskiyou S
t
Moyv
a
ne D
r
Meander Dr
Misty Glen Dr
Everest Dr
Crescent Moon Ct
Dartmouth Dr
Andes Dr
Winte
r Green Ct
Rainier D
r
Rush
m
ore Dr
Rut
gers
P
Na
l
ntucket Dr
Campo Calle
Thompson Ln
MTG. DATE:

ITEM:

ATTACHMENT:

LOCATION MAP GIS DIVISION

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
DATE PRODUCED:

P:\Housing\ProProjects\9489_Placer Street_Loc - AUGUST 13, 2024 GREENVIEW DEVELOPMENT/GUITON AGREE-2024-00962
0 500 1,000
US Feet
9489 Placer Rd
203-160-019
16989 Campo Calle St
203-170-002
3000 Dartmouth Dr
204-430-011
2286 Adirondack Dr
204-430-014
950 Canyon Creek Rd
203-190-022
16991 Campo Calle St
203-170-001

EXHIBIT A
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962))

EXHIBIT B

PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
WR I
APN: 203-160-019
PARCEL 1 SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 98-01 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OCTOBER 10, 2000 IN BOOK 33 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 72, SHASTA COUNTY RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS LYING WITHIN PARCELS 1 AND 2 SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. PM-18-001 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER MAY 9, 2023 IN BOOK 40 OF PARCEL MAPS PAGE 3, SHASTA COUNTY

RECORDS
WR II
APN: 203-170-001 & 203-170-002
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONEQUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 31 NORTH, RANGE S WEST, M.D.B. & M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINNE OF SAID SECTION.9, SOUTHERLY, 660.00 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINNE OF SAID SECTION 9, WESTERLY 132.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS PARCEL; THENCE PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE, SOUTHERLY 330.00 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE, WESTERLY, 132.00 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE, NORTHERLY, 330.00 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE, EASTERLY, 132.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

WR III
APN: 203-190-022
THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 31 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST, M.D.B. & M.

APN: 204-430-011
THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN AS "DESIGNATED REMAINDER" ON THE MAP OF RIDGEVIEW SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 6, S-19-87, AS SHOWN AND

DESIGNATED UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 IN BOOK 20 OF MAPS AT PAGE 3, SHASTA COUNTY RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962))

FEET MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE CONTOUR OF THE SURF ACE OF SAID

LAND, WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON, INTO OR THROUGH THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND OR ANY PART THEREOF LYING BETWEEN SAID SURF ACE AND 500

FEET BELOW SAID SURF ACE, AS EXCEPTED AND PROVIDED IN THE DEED FROM

SOUTHERN PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

TO DEMPSEY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1977 AND RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1978 IN BOOK 1486, PAGE 497, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO ROBERT G. MEDLEY, ET UX., ET AL., AND RECORDED ON AUGUST 24, 1990 IN BOOK 2633 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 835, SHASTA COUNTY RECORDS.

APN: 204-430-014
SHOWN AND DESIGNATED AS "DEDICATED OPEN SPACE - 14.49 AC" ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF RIDGEVIEW SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 6 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ON MAY 22, 1991 IN BOOK 20 OF MAPS AT PAGE 40 RECORDS OF SHASTA COUNTY.

Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) EXHIBIT “C”

MILESTONE PHASING PLAN
Westridge Master Plan
Task
#
Milestone Task (Complete task for
Extension)
Grant
Extension
Expiration Date
1 Execution of Development Agreement 5 years September 29, 2029 2 (1) Final Map Recordation of WR I
(2) Completion of Spicewood Drive
5 years September 29, 2034
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) EXHIBIT “D1”
WESTRIDGE ESTATES 1

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) EXHIBIT “D1”
WESTRIDGE ESTATES 1

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) EXHIBIT “D2”

WESTRIDGE ESTATES
2 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) NO,
r
I I
I I I
' ' '

PROPOSED
C/L

PROPOSED
R/W

PROPOSED
R/W
, 20· ---l·r�· -20· --------J I
* 6" SIDEWALK .J
ffi
c::.. � 60' RIGHT-OF-WAY ROLLEO CURB
V 40' CURB FACE TO CURB FACE
-
_
WESTRIDGE DR. - SECTI�N ® O�LY
NOTE: 2% CROWN SEC'TION.UNLESS"sHoWN oN•"PLANS
* SIDEWALK ON-SITE ONLY

PROPOSED
R/W
6" SIDEWALK_/
�
1"' =

PROPOSED
C/L
l
18'--J

PROPOSED
R/W
� ROLLED CURB**
56' RIGHT-OF-WAY
36' CURB FACE TO CURB FACE
WESTRIDGE DR. - ROAD "A" TO BOUNDARY
SPICEWOOD DR. - ENTIRE LENGTI-l**
ROAD "A" AND ROAD "B"
NOTE: 2% CROWN SECTION UNLESS SHOWN ON PLANS
** USE VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER ON SP!CEWOOD DRIVE.

REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION DA7E BY 400 O
1 inch = 400 ft.

PROPOSED
R/W
I i---16'

PROPOSED
C/L
16'--j

PROPOSED
R/W
* 6" SIDEWALK_/ L.::..: t =<;:_ ROLLED CURB
E9 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY
32' CURB FACE TO CURB FACE
ROADS "C, D, E, F, G & H"
NOTE: 2% CROWN SECTION UNLESS SHOWN ON PLANS
omni • m��11'11�
ti:NGINE:S:RS PLANNERS
J?£Dl)(NG L.,,,a/lM,r In J.JD Harlm,11 ,t..,_ Suit" 8 ROSE'l1l.1.£ R�d"�g. CA 96002 lfALNUr CREEK
{!ilD} 242-1700 WSAUA
JOB NO. 45-3440-01
3 \
/
/
/

PROPOSED
C/L
\
I
I

PROPOSED
C/L

ROLLED CURB
E9 FLAGLOT DRIVEWAY
24' CURB FACE TO CURB FACE
NOTE: 2% CROWN SECTION UNLESS SHOWN ON PLANS
CANYON CREEK RD.

PROPOSED
C/L
4" AB E9 SEWER ACCES�
14' - AB ONLY
NOlE: 2% CROWN SECTION UNLESS SHOWN ON PLANS
PROPOSED PROPOSED PROP.OSED

RYW C/L R/W
5'
<.· l ;,I "'4-t11 ,,: ,. i I "'
"'i-
"!:.·'
2'� 110'
"'"'i­
--i;.'
10·,�2·
<'.· l
2' AB

SHOULDER
¥4,r
2"AC/6"AB
E9 EMERGENCY ACCESS
20' EP TO EP
NOTE: 2%
_CROWN SECTION UNLESS SHOWN ON PLANS

WESTRIDGE EST ATES S
TENTATIVE MAP S-19-03

TYPCAL SECTIONS
4" AB E9 SE�
E
_

R ACCESS
NOTE: ':&:PP'R'.OVl:D

ON PLANS
Redding City Council
File. ':, -\. <;_ -D � ...,___i ••• ,;�,--�'E?-"'
By =:x, �----M'----'\a'---....

Date \.s,,x'y-G"\ , /21/wt:f'I,
71'?E'oCl"-ltliSP
'
ljz,,/u,cPt
CC, r'l o'
l
'""'"""""'
ITEM ------"-_c:.-,-----'i�- ?-.3 ,�,,
'""""'
1· "' 400'
JH
JH
KM
CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA A TT AC HM ENT K =• 676ThLC_02 """ 05-17-07
EXHIBIT “D3”
WESTRIDGE ESTATES 3

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) NO.
� � 2@ /. � �� v--��/ -�
v:V'::===::':'
# ��
DATE
• � . � .. : .�
..,
100 0
1 inch = 100 ft.
100
.,,.
\
'\ � �¼ I ) ·.

APPROVED
Redding City Council
File S,-\'\.-()s,. '-'.) . ._�<:.�3'§::

By D �«'\�,"-'-<.

Date '-s>�--0\ �/tl/Wcf'/
/�I� I I
�Zo/4url
WESTRIDGE ESTATES 3
TENTATIVE MAP S-19-03
DIMENSIONAL LAYOUT &. UTILITY PL�N

CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA
ITEM

ATTACHMENT
C.C- &/11/01
""""'
JH
JH
KM
ru: tw,E 671ITSI.I-C-03
llllTE 5-17-07
EXHIBIT “D3”
WESTRIDGE ESTATES 3

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962))

REVISIONS
NO. DESCRIPTION
MATCHLJNE - SEE SHEET 1M3
� �W;r ¼ • �.
\

APPROVED
Redding City Council
File S-\ '\- G � "--<.:>�',,\-;;.Js. 'G',N
By � -���<-'\.'--..--<-
•••
Date l, 6-<;::, ')
'7 / z. I ) U>l:('11
♦ INDICA1ES LOTS REQUIRING AN lNDIVDUAL

IN-HOUSE SEWER PUMP STATION
CONNECTING TO SE'nER MAIN. � 1/, ,-...___·-�:- • ,_,,_.. - �� /��/= /
I
OA1E BY
0 0
• \
� -
16,391 SF r!'l ,s.,���� .\ 16,500 SF
_ �- J../;:_J i
5'
100 O 100
1w - el I
1 inch-=· lOO··ft;
MATCHLINE - SEE lHIS. SHEET
omni - m�@1111s
ENGINE:E:RS PLANNERS REDDfNG L<>a1tlon1 ii 330 Horlnl!/1 A\'IO. SUit" 8 ROSEV/UE llllddfn<J, a-1 96002 W.Af.NUr CR£FX
(SJD) 242-1700 �SiWA
JOB NO. 45-3440-01
[ ,,
• B
, 88 SF
�
i
71!� "I
'
' -
. �
..------.. I
WESTRIDGE ESTATES 3
TENTATIVE MAP S-19-03
DIMENSIONAL LAYOUT &. UTILITY PLAN

CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA
�BJ.
25 ! 21,286 S
..?. �I
,.,. ,
• 17,9
6 '
, 1 F \>j
"'
19'
L�-...._.
,
I
r
� In! II
ffEM ,;-_3
1" = 100'
JH
r_/ DIIAWH JH
ATTACHME/.NT�\,_,..�=�w��KM'--i
,-, ('___ {, (O O 1
au: """ 6761SM-C-04
L-- ·1 1),1,1'£ 5-17-07
I
EXHIBIT “D3”
WESTRIDGE ESTATES 3

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) EXHIBIT E1
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) EXHIBIT E2
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) EXHIBIT E3
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962)) Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement with Exhibits (6.1--Development Agreement Application (AGREE-2024-00962))

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept the report on tobacco retailing and provide direction to staff regarding next steps.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact with accepting the report. If the City Council (Council) would like to pursue drafting an ordinance on tobacco retailing, there would be associated staff time costs.

Currently, the Redding Police Department (RPD) is running decoy operations through a grant.

The grant consists of five operations a year with each operation consisting of 10-12 retailer visits per operation - revenue received per operation is $1,500.

If the Council pursues a Tobacco Retail License (TRL) Program that is to be managed and enforced by Code Enforcement, staff would need to further examine cost recovery of the program. In TRL programs, the costs of education, inspections, and enforcement are funded by the cost of the license, and can be supplemented with grants. The cost of the license could fund a full time Code Enforcement position and even an administrative position to process the licenses.

Further examination would be required.

Alternative Action
The Council could choose to not accept the report.

Background/Analysis
On February 6, 2024, staff presented to the Council a report regarding what California (State) laws are in place and what other jurisdictions are doing in regards to tobacco enforcement. Staff presented a broad scope of what the majority of State jurisdictions are doing in regards to tobacco enforcement and specifically what the jurisdictions are doing in Shasta County. The MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024
ITEM NO. 9.1(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.1(a)--Consider report regarding tobacco retailing in the City of Redding.

Jason Gibilisco, Management
Assistant to the City Manager
Packet Pg. 260
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing Page 2 Council accepted the report and advised staff to further canvas State municipalities to determine what is and is not working regarding tobacco enforcement, retailer density, how youth are targeted, and any other information as it relates to tobacco retailers.

Since the previous meeting, the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Use Survey (survey) was released for Shasta County and there is new legislation, that, if signed by the Governor, will increase the fine for selling a tobacco product to youth. The survey was released in March 2024, and shows Shasta County has the highest rate of tobacco ever used by youth in the State of California at 41.2 percenti. The report shows that one in three Shasta County Youth report being able to purchase tobacco directly form a tobacco retaileri. On average, students reported first using tobacco at age 13 and 82.2 percent of students who have used tobacco reported trying vapes as their first tobacco producti.

Potential new tobacco enforcement legislation has moved forward to Governor Newsom for consideration. Senate Bill (SB) 2021 supplements the existing fine that can be issued to an individual who knowingly sells a tobacco product to a person under 21 years of age. This new bill allows for a fine to be issued to the retailing businesses or corporation. The fine amount that can be issued to the business for knowingly selling to a youth is punishable by a fine of $500 for the first offense, $1,000 for the second offense, and $5,000 for the third offense.

The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) requires all retailers who sell cigarettes, or tobacco products, to obtain a cigarette and tobacco retailer's license. The CDTFA defines a tobacco product on their website as:
• “any product containing, made, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption;”
• “Any electronic smoking or vaping device that delivers nicotine or other vaporized liquids;” and
• “Any component, part, or accessory of tobacco product, whether or not sold separately.” Data Collection and Benchmarking
Staff analyzed 48 various jurisdictions throughout the State on what types of tobacco ordinances and enforcement other jurisdictions have in place. Staff specifically asked jurisdictions if they have a tobacco ordinance, if they enforce their tobacco ordinance, and if the ordinance is working. Staff also viewed each jurisdiction’s municipal code for specifications on tobacco related ordinances. Staff analyzed if a TRL is required, how many tobacco retailers are in the jurisdiction, what are the associated fees, population, penalties, and what specific ordinances are in place. Staff did not hear back from some jurisdictions through phone or email which resulted in reviewing online ordinances and information.

Of the 48 jurisdictions that were analyzed, 28 of them require retailers to have a local TRL. As of October 2023, at least 226 municipalities in California require a TRL to sell tobacco products.

Jurisdictions that require a TRL, required them to be renewed annually, allow them to have local control, and enforcement capabilities of the tobacco retailers in their jurisdiction. This allows the jurisdiction to set any additional requirements such as limits on how many retailers are operating in their jurisdiction and general oversight. It makes enforcement more effective and efficient and gives local governments the ability to intervene when needed. Many jurisdictions have set their ordinances to go above and beyond of what the federal and state law requires.

Staff found several jurisdictions have adopted tobacco ordinances but currently have no funding for their tobacco program or for enforcement. These jurisdictions are Butte County, Oroville, Packet Pg. 261
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing Page 3 Hollister, San Benito County, Arroyo Grande, and Merced County. The Cities of Anderson, Santa Rosa, and Vallejo, stated that they are in the process of working on updating or creating a TRL program.

The City of Benicia was found to have the most restrictive requirements for tobacco retailers.

Followed by Sonoma County and Sonoma County cities such as Petaluma, Sebastopol, Windsor, and Sonoma. These jurisdictions require each tobacco retailer to hold a TRL, implemented density requirements (with some no longer issuing TRLs due to being over density), proximity requirements to youth areas, distance/proximity requirements to other tobacco retailers, no selling of flavored tobacco, no tobacco retailing at pharmacies, minimum pricing requirements, and some even banning the sale of electronic cigarettes or vaping products.

There was a wide array of specific ordinances that have been implemented throughout the State.

The various ordinances in place include:

Proximity Requirement to a Youth Sensitive Area
Jurisdictions have set requirements for tobacco retailers operating near youth sensitive facilities. Youth sensitive facilities mainly include, schools, parks, libraries, day cares, playgrounds, and ultimately, specific areas defined by the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions set prohibitions for tobacco retailers near schools because of the belief that children are more likely to experiment with tobacco products when tobacco retailers are near youth areas.

Setting distance restrictions near youth areas may assist with reducing youth smoking rates. There are 16 jurisdictions that have set a distance requirement for tobacco retailers near youth sensitive areas. The distance set by the jurisdictions analyzed ranges from 300 feet to 1,000 feet.

Proximity Requirements Near Existing Tobacco Retailers
There are 10 jurisdictions that have requirements for no new tobacco retailers to operate within a specific proximity to other tobacco retailers. This requirement prevents the over concentration of tobacco retailers within particular neighborhoods and how close they can operate from one another. The overconcentration of tobacco retailers may affect youth smoking behaviors and youth access to tobacco products. The distance set by the jurisdictions analyzed ranges from 500 feet to 1,000 feet.

Tobacco Retailers per Population Density or Cap on the Amount of Tobacco Retailers Jurisdictions have imposed requirements for tobacco retailers based on the local population. Jurisdictions have based this requirement off of the State’s ability to limit the number of alcohol licenses. Greater tobacco density may lead to higher smoking rates. In the jurisdictions analyzed, 12 jurisdictions have adopted an ordinance based off the population. The jurisdictions analyzed had various densities adopted that include one tobacco retailer for every 1,500 residents (one jurisdiction), 1,750 residents (one jurisdiction), 2,000 residents (four jurisdictions), and 2,500 residents (three jurisdictions).

This sets local capacity of tobacco retailers based on the number of residents. If population increases then the number of tobacco retailers can be increased. The City of Sonoma has a set capacity of 15 retailers, and Nevada City has a set limit of five. The City of Oroville requires a use permit from planning and has a density requirement of one for every 4,000 residents for significant tobacco retailers which has been reached.

Packet Pg. 262
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing Page 4 No Selling of Flavored Tobacco
With the passing of SB 793, effective January 1, 2023, flavored tobacco or tobacco product flavor enhancers are now illegal to sell, offer for sale, or possess with the intent to sell or offer for sale in the State with a few exceptions. Flavored tobacco is considered a starter product for youth that assists with long term tobacco use. There are countless flavors that range from Cotton Candy, Cherry Crush, Pop Tart, Banana Blast, Wintergreen, and many more. There are 17 jurisdictions that were analyzed that have an ordinance that prohibits the sale of flavored tobacco with some going above and beyond SB 793 and banning all flavored tobacco. In communications with jurisdictions, flavored tobacco products are still being found, mainly at significant tobacco retailers such as smoke shops.

No Sale of Electric Smoking Devices (ESDs)/ Vapes
Electronic Cigarettes are also known as e-cigarettes, vapes, or e-vaporizers, and are battery operated devices used to deliver nicotine, flavorings, and other chemicals into the body in an aerosol form rather than smoke. The majority of ESDs or vapes are widely used for flavors. Following the ban on flavored tobacco, jurisdictions noticed that tobacco companies are finding ways to circumvent the flavor ban and are calling products by the names of colors such as “Blue.” Blue could mean that its flavor is blue raspberry or blueberry. ESDs are also what the youth are using in higher rates. The State’s flavor ban does leave room for interpretation on what is and is not considered flavored tobacco.

Jurisdictions have decided to go one step further and prohibit the sale of all ESDs for this reason. Since the majority of ESDs are flavored, jurisdictions reported minimal impacts to prohibiting the sale of ESDs. The Environmental Protection Agency classifies ESDs as hazardous waste due to their lithium batteries and nicotine in the liquid. There are seven jurisdictions analyzed that have prohibited the sale of ESDs.

No Selling of Tobacco at Pharmacies
Jurisdictions have restricted pharmacies from selling tobacco and tobacco related products. This ordinance is based off pharmacies being a place people go to for health care and medicine. It can send a mixed message about their safety because it is where people purchase healthcare products. There are 11 jurisdictions analyzed that have an ordinance in place prohibiting the sale of tobacco products at pharmacies.

Minimum Package Pricing/ Quantity Requirements/ No Free Samples or Discounts Jurisdictions have imposed minimum pricing requirements and minimum packaging requirements. The implementation of pricing requirements is that if tobacco products are priced higher, then they are likely to be unaffordable by youth. Higher prices make products less appealing and can make people use tobacco products less. Minimum packing requirements is thought to have the same logic. Cigarettes are already required to be sold in packs of 20 but cigars can be sold in singles. Some examples analyzed include:
minimum price for a pack of cigarettes to be no lower than $7 or $10; little cigars to be sold in packs of five or more and to be priced no less than $7; and smokeless tobacco to be no less than $10. Jurisdictions that have imposed minimum pricing and packaging ordinances have also imposed discount restrictions to back up the minimum pricing Packet Pg. 263
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing Page 5 requirement. Coupons and free samples are prohibited under State law. Six jurisdictions analyzed have requirements on tobacco pricing and quantity packaging requirements.

Smoke Free Multi-Family Housing
Jurisdictions have set no smoking requirements for multi-family housing. This restriction is in place to protect residents from second hand smoke, minimize fire risk, and provide overall quality of life to residents. The restriction includes no smoking in the building and in common areas with a designated smoking area away from the building or any units.

There are nine jurisdictions that were analyzed that have created an ordinance prohibiting smoking in multi-family housing.

Other Regulations Found
• Tobacco retailer must obtain a use permit through the jurisdiction’s planning department to operate within a certain distance to a youth facility; • No significant tobacco retailers. A significant tobacco retailer can be defined as their primary purpose is to sell tobacco and tobacco related products; • No significant tobacco retailers to operate within a certain distance to residential property;
• No deliveries of tobacco products to be made by employees or by private delivery drivers;
• No placing tobacco products or advertising within 5 feet of candy, snacks, and nonalcoholic beverages;
• No advertising of tobacco products within 500 feet of a youth sensitive area; and • No advertising of tobacco products on windows or advertising to be seen from outside the establishment.

Majority of all jurisdictions analyzed that have imposed tobacco retailing restrictions allowed legally operating tobacco retailers to continue to operate post adoption of their ordinance as long as the tobacco retailer was in good standing. This included businesses that were within required distances to youth facilities and within proximity to other tobacco retailers, and if a TRL cap was initiated. Some offered grace periods such as San Jose, to sell off flavored tobacco which was prior to the State banning flavored tobacco. Santa Maria required pharmacies to immediately stop selling tobacco and San Luis Obispo County immediately required businesses to cease selling ESDs. Further break down of ordinances and analysis can be found on the attached Tobacco Retailer Regulation Comparison spreadsheet.

What is and is not working
The Council directed staff to follow up on what is and is not working. The jurisdictions that are successfully running a TRL program, provide education, inspections, and enforcement, feel like their ordinance is working to prevent youth access to tobacco products. If the jurisdiction has a density limit, it prevents the over density of more tobacco retailers from operating. Jurisdictions feel that to be able to back up enforcement with fines and TRL suspension and revocation assist greatly in preventing retailers from being a bad actor. Fines allow the jurisdiction to immediately issue a citation for when violations are found such as a business selling flavored tobacco. If a business continues to sell flavored tobacco a jurisdiction can then issue a second citation and can suspend their TRL or work towards full revocation. Many jurisdictions expressed the use of discretion when deciding on the level of enforcement to be issued. It was reported that Packet Pg. 264
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing Page 6 suspension and revocation of TRL can be stronger than fines but having all available options is best.

The City of San Jose operates a decoy program and issues a citation amount of $2,500 for selling to a youth. The San Jose City Code Enforcement Inspector felt like the fine amount should be higher due to one business being fined twice for selling to a decoy on two different occasions.

The City of San Jose has smaller fine amounts for other violations such as selling flavored tobacco. Other cities have set fine amounts up to $5,000, and include suspension and revocation of the stores’ TRL. A TRL suspension could have a higher business impact over a smaller fine amount on a business because the store physically has to remove all tobacco products from their store shelfs for a certain amount of time. Sonoma County has the ability to suspend a TRL and issue a citation. Some jurisdictions are able to suspend a TRL for any violation of their Tobacco Retail Ordinance. Jurisdictions with higher fines, suspensions and revocation of TRL are able to effectively enforce tobacco restrictions to ensure retailers are always in compliance.

In the study that was performed, 2021 State of Tobacco Control: California Local Gradesii, for a TRL ordinance to be successful in reducing the sale of tobacco to minors it should include:
• A sufficient fee for the TRL to cover administration and enforcement efforts; • Permission to sell tobacco through an annual license that must be renewed annually; • Include provisions against any state laws in ordinance; and • Financial deterrent that includes fines, penalties, suspensions and revocation of the license.

In the report Tobacco Retailer Licensing is Effective, 41 jurisdictions were analyzed in 2018 and determined that youth sales rates dropped following the adoption of a strong tobacco retailer licensing ordinance. This was determined from youth purchase surveys administered by local agencies. The report indicates that a TRL alone will not decrease youth access but with enforcement and education regarding the local regulations will always be needed. Six of the jurisdictions that were analyzed were included this report (Davis, Elk Grove, Grass Valley, Oroville, San Luis Obispo County, and Woodland).

City of Redding (City) Tobacco Retailer Landscape
In the City there are 119 tobacco retailers. Staff worked with the County of Shasta and the State to obtain the actual amount of tobacco retailers to include sole proprietors, husband and wife coowners, and domestic partners. The below table shows the number of store types that hold a CDTFA issued tobacco retailers license:

Redding Tobacco Retailers
Gas Station 39
Smoke Shop/ Significant Tobacco Retailers 29
Small Market/ Convenience Store 25
Liquor Store 8
Pharmacy 8
Super Market 7
Golf Course 2
Winery 1
Staff worked with the City’s Information and Technology Department’s Geographic Information System personnel to map all tobacco retailer adresses and compare their distance to youth Packet Pg. 265
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing Page 7 sensitive locations, and their distance to other tobacco retailers. Staff defined youth sensitive locations as the same as in the City’s cannabis ordinance which includes schools, parks, and child care facilities. Of these stores there are 20 youth sensitive areas that are located within 1,000 feet of a tobacco retailer. There are 100 tobacco retailers that are located within 500 feet of another tobacco retailer. The population density is one tobacco retailer for every 787 residents.

Local Enforcement
RPD received a grant earlier this year to perform decoy operations. RPD receives $1,500 per operation and must perform five operations a year with each operation requiring 10-12 retailer visits. To date, RPD has performed three tobacco decoy operations that included 41 decoy attempt purchases of tobacco. In all, five sales were made by a youth decoy. One tobacco retailer sold to a decoy twice on two different operations. The four stores are smoke shops and would be considered a significant tobacco retailer. Of these four store stores, two are located within 500 feet of another tobacco retailer and none are located within 1,000 feet of a youth sensitive area.

In June of 2024 the CDTFA was in in the City doing inspections with Shasta County’s Tobacco Compliance Specialist and RPD. Their mission was to ensure tobacco retailers were properly licensed through the State and have all proper invoices for their products dating back to a year.

They are also able to confiscate illegally imported tobacco and cannabis products. They are unable to confiscate flavored tobacco which falls under the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and they did not perform underage decoy purchases. They inspected seven tobacco retailers in Redding and found violations at all seven of the retailers. The violations range from confiscation of illegally imported products, confiscation of cannabis products, and confirmation of flavored tobacco. The seven stores inspected were all smoke shops. Two of these stores were issued a citation and the total amount of confiscated illegal products exceeded $9,000. Three of these seven retailers sold to a minor as part of RPDs decoy operations earlier this year.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) performs random and unannounced decoy operations and has their inspection logs publicly available on their website. From January 1, 2022, to July 16, 2024, there was one sale to a decoy out of 22 attempts. Their follow up procedure for a decoy sale is to send a warning letter, then after another confirmed sale, the FDA can follow up with civil penalties, injunctions, and criminal prosecution. The confirmed sale to a decoy was made at a smoke shop or significant tobacco retailer.

How Kids are Targeted
Kids are targeted by tobacco companies in several different ways. The largest is advertising. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that cigarette and smokeless tobacco companies spent $8.2 billion in 2019 on advertising and promotional expensesiii. This includes incentives to retailers by tobacco companies to offer price discounts, promotions, and stocking certain brands. Lower prices and discounts are more appealing to lower income residents and more appealing to youth. Tobacco products such as a pack of three small cigars can be found for $1.19 in the City.

The advertising of tobacco products includes how they are packaged. The packaging of tobacco products is made and designed similar to candy products. This can make it very appealing to youth. The placement of tobacco products and advertising are typically placed near candy, soft drinks, and adjacent to the cash register in places likely to be seen by youth. Advertisements can also be strategically placed outside to be seen by youth passing by.

Packet Pg. 266
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2024
Re: 9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing Page 8 Flavors and ESDs are also more appealing to youth. Flavors can hide the distinct tobacco flavor and can make products easier to inhale. Flavored tobacco products have been banned in the State but flavored products are still being found in stores. ESDs come in a variety of designs, relatively low in price, easily concealable, and have high nicotine content that can make it very addicting to users.

Next Steps
If the Council would like to move forward with any potential tobacco retail ordinance and/ or TRL program, staff can further analyze and prepare an ordinance to bring back to the Council at a future date for possible adoption. This process will include necessary outreach with stakeholders, work with the City Attorney’s Office and any other necessary departments.

Environmental Review
This is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” Attachments
^Tobacco Staff Report February 6, 2024
^Tobacco Retailer Licensing is Effective September 2018 ^California Youth Tobacco Survey-Shasta County Data
California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report
^Jurisdictional Data

i Clodfelter, R., Dutra, L. M., Bradfield, B., Russell, S., Levine, B., & von Jaglinsky, A. (2023). Annual results report for the California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023. RTI International. ii County Grades. (2021). https://www.lung.org/getmedia/3b258a14-f355-42d0-9cac-18901c1802eb/state-oftobacco-control-california-local-grades.pdf iii CDC. (2018, May 4). Tobacco Industry Marketing. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobacco_industry/marketing/index.htm Packet Pg. 267

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept the report on tobacco retailing and provide direction to staff regarding next steps.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact with accepting the report.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose to not accept the report and provide alternate direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
On October 17, 2023, the Tobacco Education Coalition of Shasta County presented to the Council. The presentation included information regarding the history of tobacco enforcement in the County, how kids are targeted, retailer density, youth tobacco use poll data, and public opinion poll data. On that same evening, the Council directed staff to review the information that was provided by the Tobacco Education Coalition and present it at a future council meeting for consideration of potential changes to the City’s Ordinance regarding the density of tobaccoselling businesses.

Staff then began researching what current laws are in place regarding tobacco in California and in neighboring jurisdictions. Staff met with the Shasta County Health and Human Services Tobacco & Obesity Prevention Unit and with the Tobacco Use and Prevention Education Coordinator for the Shasta County Office of Education. They were able to provide information on state laws, other California city’s tobacco regulations, education, and other helpful information related to youth tobacco use.

MEETING DATE: February 6, 2024
ITEM NO. 9.1(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.1(a)--Accept report regarding tobacco retailing.

Jason Gibilisco, Management
Assistant to the City Manager
Packet Pg. 462 Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: ^Tobacco Staff Report February 6, 2024 (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Report to Redding City Council January 31, 2024
Re: 9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing Page 2 The most recent major California legislation on tobacco is Senate Bill 793 - approved by Governor Newsom on August 28, 2020. California passed Senate Bill 793 prohibiting the sale of most flavored tobacco products. These banned tobacco products include flavored e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, flavored little cigars, flavored smokeless tobacco, tobacco flavor enhancers, and other similar flavored tobacco products. The law does not apply to the retail sale of flavored loose-leaf pipe tobacco or flavored premium cigars ($12 or more) and flavored shisha or hookah when sold according to state law. Shortly after passing, a referendum was proposed and qualified for a ballot measure in the November 2022 election. The law was upheld by the voters and went into effect on January 1, 2023.

Other California legislation includes that all tobacco retailers throughout the state must obtain a tobacco retailer license at a current cost of $265 through the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to sell tobacco and it must be renewed on an annual basis. The minimum age required by state and federal law to purchase tobacco is 21. The state accepts customer complaints and the California Food and Drug Branch conducts random, onsite inspections with a person under the age of 21 to ensure tobacco retailers do not sell to minors. Retailers who violate the minimum age of sale law are subject to criminal and civil penalties in fines ranging from $200 to $1,000. Local enforcement agencies are also authorized to conduct enforcement activities as necessary.

City of Redding
The City of Redding currently does not have an ordinance regulating businesses that sell tobacco or one that controls the density of tobacco retailing in the City and therefore, relies solely on State law. Currently, the City has approximately 98 tobacco retailers per the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration website (which includes grocery stores, pharmacies and other similar retailers). The City’s 2045 Draft General Plan incorporates policy language to reduce the use of tobacco (EJ8K) and considers establishing distance requirements for tobacco retailers from youth-oriented facilities (EJ8L).

The Redding Police Department (RPD) finalized a contract with the Shasta County Health and Human Services to conduct Tobacco Retail Minor Decoy operations. RPD will work with a person under the age of 21 and perform at least five operations per year with 10-12 retailer visits per operation. Decoy operations are planned to begin later this month and expire March of 2026.

Funding for the decoy operations is being provided through a Department of Justice grant.

Grants are made available through the Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 (Proposition 56) and funds assist local law enforcement agencies by providing grants and tobacco enforcement training.

City of Shasta Lake
The City of Shasta Lake adopted an Interim Zoning Ordinance in August 2023, which requires a Use Permit for tobacco retailing. The City of Shasta Lake has approximately 8 tobacco retailers per the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration website.

City of Anderson
The City of Anderson currently does not have a tobacco ordinance more stringent than State law.

The City of Anderson has approximately 18 tobacco retailers per the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration website.

Packet Pg. 463 Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: ^Tobacco Staff Report February 6, 2024 (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Report to Redding City Council January 31, 2024
Re: 9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing Page 3 Shasta County
Shasta County currently does not have a tobacco ordinance more stringent than state law. In unincorporated Shasta County, there are approximately 40 tobacco retailers per the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration website.

Other California Cities
The majority of all California Cities that have adopted tobacco regulations, require tobacco retailers to be registered with their respective local government. This requires the tobacco retailer to pay a fee to their respective local government for a license that would be renewed annually.

The fee for the license covers the cost of administration, license program, retailer education, inspection, and compliance checks. Having a tobacco retail license program assists with enforcement at the local level. To aid tobacco retail license programs local governments have adopted various other ordinances to assist in the prevention of youth tobacco use.

Additional ordinances that have been adopted in California include:
• Distance requirements for tobacco retailers such as not being able to operate within 500 feet or 1000 feet of a youth-oriented facility (school, daycare, park, etc); • Distance requirements for tobacco retailers to not be able to operate within 500 feet or 1000 feet of another tobacco retailer;
• Requirements for pharmacies to cease tobacco retailing; • Density limits such as limiting the amount of tobacco retailers to operate in a jurisdiction to one for every 2,500 inhabitants;
• Density limits such as limiting the amount of smoke shops to operate in a jurisdiction to one shop for every 4,000 inhabitants;
• Requiring a use permit through planning in addition to a tobacco retail license; and • Prohibiting smoking at all multifamily residential properties unless outside in a designated smoking area.

The ordinances that are provided in this report are the majority of what California local governments are adopting in their jurisdictions or variations of, to prevent youth tobacco use. If the Council would like to provide staff with specific direction on pursuing any potential ordinances, staff can pursue additional research and report back to Council at a later date. This can include a report on RPDs progress on the Tobacco Retail Minor Decoy Program.

Environmental Review
This is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This is a routine operational item
Packet Pg. 464 Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: ^Tobacco Staff Report February 6, 2024 (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Tobacco Retailer Licensing
Is Effective
@ 2013 California Department of Public Health
The Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing | American Lung Association in California 1531 I Street, Suite 201, Sacramento, CA 95814 | Phone: (916) 554.5864 | Fax: (916) 442.8585 ©2018. California Department of Public Health. Funded under contract #14-10013.

CENTER4TOBACCOPOLICY.ORG
LUNG.ORG/CALIFORNIA
In California, 144 communities have adopted strong local tobacco retailer licensing ordinances in an effort to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors. That includes the following four components:
• License that all retailers must obtain in order to sell tobacco products and that must be renewed annually.
• A fee set high enough to sufficiently fund an effective program including administration of the program and
enforcement efforts. An enforcement plan, that includes compliance checks, should be clearly stated.
• Coordination of tobacco regulations so that a violation of any existing local, state or federal tobacco regulation violates the license.
• A financial deterrent through fines and penalties including the suspension and revocation of the license. Fines and penalties should be outlined in the ordinance.

The table below lists illegal sales rates to minors before and after a strong licensing law was enacted. These sales rates were determined by youth tobacco purchase surveys administered by local agencies. It is important to note that results from the youth tobacco purchase surveys
have a number of different factors that influence change.

Results from these surveys are somewhat dependent
on certain factors that differ in each community, such as the age of the youth and the number of stores surveyed.

Furthermore, other factors that could impact these rates include statewide laws, other city policies, or statewide or national media campaigns. The data below shows that
these decreases occur after a tobacco retailer license has been established. The results overwhelmingly demonstrate that local tobacco retailer licensing ordinances with strong enforcement provisions are effective. Rates of illegal
tobacco sales to minors have decreased, often significantly, in all municipalities with a strong tobacco retailer licensing ordinance where there is before and after youth sales rate data available. However, a licensing ordinance by itself will not automatically decrease sales rates; proper education and enforcement about the local ordinance and state youth access laws are always needed.

Before and after youth sales rate data is available for the following 41 California communities with strong licensing ordinances- Banning, Baldwin Park, Beaumont, Berkeley,
Burbank, Calabasas, Carpentaria, Coachella, Contra Costa County, Corona, Davis, Delano, Desert Hot Springs, El
Cajon, Elk Grove, Goleta, Grass Valley, Grover Beach,
Kern County, La Canada Flintridge, Los Angeles County,
Morgan Hill, Murrieta, Norco, Oroville, Pasadena, Riverside, Rosemead, Sacramento, Sacramento County, San Fernando,
San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, Sonoma County, Tehachapi, Vista,
Winters, Woodland, and Yolo County.

For more resources on these ordinances, including
the Matrix of Strong Local Tobacco Retailer Licensing
Ordinances with policy and enforcement details for every strong ordinance in the state, visit:
www.Center4TobaccoPolicy.org
For model tobacco retailer licensing ordinance language, visit ChangeLab Solutions at changelabsolutions.org
SEPTEMBER 2018
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: ^Tobacco Retailer Licensing is Effective September 2018 (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco THE CENTER FOR TOBACCO POLICY & ORGANIZING Page 2 of 2
The Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing | American Lung Association in California 1531 I Street, Suite 201, Sacramento, CA 95814 | Phone: (916) 554.5864 | Fax: (916) 442.8585 ©2018. California Department of Public Health. Funded under contract #14-10013.

CENTER4TOBACCOPOLICY.ORG
LUNG.ORG/CALIFORNIA
Table of youth sales rates before and after the adoption of a strong tobacco retailer licensing ordinance City/County Date Passed Annual Fee Youth Sales Rate
Before Ordinance
Most Recent
Youth Sales Rate
Banning August 2006 $350 77% 21%
Baldwin Park October 2008 $342 34% 9%
Beaumont December 2006 $350 63% 20%
Berkeley December 2002 $427* 38% 4.2%
Burbank February 2007 $235 26.7% 5%
Calabasas June 2009 $0* 30.8% 5%
Carpentaria April 2012 $379 26% 7%
Coachella July 2009 $350 69% 11%
Contra Costa County January 2003 $160* 37% 13%
Corona October 2005 $350 50% 17%
Davis August 2007 $377 30.5% 12%
Delano June 2008 $165 23% 5.6%
Desert Hot Springs August 2007 $350 48% 4%
El Cajon June 2004 $698 40% 1%
Elk Grove September 2004 $270 17% 16.7%
Goleta May 2014 $534 21% 7%
Grass Valley November 2009 $100 27% 0%
Grover Beach September 2005 $244 46% 17%
Kern County November 2006 $165 34% 13.3%
La Canada Flintridge June 2009 $50* 47.1% 0%
Los Angeles County December 2007 $235 30.6% 8%
Morgan Hill April 2014 $125 15% 0%
Murrieta May 2006 $350 31% 7%
Norco March 2006 $350 40% 6%
Oroville March 2013 $30 22.6% 0%
Pasadena January 2004 $225 29% 0%
Riverside May 2006 $350 65% 31%
Rosemead July 2017 $235 32% 22%
Sacramento March 2004 $324 27% 15.1%
Sacramento County May 2004 $287 21% 7.1%
San Fernando October 2008 $250 38.5% 3%
San Francisco November 2003 $175* 22.3% 13.4%
San Luis Obispo August 2003 $255 17% 13%
San Luis Obispo County October 2008 $342 33.3% 5%
Santa Barbara County November 2010 $235 21% 3%
Sonoma County April 2016 $350 18.4% 1.3%
Tehachapi February 2007 $165 8% 16.7%
Vista May 2005 $250 39% 1.9%
Winters January 2016 $377 47% 19%
Woodland June 2015 $377 32% 8%
Yolo County May 2006 $377 28% 7.8%
*City or County fee does not fully cover administration and enforcement of the tobacco-retailer license. Rather, the fee is supplemental with another stable source of funds, such as the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) funds or general funds. See the Center’s Matrix of Strong Local Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinances for full details about the administration and enforcement of these ordinances.

Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: ^Tobacco Retailer Licensing is Effective September 2018 (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Current Use of Any Tobacco Product by Demographic or Risk Factors 2023 Data Summary for
Shasta County
Ever and Current Use by Product
1 The California Youth Tobacco Survey (CYTS) is a project of the California Department of Public Health’s California Tobacco Prevention Program. It aims to obtain statewide estimates of use for various tobacco products by middle and high school students in California to inform statewide prevention and intervention efforts. For Shasta County in 2023, 1,022 students in 10th or 12th grades at 6 high schools completed the survey. This report summarizes their key responses. †
Estimate is unstable. LCCs = Little cigars and cigarillos. HTPs = Heated tobacco products/heat-not-burn. Pouches = nicotine pouches. Co-use is defined as use of both products in the student’s lifetime (ever) or in the past 30 days (current). Use of alcohol or marijuana and co-use of marijuana and tobacco are included for comparison only and are not included in rates of overall tobacco use. †
Estimate is unstable. ††The difference between this county’s and all other counties’ estimates was statistically significant to p < 0.05. 1All races and ethnicities reported by each respondent are shown. For example, someone who reports being Black and Hispanic is shown in both the Black and Hispanic categories. 2No estimates reported for other gender identities due to low response rates.

Approximately 16.8% of students in Shasta County reported using a tobacco product in the last 30 days. This is higher than the average use in California of 7.3%.††

45.7 22.7

37.0 16.5

30.8 11.4

37.1 14.8

12.4 2.6

8.6 1.9

5.8 1.9

6.1†

1.9 1.7 0.6

3.4 1.0

8.9 4.1†
Smokeless HTPs Hookah Pouches
Tobacco Products
Co-use of Vapes Cigarettes Cigars LCCs
Marijuana
and Tobacco
Alcohol Marijuana
0%
50%
Ever Used Product Currently Use Product
Average
County Use 16.8%

11.0†

14.0† 17.8 17.8 16.4 16.6

18.9 14.3

19.2 15.7

13.6 20.6 21.8
Any DiscriminationGood to Fair to Poor
Excellent
Asian Black Hispanic White Other Multiracial Female Male LGBTQ+ Not LGBTQ+ Race/Ethnicity1
(Categories are not exclusive) Gender2
Sexual
Orientation Mental Health
0%
30%
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: ^California Youth Tobacco Survey-Shasta County Data (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing)

82.2% of students who ever used tobacco reported trying vapes as their first tobacco product.

On average, students first reported using tobacco at age 13.

51.3% of students who ever vaped tried to
stop using within the last year.

How Students
Obtained Their Vapes
Most Selected
Reason for Vaping
Susceptibility to Product Use Self-reported likelihood of trying a product if it were offered to them by the student’s best friend (among never users of the product).

Most common way students who vape
report getting their vapes, pods, or e-liquid.

Among students who vape, the most common
reason for vaping.

LCCs = Little cigars and cigarillos. HTPs = Heated tobacco products/heat-not-burn. Pouches = nicotine pouches.

Alcohol and marijuana use are included for comparison only and are not included in rates of overall tobacco use. 2023 CYTS Data Summary for Shasta County
†
Estimate is unstable.
2 32.6

23.4 16.0

11.0†

4.5†

12.4†
Get them
some other
way
Take them
from
someone
Ask someone
for them
Someone
gives them
to me
Ask someone
to buy them
for me
Buy them
myself
0%
40%

7.6 6.0

4.7 3.2

7.2 2.3

4.4 6.0

3.6 Alcohol Marijuana Vapes Cigarettes LCCs Smokeless HTPs Hookah Pouches 0%
10%

31.6 15.9

14.0 10.9

8.0 To have a good It looks cool
time with my
friends
For the nicotine
buzz
To fit in/peer
pressure
To relax or relieve
stress and anxiety
0%
40%
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: ^California Youth Tobacco Survey-Shasta County Data (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 2023 CYTS Data Summary for Shasta County
Saw Use vs Saw Someone Caught
Perceived Use Tobacco Use at School
in Past 30 Days
Saw Product Use
on Social Media
Levels of use at school and consequences for use for each product in the past 30 days.

Percent responding “Most” or “All” to “How
many students at your school use the following
products?”
Marijuana use is included for comparison only and is not included in rates of overall tobacco use. †
Estimate is unstable. LCCs = Little cigars and cigarillos. Alcohol and marijuana use are included for comparison only and are not included in rates of overall tobacco use.

Alcohol and marijuana use are included for comparison only and are not included in rates of overall tobacco use. † Estimate is unstable.
3 For more information on
tobacco use in California,
see the full California Youth
Tobacco Survey report. This can
be found by searching online
for CDPH Tobacco Control Fact
Sheets and Reports.

Reported “Sometimes,” “Often,” or “Always”
seeing someone on social media use these products
in the last 30 days.

Last 30-day prevalence of use of
tobacco products at school.

23.7 12.6

35.8 28.5

70.7†

65.5†

4.8 3.1 2.8 2.2
Alcohol Marijuana Vapes Cigarettes LCCs
0%
80%
Saw Product Used
Saw Someone Caught
Using Product

55.8 43.7

67.2 6.9
Alcohol Marijuana Vapes Cigarettes
0%
80%

49.1 58.0

28.3 Marijuana Vapes Cigarettes
0%
80%

71.3†

65.6†

49.3 Used tobacco at school
(among tobacco users)
Saw someone caught
using tobacco
Saw tobacco used
0%
80%
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: ^California Youth Tobacco Survey-Shasta County Data (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) RTI International is a registered trademark and trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

The RTI logo is a registered trademark of Research Triangle Institute 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 800 Berkeley, CA 94704
Authors
Rachel Clodfelter, MPH
Lauren McCarl Dutra, ScD, MA
Brian Bradfield, BA
Sara Russell, MS
Burton Levine, PhD
Annette von Jaglinsky, MPH
Prepared for the California
Department of Public Health,
California Tobacco Prevention
Program by RTI International
2023
Results
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) RTI Project Number
0217905.004
Results of the 2023
California Youth Tobacco Survey
Report
March 2024
Prepared for
California Department of Public Health,
California Tobacco Prevention Program
Prepared by
Rachel Clodfelter, MPH
Lauren McCarl Dutra, ScD, MA
Brian Bradfield, BA
Sara Russell, MS
Burton Levine, PhD
Annette von Jaglinsky, MPH
RTI International
2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 800
Berkeley, CA 94704
Suggested citation: Clodfelter, R., Dutra, L. M., Bradfield, B., Russell, S., Levine, B., & von Jaglinsky, A. (2023).

Annual results report for the California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023. RTI International. _________________________________
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

RTI and the RTI logo are U.S. registered trademarks of Research Triangle Institute.

Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) iii
Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary ES-1

1. Tobacco Use Behavior, Overall and for Priority Populations 1-1

1.1 Tobacco Use Among High School Respondents ........................................... 1-1

1.2 Frequency of Tobacco Use ....................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Tobacco Use by Gender Identity............................................................... 1-3

1.4 Tobacco Use by Race/Ethnicity................................................................. 1-4

1.5 Tobacco Use by Grade ............................................................................ 1-6

1.6 Tobacco Use by LGBTQ+ Status ............................................................... 1-6

1.7 Tobacco Use by General Mental Health...................................................... 1-7

1.8 Polytobacco Use..................................................................................... 1-8

1.9 Tobacco Use by Experiences of Discrimination............................................ 1-9

1.10 Vaping Cessation ..................................................................................1-12

1.11 Summary.............................................................................................1-14

2. Use of Flavored Tobacco Products 2-1

2.1 Flavored Tobacco Use ............................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Flavored Tobacco Use by Demographics .................................................... 2-2

2.3 Use of Specific Flavored Tobacco Products by Demographics ........................ 2-3

2.4 Use of Specific Flavor Types .................................................................... 2-7

2.5 Perceived Accessibility of Flavored Tobacco Products ................................... 2-9

2.6 Summary.............................................................................................. 2-1

3. Access to Vapes and Cigarettes 3-1

3.1 Acquisition of Vapes ............................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Acquisition of Cigarettes ......................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Perceived Accessibility of Vapes ............................................................... 3-2

3.4 Perceived Access for Cigarettes................................................................ 3-5

3.5 Summary.............................................................................................3-10 Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) iv

4. Secondhand Exposure and Other Environmental Influences 4-1

4.1 Exposure to Secondhand Vapor and Tobacco Smoke in Car or Room and Outside ................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Exposure to Secondhand Vapor and Tobacco Smoke by Race/Ethnicity .......... 4-4

4.2.1 Indoors....................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.2 Outside....................................................................................... 4-6

4.3 Home Bans on Vaping and Tobacco Smoking ............................................. 4-8

4.4 Exposure to Vape and Cigarette Advertisements in Last 30 Days..................4-11

4.5 Summary.............................................................................................4-13

5. Susceptibility to Future Tobacco Use and Perceptions of Vaping and Smoking 5-1

5.1 Susceptibility to Vapes, Cigarettes, and LCCs by Demographics .................... 5-1

5.2 Susceptibility to Vape and Cigarette Use by Peer Vaping and Smoking........... 5-4

5.3 Reasons for Vaping ................................................................................ 5-5

5.4 Adult Disapproval of Vaping and Smoking.................................................. 5-6

5.5 Peer Disapproval of Vaping and Smoking................................................... 5-7

5.6 Summary.............................................................................................. 5-9

6. Tobacco Endgame Attitudes 6-1

6.1 Summary.............................................................................................. 6-3

7. Geographic Differences 7-1

7.1 Rurality ................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2 County-Level Estimates .......................................................................... 7-2

7.3 Region 7-9

7.4 Summary.............................................................................................. 7-1

8. Marijuana Use 8-2

8.1 Marijuana Use ....................................................................................... 8-2

8.2 Marijuana Use and Tobacco Co-use........................................................... 8-3

8.3 Exposure to Secondhand Marijuana Smoke in Last 2 Weeks ......................... 8-5

8.4 Acquisition of Marijuana .......................................................................... 8-7

8.5 Summary.............................................................................................. 8-8 Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) v

9. Changes in Tobacco Use Between 2022 and 2023 9-1

9.1 Tobacco Product Use .............................................................................. 9-1

9.2 Flavored Tobacco Product Use.................................................................. 9-1

9.3 Current Tobacco Use by Demographics ..................................................... 9-2

9.4 Marijuana Use and Marijuana Tobacco Co-use ............................................ 9-7

9.5 Summary.............................................................................................. 9-7

10. 8th-Grade Tobacco Use 10-1

10.1 Tobacco Use among 8th-Grade Respondents.............................................10-1

10.2 Flavored Tobacco Use among 8th-Grade Respondents ................................10-2

10.3 Exposure to Secondhand Vapor and Tobacco Smoke in Last 2 Weeks Among 8th-Grade Respondents ...............................................................10-3

10.4 Access to Vapes and Cigarettes Among 8th-Grade Respondents...................10-4

10.5 Marijuana Use Among 8th-Grade Respondents ..........................................10-6

10.6 Exposure to Secondhand Marijuana Smoke in Last 2 Weeks ........................10-6

10.7 Summary.............................................................................................10-7

11. Conclusion 11-1

11.1 Implications .........................................................................................11-2 Appendix
A: List of Terms A-1
B: Survey Methodology of 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey B-1 Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) vi
Figures
Number Page

1. Map of County Groups ................................................................................. 7-3 Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) vii
Tables
Number Page
1-1. Prevalence of Ever and Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents .............................................................................................. 1-2 1-2. Frequency of Current Use Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Using a Given Tobacco Product........................................................ 1-2 1-3. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Gender Identity................................................................... 1-3 1-4a. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity .................................................................... 1-4 1-4b. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity .................................................................... 1-5 1-5. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Grade................................................................................ 1-6 1-6. Prevalence of Current Tobacco Use Among High School Respondents, by LGBTQ+ Status........................................................................................... 1-7 1-7. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by General Mental Health.......................................................... 1-8 1-8. Prevalence of Current Polytobacco Use Among High School Respondents Currently Using Tobacco, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status........................................................................................... 1-8 1-9. Prevalence of Experiences of Discrimination in the Last Month Among High School Respondents ...................................................................................1-10 1-10. Prevalence of Experiences of Discrimination in the Last Month Among High School Respondents, by Current Tobacco Use.................................................1-10 1-11. Perceived Reasons for Experiencing Discrimination in the Last Month Among High School Respondents, by Current Tobacco User Status ..............................1-11 1-12. Percentage of Respondents Who Reported Attempting to Quit Vaping in the Last 12 Months or Intending to Quit Vaping in the Next 30 Days Among Currently Vaping High School Respondents ....................................................1-13 2-1. Descriptive Analysis of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use by Product, Among Respondents Currently Using Tobacco ................................................. 2-1 2-2. Prevalence of Current Use of Any Flavored Tobacco Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using These Products, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status ........................................ 2-2 2-3. Prevalence of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product by Gender Identity ..................................................................................................... 2-4 2-4a. Prevalence of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product by Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................................ 2-5 Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) viii
2-4b. Prevalence of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product by Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................................ 2-5 2-5. Prevalence of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product by Grade ....... 2-6 2-6. Prevalence of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product, by LGBTQ+ Status........................................................................................... 2-7 2-7a. Prevalence of Endorsing Specific Flavors Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product ....................................... 2-7 2-7b. Prevalence of Endorsing Specific Flavors Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product ....................................... 2-8 2-8. Prevalence of Perceiving That it was Easy to Access Flavored Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents...................................................... 2-1 3-1. Methods of Accessing Vapes Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Vaping, by Grade .......................................................................... 3-1 3-2. Methods of Accessing Cigarettes Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Smoking Cigarettes, by Grade......................................................... 3-1 3-3. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Vapes Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status ........................................................... 3-2 3-4. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Vapes from a Store Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status..................................................... 3-3 3-5. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Vapes from the Internet Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status..................................................... 3-4 3-6. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Vapes from Someone Else Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status..................................................... 3-5 3-7. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Cigarettes Among High School Respondents, by Cigarette Smoking Status........................................... 3-6 3-8. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Cigarettes from a Store Among High School Respondents, by Cigarette Smoking Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status ........................................ 3-7 3-9. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Cigarettes from the Internet Among High School Respondents, by Cigarette Smoking Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status ............................. 3-8 3-10. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Cigarettes from Someone Else Among High School Respondents, by Cigarette Smoking Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status ............................. 3-9 4-1. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor and Tobacco Smoke in Car or Room Among High School Respondents, by Vaping and Tobacco Smoking Status ....................................................................................................... 4-2 4-2. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor and Tobacco Smoke Outside Among High School Respondents, by Vaping and Tobacco Smoking Status .......... 4-3 4-3. Prevalence of Last-6-Month Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in Multiunit Housing Among High School Respondents Living in Multiunit Housing ............................. 4-3 Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) ix
4-4. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor or Tobacco Smoke in a Car or Room Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity................................ 4-4 4-5. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor in Car or Room Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Race/Ethnicity ................................ 4-5 4-6. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in Car or Room Among High School Respondents, by Tobacco Smoking Status and Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................................ 4-5 4-7. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor or Tobacco Smoke Outside Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity......................................... 4-6 4-8. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor Outside Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Race/Ethnicity .......................................... 4-7 4-9. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Tobacco Smoke Outside Among High School Respondents, by Tobacco Smoking Status and Race/Ethnicity.................. 4-8 4-10. Prevalence of Complete Home Bans on Vaping Among High School Respondents, by Current Use of Vapes ........................................................... 4-9 4-11. Prevalence of Complete Home Bans on Tobacco Smoking Among High School Respondents, by Current Use of Smoked Tobacco ............................................ 4-9 4-12. Prevalence of Complete Home Bans on Vaping and Tobacco Smoking Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity ..................................................4-10 4-13. Prevalence of Complete Home Vaping Bans Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Race/Ethnicity.............................................................4-10 4-14. Prevalence of Complete Home Bans on Tobacco Smoking Among High School Respondents, by Smoking Status and Race/Ethnicity.......................................4-11 4-15. Prevalence of Having Favorite Vaping Advertisement Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status ....................................................................4-12 4-16. Last-30-Day Social Media Exposure to Vaping Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status ....................................................................4-12 4-17. Last-30-day Social Media Exposure to Smoking Among High School Respondents, by Smoking Status ................................................................. 4-13 4-18. Attention Paid to Social Media Posts About Vaping Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status ....................................................................4-13 5-1. Susceptibility to Vapes, Cigarettes, and/or LCCs Among High School Respondents Who Had Never Used One or More of These Products, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, LGBTQ+ Status, and General Mental Health........ 5-2 5-2. Proportion of High School Respondents Who Had Never Vaped, Never Smoked Cigarettes, and/or Never Smoked LCCs Who Were Susceptible to Future Use of These Products, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, LGBTQ+ Status, and General Mental Health ........................................................................... 5-3 5-3. Prevalence of Susceptibility to Vaping Among High School Respondents Who had Never Vaped, by Friend Vaping Status ..................................................... 5-4 5-4. Prevalence of Susceptibility to Cigarette Smoking Among High School Respondents Who Had Never Smoked Cigarette, by Friend Smoking Status......... 5-5 5-5. Reported Reasons for Vaping Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Vaping......................................................................................... 5-5 5-6. Percentage of High School Respondents Who Believed That Adults Would Feel Negatively About Them Vaping and Smoking, by Demographics......................... 5-6 Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) x
5-7. Percentage of High School Respondents Who Believed That Close Friends and Other Respondents at School Would View Vaping Negatively, by Vaping Status.... 5-7 5-8. Percentage of High School Respondents Who Believed That Close Friends and Other Respondents at School Would View Smoking Negatively, by Smoking Status ....................................................................................................... 5-7 5-9. Percentage of High School Respondents Who Believed That Close Friends or Other Respondents Would Feel Negatively About Them Smoking Cigarettes, by Demographics ........................................................................................ 5-8 6-1. Agreement with Tobacco Endgame Policies Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Cigarette Smoking Status .............................................. 6-1 6-2. Agreement With Tobacco Endgame Policies Among High School Respondents, by Demographics ........................................................................................ 6-2 7-1. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Rurality.............................................................................. 7-1 7-2. Percentage of Respondents Who Reported Intending to Quit Vaping in the Next 30 Days Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Vaping, by Rurality ................................................................................................. 7-2 7-3. Prevalence of Ever and Current Use of Any Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by County Grouping....................................................... 7-3 7-4a. Prevalence of Current Use of Vapes, Cigarettes, and LCCs Among High School Respondents, by County Grouping................................................................. 7-6 7-4b. Prevalence of Current Use of Cigars, Hookah, and Smokeless Tobacco Among High School Respondents, by County Grouping................................................ 7-7 7-4c. Prevalence of Current Use of Heated Tobacco Products and Nicotine Pouches Among High School Respondents, by County Grouping ..................................... 7-8 7-5. Prevalence of Ever and Current Use of Any Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Region..................................................................... 7-9 7-6. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Region..............................................................................7-10 8-1. Prevalence of Marijuana Use Among High School Respondents, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status ........................................ 8-2 8-2. Usual Mode of Marijuana Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Multiple Marijuana Products.................................................... 8-3 8-3. Prevalence of Current Marijuana-Only Use and Current Co-Use of Marijuana and Any Tobacco Product Among High School Respondents, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, and Grade ............................................................... 8-4 8-4. Prevalence of Current Co-Use of Marijuana and Tobacco Among High School Respondents Currently Using Marijuana, by Tobacco Product Currently Used ....... 8-5 8-5. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Marijuana Smoke in Car or Room or Outside Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity ............................. 8-6 8-6. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Marijuana Smoke in Car or Room Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity and Marijuana Use Status .... 8-6 8-7. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Marijuana Smoke Outside Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity and Marijuana Use Status............... 8-7 8-8. Method of Acquiring Marijuana Among High School Respondents Currently Using Marijuana.......................................................................................... 8-8 Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) xi
9-1. Prevalence of Ever and Current Tobacco Product Use by Year Among High School Students.......................................................................................... 9-1 9-2. Prevalence of Flavored Tobacco Product Use by Year Among High School Students Who Were Currently Using Each Product ........................................... 9-2 9-3. Prevalence of Current Any Tobacco Use by Year and by Gender Identity Among High School Students ........................................................................ 9-2 9-4. Prevalence of Current Vaping, Cigarette Smoking, and LCC Smoking by Year and by Gender Identity Among High School Students ....................................... 9-3 9-5. Prevalence of Current Any Tobacco Use by Year and by Race/Ethnicity Among High School Students................................................................................... 9-3 9-6. Prevalence of Current Vaping, Cigarette Smoking, and LCC Smoking by Year and Race/Ethnicity Among High School Students ............................................. 9-4 9-7. Prevalence of Current Tobacco Use by Year and by Grade Among High School Students.................................................................................................... 9-5 9-8. Prevalence of Current Any Tobacco Use by Year and by LGBTQ+ Status Among High School Students ........................................................................ 9-5 9-9. Prevalence of Current Vaping, Cigarette Smoking, and LCC Smoking by Year and LGBTQ+ Status Among High School Students............................................ 9-6 9-10. Prevalence of Current Any Tobacco Use by Year and by General Mental Health Among High School Students ........................................................................ 9-6 9-11. Prevalence of Current Any Tobacco Use By Year and Rurality Among High School Students.......................................................................................... 9-6 9-12. Prevalence of Ever and Current Marijuana Use and Marijuana Co-Use by Year Among High School Students ........................................................................ 9-7 10-1. Prevalence of Tobacco Use Among 8th-Grade Respondents ..............................10-1 10-2. Prevalence of Current Use of Any Tobacco Among 8th-Grade Respondents, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, LGBTQ+ Status, and Mental Health Status........10-2 10-3. Prevalence of Flavored Tobacco Use Among 8th-Grade Respondents Currently Using Each Tobacco Product ........................................................................10-3 10-4. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor and Tobacco Smoke in Car or Room, Outside, or Multiunit Housing Among 8th-Grade Respondents Living in Multiunit Housing .......................................................................................10-4 10-5. Method of Accessing Vapes (or Pods or e-Liquid) Among 8th-Grade Respondents Who Were Currently Vaping ......................................................10-4 10-6. Methods of Accessing Cigarettes Among 8th-Grade Respondents Who Were Currently Smoking Cigarettes ......................................................................10-5 10-7. Prevalence of Marijuana Use Among 8th-Grade Respondents ............................10-6 10-8. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Marijuana Smoke in Car or Room or Outside Among 8th-Grade Respondents ........................................................10-7 Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) ES-1
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the main results from the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey (CYTS). The CYTS has been administered annually to 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students from California middle and high schools since 2021 and prior to 2021, once every 2 years.

Data collection for the 2023 survey occurred between January and June 2023. Schools and classrooms within schools were randomly selected. The sample was designed to provide statewide and county-level estimates of tobacco use among youth in California. In 2023, we collected data from 356 schools and 41,755 students who consented to participate in the survey and provided valid survey data (see Appendix B for additional information). The survey was administered online during the school day. Most respondents completed the survey at their school, except for those engaged in virtual learning or independent study.

The survey was designed to assess the use of, knowledge of, and attitudes toward tobacco products, including cigarettes, vapes, little cigars or cigarillos (LCCs), cigars, hookah, smokeless tobacco, heated tobacco products (HTPs), and nicotine pouches. The survey also examined social and environmental exposure to tobacco. Marijuana and alcohol were included in the survey because the co-use of marijuana and alcohol with tobacco products is common. This report primarily focuses on high school respondents (16,255 respondents in 10th grade and 14,711 in 12th grade). Key results for 8th graders (10,789) are presented in Chapter 10.

This year’s report includes tobacco prevalence estimates by rurality, region, and county or county group for any tobacco use and the use of specific products. In addition, we compare the prevalence of current tobacco use for high school students between the 2022 and 2023 administrations of the CYTS.

Appendix B provides a brief overview of the survey methodology. Additional details about the sampling strategy, survey administration, and statistical analysis can be found in the Technical Report on Analytic Methods and Approaches Used in the California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023, by Russell et al. 1 Appendix B also includes information about comparing CYTS estimates between 2022 and 2023 and information about the criteria we used to label estimates as imprecise and to suppress specific estimates. For definitions of the terminology included in table footnotes, see the definitions for analytic terms section in Appendix A.

ES-1. Key Findings
ES-1.1 Tobacco Use Behavior (Chapters 1 and 2)
 In 2023, 21.6% of California high school respondents had ever used any tobacco product, and 7.3% currently used tobacco.
1 Russell, S., Dutra, L. M., Carter, S.E., Baum, L., & Levine, B. (2023). Technical report for the California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023. RTI International.

Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
ES-2
 Vapes were the most commonly used tobacco product among high school respondents (18.3% ever use, 5.9% current use), regardless of gender identity, race/ethnicity, and grade.
 Ever use of vapes was 18.3% among high school respondents, and current use was

5.9%.
 Ever cigarette smoking prevalence was 5.6%; 1.2% of high school respondents reported currently smoking cigarettes.
 Current prevalence of use of nicotine pouches was 1.1%.  Current prevalence was less than 1% for LCCs, cigars, HTPs, smokeless tobacco, and hookah.
 Current tobacco use prevalence varied by demographics. Current use was highest among White (10.7%) respondents, 12th-grade (9.4%) respondents, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning (LGBTQ+) (11.4%) respondents, and respondents who reported poor mental health (14.8%).
 Approximately a quarter (27.2%) of respondents who reported currently using tobacco also reported currently using two or more tobacco products. Polytobacco use varied by LGBTQ+ status.
 Two-thirds of high school students (66.1%) reported experiencing one or more types of discrimination a few times or more often in the past 30 days. The most commonly reported experience of discrimination was being treated with less courtesy or respect than others, with 6.9% of respondents reporting experiencing this almost every day,

12.6% reporting experiencing it at least once a week, and 32.1% reporting experiencing it a few times in the past month.
 Experiences of discrimination were more commonly reported by respondents currently using tobacco than respondents not currently using tobacco. Respondents who were currently using tobacco (11.5%) reported being treated with less courtesy or respect than others almost every day, compared to 6.4% of non-current tobacco users.
 Almost half of respondents who were currently vaping reported attempting to quit vaping in the last 12 months (40.8%), and approximately the same percentage reported intending to quit vaping in the next 30 days (38.8%).  The survey asked respondents who were currently using tobacco which flavor they used most often (e.g., unflavored, fruit, mint). A substantial majority of respondents who reported currently using tobacco also reported using flavored tobacco products (85.6%), with flavored tobacco use being highest for vapes (89.1%) out of all tobacco products. Fruit was the most popular flavor of vapes reported by respondents who were currently vaping.
 In terms of flavored tobacco use by demographics, among respondents who reported currently using tobacco, current use of flavored tobacco was highest among respondents who selected “something else” as their gender identity (90.1%) and 10th-grade respondents (86.6%). In terms of race/ethnicity, use of flavored tobacco was highest among African American or Black respondents and lowest among Hispanic respondents. While 96.0% of respondents who reported current use and identified as African American or Black reported using flavored tobacco, only 82.7% of respondents who reported current use and identified as Hispanic reported using flavored tobacco.

Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
ES-3
ES-1.2 Methods of Accessing Vapes and Cigarettes (Chapter 3)  Among respondents who were currently vaping, the most commonly reported method of obtaining vapes was buying them (34.9%). Among respondents who reported buying their own vapes, the most common method of buying them was from someone else (30.5%).
 Among respondents who were currently smoking cigarettes, the most commonly reported method of obtaining cigarettes was buying them (26.5%).  Reports of respondents buying their own vapes or cigarettes varied by grade; 12thgrade respondents reported higher prevalence of buying vapes (38.8%) than 10thgrade respondents (28.7%), and 10th-grade respondents reported higher prevalence of buying cigarettes (28.5%) than 12th-grade respondents (25.5%).  Overall, high school respondents reported that it was easy to obtain vapes and cigarettes. For vapes, 49.9% of respondents reported that it was easy to access them from a store, 67.3% that it was easy to access them from the internet, and

71.6% that it was easy to access them from someone else. For cigarettes, 37.0% of respondents reported it was easy to access them from a store, 58.7% that it was easy to access them from the internet, and 60.8% that it was easy to access them from someone else.

ES-1.3 Secondhand Exposure and Other Environmental Influences (Chapter 4)
 Regarding secondhand exposure to vapes, 29.0% of high school respondents reported being exposed in a car or room in the last 2 weeks. More than a third (42.1%) reported being exposed outside during the same time period.  For secondhand tobacco smoke exposure, 14.1% of high school respondents reported being exposed to secondhand smoke in a car or room in the last 2 weeks.

More than half (57.8%) reported being exposed to secondhand smoke outside.  Among high school respondents who reported living in multiunit housing (MUH) (29.7%), approximately half (48.8%) reported being exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke in the home in the last 6 months.
 Respondents who were currently vaping reported higher prevalence of exposure to secondhand vapor in a car or room in the last 2 weeks (80.1%), compared with respondents who formerly vaped (49.9%) and those who had never vaped (22.2%).  Respondents who were currently smoking tobacco reported higher prevalence of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in a car or room in the last 2 weeks (60.1%), compared with former (30.5%) and never smokers (12.4%).  Respondents who were currently vaping or smoking tobacco reported higher prevalence of exposure to secondhand vapor or tobacco smoke outside in the last 2 weeks (76.1% for vaping, 84.7% for smoking), compared with those who reported former (56.0% for vaping, 65.8% for smoking) and never use (37.6% for vaping,

56.9% for smoking).
 Most high school respondents reported having a complete ban on vaping (81.0%) and tobacco smoking (78.4%) in the home. Generally, a higher percentage of respondents who had never vaped reported complete home bans compared to respondents who were currently vaping or had formerly vaped.

Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
ES-4
 Few (3.8%) respondents reported having a favorite vaping advertisement.  Over two-thirds (71.8%) of respondents reported being exposed to vaping (rarely, sometimes, often, or always) on social media in the last 30 days. Respondents who currently (84.5%) vaped and had formerly (84.8%) vaped more commonly reported being exposed to vaping advertisements than respondents who had never vaped (69.1%).
 About half of respondents (55.9%) reported being exposed to cigarette smoking on social media (rarely, sometimes, often, or always) in the last 30 days. Respondents who were currently smoking cigarettes (72.1%) or formerly smoked cigarettes (72.4%) reported being exposed to cigarette smoking on social media more than respondents who had never smoked (55.0%).
 Less than half of respondents (40.9%) reported paying any attention to social media posts about vaping. Attention to these posts varied by vaping status, with a higher percentage of respondents who currently vaped (55.1%) reporting they paid attention, compared to respondents who had formerly (48.1%) and never vaped (38.8%).

ES-1.4 Tobacco Susceptibility and Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs (Chapter 5)
 Overall, 44.3% of respondents who had never used tobacco were susceptible to one or more tobacco products, and 37.8% were susceptible to vapes specifically.  Among high school respondents who had never smoked, 20.1% were susceptible to future cigarette smoking.
 Among respondents who had never smoked LCCs, 21.4% were susceptible to future use of LCCs.
 Susceptibility to vapes, cigarettes, and LCCs varied by gender identity and race/ethnicity. Susceptibility was highest for respondents who identified their gender as “something else” or “I’m not sure yet” (49.8%) and non-Hispanic multiracial respondents (46.4%).
 Respondents who rated their mental health as poor (55.3%) or fair (51.8%) had higher susceptibility to vapes, cigarettes, and LCCs than those who rated it good, very good, or excellent (39.5%).
 Respondents who were LGBTQ+ were more susceptible (52.6%) to vapes, cigarettes, and LCCs than respondents who were not LGBTQ+ (42.2%) and respondents with unclear LGBTQ+ status (44.7%).
 Among youths who had never vaped, never smoked cigarettes, and never smoked LCCs, 37.8% were susceptible to future vaping, 20.1% to future cigarette smoking, and 21.4% to future LCC smoking.
 The most commonly endorsed reason for vaping (among current vapers) was to relax or relieve stress and anxiety (35.2%).
 Most respondents believed that adults who were important to them viewed vaping and smoking cigarettes negatively (96.3% and 96.8%, respectively), and this belief was consistent across demographic categories.

Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
ES-5
 Perceived approval of vaping and smoking among peers varied by product. About half (49.8%) of respondents reported that other respondents at school would view vaping negatively, while most (83.6%) reported that their peers would view smoking cigarettes negatively. A higher percentage of respondents who were never users of each product believed their peers would disapprove of their use compared to respondents who were current or former users of vapes and cigarettes.  Respondents perceived that more of their peers held negative views of smoking cigarettes (83.6%) than vaping (49.8%).

ES-1.5 Tobacco Endgame Attitudes (Chapter 6)
 Two-thirds (66.9%) of high school respondents reported that they supported a ban on the sale of all tobacco products. Almost three-quarters supported a ban on public use of cigarettes and LCCs (73.7%) and a similar percentage supported a ban on the sale of all flavored tobacco (72.0%).
 Support for policies varied across vaping and smoking status, with 71.2%, 77.0%, and 76.9% of never vapers reporting support for a tobacco sales ban, a tobacco public use ban, and a flavored tobacco ban, respectively, and fewer respondents who were currently smoking cigarettes reporting support for such bans (19.0% for sales,

29.9% for public use, and 26.8% for flavored).

ES-1.6 Geographic Differences (Chapter 7)
 In general, towns and rural settings (9.6%) tended to have higher tobacco use in comparison to cities (6.9%) and suburban areas (6.8%).
 Madera (18.7%, 4.2%), Merced (16.2%, 4.5%), Tulare (15.0%, 4.2%), Contra Costa (15.5%, 2.8%), and Los Angeles (16.6%, 5.0%) counties had the lowest ever and current tobacco use estimates, respectively, out of all counties or county groupings.
 In general, current use estimates for specific products were consistent across region, except for vaping; the Northern region of the state (8.1%) had the highest prevalence of current vaping.

ES-1.7 Marijuana Use (Chapter 8)
 Almost a quarter (23.0%) of high school respondents reported having ever used marijuana, while 10.4% reported current use of marijuana.  Current marijuana use (10.4%) was higher than current use of any tobacco (7.3%) among high school respondents.
 Current marijuana use varied by demographics. Current use was highest among respondents who identified their gender as “something else” or “I’m not sure yet” (14.1%), African American or Black (18.1%) respondents, and 12th-grade (14.0%) respondents. Prevalence of current use among LGBTQ+ respondents was more than double (18.0%) that of non-LGBTQ+ respondents (8.9%) or respondents of unclear LGBTQ+ status (6.4%).
 Among respondents who were currently using marijuana, the most common mode of use was smoking marijuana (49.0%).

Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
ES-6
 Overall, the prevalence of current use of marijuana only (5.5%) was slightly higher than co-use of marijuana and any tobacco product (4.9%). For some demographic subgroups, co-use was higher than marijuana-only use.
 Among respondents who were currently co-using marijuana and tobacco, the most commonly used tobacco product was vapes (39.1%).
 Overall, 21.3% of respondents reported being exposed to marijuana smoke in a car or room within the last 2 weeks, and 31.1% reported being exposed outside.

Respondents who were currently using marijuana reported greater exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke than respondents who reported former and never use.  Among respondents currently using marijuana, the most commonly endorsed methods of obtaining the product were buying it (38.2%) and someone giving it to them (27.0%). Among those who reported purchasing their own marijuana, the most common methods of obtaining marijuana were from someone else (44.9%) or from a store or dispensary (38.3%).

ES-1.8 Comparisons of Tobacco Use from 2022 to 2023 (Chapter 9)  The use of current and ever use of any tobacco product changed little between 2022 and 2023. Current use of tobacco was 6.6% in 2022 and 7.3% in 2023; ever use was 20.3% in 2022 and 21.6% in 2023. There were no significant changes in ever or current use of any tobacco product or ever or current use of specific tobacco products among all high school respondents.
 There was one significant change over time by race and ethnicity. Current cigarette smoking increased significantly between 2022 (0.1%) and 2023 (1.8%) among students who identified as non-Hispanic other race.
 There were also significant changes by grade. Current hookah use increased between 2022 (0.5%) and 2023 (1.0%) among 12th graders, current smokeless tobacco use increased among 10th graders (0.2% in 2022 and 0.6% in 2023), and current use of nicotine pouches increased in both grades (10th: 0.5% in 2022 and 0.9% in 2023; 12th: 0.7% in 2022 and 1.2% in 2023).

ES-1.9 8th-Grade Tobacco Use (Chapter 10)
 Prevalence of ever tobacco use was lower for 8th-grade respondents (11.4%) than high school respondents (21.6%).
 Prevalence of current tobacco use was lower for 8th-grade respondents (3.2%) than high school respondents (7.3%).
 Vaping was the most common form of current tobacco use (2.5%), followed by nicotine pouches (0.6%), among middle school respondents.  In terms of demographics, current tobacco use was highest among 8th-grade respondents who identified their gender as “something else” or “I’m not sure yet” (6.8%). Among racial/ethnic categories, multiracial respondents (5.9%) reported the highest current use, and Asian respondents (0.7%) reported the lowest.  Almost all 8th-grade respondents who currently vaped reported using flavored vapes (91.9%).
 Eighth-grade respondents reported greater exposure to secondhand vapor (20.3%) than tobacco smoke (15.2%) indoors, and greater exposure to smoke (54.3%) than Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
ES-7
vapor (31.8%) outdoors. Of those respondents who reported living in MUH, about half (49.2%) reported tobacco smoke exposure in their unit within the last 6 months.  Eighth-grade respondents who were currently vaping most commonly acquired vapes by buying them (26.2%), and the most common source was buying them from someone (45.1%). Of those who currently smoked cigarettes, the most common method of obtaining them was someone giving them to them (38.6%). Among 8thgrade respondents, 3.1% reported current marijuana use and 8.5% reported ever marijuana use.

Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 1-1

1. Tobacco Use Behavior, Overall and for Priority Populations This chapter presents high school tobacco use behavior data from the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey (CYTS), including both ever and current use of various tobacco products.

Ever use is defined as any tobacco use in one’s lifetime, and current use is defined as any use within the last 30 days. In this report, the terms current use and last-30-day use are used interchangeably. This chapter also provides the overall prevalence rates of tobacco product use and the frequency of current use of products. Additionally, it presents the use of multiple tobacco products (i.e., polytobacco use). Last, this chapter includes tobacco use by demographics commonly found in surveys, specifically, gender identity, race/ethnicity, and grade. For tobacco use among 8th-grade respondents, see Chapter 10.

This chapter also presents high school tobacco use among specific populations. Because of high observed tobacco use among members of priority populations, the chapter examines use by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning (LGBTQ+) status2; mental health3; and experiences of discrimination.4,5 Because of higher use of multiple tobacco products among LGBTQ+ individuals2 (compared to individuals who do not identify as LGBTQ+), this chapter also examines polytobacco use by LGBTQ+ status. In addition, this chapter examines characteristics of current vapers who attempted to quit vaping in the last 12 months and who intended to quit vaping in the next 30 days.

1.1 Tobacco Use Among High School Respondents
We asked respondents not to include marijuana products when answering questions about the use of tobacco products. Table 1-1 presents ever and current use of tobacco products among high school respondents. The first row of Table 1-1 indicates any tobacco use (use of one or more of the included tobacco products). Current use of any tobacco product was

7.3%. Vaping was the most popular at 5.9%. The use of tobacco products other than vapes was low. Current use of cigarettes was 1.2%. Nicotine pouch use was 1.1%. Less than 1% of high school respondents reported current use of little cigars or cigarillos (LCCs) (0.6%), cigars (0.8%), hookah (0.7%), smokeless tobacco (0.5%), or heated tobacco products (HTPs) (0.5%).
2 Creamer, M. R., Everett Jones, S., Gentzke, A. S., Jamal, A., & King, B. A. (2020). Tobacco product use among high school students – Youth Risk Behavior survey, United States, 2019. MMWR, 69(1), 56–63.
3 National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2022). Research report: Tobacco, nicotine, and e-cigarettes research report. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/tobacco-nicotine-e-cigarettes/. 4 Dutra, L. M., Williams, D. R., Kawachi, I., & Okechukwu, C. A. (2014). Racial and nonracial discrimination and smoking status among South African adults ten years after apartheid. Tobacco Control, 23(e2), e114–121. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051478. 5 Borrell, L. N., Jacobs, D. R., Williams, D. R., Pletcher, M. J., Houston, T. K., & Kiefe, C. I. (2007).

Self-reported discrimination and substance use in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Adults Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 166(9), 1068–1079.

Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-2
Table 1-1. Prevalence of Ever and Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents
Tobacco Product
Ever Use Current Use
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Any tobacco use 30,966 21.6 (20.3–22.9) 30,966 7.3 (6.5–8.1) Vapes 30,933 18.3 (17.2–19.5) 30,930 5.9 (5.3–6.5)
Cigarettes 30,943 5.6 (4.9–6.5) 30,943 1.2 (0.9–1.5)
LCCs 30,953 2.3 (2.0–2.6) 30,951 0.6 (0.5–0.8)
Cigars 30,948 3.3 (2.9–3.7) 30,947 0.8 (0.7–1.0)
Hookah 30,966 2.5 (2.0–3.0) 30,966 0.7 (0.5–1.0)
Smokeless 30,966 1.5 (1.3–1.7) 30,966 0.5 (0.4–0.7)
HTPs 30,966 1.2 (1.0–1.4) 30,966 0.5 (0.3–0.7)
Nicotine pouches 30,966 3.1 (2.7–3.5) 30,966 1.1 (0.9–1.3) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. CI = confidence interval

1.2 Frequency of Tobacco Use
The 2023 CYTS asked respondents who reported currently using a tobacco product to indicate how many days they had used the product within the last 30 days. Table 1-2 presents the mean frequency of use among respondents who were currently using each product. Of the 5.9% of high school respondents who reported vaping in the last 30 days,

41.5% reported frequent vaping (20 or more days in the last 30 days). Among current vapers, 29.9% reported vaping daily in the last 30 days (daily use not shown in table).

Frequent use (20 or more days in the last month) was the most common response for users of vapes, LCCs, cigars, and smokeless tobacco. For cigarettes, hookah, HTPs, and nicotine pouches, using the product either 1 day or 2 days were the most common responses.

Table 1-2. Frequency of Current Use Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Using a Given Tobacco Product
Tobacco
product N
1 or 2 days
% (95% CI)
3–5 days
% (95% CI)
6–19 days
% (95% CI)
20–30 days
% (95% CI)
Vapes 2,051 26.1 (22.9–29.4) 14.1 (11.2–17.4) 18.4 (15.4–21.7) 41.5 (37.4–45.7) Cigarettes 452 41.1 (33.6–48.9) Q (13.9–29.7) 12.9 (8.0–19.1) 25.1 (17.1–34.4) LCCs 231 24.4 (15.8–34.8) 18.9 (9.1–32.7) 18.8 (10.3–30.1) 38.0 (26.9–50.0) Cigars 293 38.9 (29.9–48.6) 11.8 (6.4–19.3) 7.4† (3.5–13.5) 41.9 (31.0–53.3) Hookah 192 51.2 (36.2–66.0) 11.4† (3.1–27.2) 11.1† (4.5–21.8) 26.3 (16.7–37.8) Smokeless 176 32.9† (18.1–50.6) 11.4† (4.3–23.2) — — 40.8† (23.4–60.0) HTPs 137 39.8† (23.7–57.7) 8.7† (2.7–19.5) 21.4† (9.6–38.2) 30.2 (18.0–44.7) (continued)
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-3
Table 1-2. Frequency of Current Use Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Using a Given Tobacco Product (continued)
Tobacco
product N
1 or 2 days
% (95% CI)
3–5 days
% (95% CI)
6–19 days
% (95% CI)
20–30 days
% (95% CI)
Nicotine
pouches
410 51.9 (38.5–65.1) — — 11.5 (6.3–18.6) 22.5 (15.3–31.1) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. CI = confidence interval — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate. For more information about Korn-Graubard confidence intervals, see Appendix A.

1.3 Tobacco Use by Gender Identity
Table 1-3 presents current use of each tobacco product by gender identity. The gender identity category “identified in another way” includes respondents who reported their gender as “something else” or “I’m not sure yet.” The “declined to answer” gender identity category represents those who skipped this question.

Respondents who identified their gender in another way (12.5%) or declined to answer the question about gender identity (15.6%) had a higher prevalence of current use of any tobacco product than those who identified as female (7.0%) or male (6.5%). This pattern was similar for vapes and hookah. For the remaining products, those who identified another way, but not those who declined to answer, reported higher use than those who identified as male or female.

Table 1-3. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Gender Identity
Tobacco Product
Male
N = 13,750
% (95% CI)
Female
N = 13,537
% (95% CI)
Identified in
Another Way
N = 1,767
% (95% CI)
Declined to
Answer
N = 198
% (95% CI)
Any tobacco use 6.5 (5.7–7.5) 7.0 (6.1–8.0) 12.5 (9.8–15.5) 15.6 (8.4–25.5) Vapes 5.1 (4.4–5.8) 6.0 (5.1–6.9) 8.6 (6.8–10.8) 12.3† (5.8–21.9) Cigarettes 1.1 (0.8–1.5) 0.7 (0.5–1.1) 5.2 (3.6–7.2) 1.5 (0.2–5.1) LCCs 0.5 (0.4–0.7) 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 3.9 (2.5–5.6) 0.7 (0.2–1.8) Cigars 1.0 (0.8–1.4) 0.2 (0.1–0.3) 4.2 (2.8–6.0) 1.1 (0.3–3.1) Hookah 0.7 (0.4–1.0) 0.5 (0.3–1.0) 2.9 (1.6–4.7) 3.4† (0.8–9.4) Smokeless 0.5 (0.3–0.8) 0.2 (0.0–0.5) 2.8 (1.5–4.7) 0.6 (0.2–1.5) HTPs 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 0.4 (0.2–0.8) 2.6 (1.5–4.1) 0.2 (0.0–1.0) Nicotine pouches 1.3 (1.0–1.6) 0.7 (0.3–1.2) 3.1 (1.9–4.7) 1.0 (0.2–2.9) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. CI = confidence interval † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-4

1.4 Tobacco Use by Race/Ethnicity
Tables 1-4a and 1-4b present tobacco use by race/ethnicity. The race/ethnicity variable was created by combining responses to two questions, one about Hispanic ethnicity and the other about race (Hispanic is not considered a race in the survey). Tables 1-4a and 1-4b include all race/ethnicity categories created by combining Hispanic ethnicity with the response options for race. However, elsewhere in the survey, American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (NHOPI), and respondents who did not identify with any of the races listed in the survey are collapsed into a category called “other” due to small sample sizes. For more information on demographic variables used in the survey, see Appendix A.

Tables 1-4a and 1-4b present race/ethnicity differences in current use of any tobacco product. Although we make comparisons between NHOPI respondents and other race/ethnicity categories in the text, all estimates for NHOPI and all comparisons that include this group should be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes. For AI/AN respondents, we were not able to provide estimates for any current tobacco use or any vaping due to small sample sizes, and the estimates for LCCs and cigars should be interpreted with caution for the same reason.

Table 1-4a. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity
Tobacco
Product
White
N = 7,386
% (95% CI)
African
American or
Black
N = 688
% (95% CI)
Hispanic
N = 16,691
% (95% CI)
Asian
N = 3,172
% (95% CI)
Any tobacco use 10.7 (9.4–12.2) 7.9 (5.4–11.1) 6.3 (5.5–7.1) 3.3 (2.5–4.2) Vapes 8.7 (7.6–9.9) 5.4 (2.9–9.0) 5.1 (4.4–5.9) 2.7 (2.1–3.4) Cigarettes 2.3 (1.6–3.1) 1.4 (0.2–4.5) 0.7 (0.5–0.9) 0.6 (0.3–1.2) LCCs 0.6 (0.3–0.9) 0.7 (0.1–1.9) 0.7 (0.5–0.9) 0.4 (0.1–0.9) Cigars 1.3 (0.8–1.8) 0.7 (0.2–1.7) 0.7 (0.5–0.9) 0.5 (0.2–1.0) Hookah 0.9 (0.4–1.5) 2.1† (0.4–6.2) 0.5 (0.3–0.7) 0.6 (0.3–1.2) Smokeless 0.6 (0.3–1.1) 0.3 (0.1–0.6) 0.4 (0.2–0.6) 0.5 (0.2–1.1) HTPs 0.4 (0.2–0.8) 1.0 (0.0–5.0) 0.4 (0.2–0.6) 0.5 (0.2–1.1) Nicotine
pouches

1.7 (1.3–2.2) 1.5 (0.3–4.5) 0.7 (0.5–0.9) 0.8 (0.4–1.3) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. CI = confidence interval † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-5
For any tobacco use, non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White) high school respondents had the highest current use (10.7%) followed by NHOPI (9.6%), and multiracial respondents (9.5%). Asian respondents had the lowest current use (3.3%). For vapes, NHOPI respondents (9.6%), followed by White respondents (8.7%), had the highest current prevalence of use. For cigarette smoking, current use was similar across multiple races and ethnicities, with the highest prevalence estimates for White (2.3%), NHOPI (2.2%), multiracial (2.1%), and other race (2.0%) respondents. AI/AN (1.5%) and NHOPI (1.7%) respondents had notably higher use of LCCs than other races and ethnicities, but, again, these estimates should be interpreted with caution. African American/Black (2.1%), NHOPI (1.7%), other race (2.0%), and multiracial (2.1%) respondents all reported higher current hookah use than the other race/ethnicity categories. NHOPI respondents reported the highest current use of smokeless tobacco (2.0%) and HTPs (2.0%). For nicotine pouches, current use was higher for White (1.7%), African American/Black (1.5%), NHOPI (2.1%), multiracial (1.8%), and other race (1.5%) respondents, compared to the other race/ethnicity groups.

Table 1-4b. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity
Tobacco Product
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
N = 177
% (95% CI)
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
N = 117
% (95% CI)
Other
N = 492
% (95% CI)
Multiracial
N = 2,168
% (95% CI)
Any tobacco use — — 9.6† (2.7–22.7) 6.7 (3.9–10.6) 9.5 (7.7–11.7) Vapes — — 9.6† (2.7–22.7) 3.8 (1.9–6.9) 7.6 (5.9–9.6)
Cigarettes 0.5 (0.0–2.3) 2.2† (0.1–9.5) 2.0 (0.6–4.8) 2.1 (1.3–3.3) LCCs 1.5† (0.0–7.9) 1.7† (0.0–9.6) 0.2 (0.0–1.0) 0.8 (0.3–1.7) Cigars 1.4† (0.0–8.0) 1.7† (0.0–9.6) 1.1 (0.4–2.4) 0.9 (0.4–1.6) Hookah 0.8 (0.0–3.6) 1.7† (0.0–9.6) 2.0 (0.5–5.1) 1.6 (0.8–2.9) Smokeless 0.7 (0.0–3.7) 2.0† (0.1–9.4) 0.8 (0.1–3.1) 1.2 (0.5–2.5) HTPs 0.7 (0.0–3.7) 2.0† (0.1–9.4) 0.8 (0.1–3.1) 1.1 (0.5–2.2) Nicotine
pouches

0.7 (0.0–3.6) 2.1† (0.1–9.3) 1.5 (0.5–3.5) 1.8 (1.0–2.9) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. CI = confidence interval — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-6

1.5 Tobacco Use by Grade
Table 1-5 presents current tobacco use by grade. Current use of any tobacco product was higher among 12th graders (9.4%) than 10th graders (5.3%). Current use of specific products was higher among 12th-grade respondents for each product except for HTPs and nicotine pouches.

Table 1-5. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Grade
Tobacco Product
10th Grade 12th Grade
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Any tobacco use 16,255 5.3 (4.6–6.2) 14,711 9.4 (8.2–10.8) Vapes 16,235 4.3 (3.7–5.0) 14,695 7.6 (6.6–8.6)
Cigarettes 16,244 0.8 (0.5–1.1) 14,699 1.6 (1.2–2.1)
LCCs 16,244 0.6 (0.4–0.8) 14,707 0.7 (0.5–0.9)
Cigars 16,243 0.7 (0.5–1.0) 14,704 1.0 (0.7–1.3)
Hookah 16,255 0.4 (0.3–0.6) 14,711 1.0 (0.6–1.6)
Smokeless 16,255 0.6 (0.4–0.9) 14,711 0.4 (0.2–0.6)
HTPs 16,255 0.5 (0.3–0.7) 14,711 0.5 (0.3–0.9)
Nicotine pouches 16,255 0.9 (0.7–1.2) 14,711 1.2 (0.9–1.5) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. CI = confidence interval

1.6 Tobacco Use by LGBTQ+ Status
Respondents were asked to indicate their sexual orientation and gender identity in two separate questions. Using responses from these questions, three categories of LGBTQ+ status were created: LGBTQ+, non-LGBTQ+, and unclear LGBTQ+ status. See Appendix A for additional information on this variable.

Table 1-6 presents tobacco use by LGBTQ+ status. LGBTQ+ respondents had higher prevalence of any current tobacco use (11.4%) than non-LGBTQ+ respondents (6.4%) and those of unclear LGBTQ+ status (5.3%). LGBTQ+ respondents also had a higher prevalence of tobacco use for each specific tobacco product than respondents with unclear LGBTQ+ status or who identified as non-LGBTQ+. Vapes were the most commonly used product across all groups. Current vaping was 9.1% among LGBTQ+ respondents, 4.0% among respondents with unclear LGBTQ+ status, and 5.1% among non-LGBTQ+ respondents.

Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-7
Table 1-6. Prevalence of Current Tobacco Use Among High School Respondents, by LGBTQ+ Status
Tobacco
Product
LGBTQ+* Non-LGBTQ+*
Unclear LGBTQ+
Status*
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Any tobacco use 5,146 11.4 (9.5–13.6) 21,360 6.4 (5.6–7.2) 2,414 5.3 (4.0–6.8) Vapes 5,142 9.1 (7.7–10.7) 21,337 5.1 (4.5–5.9) 2,412 4.0 (2.8–5.4) Cigarettes 5,145 2.5 (1.8–3.3) 21,348 0.9 (0.6–1.2) 2,413 1.1 (0.6–1.8) LCCs 5,143 1.6 (1.1–2.2) 21,353 0.4 (0.3–0.5) 2,414 0.4 (0.2–0.8) Cigars 5,144 1.5 (1.0–2.2) 21,352 0.7 (0.5–0.9) 2,412 0.6 (0.3–1.1) Hookah 5,146 1.5 (0.8–2.3) 21,360 0.5 (0.3–0.9) 2,414 1.0 (0.4–1.9) Smokeless 5,146 1.2 (0.7–1.9) 21,360 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 2,414 0.7 (0.3–1.5) HTPs 5,146 1.4 (0.8–2.3) 21,360 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 2,414 0.5 (0.1–1.2) Nicotine
pouches
5,146 1.7 (1.1–2.5) 21,360 1.0 (0.7–1.3) 2,414 0.9 (0.5–1.6) Note. LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos; HTPs = heated tobacco products; LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning. CI = confidence interval * Respondents who reported (a) their gender identity as transgender or “something else” and/or (b) identified their sexual orientation as gay or lesbian, bisexual, “something else,” or “don’t know what this question means” were considered LGBTQ+. Respondents who identified as female or male and straight (that is, not gay or lesbian) were considered non-LGBTQ+. Respondents who responded (a) unsure for gender identity and straight for sexual orientation or (b) male, female, or unsure for gender identity and unsure or “don’t know” for sexual orientation were considered to have unclear LGBTQ+ status.

1.7 Tobacco Use by General Mental Health
Table 1-7 presents respondents’ current tobacco use according to reported general mental health (see Appendix A). Respondents who rated their mental health as poor reported higher use of any tobacco product (14.8%) than those who reported their mental health as fair (7.2%) or good to excellent (5.9%). This pattern was consistent for each tobacco product.

Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-8
Table 1-7. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by General Mental Health
Tobacco
Product
Good to Excellent Fair Poor
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Any tobacco use 19,149 5.9 (5.1–6.7) 7,155 7.2 (6.0–8.7) 3,107 14.8 (12.3–17.6) Vapes 19,137 4.6 (4.0–5.2) 7,146 6.3 (5.2–7.7) 3,098 11.5 (9.4–13.8) Cigarettes 19,141 1.1 (0.8–1.5) 7,151 0.9 (0.6–1.2) 3,103 2.4 (1.7–3.3) LCCs 19,141 0.6 (0.4–0.8) 7,154 0.3 (0.2–0.6) 3,105 0.9 (0.4–1.8) Cigars 19,141 0.9 (0.7–1.2) 7,153 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 3,104 1.2 (0.6–2.3) Hookah 19,149 0.8 (0.5–1.3) 7,155 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 3,107 0.9 (0.5–1.7) Smokeless 19,149 0.5 (0.3–0.6) 7,155 0.2 (0.1–0.5) 3,107 1.4 (0.6–2.6) HTPs 19,149 0.5 (0.3–0.7) 7,155 0.2 (0.1–0.4) 3,107 1.2 (0.6–2.1) Nicotine
pouches
19,149 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 7,155 0.5 (0.3–0.8) 3,107 2.3 (0.9–4.7) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. CI = confidence interval

1.8 Polytobacco Use
Table 1-8 presents the current use of multiple tobacco products, often referred to as polytobacco use. Some estimates are imprecise due to small sample sizes. Overall, 27.2% of high school respondents who were currently using tobacco reported using two or more tobacco products. Due to small sample sizes, we excluded respondents who declined to answer questions about gender identity from the table. Of the remaining categories, respondents who identified their gender another way reported the highest prevalence of polytobacco use (50.6%). Polytobacco use was higher for 10th-grade respondents (30.4%) than 12th-grade respondents (25.2%). LGBTQ+ respondents had a higher prevalence of polytobacco use (31.1%) than non-LGBTQ+ (26.8%) or respondents with unclear LGBTQ+ status (27.0%).

Table 1-8. Prevalence of Current Polytobacco Use Among High School Respondents Currently Using Tobacco, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status
Characteristic N
Used Only One
Tobacco Product
% (95% CI)
Used Two or More
Tobacco Products
% (95% CI)
Overall 2,584 72.8 (69.0–76.3) 27.2 (23.7–31.0)
Gender identity
Male 1,027 67.4 (61.3–73.0) 32.6 (27.0–38.7)
Female 1,078 80.9 (75.5–85.6) 19.1 (14.4–24.5)
(continued)
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-9
Table 1-8. Prevalence of Current Polytobacco Use Among High School Respondents Currently Using Tobacco, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status (continued)
Characteristic N
Used Only One
Tobacco Product
% (95% CI)
Used Two or More
Tobacco Products
% (95% CI)
Identified in another way 252 49.4 (39.6–59.3) 50.6 (40.7–60.4) Declined to answer 35 — — — —
Race/ethnicity*
White 958 71.0 (62.2–78.7) 29.0 (21.3–37.8)
African American or Black 68 — — — —
Hispanic 1,133 76.9 (72.4–80.9) 23.1 (19.1–27.6)
Asian 126 73.1 (60.0–83.8) 26.9 (16.2–40.0)
Other 60 — — — —
Multiracial 232 65.7 (55.8–74.8) 34.3 (25.2–44.2)
Grade
10 1,056 69.6 (62.6–76.0) 30.4 (24.0–37.4)
12 1,528 74.8 (70.0–79.2) 25.2 (20.8–30.0)
LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 671 68.9 (62.8–74.5) 31.1 (25.5–37.2)
Non-LGBTQ+ 1,522 73.2 (67.9–78.1) 26.8 (21.9–32.1)
Unclear LGBTQ+ status 161 73.0 (60.9–83.0) 27.0 (17.0–39.1) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning. CI = confidence interval * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A.

1.9 Tobacco Use by Experiences of Discrimination
The CYTS captures experiences of discrimination based on literature establishing a relationship between discrimination and tobacco use.6,7,8 Specifically, since 2022, the CYTS has contained a modified version of the Everyday Discrimination Scale.9 The scale was 6 See Dutra et al., 2014. 7 Borrell, L. N., Jacobs, D. R., Williams, D. R., Pletcher, M. J., Houston, T. K., & Kiefe, C. I. (2007).

Self-reported discrimination and substance use in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Adults Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 166(9), 1068–1079. 8 Wiehe, S.E., Aalsma, M.C., Liu, G.C., Fortenberry, J.D. (2010). Gender differences in the association between perceived discrimination and adolescent smoking. American Journal of Public Health,100(3), 510-516.
9 Williams, D. R., Yu, Y., Jackson, J. S., & Anderson, N. B. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socioeconomic status, stress, and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 335–351.

Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-10
modified to specify a time period for the experiences—the past 30 days; otherwise, the scale is identical to its original version. Additional information on the discrimination variable is available in Appendix A.

Table 1-9 presents the list of experiences and how frequently high school students reported experiencing them. Overall, 66.1% of high school students reported one or more experiences of discrimination a few times or more in the past month. The most commonly endorsed experience of discrimination was “people acted as if they think you are not smart;”

8.1% of respondents reported having this experience almost every day. The second most common experience was “you were treated with less courtesy or respect than other people;”

6.9% of respondents reported having this experience almost daily.

Table 1-9. Prevalence of Experiences of Discrimination in the Last Month Among High School Respondents
Experience of
Discrimination N
Almost Every
Day
% (95% CI)
At Least Once a
Week
% (95% CI)
A Few Times
% (95% CI)
Not At All
% (95% CI)
You were
treated with
less courtesy or
respect than
other people
28,871 6.9 (6.3–7.6) 12.6 (11.8–13.5) 32.1 (31.1–33.2) 48.3 (46.7–50.0) You received
poorer service
than other
people at
restaurants or
stores
28,852 2.7 (2.3–3.2) 4.7 (4.2–5.2) 15.8 (14.9–16.7) 76.9 (75.7–78.0) People acted as
if they think you
are not smart
28,835 8.1 (7.4–8.8) 12.2 (11.4–13.0) 30.1 (29.3–31.0) 49.5 (48.3–50.8) People acted as
if they are
afraid of you
28,829 4.4 (3.8–5.0) 6.4 (5.9–6.9) 16.9 (16.1–17.8) 72.3 (70.9–73.6) You were
threatened or
harassed
28,843 3.5 (3.0–4.0) 4.7 (4.1–5.4) 14.0 (13.3–14.7) 77.8 (76.6–79.0) Note. CI = confidence interval
We examined these experiences by tobacco user status (Table 1-10). The two most commonly reported experiences were the same among respondents who were using tobacco and not using tobacco, but those using tobacco endorsed them at higher rates. For example, respondents who used tobacco reported experiencing “almost every day” that “people acted as if they think you are not smart” at twice the rate (15.6%) of those who didn’t use tobacco (7.5%). Respondents who used tobacco generally reported higher rates of discrimination than respondents who didn’t use tobacco.

Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-11
Table 1-10. Prevalence of Experiences of Discrimination in the Last Month Among High School Respondents, by Current Tobacco Use
Experience of
Discrimination
Almost Every
Day
% (95% CI)
At Least Once
a Week
% (95% CI)
A Few Times
% (95% CI)
Not At All
% (95% CI)
Currently using
tobacco1
You were treated
with less courtesy or
respect than other
people

13.5 (10.6–16.9) 19.9 (17.2–22.8) 31.3 (27.5–35.3) 35.3 (31.2–39.5) You received poorer
service than other
people at restaurants
or stores

6.6 (4.3–9.6) 11.0 (8.7–13.6) 17.5 (14.8–20.4) 64.9 (60.9–68.8) People acted as if
they think you are
not smart

15.6 (12.5–19.2) 18.7 (15.5–22.2) 29.3 (25.8–33.0) 36.4 (32.5–40.4) People acted as if
they are afraid of you

11.7 (9.0–14.8) 12.0 (9.8–14.4) 24.3 (20.9–27.8) 52.1 (48.2–56.0) You were threatened
or harassed

9.4 (6.9–12.5) 10.3 (8.1–12.9) 20.1 (17.4–23.0) 60.1 (56.7–63.6) Not currently using
tobacco2
You were treated
with less courtesy or
respect than other
people

6.4 (5.8–7.1) 12.0 (11.2–13.0) 32.2 (31.1–33.4) 49.3 (47.7–51.0) You received poorer
service than other
people at restaurants
or stores

2.4 (2.0–2.8) 4.2 (3.8–4.6) 15.6 (14.7–16.6) 77.8 (76.6–78.9) People acted as if
they think you are
not smart

7.5 (6.9–8.2) 11.7 (11.0–12.5) 30.2 (29.3–31.1) 50.6 (49.2–51.9) People acted as if
they are afraid of you

3.8 (3.3–4.4) 6.0 (5.5–6.5) 16.4 (15.5–17.3) 73.8 (72.5–75.1) You were threatened
or harassed

3.0 (2.6–3.5) 4.3 (3.8–4.9) 13.5 (12.8–14.3) 79.1 (78.0–80.2) Note. CI = confidence interval
1 n = 2,324 for respondents currently using tobacco in this table. 2 n = 26,547 for respondents not currently using tobacco in this table.

Next, we examined the perceived reason for experiences of discrimination among high school students who reported one or more of the experiences of discrimination (Table 1-11).

The most common perceived reasons for experiencing discrimination in the last month were some other aspect of physical appearance (35.3%) and age (30.7%). The least common Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-12
reason was religion (8.4%). The findings were similar when examining reason for discrimination across tobacco user status.

Table 1-11. Perceived Reasons for Experiencing Discrimination in the Last Month Among High School Respondents, by Current Tobacco User Status Reason for Discrimination
(Select All That Apply)
Overall
Currently Using
Tobacco
Not Currently
Using Tobacco
N = 19,152 N = 1,861 N = 17,291
% (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI)
Age 30.7 (29.4–32.0) 33.8 (29.3–38.4) 30.4 (29.0–31.9)
Race/ethnicity 28.6 (26.8–30.4) 28.0 (23.9–32.4) 28.6 (26.8–30.5) Gender identity 27.8 (26.5–29.2) 31.0 (27.2–35.0) 27.5 (26.2–29.0) Some other aspect of physical
appearance

35.3 (33.7–37.0) 38.7 (34.8–42.7) 35.0 (33.4–36.7)
Weight 20.8 (19.6–22.1) 23.3 (19.9–26.9) 20.6 (19.3–22.0) Height 19.9 (18.6–21.3) 20.1 (16.6–23.8) 19.9 (18.6–21.3) Ancestry or national origins 11.3 (10.5–12.1) 14.2 (10.8–18.2) 11.0 (10.3–11.8) Household or family education or
income

17.6 (16.6–18.8) 17.2 (14.4–20.4) 17.7 (16.6–18.8)
Sexual orientation 11.5 (10.6–12.4) 16.7 (13.0–20.9) 11.0 (10.2–11.8) Religion 8.4 (7.5–9.4) 9.2 (7.0–11.8) 8.3 (7.4–9.3)
Other 19.2 (18.3–20.2) 16.3 (13.5–19.5) 19.5 (18.4–20.6) Note. CI = confidence interval

1.10 Vaping Cessation
The 2023 CYTS examined quit attempts among current vapers and their intentions to quit vaping in the future. Appendix A provides additional information about these variables.

Table 1-12 presents reported quit attempts and intention to quit vaping in the next 30 days among vapers in specific populations. Among respondents who currently vaped, 40.8% reported attempting to quit vaping in the last 12 months, and 38.8%reported intending to quit in the next 30 days. Respondents who identified their gender in another way had the lowest prevalence of quit attempts (30.6%) and lowest reported intention to quit (24.5%).

Quit attempts and intention to quit were more common among 12th-grade respondents (41.8% and 40.8%, respectively) than 10th-grade respondents (39.2% and 35.5%, respectively). Non-LGBTQ+ respondents had a higher prevalence of quit attempts and reporting intentions to quit (41.7% and 41.5%, respectively) than respondents who were LGBTQ+ (36.9% and 32.6%, respectively) and respondents who had unclear LGBTQ+ status (36.7% and 33.6%, respectively). Respondents with poor mental health (36.4%) reported fewer quit attempts, but respondents with fair mental health status (43.1%) reported a higher prevalence of quit attempts than those with good to excellent mental health (40.5%). When asked about the next 30 days, respondents with good to excellent Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-13
mental health (41.7%) had the highest prevalence of intention to quit out of all mental health statuses. Suppressed values prevented comparisons by race/ethnicity.

Table 1-12. Percentage of Respondents Who Reported Attempting to Quit Vaping in the Last 12 Months or Intending to Quit Vaping in the Next 30 Days Among Currently Vaping High School Respondents
Characteristic
Attempted to Quit Intending to Quit
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 2,099 40.8 (37.5–44.2) 2,099 38.8 (34.3–43.3)
Gender identity
Male 767 41.2 (35.4–47.2) 767 40.7 (34.3–47.3)
Female 965 40.6 (35.9–45.4) 965 39.2 (33.7–45.0)
Identified in another way 182 30.6 (19.6–43.6) 182 24.5 (14.6–36.8) Declined to answer 25 — — 25 — —
Race/ethnicity*
White 761 39.1 (33.5–44.8) 761 32.7 (25.3–40.7)
African American or Black 55 — — 55 — —
Hispanic 939 42.1 (36.9–47.5) 939 42.4 (36.1–48.9)
Asian 107 39.9 (27.2–53.6) 107 44.8 (31.5–58.8)
Other 43 — — 43 — —
Multiracial 192 42.6 (30.8–55.1) 192 40.2 (28.4–52.9)
Grade
10 853 39.2 (33.1–45.6) 853 35.5 (30.6–40.7)
12 1,246 41.8 (37.2–46.5) 1,246 40.8 (34.6–47.2)
LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 543 36.9 (29.8–44.4) 543 32.6 (25.0-40.9)
Non-LGBTQ+ 1,246 41.7 (36.9–46.5) 1,246 41.5 (36.2–46.9) Unclear LGBTQ+ status 124 36.7 (24.0–50.9) 124 33.6† (18.9–51.0) Mental health status
Good to excellent 980 40.5 (35.0–46.2) 980 41.7 (34.0–49.6) Fair 537 43.1 (35.5–50.9) 537 38.4 (31.2–46.0)
Poor 420 36.4 (27.7–45.8) 420 30.8 (23.8–38.5)
Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning. CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
1-14

1.11 Summary
In 2023, the most frequently used tobacco product among California high school respondents was vapes, with 5.9% reporting current use and 18.3% reporting ever use.

Current use of cigarettes was 1.2%, and current use of LCCs, cigars, hookah, smokeless tobacco, and HTPs were all less than 1.0%. Respondents who identified their gender in another way or declined to answer questions about gender had a higher prevalence of any tobacco used compared to female or male respondents. This was also true for most individual tobacco products. Tobacco use was highest among respondents in the 12th grade (compared with 10th grade). About a quarter (27.2%) of respondents who currently used tobacco also reported using two or more tobacco products. Experiences of discrimination were common (66.1%), and respondents who currently used tobacco reported experiencing discrimination more frequently. A higher prevalence of quit attempts and intention to quit was observed among males, 12th graders, and non-LGTBQ+ respondents. Prevalence of quit attempts in the last 12 months and intention to quit in the next 30 days varied by selfreported mental health status.

Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 2-1

2. Use of Flavored Tobacco Products
This chapter presents the information about the use of flavored tobacco products among respondents currently using tobacco. It also presents the use of specific flavors. It should be noted that the flavored cigarette use reported in this chapter reflects the use of menthol cigarettes (the only flavor available). For flavored tobacco use among 8th-grade respondents, see Chapter 10.

2.1 Flavored Tobacco Use
The 2023 CYTS asked respondents who were currently using tobacco which flavors they used most often for each tobacco product. Since menthol cigarettes are the only type of flavored cigarette, the CYTS only asked about the use of menthol cigarettes in the past 30 days for respondents reporting current smoking. However, for the other products, the CYTS asked respondents to select their most commonly used flavor from a list of multiple flavors.

We divided respondents based on their use of flavored or unflavored products. This report defines flavored tobacco use as smoking menthol cigarettes in the last 30 days or, for users of all other tobacco products, selecting any flavor other than tobacco or unflavored as their most used flavor (see Appendix A). This report defines unflavored tobacco use as not having smoked menthol cigarettes in the last 30 days or, for users of all other products, selecting “tobacco” or “unflavored” as their most used flavor.

Table 2-1 indicates that, for the products included in the table, most respondents who were using tobacco also reported using a flavored tobacco product (85.6%), with the use of flavored vapes (89.1%) being the most prevalent. Almost half of respondents who were smoking cigarettes (45.0%) reported using menthol cigarettes in the past 30 days.

Table 2-1. Descriptive Analysis of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use by Product, Among Respondents Currently Using Tobacco
Tobacco Product
Flavored Product Use
N % (95% CI)
Any of the below* 2,464 85.6 (82.6–88.2)
Vapes 2,070 89.1 (85.8–91.9)
Cigarettes** 457 45.0 (36.4–53.9)
LCCs 232 50.1 (38.5–61.7)
Cigars 294 49.9 (38.1–61.6)
Hookah 195 77.2 (60.8–89.2)
Smokeless 178 66.1† (49.3–80.5)
(continued)
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
2-2
Table 2-1. Descriptive Analysis of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use by Product, Among Respondents Currently Using Tobacco (continued) Tobacco Product
Flavored Product Use
N % (95% CI)
HTPs 140 75.2 (60.8–86.3)
Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos; CI = confidence interval. * As the sample size for the subgroup for each product varies, estimates for each product may be greater than that of “any of the below.”
** Menthol was the only available flavor for cigarettes. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

2.2 Flavored Tobacco Use by Demographics
Table 2-2 presents the current use of flavored tobacco among respondents who reported currently using tobacco, by demographics. Overall, most respondents who used these products reported using a flavored tobacco product. Use of flavored tobacco was highest among high school respondents who identified their gender in another way (90.1%) and lowest among males (81.5%). Use of flavored tobacco was highest among African American or Black respondents, followed by Asian respondents. Among respondents who currently used tobacco, 96.0% of African American or Black respondents and 94.4% of Asian respondents reported using flavored tobacco. Use of flavored tobacco was lowest among Hispanic respondents (82.7%). Use among 10th- and 12th-grade students was 86.6% and

85.0% respectively. LGBTQ+ respondents reported higher use (86.9%) than non-LGBTQ+ respondents (85.7%) and respondents with unclear LGBTQ+ status (79.8%).

Table 2-2. Prevalence of Current Use of Any Flavored Tobacco Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using These Products, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status Characteristic
Current Use
N % (95% CI)
Overall 2,464 85.6 (82.6–88.2)
Gender identity
Male 951 81.5 (77.5–85.1)
Female 1,056 88.4 (83.4–92.3)
Identified in another way 244 90.1 (84.8–94.1)
Declined to answer 30 — —
Race/ethnicity*
(continued)
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
2-3
Table 2-2. Prevalence of Current Use of Any Flavored Tobacco Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using These Products, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status (continued)
Characteristic
Current Use
N % (95% CI)
White 900 86.3 (82.0–89.8)
African American or Black 67 96.0 (91.2–98.6)
Hispanic 1,085 82.7 (77.1–87.4)
Asian 120 94.4 (87.4–98.2)
Other 59 91.7 (77.1–98.4)
Multiracial 226 87.8 (80.8–93.0)
Grade
10 998 86.6 (82.1–90.3)
12 1,466 85.0 (81.4–88.1)
LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 656 86.9 (80.6–91.8)
Non-LGBTQ+ 1,441 85.7 (82.7–88.4)
Unclear LGBTQ+ status 151 79.8 (63.1–91.3)
Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A.

2.3 Use of Specific Flavored Tobacco Products by Demographics The following section (Tables 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5) presents the current use of flavored tobacco for specific products among respondents who were currently using tobacco across respondent demographics, including gender identity, race/ethnicity, and grade.

Table 2-3 indicates the percentage of respondents currently using vapes, cigarettes, and cigars who were using flavored versions of these products, by gender identity, excluding participants who declined to answer gender identity questions due to small sample sizes. We excluded other tobacco products due to small sample sizes. Female respondents reported the highest use of flavored vapes (90.3%) out of the gender identities included in the table.

Participants who identified their gender in another way (69.0%) reported higher current use of menthol cigarettes than males (38.0%), but the estimate for males should be interpreted with caution, and we could not include females in this comparison due to small sample sizes.

Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
2-4
Table 2-3. Prevalence of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product by Gender Identity
Tobacco
Product
Male Female Identified in Another Way
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Any flavored
tobacco use*
951 81.5 (77.5–85.1) 1,056 88.4 (83.4–92.3) 244 90.1 (84.8–94.1) Vapes 752 87.7 (83.2–91.4) 958 90.3 (84.5–94.5) 180 85.5 (72.0–94.1) Cigarettes** 183 38.0† (23.6–54.2) 138 — — 98 69.0 (55.6–80.5) Note. CI = confidence interval. The “decline to answer” category for gender identity was removed because all values were suppressed due to small sample size. * Includes use of vapes, cigarettes, LCCs, cigars, hookah, smokeless tobacco, and/or HTPs. All products except for vapes and cigarettes were removed from the table due to small sample sizes. ** Menthol was the only available flavor for cigarettes. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Tables 2-4a and 2-4b display the use of flavored tobacco products by race/ethnicity. African American/Black respondents reported the highest use of any flavored tobacco (96.0%), followed by Asian (94.4%) and other race (91.7%) respondents. For flavored vapes, African American/Black respondents had the highest prevalence of using flavored vapes (98.7%) of the race/ethnicity groups with a sufficient sample size to include in the table (all groups except “other race”). The sample sizes for menthol cigarette smoking use were too small to determine patterns by product and race/ethnicity. We excluded the remaining tobacco products from the table due to small sample sizes.

Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
2-5
Table 2-4a. Prevalence of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product by Race/Ethnicity
Tobacco
Product
White
African American or
Black Hispanic
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Any flavored
tobacco use*
900 86.3 (82.0–89.8) 67 96.0 (91.2–98.6) 1,085 82.7 (77.1–87.4) Vapes 754 92.9 (89.9–95.2) 55 98.7 (95.4–99.8) 923 84.6 (78.3–89.7) Cigarettes** 222 28.7 (19.0–40.0) 13 — — 137 57.6 (43.7–70.6) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* Includes use of vapes, cigarettes, LCCs, cigars, hookah, smokeless tobacco, and/or HTPs. All products except for vapes and cigarettes were removed from the table due to small sample sizes. ** Menthol was the only available flavor for cigarettes. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A.

Table 2-4b. Prevalence of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product by Race/Ethnicity
Tobacco
Product
Asian Other Multiracial
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Any flavored
tobacco use*
120 94.4 (87.4–98.2) 59 91.7 (77.1–98.4) 226 87.8 (80.8–93.0) Vapes 104 95.9 (88.3–99.2) 43 — — 189 89.2 (79.7–95.3)
Cigarettes** 20 — — 13 — — 52 — —
Note. CI = confidence interval.
* Includes use of vapes, cigarettes, LCCs, cigars, hookah, smokeless tobacco, and/or HTPs. All products except for vapes and cigarettes were removed from the table due to small sample sizes. ** Menthol was the only available flavor for cigarettes. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A.

Table 2-5 shows results by grade. Due to small sample sizes, we are unable to make comparisons for some tobacco products. Use of flavored vapes was higher among respondents in 12th grade (90.0%) than in 10th grade (87.7%). Use of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars was higher among respondents in 10th grade (51.1% and 62.7%, respectively) than in 12th grade (41.7% and 39.7%, respectively).

Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
2-6
Table 2-5. Prevalence of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product by Grade
Tobacco Product
10th Grade 12th Grade
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Any of the below* 998 86.6 (82.7–90.5) 1,466 85.0 (81.7–88.3) Vapes 839 87.7 (82.8–92.6) 1,231 90.0 (87.1–92.8)
Cigarettes** 160 51.1 (38.3–63.9) 297 41.7 (29.9–53.4)
LCCs 102 — — 130 51.5 (38.4–64.5)
Cigars 122 62.7† (46.8–78.6) 172 39.7 (27.9–51.4)
Hookah 88 76.2† (61.1–91.3) 107 — —
Smokeless 89 72.0 (58.5–85.5) 89 — —
HTPs 72 — — 68 77.7 (64.8–90.6)
Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos; CI = confidence interval. * As the sample size for the subgroup for each product varies, estimates for each product may be greater than that of “any of the below.”
** Menthol was the only available flavor for cigarettes. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Table 2-6 shows the use of flavored tobacco products by LGBTQ+ status. Estimates for respondents of unclear LGBTQ+ status and estimate for products other than vapes, cigarettes, and cigars are suppressed due to small sample sizes. Where estimates are available for specific products, use of flavored tobacco products varied by LGBTQ+ status.

Use of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars was higher among LGBTQ+ respondents (48.4% and 63.8%, respectively) than non-LGBTQ+ respondents (39.5% and 44.2%, respectively); however, these estimates should be interpreted with caution. Use of flavored vapes was higher among non-LGBTQ+ respondents (89.7%) than LGBTQ+ respondents (88.7%).

Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
2-7
Table 2-6. Prevalence of Current Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product, by LGBTQ+ Status
LGBTQ+ Non-LGBTQ+
Tobacco Product N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Any flavored tobacco use* 656 86.9 (80.6–91.8) 1,441 85.7 (82.7–88.4) Vapes 537 88.7 (80.4–94.3) 1,229 89.7 (86.3–92.5)
Cigarettes** 165 49.4 (37.4–61.4) 216 39.5† (24.8–55.7) Cigars 86 63.8† (44.6–80.2) 164 44.2† (28.8–60.4)
Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * Includes use of vapes, cigarettes, LCCs, cigars, hookah, smokeless tobacco, and/or HTPs. All products except for vapes and cigarettes were removed from the table due to small sample sizes. ** Menthol was the only available flavor for cigarettes. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

2.4 Use of Specific Flavor Types
The 2023 CYTS asked respondents to indicate the flavor type they used most often. As shown in Tables 2-7a and 2-7b, flavor popularity varied by product. Fruit was the most popular flavor among respondents who were currently vaping (48.7%), using hookah (32.9%), and using HTPs (17.5%). Tobacco was the most popular flavor among respondents who were smoking cigars (29.8%) and using smokeless tobacco (23.5%).

Almost half (45%) of respondents who currently smoked reported smoking menthol cigarettes.

Table 2-7a. Prevalence of Endorsing Specific Flavors Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product Flavors
Vapes
N = 2,070
% (95% CI)
Cigarettes***
N = 457
% (95% CI)
LCCs
N = 232
% (95% CI)
Cigars
N = 294
% (95% CI)
Unflavored 8.0 (5.6–11.0) 55.0 (46.1–63.6) 29.2 (18.6–41.6) 20.4 (12.4–30.5) Tobacco flavored 2.9 (1.6–4.7) N/A 20.8 (13.2–30.1) 29.8 (21.0–39.8) Menthol 2.2 (1.3–3.6) 45.0 (36.4–53.9) 9.7† (3.6–20.0) 3.4† (1.0–8.1) Mint 9.3 (7.1–12.0) N/A 2.3† (0.5–6.6) 7.2† (1.1–22.2)
Cooling, ice, or
frosty

9.2 (7.1–11.6) N/A 0.4 (0.0–1.3) 5.8† (2.1–12.4)
Clove or spice 0.4 (0.1–1.4) N/A 3.9† (1.1–9.5) 1.0 (0.4–2.3) (continued)
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
2-8
Table 2-7a. Prevalence of Endorsing Specific Flavors Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product (continued)
Flavors
Vapes
N = 2,070
% (95% CI)
Cigarettes***
N = 457
% (95% CI)
LCCs
N = 232
% (95% CI)
Cigars
N = 294
% (95% CI)
Fruit 48.7 (44.1–53.4) N/A 14.4 (7.5–24.2) 10.7† (5.1–19.1) Alcoholic drink* 1.2 (0.7–2.1) N/A 2.5 (1.1–4.7) 3.1 (1.3–6.1) Non-alcoholic
drink**

0.9 (0.3–1.9) N/A 0.8 (0.2–2.0) 1.8† (0.2–5.9)
Candy, chocolate,
desserts, or other
sweets

10.0 (7.7–12.7) N/A 7.5† (2.9–15.3) 5.6† (2.2–11.5)
Some other flavor 7.1 (5.4–9.0) N/A 8.7† (3.8–16.5) 11.3† (5.4–20.3) Note. LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos; CI = confidence interval. * Such as wine, cognac, margarita, or other cocktails.
** Such as coffee, soda, energy drinks, or other beverages. *** Menthol was the only available flavor for cigarettes. All other flavors are labeled N/A (not applicable).
† The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Table 2-7b. Prevalence of Endorsing Specific Flavors Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product Flavors
Hookah
N = 195
% (95% CI)
Smokeless
N = 178
% (95% CI)
HTPs
N = 140
% (95% CI)
Unflavored 5.7† (2.4–11.2) 10.4 (5.3–17.8) 10.6 (6.2–16.5) Tobacco flavored 17.1† (6.1–34.7) 23.5 (10.9–40.8) 14.3† (5.2–29.2) Menthol 7.9 (4.1–13.6) 13.5† (5.4–26.5) 8.9 (4.4–15.5)
Mint 8.1† (2.8–17.3) — — — —
Cooling, ice, or
frosty

1.1 (0.3–2.8) 2.0 (0.7–4.6) 4.7† (1.7–10.3)
Clove or spice 6.9† (2.1–16.1) 1.6 (0.2–5.1) 1.9† (0.3–5.8) Fruit 32.9 (21.4–46.1) 9.4† (2.6–22.3) 17.5† (8.0–31.4) Alcoholic drink* 2.1† (0.4–6.4) 2.0 (0.9–3.8) — —
Non-alcoholic
drink**
— — 0.2 (0.0–1.0) 0.6 (0.2–1.3)
(continued)
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
2-9
Table 2-7b. Prevalence of Endorsing Specific Flavors Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Each Tobacco Product (continued)
Flavors
Hookah
N = 195
% (95% CI)
Smokeless
N = 178
% (95% CI)
HTPs
N = 140
% (95% CI)
Candy, chocolate,
desserts, or other
sweets

4.2† (1.5–9.1) 9.4† (2.4–23.1) 1.7 (0.8–3.1)
Some other flavor 8.2 (4.2–14.2) 9.7 (5.2–16.2) 9.6† (4.4–17.6) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; CI = confidence interval. * Such as wine, cognac, margarita, or other cocktails.
** Such as coffee, soda, energy drinks, or other beverages. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

2.5 Perceived Accessibility of Flavored Tobacco Products In addition to asking questions of respondents who were currently using tobacco products about which flavors they were using, we asked all respondents, regardless of user status, how easy they thought it was to access flavored tobacco products from a store, the internet (including apps), or someone else. The survey did not provide a definition for flavored tobacco products in the survey item. Respondents who responded “somewhat easy” or “very easy” to each question were coded as perceiving that it was easy to access flavored tobacco products. Respondents who responded “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult” were coded as not perceiving that it was easy to access flavored tobacco products. Perceived access for vapes and cigarettes (without mention of the products being flavored or unflavored) is presented in Chapter 3.

Table 2-8 presents the percentage of high school respondents who perceived that it was easy to obtain flavored tobacco products from a store, from the internet, and from someone else. About a third of respondents thought it was easy to access flavored tobacco products from a store (38.5%), while many more thought it was easy to access flavored products from the internet (61.4%) or from someone else (63.6%).

Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
2-1
Table 2-8. Prevalence of Perceiving That it was Easy to Access Flavored Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents
Characteristic
From a store From the internet From someone else
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N
% (95%
CI)
Overall 29,943 38.5 (37.3–39.8) 29,809 61.4 (60.2–62.6) 29,861 63.6 (62.3–64.9)

2.6 Summary
Most high school respondents who were currently using tobacco reported using flavored tobacco. This finding was consistent regardless of gender identity, race/ethnicity, or grade.

Out of all tobacco products, flavored product use was highest for vapes, with 89.1% of respondents who currently vaped reporting using flavored vapes. Almost half (45.0%) of respondents who smoked cigarettes reported using menthol cigarettes in the last 30 days.

The popularity of flavor types varied by product, but fruit flavors were popular for several products, including vapes. Respondents reported that they believed it was easier to access flavored tobacco products from the internet or another person than from a store. Findings for flavored tobacco should be interpreted with caution. The CYTS asks respondents to identify their most commonly used flavor, as opposed to asking them for all flavors they have used in the past 30 days. As a result, it is possible that some users categorized as unflavored users have also used flavored products in the past 30 days, and vice versa. For discussion of flavored tobacco use within the context of Senate Bill (SB) 793, please see the Conclusions section of the report.

Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 3-1

3. Access to Vapes and Cigarettes
Age restrictions are intended to make it difficult for youth to access tobacco products. The minimum legal age to purchase tobacco products, including vapes, in California is 21 years old. As a result, it is important to monitor how underage youth acquire tobacco products, particularly through retail sources. This chapter presents data on how respondents acquired vapes and cigarettes. We asked respondents who currently vaped and smoked cigarettes how they usually got their vapes (or pods or e-liquid) or cigarettes, respectively. We then asked respondents who reported buying their own vapes or cigarettes where they usually bought their vapes (or pods or e-liquid) or cigarettes.

3.1 Acquisition of Vapes
Table 3-1 presents methods of vape acquisition among respondents who reported currently vaping. The most common method of obtaining vapes was buying their own (34.9%).

Besides purchasing one’s own vapes, other common methods were asking someone else to buy them (21.4%) and someone giving them to the respondent (18.2%). The least commonly reported method was taking them from someone (4.9%).

Among respondents who reported purchasing their own vapes, the most common source was buying them from another person (30.5%), followed by from a tobacco or smoke shop (25.0%). When looking by grade, among respondents who purchased their own vapes, the most common purchasing source reported by 10th graders was another person (45.5%), and the most common purchasing source for 12th graders was a tobacco or smoke shop (29.6%).

Table 3-1. Methods of Accessing Vapes Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Vaping, by Grade
Method
Overall
N = 2,055
% (95% CI)
10th Grade
N = 836
% (95% CI)
12th Grade
N = 1,219
% (95% CI)
I ask someone to buy them
for me

21.4 (18.0–25.1) 23.9 (17.9–30.8) 19.8 (16.2–23.8)
Someone gives them to me 18.2 (15.2–21.6) 16.8 (11.5–23.4) 19.1 (15.9–22.7) I ask someone for them 11.5 (9.3–14.1) 11.2 (7.2–16.5) 11.7 (9.2–14.6) I take them from someone 4.9 (3.5–6.7) 6.8 (3.9–10.9) 3.7 (2.5–5.2) I get them some other way 9.0 (6.8–11.7) 12.5 (8.7–17.3) 6.8 (4.5–9.8) I buy them myself* 34.9 (30.9–39.1) 28.7 (21.7–36.5) 38.8 (34.0–43.8) From a gas station or
convenience store

11.0 (6.6–17.1) 8.0† (3.3–15.8) 12.5 (7.2–19.6)
From a grocery store 1.4 (0.4–3.5) 2.2† (0.5–5.9) 1.0 (0.0–4.6) (continued)
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
3-2
Table 3-1. Methods of Accessing Vapes Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Vaping, by Grade (continued)
Method
Overall
N = 2,055
% (95% CI)
10th Grade
N = 836
% (95% CI)
12th Grade
N = 1,219
% (95% CI)
From a drugstore or
pharmacy

0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A
From a liquor store 2.7 (1.0–5.7) 0.7 (0.0–3.7) 3.6† (1.2–8.1) From a tobacco or smoke
shop

25.0 (17.6–33.7) 15.4† (5.2–32.2) 29.6 (21.0–39.5)
From a vape shop 17.4 (12.8–22.8) 14.0 (7.0–24.1) 19.0 (13.0–26.3) From a mall or shopping
center kiosk/ stand

0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A
On the internet (including
apps)

2.1 (1.2–3.4) 2.8 (1.1–5.6) 1.8 (0.7–3.6)
From someone 30.5 (23.1–38.7) 45.5† (28.7–63.1) 23.4 (16.3–31.8) Some other way 7.9 (4.8–12.0) 9.6† (4.2–18.2) 7.1 (3.6–12.3) Note. CI = confidence interval. A value of 0.0 indicates that no respondents selected that item. N/A is used in the table to indicate that there is no confidence interval because the value of the estimate is

0.0. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. * Numbers below this row represent the percentage of respondents endorsing each location among those who reported buying their own vapes.
† The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

3.2 Acquisition of Cigarettes
Table 3-2 shows how respondents who were current cigarette smokers acquired cigarettes.

The most common method of obtaining cigarettes was buying them (26.5%). Besides purchasing one’s own cigarettes, other common methods of obtaining them were being given them (22.1%) and taking them from someone (22.0%). The least common method was to ask someone for them (7.5%). In terms of location of purchase among respondents who reported purchasing their own cigarettes, for several methods, the estimate was suppressed. However, among the estimates that could be obtained, the most common method of purchase among those who reported buying their own cigarettes was from a gas station or convenience store (41.0%).

Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 3-1
Table 3-2. Methods of Accessing Cigarettes Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Smoking Cigarettes, by Grade
Method
Overall
N = 452
% (95% CI)
10th Grade
N = 156
% (95% CI)
12th Grade
N = 296
% (95% CI)
I ask someone to buy them
for me

8.8 (5.0–14.2) 5.5† (2.1–11.4) 10.6 (5.4–18.2)
Someone gives them to me 22.1 (15.9–29.4) 14.9 (7.2–26.1) 26.0 (19.4–33.5) I ask someone for them 7.5 (4.5–11.7) 7.7† (2.8–16.2) 7.4 (3.9–12.7) I take them from someone 22.0 (14.5–31.1) 24.7 (12.6–40.7) 20.6 (11.5–32.4) I get them some other way 12.9 (7.2–20.9) 18.6† (7.3–35.9) 9.9 (4.9–17.5) I buy them myself* 26.5 (19.2–35.0) 28.5 (17.5–41.7) 25.5 (17.3–35.2) From a gas station or
convenience store

41.0 (28.3–54.6) — — 41.7 (28.1–56.4)
From a grocery store — — 5.9† (0.6–20.2) — —
From a drugstore or
pharmacy

0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A
From a liquor store 4.0† (0.8–11.5) 0.0 N/A 6.4† (1.4–17.6) From a tobacco or smoke
shop

12.6† (4.1–27.4) 2.5 (0.9–5.2) — —
From a vape shop — — 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A
From a mall or shopping
center kiosk/ stand

0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A
On the internet (including
apps)

5.2† (1.5–12.2) — — 3.3† (0.7–9.3)
From someone 16.9 (11.2–23.9) — — 9.4† (4.2–17.7)
Some other way 6.9† (2.1–16.0) — — 3.6† (0.9–9.0)
Note. CI = confidence interval. A value of 0.0 indicates that no respondents selected that item. N/A is used in the table to indicate that there is no confidence interval because the value of the estimate is

0.0. * Numbers below this row represent the percentage of respondents endorsing each location among those who reported buying their own cigarettes.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

There were some differences by grade. In terms of method of acquisition, 10th-grade respondents reported buying their own cigarettes (28.5%) as the most common method, followed by getting them some other way (18.6%). Twelfth-grade respondents reported being given cigarettes as the most common method of acquisition (26.0%), followed by Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
3-2
buying them (25.5%). For 10th graders, too many estimates were suppressed to determine the most common method of purchase among respondents who were currently smoking cigarettes and reported purchasing their own cigarettes. Several methods of purchase were also suppressed for 12th graders, but for those estimates that could be presented, purchasing from a gas station or convenience store was the most common method of purchase (41.7%).

3.3 Perceived Accessibility of Vapes
In addition to asking questions of respondents who were currently using vapes about how they obtained their products, we asked all respondents, regardless of user status, how easy they thought it was to access these products from a store, the internet (including apps), or someone else. Respondents who responded “somewhat easy” or “very easy” to these questions were coded as perceiving that it was easy to access these products. Respondents who responded “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult” were coded as not perceiving that it was easy to access these products. Overall, about half of respondents or more reported that they thought it was easy to get vapes from a store, the internet, or someone else. Variation in perceived ease of access existed by current vaping status.

Table 3-3 presents the percentage of high school respondents who perceived that it was easy to get vapes from a store, from the internet, and from someone else. A little over twothirds of respondents thought it was easy to access vapes from someone else (71.6%) or from the internet (67.3%), and about half of high school respondents thought it was easy to access vapes from a store (49.9%). Current vapers reported the highest perceived ease of access from a store or from someone else, but the lowest perceived access to vapes from the internet.

Table 3-3. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Vapes Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status
Characteristic
From a Store From the Internet From Someone Else
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 29,941 49.9 (48.7–51.1) 29,814 67.3 (66.0–68.6) 29,858 71.6 (70.3–72.8) Vaping status
Never vaping 23,927 48.3 (47.0–49.6) 23,842 67.0 (65.7–68.4) 23,876 68.8 (67.5–70.1) Former vaping 4,000 54.2 (51.2–57.2) 3,972 70.5 (67.4–73.4) 3,981 83.5 (81.2–85.7) Current vaping 2,014 63.2 (59.2–67.1) 2,000 64.2 (60.6–67.7) 2,001 84.4 (81.5–87.1) Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 3-4 includes findings for perceived access to vapes from a store by vaping status and demographics. Overall, respondents who currently vaped had the highest perceived access Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
3-3
to vapes from a store (63.2%), followed by those who formerly (54.2%) and never vaped (48.3%). This pattern was generally true across gender identity, race/ethnicity, and grade, and LGBTQ+ status, with a couple of exceptions. Asian respondents who had never vaped and respondents who had never vaped and identified their gender in another way had higher perceived ease of access than former vapers in these same categories.

Table 3-4. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Vapes from a Store Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status
Characteristic
Never Vaping Former Vaping Current Vaping
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 23,927 48.3 (47.0–49.6) 4,000 54.2 (51.2–57.2) 2,014 63.2 (59.2–67.1) Gender identity
Male 11,142 48.3 (46.5–50.0) 1,649 55.1 (50.1–60.1) 752 65.5 (59.4–71.3) Female 10,466 49.1 (47.5–50.8) 1,903 54.7 (51.5–57.8) 952 62.2 (56.4–67.7) Identified in
another way
1,311 46.4 (41.7–51.2) 243 45.8 (34.6–57.3) 177 60.0 (46.5–72.5) Declined to
answer
121 45.9 (31.9–60.4) 27 — — 22 — —
Race/ethnicity*
White 5,379 49.9 (47.5–52.3) 1,038 54.4 (48.1–60.5) 732 66.7 (59.2–73.7) African
American or
Black
503 58.7 (50.5–66.6) 101 71.4 (61.9–79.7) 53 88.8 (75.8–96.2) Hispanic 12,943 46.3 (44.5–48.1) 2,266 51.7 (47.5–56.0) 893 58.5 (51.6–65.1) Asian 2,782 48.9 (46.2–51.5) 215 47.2 (38.1–56.5) 104 69.8 (55.7–81.6) Other 641 52.8 (44.9–60.7) 77 69.5† (52.5–83.3) 42 — —
Multiracial 1,628 50.6 (46.5–54.7) 299 61.9 (54.5–69.0) 188 65.1 (53.6–75.4) Grade
10 13,100 46.2 (44.7–47.7) 1,768 49.3 (45.0–53.5) 816 59.7 (54.0–65.2) 12 10,827 50.8 (48.9–52.7) 2,232 58.2 (54.4–61.9) 1,198 65.4 (59.5–71.0) LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 3,639 46.9 (43.6–50.2) 904 53.3 (47.0–59.5) 531 63.4 (56.8–69.5) Non-LGBTQ+ 17,174 50.0 (48.7–51.4) 2,642 55.9 (52.2–59.7) 1,224 63.8 (57.8–69.6) Unclear LGBTQ+
status
1,999 39.7 (34.6–45.0) 241 41.5 (31.7–51.8) 123 57.9† (41.7–72.9) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Perceived access to vapes from the internet shows a different pattern (Table 3-5). Overall, more respondents who had formerly vaped perceived it was easy to access vapes from the Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
3-4
internet (70.5%) than those who had never vaped (67.0%) or currently vaped (64.2%).

However, this pattern varied by gender identity, race/ethnicity, grade, and LGBTQ+ status.

Table 3-5. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Vapes from the Internet Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status Characteristic
Never Vaping Former Vaping Current Vaping
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 23,842 67.0 (65.7–68.4) 3,972 70.5 (67.4–73.4) 2,000 64.2 (60.6–67.7) Gender identity
Male 11,106 67.1 (65.6–68.7) 1,640 68.1 (64.6–71.4) 749 59.3 (54.2–64.3) Female 10,453 67.6 (65.7–69.5) 1,893 73.7 (70.3–76.8) 943 67.2 (61.8–72.2) Identified in
another way
1,310 70.1 (66.2–73.8) 241 66.6 (54.4–77.3) 179 69.9 (55.8–81.6) Declined to
answer
120 59.5 (44.3–73.5) 24 — — 23 — —
Race/ethnicity*
White 5,368 69.7 (67.1–72.3) 1,023 69.0 (62.9–74.6) 730 60.9 (53.6–67.9) African
American or
Black
499 67.9 (63.1–72.4) 100 73.8 (60.0–84.8) 53 — —
Hispanic 12,899 64.8 (62.8–66.8) 2,256 70.2 (66.0–74.1) 886 65.4 (59.5–71.0) Asian 2,780 72.1 (69.8–74.3) 215 67.1 (56.8–76.4) 103 68.4 (52.5–81.7) Other 631 66.1 (58.5–73.1) 77 86.0 (74.6–93.6) 41 — —
Multiracial 1,613 68.4 (64.1–72.5) 297 76.8 (68.0–84.2) 185 64.5 (50.8–76.7) Grade
10 13,058 66.5 (64.7–68.2) 1,758 70.8 (66.9–74.4) 813 69.6 (64.4–74.5) 12 10,784 67.7 (65.9–69.5) 2,214 70.3 (66.6–73.8) 1,187 60.8 (55.6–65.8) LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 3,631 71.6 (68.4–74.6) 901 75.1 (69.4–80.3) 533 73.0 (65.9–79.3) Non-LGBTQ+ 17,138 67.9 (66.5–69.2) 2,624 70.0 (66.8–73.1) 1,214 60.9 (56.0–65.5) Unclear LGBTQ+
status
1,990 58.6 (53.9–63.2) 240 67.5 (58.0–76.0) 122 51.8 (37.9–65.6) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A.

Table 3-6 presents findings for perceived access to vapes from someone else. Overall, respondents who currently vaped had the highest perceived access to vapes from someone else (84.4%), followed by respondents who had formerly (83.5%) and never vaped (68.8%).

This pattern was generally true across gender identity, race/ethnicity, grade, and LGBTQ+ Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
3-5
status. One exception was that Hispanic respondents who had formerly vaped reported higher perceived access than Hispanic respondents who currently vaped.

Table 3-6. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Vapes from Someone Else Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status Characteristic
Never Vaping Former Vaping Current Vaping
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 23,876 68.8 (67.5–70.1) 3,981 83.5 (81.2–85.7) 2,001 84.4 (81.5–87.1) Gender identity
Male 11,135 67.4 (65.5–69.3) 1,644 81.1 (78.0–83.9) 750 82.6 (77.9–86.7) Female 10,494 72.1 (70.5–73.6) 1,900 87.1 (84.4–89.6) 953 87.2 (82.6–91.0) Identified in
another way
1,314 63.2 (58.5–67.7) 245 76.6 (66.2–85.1) 177 81.9 (71.0–90.0) Declined to
answer
115 55.3 (40.8–69.2) 25 — — 23 — —
Race/ethnicity*
White 5,380 72.2 (69.9–74.5) 1,032 85.3 (80.4–89.4) 729 89.0 (83.5–93.2) African American
or Black
502 71.8 (61.1–81.0) 100 83.8 (74.5–90.8) 52 92.3 (79.5–98.3) Hispanic 12,910 67.7 (65.8–69.6) 2,261 82.8 (79.7–85.7) 888 80.9 (75.7–85.4) Asian 2,780 65.6 (61.9–69.2) 212 80.3 (71.7–87.2) 103 82.0 (67.9–91.8) Other 636 65.2 (58.7–71.3) 77 75.4† (56.9–88.8) 42 — —
Multiracial 1,618 72.4 (68.8–75.8) 295 86.7 (80.2–91.7) 185 87.1 (75.7–94.4) Grade
10 13,077 66.8 (65.0–68.6) 1,758 84.6 (81.1–87.7) 812 85.7 (80.7–89.9) 12 10,799 71.2 (69.6–72.7) 2,223 82.7 (78.6–86.2) 1,189 83.6 (78.8–87.7) LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 3,637 70.7 (68.0–73.2) 907 85.8 (81.6–89.4) 531 87.4 (82.5–91.3) Non-LGBTQ+ 17,191 70.3 (68.6–72.0) 2,635 83.9 (81.0–86.5) 1,224 83.7 (79.3–87.4) Unclear LGBTQ+
status
2,005 59.0 (53.8–64.0) 239 79.5 (71.4–86.2) 123 81.3 (69.2–90.1) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

3.4 Perceived Access for Cigarettes
We also examined perceived access to cigarettes from the same three locations (Table 3-7).

As with vapes, respondents reported highest perceived access from someone else (60.8%), followed by the internet (58.7%) or a store (37.0%). Also in alignment with vapes, Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
3-6
respondents who currently smoked cigarettes reported the highest perceived access to cigarettes from someone else or from a store, and respondents who had never smoked reported the lowest. Respondents who currently, formerly, and never smoked reported similar perceived access to cigarettes from the internet.

Table 3-7. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Cigarettes Among High School Respondents, by Cigarette Smoking Status Characteristic
From a Store From the Internet From Someone Else
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 29,963 37.0 (35.9–38.0) 29,826 58.7 (57.4–60.0) 29,866 60.8 (59.3–62.2) Cigarette
smoking status
Never smoking 27,967 36.2 (35.2–37.2) 27,845 58.7 (57.3–60.0) 27,884 59.9 (58.4–61.5) Former
smoking
1,554 44.5 (40.1–48.9) 1,546 58.7 (54.2–63.2) 1,549 71.3 (64.1–77.8) Current
smoking
442 66.3 (56.4–75.2) 435 55.7 (46.1–65.0) 433 85.9 (79.6–90.8) Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 3-8 presents findings for perceived access to cigarettes from a store by vaping status and demographics. Overall, more respondents who currently smoked reported it was easy to access cigarettes from a store (66.3%) than those who had formerly (44.5%) or never smoked (36.2%). This pattern was consistent across gender identity categories, race/ethnicity, grade, and LGBTQ+ status, where responses were not suppressed.

Table 3-9 examines perceived ease of access to cigarettes on the internet. Perceived ease of access was similar among respondents who currently smoked and those who had formerly and never smoked. For subgroups in which there was variation across smoking status (e.g., Hispanic and LGBTQ+ students), the highest perceived access was reported by respondents who had never smoked, followed by those who currently smoked and those who had formerly smoked. This is the opposite pattern as that observed by smoking status for access to cigarettes from a store or another person. However, many of these differences should be interpreted with caution due to low precision for some estimates.

Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
3-7
Table 3-8. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Cigarettes from a Store Among High School Respondents, by Cigarette Smoking Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status Characteristic
Never Smoking Former Smoking Current Smoking
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 27,967 36.2 (35.2–37.2) 1,554 44.5 (40.1–48.9) 442 66.3 (56.4–75.2) Gender identity
Male 12,706 36.6 (34.8–38.4) 665 49.0 (42.0–56.1) 182 65.2† (48.5–79.6) Female 12,544 36.4 (34.9–37.9) 648 43.0 (36.2–49.9) 137 55.4† (39.3–70.7) Identified in
another way
1,491 33.3 (29.4–37.5) 142 35.9 (24.4–48.6) 99 76.0 (59.8–88.2) Declined to
answer
154 31.6 (19.6–45.6) 11 — — 6 — —
Race/ethnicity*
White 6,359 35.6 (33.3–37.9) 577 44.6 (37.6–51.9) 215 66.5 (51.2–79.6) African
American or
Black
622 44.1 (38.1–50.4) 23 — — 13 99.1 —
Hispanic 15,278 34.8 (33.7–36.0) 703 42.5 (36.7–48.3) 133 59.4† (42.8–74.6) Asian 3,001 40.2 (38.0–42.4) 81 45.8† (29.0–63.3) 20 — — Other 710 37.1 (29.5–45.1) 41 — — 12 — —
Multiracial 1,943 38.6 (34.9–42.5) 125 41.0 (28.3–54.6) 49 — — Grade
10 14,923 33.4 (32.1–34.7) 618 43.9 (35.1–53.0) 157 60.8† (41.7–77.8) 12 13,044 39.5 (38.0–40.9) 936 44.8 (40.1–49.6) 285 69.2 (58.0–79.0) LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 4,466 34.2 (31.7–36.7) 444 38.9 (30.3–48.0) 165 69.6 (56.0–81.0) Non-LGBTQ+ 19,949 37.3 (36.1–38.5) 890 50.0 (43.6–56.3) 214 63.9 (49.8–76.4) Unclear LGBTQ+
status
2,213 32.4 (28.7–36.2) 117 32.5 (19.4–48.0) 38 — —
Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
3-8
Table 3-9. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Cigarettes from the Internet Among High School Respondents, by Cigarette Smoking Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status
Characteristic
Never Smoking Former Smoking Current Smoking
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 27,845 58.7 (57.3–60.0) 1,546 58.7 (54.2–63.2) 435 55.7 (46.1–65.0) Gender identity
Male 12,655 59.0 (57.4–60.7) 664 57.0 (50.9–63.0) 181 41.6† (27.0–57.3) Female 12,519 58.8 (57.2–60.4) 644 56.9 (48.5–65.1) 134 55.3† (38.6–71.1) Identified in
another way
1,490 61.1 (57.2–64.9) 142 77.3 (65.5–86.7) 97 — —
Declined to
answer
149 56.3 (43.5–68.5) 12 — — 7 — —
Race/ethnicity*
White 6,341 59.8 (57.4–62.1) 568 52.7 (45.0–60.4) 212 46.9 (34.6–59.6) African
American or
Black
617 60.5 (54.0–66.8) 23 — — 13 — —
Hispanic 15,211 56.4 (54.4–58.3) 706 59.5 (53.5–65.2) 130 51.1 (37.1–65.0) Asian 2,997 66.2 (63.9–68.4) 81 67.5† (49.8–82.1) 20 — — Other 701 61.8 (54.7–68.6) 41 — — 11 — —
Multiracial 1,924 61.1 (57.2–64.9) 123 59.8† (42.5–75.5) 49 — — Grade
10 14,871 58.5 (56.9–60.2) 614 59.6 (51.3–67.5) 155 51.2 (38.9–63.5) 12 12,974 58.9 (57.2–60.5) 932 58.2 (52.9–63.3) 280 58.1 (44.6–70.8) LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 4,462 63.3 (60.6–65.9) 445 61.6 (53.4–69.5) 162 60.2 (45.4–73.9) Non-LGBTQ+ 19,886 59.0 (57.5–60.5) 888 59.4 (54.2–64.4) 211 46.2† (31.5–61.5) Unclear LGBTQ+
status
2,199 52.4 (48.3–56.5) 115 39.7† (25.0–55.9) 38 — —
Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
3-9
Table 3-10 presents findings for perceived access of cigarettes from someone else by vaping status and demographics. Overall, respondents who currently smoked had the highest perceived access (85.9%) compared to those who had formerly (71.3%) and never smoked (59.9%). This pattern was consistent across gender identity, race/ethnicity, grade and LGBTQ+ status. Comparisons by smoking status and race/ethnicity were difficult to make due to suppressed values.

Table 3-10. Prevalence of Perceiving That It Was Easy to Access Cigarettes from Someone Else Among High School Respondents, by Cigarette Smoking Status and Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status
Characteristic
Never Smoking Former Smoking Current Smoking
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 27,884 59.9 (58.4–61.5) 1,549 71.3 (64.1–77.8) 433 85.9 (79.6–90.8) Gender identity
Male 12,683 57.9 (56.0–59.8) 663 68.5 (54.4–80.5) 179 83.2 (69.6–92.4) Female 12,572 63.3 (61.1–65.4) 650 73.4 (66.5–79.5) 136 87.5 (78.5–93.8) Identified in
another way
1,496 53.1 (48.9–57.4) 144 76.0 (63.0–86.2) 96 87.6 (75.4–95.1) Declined to
answer
145 51.5 (38.7–64.2) 12 — — 7 — —
Race/ethnicity*
White 6,358 62.0 (59.6–64.4) 575 77.3 (69.9–83.6) 211 88.7 (79.6–94.7) African
American or
Black
619 55.5 (48.5–62.4) 23 — — 13 98.0 —
Hispanic 15,224 59.6 (57.6–61.6) 704 68.4 (60.9–75.2) 129 77.4 (62.0–88.7) Asian 2,995 58.9 (55.9–61.8) 80 72.8† (53.8–87.2) 20 93.7 (72.7–99.7) Other 705 58.1 (51.4–64.5) 41 — — 12 — —
Multiracial 1,931 62.0 (58.2–65.8) 122 81.7 (67.5–91.5) 48 90.1 (73.6–98.0) Grade
10 14,884 58.0 (56.2–59.8) 618 66.8 (54.9–77.3) 154 77.3 (62.8–88.2) 12 13,000 62.2 (60.2–64.1) 931 74.3 (68.1–79.9) 279 90.5 (82.1–95.8) LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 4,470 59.8 (55.8–63.6) 446 72.2 (64.1–79.3) 161 89.2 (79.8–95.2) Non-LGBTQ+ 19,950 61.2 (59.6–62.8) 893 72.1 (61.7-81.1) 211 83.0 (72.2–90.9) Unclear
LGBTQ+ status
2,215 53.1 (48.9–57.3) 116 62.9† (46.3–77.5) 38 — —
Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
3-10

3.5 Summary
The most common method of obtaining vapes among high school respondents who currently vaped was buying their own. Among those who bought their own vapes, the most common method of accessing them was to buy from someone else. The most common method of obtaining cigarettes was buying them.

Among all respondents, vapes were perceived as easier to obtain than cigarettes. We examined perceived ease of access via a store, the internet, and someone else. For vapes, the source that was easiest to access was from another person; 71.6% of respondents thought it was easy to access vapes from someone else. The same was true for cigarettes;

60.8% of respondents thought it was easy to access cigarettes from someone else. There were differences in perceived access by vaping and cigarette smoking status, with respondents who were currently using vapes generally reporting greater ease of access than those who had formerly or never used them, except when accessing vapes from the internet.

For accessing vapes from the internet, respondents who had formerly and never vaped reported higher ease of access than those who currently vaped. In general, patterns of ease of access by user status persisted across demographic categories.

Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 4-1

4. Secondhand Exposure and Other Environmental Influences This chapter focuses on environmental influences for tobacco use. It presents self-reported respondent exposure to secondhand vapor (i.e., vapor or aerosol from a vape or e-cigarette) and tobacco smoke and information on home bans for vaping and tobacco smoke. It also presents information on exposure to vaping and smoking in the media. The prevalence of exposure to environmental influences is compared across tobacco use status when possible.

It should be noted that questions about vapes reported in this chapter asked about vapes generally and did not specify the substance in the vape (e.g., nicotine, marijuana). As a result, responses could include exposure to vapes with marijuana.

4.1 Exposure to Secondhand Vapor and Tobacco Smoke in Car or Room and Outside
The 2023 CYTS asked respondents about exposure to vapor and tobacco smoke. To assess exposure to secondhand vapor in a car or room, the survey asked, “In the last 2 weeks, were you in a car or room when someone was using a vape?” A similar question asked about secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke in a car or room by replacing the phrase “using a vape” with the phrase “smoking a cigarette, little cigar, or cigarillo.” To assess exposure to secondhand vapor outside, the survey asked, “In the last 2 weeks, were you near someone who was using a vape…” We defined participants as having been exposed to secondhand vapor outside if they endorsed one or more of the following: “outside of a restaurant;” “outside of a store;” “at a park, playground, or beach”; or “on a sidewalk.” A similar question asked about secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke outside by replacing the phrase “using a vape” with the phrase “smoking a cigarette, little cigar, or cigarillo.” Table 4-1 reports high school respondents’ exposure to secondhand vapor and tobacco smoke in a car or room. One-third (32.9%) of respondents had been exposed to vapor or tobacco smoke in a car or room within the last 2 weeks. Secondhand exposure in a car or room was higher for exposure to vapes (29.0%) than tobacco smoke (14.1%). Respondents who currently vaped and currently smoked tobacco reported higher rates of exposure to vapor, tobacco smoke, and either vapor or tobacco smoke, compared to those who had never or formerly vaped and never or formerly smoked tobacco.

Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-2
Table 4-1. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor and Tobacco Smoke in Car or Room Among High School Respondents, by Vaping and Tobacco Smoking Status
Use Status
Vapor Exposure
Tobacco Smoke*
Exposure
Vapor or Tobacco
Smoke Exposure
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,917 29.0 (27.2–30.9) 30,940 14.1 (13.3–15.0) 30,918 32.9 (31.0–34.8) Vaping status
Never 24,689 22.2 (20.5–24.0) 24,703 11.6 (10.7–12.6) 24,690 26.2 (24.4–28.1) Former 4,110 49.9 (46.7–53.0) 4,113 21.4 (19.2–23.6) 4,111 53.5 (50.5–56.5) Current 2,092 80.1 (76.3–83.5) 2,093 33.4 (29.5–37.6) 2,091 81.7 (78.0–85.0) Tobacco
smoking
status*
Never 28,467 26.4 (24.7–28.2) 28,484 12.4 (11.6–13.3) 28,466 30.3 (28.5–32.2) Former 1,849 60.6 (56.3–64.8) 1,851 30.5 (27.4–33.8) 1,851 63.7 (59.5–67.8) Current 584 79.3 (73.0–84.8) 585 60.1 (52.3–67.5) 584 84.9 (78.9–89.8) Note. CI = confidence interval.
*Includes cigarettes, little cigars or cigarillos, or both.

Table 4-2 shows respondents’ exposure to secondhand vapor and tobacco smoke outside.

Respondents were considered having been exposed outside if they reported being near someone who was using a vape, smoking tobacco, or either outside of a restaurant, outside of a store, on a sidewalk, or at a park, playground, or beach in the last 2 weeks. Reported exposure outside was higher than reported exposure in a car or room. Over half (63.8%) of respondents had been exposed to vapor or tobacco smoke outside within the last 2 weeks.

Exposure to tobacco smoke outside (57.8%) was higher than exposure to vapor outside (42.1%). Respondents who currently vaped and currently smoked tobacco reported higher rates of exposure to vapor, tobacco smoke, and either vapor or tobacco smoke outside than respondents who had never or formerly vaped and never or formerly smoked tobacco.

Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-3
Table 4-2. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor and Tobacco Smoke Outside Among High School Respondents, by Vaping and Tobacco Smoking Status
Use Status
Vapor Exposure
Tobacco Smoke
Exposure
Vapor or Tobacco
Smoke Exposure
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,649 42.1 (40.6-43.7) 30,696 57.8 (56.1-59.4) 30,660 63.8 (62.2-65.4) Vaping status
Never 24,501 37.6 (36.0-39.2) 24,526 56.1 (54.4-57.7) 24,499 60.9 (59.1-62.6) Former 4,066 56.0 (53.6-58.4) 4,070 63.1 (60.0-66.1) 4,067 72.6 (70.3-74.8) Current 2,057 76.1 (72.5-79.5) 2,071 69.9 (65.7-73.8) 2,067 85.4 (82.3-88.1) Tobacco smoking
status*
Never 28,236 40.3 (38.8-41.8) 28,269 56.9 (55.2-58.5) 28,238 62.6 (60.9-64.2) Former 1,821 64.6 (60.2-68.9) 1,830 65.8 (60.8-70.5) 1,829 77.9 (73.2-82.1) Current 576 80.2 (74.2-85.4) 577 84.7 (76.9-90.7) 576 91.6 (87.0-95.0) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* Includes cigarettes, little cigars or cigarillos, or both.

Table 4-3 shows exposure to secondhand smoke in MUH. About half of respondents (49.8%) reported any exposure to smoke in their home in the last 6 months. However, less than 10% of respondents reported frequent exposure (“often” or “most of the time”).

Table 4-3. Prevalence of Last-6-Month Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in Multiunit Housing Among High School Respondents Living in Multiunit Housing Frequency of Exposure
Tobacco Smoke Exposure*
N % (95% CI)
Never 4,135 51.2 (48.8–53.5)
Rarely 1,749 25.2 (23.8–26.7)
Sometimes 962 13.8 (12.6–15.1)
Often 327 5.7 (4.7–6.8)
Most of the time 238 4.1 (3.0–5.5)
Note. CI = confidence interval.
* Includes cigarettes, little cigars or cigarillos, or both.

Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-4

4.2 Exposure to Secondhand Vapor and Tobacco Smoke by
Race/Ethnicity

4.2.1 Indoors
We examined exposure to secondhand vapor and tobacco smoke by demographics. Table 4- 4 provides data on secondhand exposure to vapor, tobacco smoke, and either vapor or tobacco smoke in a car or room by race/ethnicity. White respondents had the highest reported secondhand vapor exposure (42.0%), tobacco smoke exposure (32.7%), and either vapor or tobacco smoke exposure (45.6%) out of all race/ethnicity groups, and Asian respondents had the lowest (20.2% vapor exposure, 16.5% smoke exposure, 25.4% exposure to either).

Table 4-4. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor or Tobacco Smoke in a Car or Room Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity Characteristic
Vapor Exposure
Tobacco Smoke
Exposure
Vapor or Tobacco Smoke
Exposure
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,891 29.0 (27.2–30.9) 30,920 14.1 (13.3–15.0) 30,918 32.9 (31.0–34.8) Race/ethnicity*
White 7,375 42.0 (39.7–44.2) 7,378 18.1 (16.5–19.8) 7,380 45.6 (43.2–47.9) African American or
Black
686 28.4 (24.0–33.1) 688 19.9 (14.3–26.6) 687 36.2 (29.9–43.0) Hispanic 16,652 24.5 (22.5–26.7) 16,667 11.7 (10.6–12.8) 16,666 27.8 (25.6–30.0) Asian 3,171 20.2 (17.3–23.4) 3,171 12.5 (10.5–14.6) 3,171 25.4 (22.6–28.3) Other 778 27.5 (22.7–32.7) 781 16.0 (12.3–20.2) 779 32.5 (28.1–37.2) Multiracial 2,160 36.6 (33.4–40.0) 2,165 18.0 (15.4–20.8) 2,164 41.1 (37.6–44.6) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.

Table 4-5 presents exposure to vapor in a car or room by vaping status and race/ethnicity.

Overall, current vapers reported higher exposure (80.1%) than former (49.9%) and never vapers (22.2%). This pattern was consistent across race/ethnicity categories, where values were available.

Table 4-6 shows secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke in a car or room by smoking status and race/ethnicity. As with vaping, respondents who currently smoked reported higher exposure (60.1%) than respondents who formerly (30.5%) or never smoked (12.4%). This pattern was consistent across race/ethnicity categories, where values were available.

Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-5
Table 4-5. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor in Car or Room Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Race/Ethnicity Characteristic
Never Vaping Former Vaping Current Vaping
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 24,689 22.2 (20.5–24.0) 4,110 49.9 (46.7–53.0) 2,092 80.1 (76.3–83.5) Race/ethnicity*
White 5,543 32.7 (30.3–35.1) 1,071 63.7 (59.4–67.8) 761 89.1 (84.5–92.8) African
American or
Black
524 19.8 (15.0–25.3) 107 — — 55 — —
Hispanic 13,402 18.7 (16.7–20.9) 2,315 42.8 (38.9–46.9) 935 73.1 (67.6–78.0) Asian 2,843 16.5 (13.8–19.4) 221 49.7 (39.8–59.7) 107 78.9 (63.1–90.2) Other 656 23.3 (18.3–29.0) 80 31.4† (17.1–48.9) 42 — —
Multiracial 1,658 28.8 (25.7–32.2) 312 53.9 (42.8–64.7) 190 86.7 (78.8–92.4) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Table 4-6. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in Car or Room Among High School Respondents, by Tobacco Smoking Status and Race/Ethnicity
Characteristic
Never Smoking** Former Smoking** Current Smoking**
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 28,484 12.4 (11.6–13.3) 1,851 30.5 (27.4–33.8) 585 60.1 (52.3–67.5) Race/ethnicity*
White 6,465 15.6 (14.0–17.2) 656 34.0 (28.8–39.4) 257 63.8 (50.4–75.7) African
American or
Black
634 19.4 (13.2–26.8) 36 — — 18 — —
Hispanic 15,591 10.2 (9.2–11.3) 866 28.7 (23.8–34.1) 210 60.0 (47.6–71.6) Asian 3,062 11.5 (9.6–13.7) 87 36.1† (20.8–53.8) 22 — — Other 718 14.7 (10.7–19.4) 48 — — 15 — —
Multiracial 1,949 16.1 (13.3–19.2) 155 32.0 (21.3–44.3) 61 53.9† (34.7–72.3) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
** Includes cigarettes, little cigars or cigarillos, or both. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-6

4.2.2 Outside
Table 4-7 presents data on secondhand exposure to vapor or tobacco smoke outside by race/ethnicity. White respondents reported the greatest secondhand exposure to vapor (47.9%) outside. High school students who identified as multiracial reported the greatest secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke (60.0%) outside. Exposure to vapor outside was lowest among Asian respondents (34.5%) and exposure to smoke outside was lowest among African American or Black respondents (45.9%). When looking at exposure to either vapor or smoke, White respondents reported greatest exposure to either vapor or tobacco smoke (67.7%) and African American or Black respondents reported the lowest exposure (53.5%).

Table 4-7. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor or Tobacco Smoke Outside Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity Characteristic
Vapor Exposure
Tobacco Smoke
Exposure
Vapor or Tobacco
Smoke Exposure
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,624 42.1 (40.6–43.7) 30,676 57.8 (56.1–59.4) 30,660 63.8 (62.2–65.4) Race/ethnicity*
White 7,307 47.9 (45.5–50.4) 7,315 59.8 (57.6–61.9) 7,315 67.7 (65.5–69.9) African American
or Black
674 37.0 (31.2–43.1) 676 45.9 (37.2–54.7) 672 53.5 (45.8–61.1) Hispanic 16,500 41.2 (39.2–43.1) 16,530 57.7 (55.3–60.0) 16,512 63.1 (60.8–65.4) Asian 3,159 34.5 (31.5–37.6) 3,158 58.6 (55.5–61.6) 3,159 62.4 (59.2–65.5) Other 770 39.6 (32.7–46.8) 780 55.7 (50.6–60.8) 779 60.4 (53.7–66.8) Multiracial 2,147 47.0 (43.9–50.2) 2,149 60.0 (56.7–63.1) 2,154 66.8 (63.7–69.8) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.

Table 4-8 presents exposure to vapor outside by vaping status and race/ethnicity. Overall, current vapers reported higher exposure to vapor (76.1%) than former (56.0%) or never vapers (37.6%). This pattern was consistent across race/ethnicity categories.

Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-7
Table 4-8. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor Outside Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Race/Ethnicity Characteristic
Never Vaping Former Vaping Current Vaping
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 24,501 37.6 (36.0–39.2) 4,066 56.0 (53.6–58.4) 2,057 76.1 (72.5–79.5) Race/ethnicity*
White 5,496 42.2 (39.6–44.8) 1,061 59.2 (55.0–63.3) 750 80.6 (73.9–86.3) African
American or
Black
513 33.9 (27.5–40.7) 107 38.8 (29.7–48.6) 54 — —
Hispanic 13,299 37.0 (34.9–39.2) 2,287 56.0 (52.4–59.6) 914 72.0 (66.3–77.2) Asian 2,833 31.7 (28.7–34.8) 220 57.8 (48.3–66.9) 106 74.3 (61.6–84.6) Other 650 35.8 (28.2–44.1) 78 54.2† (36.4–71.3) 42 — —
Multiracial 1,648 41.4 (38.3–44.5) 309 59.1 (47.9–69.6) 190 84.1 (74.5–91.1) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Table 4-9 presents exposure to tobacco smoke outside by vaping status and race/ethnicity.

As with vapor, exposure to tobacco smoke outside was higher for respondents who currently smoked (84.7%) than those who had formerly (65.8%) or never smoked (56.9%) overall.

Too many values are suppressed to compare race/ethnicity categories.

Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-8
Table 4-9. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Tobacco Smoke Outside Among High School Respondents, by Tobacco Smoking Status and Race/Ethnicity
Characteristic
Never Smoking** Former Smoking** Current Smoking**
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 28,269 56.9 (55.2–58.5) 1,830 65.8 (60.8–70.5) 577 84.7 (76.9–90.7) Race/ethnicity*
White 6,413 58.4 (56.1–60.6) 649 67.6 (61.7–73.1) 253 89.3 (81.1–94.8) African
American or
Black
622 46.8 (38.4–55.3) 36 — — 18 — —
Hispanic 15,470 56.8 (54.4–59.1) 854 68.7 (62.5–74.6) 206 83.4 (71.8–91.6) Asian 3,049 58.4 (55.3–61.5) 87 56.3† (39.2–72.4) 22 — — Other 717 54.1 (48.7–59.5) 48 — — 15 — —
Multiracial 1,935 58.8 (55.4–62.1) 153 66.2 (54.1–76.9) 61 — — Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. ** Includes cigarettes, little cigars or cigarillos, or both. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

4.3 Home Bans on Vaping and Tobacco Smoking
Home bans are an important influence on tobacco use, including influencing initiation, relapse among respondents who previously used tobacco, and continued use among respondents who currently use tobacco. In two separate questions, respondents were asked to indicate which statement best described rules about (a) vaping and (b) smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products inside their homes. Respondents who indicated that vaping or smoking was not allowed anywhere or at any time inside their home were classified as having a “complete home ban” on vaping or smoking and were compared with respondents who provided all other responses for rules about vaping or smoking in the home (“incomplete home ban”).

Tables 4-10 and 4-11 present the prevalence of complete home bans on vaping and tobacco smoking by vaping and tobacco smoking status. For tobacco user status, tobacco smoking included smoking cigarettes and/or LCCs to create consistency with the definition for secondhand tobacco smoke exposure. Most respondents had a complete home ban on vaping and tobacco smoking (81.0% and 78.4%, respectively). Respondents who had never Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-9
vaped (82.9%) and formerly vaped (76.0%) more commonly reported complete home vaping bans than respondents who currently vaped (64.7%).

Table 4-10. Prevalence of Complete Home Bans on Vaping Among High School Respondents, by Current Use of Vapes
Use Status
Vaping Ban
N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,837 81.0 (79.9–82.0)
Vaping status
Never 24,634 82.9 (81.8–84.0)
Former 4,094 76.0 (73.3–78.5)
Current 2,084 64.7 (59.7–69.4)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

Similarly, respondents who had never smoked (79.1%) and formerly smoked (71.0%) more commonly reported complete home bans on smoking than those who currently smoked (56.8%; Table 4-11).

Table 4-11. Prevalence of Complete Home Bans on Tobacco Smoking Among High School Respondents, by Current Use of Smoked Tobacco
Use Status
Tobacco Smoking Ban
N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,745 78.4 (77.2–79.5)
Tobacco smoking status*
Never 28,322 79.1 (78.0–80.3)
Former 1,829 71.0 (67.0–74.8)
Current 577 56.8 (48.3–65.0)
Note. CI = confidence interval.
*Includes cigarettes, little cigars or cigarillos, or both.

We examined home bans by demographics. Table 4-12 provides data on complete home bans on vaping and smoking by race/ethnicity. Hispanic respondents had the highest prevalence of complete home bans on vaping (82.1%), and Asian respondents had the highest prevalence of complete home bans on smoking (79.6%).

Table 4-13 presents the prevalence of home vaping bans by vaping status and race/ethnicity. Generally, a higher percentage of respondents who had never vaped reported complete home bans (82.9%) compared to those who currently (64.7%) and formerly (76.0%) vaped. The pattern of bans by vaping status observed for the overall sample was consistent with the pattern observed across race/ethnicity categories, where data were not suppressed. The exception was among Asian respondents, where those who currently vaped (70.8%) reported a higher prevalence of home vaping bans than those who Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-10
had formerly vaped (66.2%), but those who had never vaped still reported the highest prevalence of bans (82.8%) across vaping user status.

Table 4-12. Prevalence of Complete Home Bans on Vaping and Tobacco Smoking Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity
Characteristic
Vaping Ban Tobacco Smoking Ban
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,812 81.0 (79.9–82.0) 30,728 78.4 (77.2–79.5) Race/ethnicity*
White 7,358 80.7 (78.4–82.9) 7,346 79.2 (76.8–81.5)
African American or Black 683 72.0 (65.2–78.2) 684 66.1 (58.3–73.3) Hispanic 16,593 82.1 (80.8–83.4) 16,540 79.1 (77.8–80.4) Asian 3,170 81.4 (79.3–83.4) 3,163 79.6 (76.9–82.1)
Other 778 79.5 (74.8–83.7) 770 75.1 (69.7–80.0)
Multiracial 2,162 78.4 (75.2–81.3) 2,158 77.5 (74.4–80.5) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.

Table 4-13. Prevalence of Complete Home Vaping Bans Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Race/Ethnicity
Characteristic
Never Vaping Former Vaping Current Vaping
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 24,634 82.9 (81.8–84.0) 4,094 76.0 (73.3–78.5) 2,084 64.7 (59.7–69.4) Race/ethnicity*
White 5,535 83.3 (80.9–85.4) 1,067 75.2 (69.2–80.6) 756 67.3 (60.4–73.7) African
American or
Black
521 73.6 (64.0–81.8) 108 70.4 (54.9–83.0) 54 — —
Hispanic 13,357 83.9 (82.5–85.3) 2,305 78.5 (75.4–81.4) 931 62.3 (54.8–69.4) Asian 2,843 82.8 (80.5–84.9) 220 66.2 (53.5–77.4) 107 70.8 (56.5–82.6) Other 657 81.4 (76.6–85.5) 79 67.8† (49.1–83.1) 42 — —
Multiracial 1,659 80.4 (76.8–83.6) 311 71.8 (63.5–79.1) 192 69.2 (57.8–79.1) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-11
Table 4-14 presents the prevalence of home smoking bans by smoking status and race/ethnicity. Consistent with home vaping bans, a higher percentage of respondents who had never smoked reported complete home bans (79.1%) compared to those who currently (56.8%) and formerly (71.0%) smoked. Too many values were suppressed to make comparisons across race/ethnicity.

Table 4-14. Prevalence of Complete Home Bans on Tobacco Smoking Among High School Respondents, by Smoking Status and Race/Ethnicity Characteristic
Never Smoking** Former Smoking** Current Smoking**
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 28,322 79.1 (78.0–80.3) 1,829 71.0 (67.0–74.8) 577 56.8 (48.3–65.0) Race/ethnicity*
White 6,442 80.3 (78.0–82.4) 651 72.1 (65.6–77.9) 253 60.9 (46.2–74.2) African
American or
Black
631 68.1 (60.9–74.7) 35 — — 18 — —
Hispanic 15,480 79.7 (78.3–81.0) 853 73.0 (66.4–78.9) 207 60.1 (46.9–72.4) Asian 3,055 80.3 (77.5–82.9) 87 63.0† (45.0–78.7) 21 — — Other 709 76.2 (70.6–81.1) 46 — — 15 — —
Multiracial 1,943 78.1 (75.0–81.0) 154 78.1 (67.5–86.5) 61 — — Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. ** Includes cigarettes, little cigars or cigarillos, or both. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

4.4 Exposure to Vape and Cigarette Advertisements in Last 30 Days Exposure to advertising influences tobacco use behavior. The survey asked respondents several questions about advertising exposure. First, they were asked whether they had a favorite advertisement for vaping products. They were also asked how often they saw someone smoking cigarettes or vaping on a social media site in the last 30 days (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always). Respondents were also asked how much attention they paid to social media posts about vaping (none, a little, some, or a lot).

Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-12
Table 4-15 presents results for having a favorite vaping advertisement. Very few respondents (3.8%) reported having a favorite vaping advertisement. The prevalence of reporting having a favorite advertisement was highest among current vapers (13.8%).

Table 4-15. Prevalence of Having Favorite Vaping Advertisement Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status
Use Status
Have a Favorite Advertisement
N % (95% CI)
Overall 29,497 3.8 (3.4–4.4)
Vaping status
Never 23,655 2.6 (2.3–3.1)
Former 3,892 7.1 (6.0–8.4)
Current 1,950 13.8 (10.9–17.1)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 4-16 presents the reported prevalence of having seen someone on a social media site vaping in the last 30 days. Response options were rarely, sometimes, often, or always.

Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported some exposure (rarely, sometimes, often or always in the past 30 days) to vaping on social media (71.9%). Responses to this question varied by vaping status. Respondents who currently and formerly vaped more commonly reported being exposed to vaping advertisements always (14.2% and 9.7%, respectively) or often (31.3% and 26.5%, respectively) compared with those who had never vaped (5.8% always, 16.7% often).

Table 4-16. Last-30-Day Social Media Exposure to Vaping Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status
Frequency of
Exposure
Overall
N = 29,288
% (95% CI)
Never Vaping
N = 23,508
% (95% CI)
Former Vaping
N = 3,863
% (95% CI)
Current Vaping
N = 1,917
% (95% CI)
Never 28.1 (26.8–29.5) 31.0 (29.5–32.5) 15.3 (12.7–18.2) 15.6 (13.1–18.4) Rarely 20.7 (19.9–21.6) 21.3 (20.3–22.3) 19.8 (17.8–21.9) 14.2 (11.9–16.8) Sometimes 25.7 (24.8–26.5) 25.3 (24.3–26.2) 28.8 (26.0–31.8) 24.8 (21.4–28.4) Often 18.7 (17.9–19.5) 16.7 (15.8–17.6) 26.5 (24.3–28.7) 31.3 (26.9–35.9) Always 6.7 (6.1–7.5) 5.8 (5.1–6.6) 9.7 (8.4–11.1) 14.2 (11.5–17.3) Note. CI = confidence interval.

Respondents also answered the same question about exposure to tobacco smoking on social media. Half (55.9%) of respondents reported being exposed to smoking on social media in the last 30 days (i.e., rarely, sometimes, often, or always; Table 4-17). Respondents who Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-13
currently smoked reported a higher prevalence of being exposed than those who had formerly or never smoked. For example, 17.6% of respondents who currently smoked reported always being exposed, compared with 7.5% of those who had formerly smoked and 3.1% of those who had never smoked.

Table 4-17. Last-30-day Social Media Exposure to Smoking Among High School Respondents, by Smoking Status
Frequency of
Exposure
Overall
N = 29,296
% (95% CI)
Never Smoking
N = 27,389
% (95% CI)
Former Smoking
N = 1,490
% (95% CI)
Current Smoking
N = 417
% (95% CI)
Never 44.1 (42.5–45.6) 45.0 (43.5–46.6) 27.6 (24.0–31.6) 27.9 (19.9–37.1) Rarely 26.3 (25.3–27.3) 26.3 (25.3–27.4) 29.2 (24.1–34.7) 16.0 (9.8–24.0) Sometimes 18.4 (17.5–19.3) 18.1 (17.2–18.9) 23.4 (19.3–27.9) 22.8 (15.1–32.1) Often 7.8 (7.1–8.5) 7.5 (6.8–8.3) 12.3 (9.4–15.6) 15.7 (10.5–22.2) Always 3.4 (3.0–3.9) 3.1 (2.7–3.5) 7.5 (4.5–11.5) 17.6 (11.3–25.5) Note. CI = confidence interval.

The survey also asked respondents how much attention they paid to social media posts on vaping (Table 4-18). More than half (59.1%) of respondents reported not paying any attention to social media posts about vaping. Attention to these posts varied by vaping status. A higher percentage of respondents who currently vaped reported that they paid a lot of attention to these posts (3.9%) than those who had formerly (2.6%) and never (1.8%) vaped.

Table 4-18. Attention Paid to Social Media Posts About Vaping Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status
Amount Of
Attention
Overall
N = 29,400
% (95% CI)
Never Vaping
N = 23,583
% (95% CI)
Former Vaping
N = 3,881
% (95% CI)
Current Vaping
N = 1,936
% (95% CI)
None 59.1 (57.6–60.5) 61.2 (59.5–62.8) 51.9 (48.9–54.9) 44.9 (40.8–49.0) A little 27.8 (26.7–28.9) 26.5 (25.4–27.7) 32.6 (29.7–35.7) 35.5 (31.5–39.5) Some 11.1 (10.4–11.9) 10.5 (9.7–11.4) 12.9 (11.0–15.0) 15.7 (12.7–19.1) A lot 2.0 (1.7–2.4) 1.8 (1.4–2.3) 2.6 (1.6–3.8) 3.9 (2.6–5.7) Note. CI = confidence interval.

4.5 Summary
Most high school respondents reported living in a home that had a complete home ban on tobacco smoking and vaping. Still, 22.2% of respondents who had never vaped had been exposed to vapor in a car or room in the last 2 weeks, and 37.6% reported exposure to Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
4-14
vaping outside during the same time period. Only 12.4% of respondents who had never smoked tobacco reported exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in a car or room, but 56.9% reported being exposed outside. About half (49.8%) of respondents who lived in MUH reported any exposure to tobacco smoke in the last 6 months. Of all races and ethnicities, White respondents and multiracial respondents reported the highest exposure to secondhand vapor and secondhand smoke both in a car or room and outside, with the exception of tobacco smoke exposure in a car or room, for which African American or Black respondents reported the highest exposure.

More than half of respondents reported being exposed to social media posts about vaping or smoking in the past 30 days. Less than half of respondents reported paying any attention to social media posts about vaping, and few respondents reported having a favorite vaping advertisement.

Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 5-1

5. Susceptibility to Future Tobacco Use and Perceptions of Vaping and Smoking
The 2023 CYTS measured susceptibility in two different ways. For the most popular products (vapes, cigarettes, and LCCs), we used a three-item susceptibility scale. These questions were only asked of respondents who reported that they had never used each product. The scale asked three questions: whether they would use a product if one of their best friends offered the product to them, whether they thought they would try the product soon, and whether they thought they would use the product in the next year. Only those who answered “definitely not” to all three items were considered not susceptible to future tobacco use. All others were considered susceptible. For the other tobacco products captured by the survey (HTPs, hookah, smokeless, and nicotine pouches), we only asked one question: whether respondents would use the product if one of their best friends offered the product to them. Because of low use of cigars among youth, we did not administer a susceptibility item for cigars. Because the three-item susceptibility scale is superior to the single-item scale, we only present susceptibility for vapes, cigarettes, and LCCs in this chapter.

Social norms affect tobacco use behavior. This chapter also presents data on reported reasons for vaping among current vapers. It also presents data on respondents’ beliefs about how adults, peers or classmates, and friends perceive vaping and smoking cigarettes.

Finally, respondents’ opinions of the tobacco industry are reported. These perceptions are compared across tobacco use status (i.e., never, former, or current use) or demographics, when appropriate.

5.1 Susceptibility to Vapes, Cigarettes, and LCCs by Demographics Table 5-1 presents susceptibility to future use of vapes, cigarettes, and/or LCCs among respondents who had never used one or more of these three products by respondent demographics. This table only includes those three products because the susceptibility items were different for other products. Overall, 44.3% of respondents who had never used one or more of these products were susceptible to one or more products. We found differences in susceptibility by demographics. Respondents who identified their gender in another way were the most susceptible (49.8%) out of all gender categories. Multiracial and White respondents were the most susceptible (46.4% and 46.0%, respectively) out of all race/ethnicity categories, and Asian respondents were the least susceptible (35.8%).

Twelfth-grade respondents were more susceptible (45.6%) than 10th-grade respondents (43.2%). LGBTQ+ respondents were more susceptible (52.6%) than non-LGBTQ+ respondents (42.2%) and respondents with unclear LGBTQ+ status (44.7%). Respondents who rated their mental health as fair (51.8%) or poor (55.3%) were more susceptible to future use than who rated their mental health status as good to excellent (39.5%).

Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
5-2
Table 5-1. Susceptibility to Vapes, Cigarettes, and/or LCCs Among High School Respondents Who Had Never Used One or More of These Products, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, LGBTQ+ Status, and General Mental Health
Characteristic
Susceptible to Vapes, Cigarettes, and/or LCCs
N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,493 44.3 (42.7–45.9)
Gender identity
Male 13,523 42.3 (40.5–44.1)
Female 13,415 45.4 (43.0–47.8)
Identified in another way 1,691 49.8 (45.7–53.9)
Declined to answer 191 43.2 (32.2–54.7)
Race/ethnicity*
White 7,204 46.0 (43.7–48.2)
African American or Black 681 40.1 (33.9–46.6)
Hispanic 16,490 45.7 (43.4–48.0)
Asian 3,152 35.8 (33.7–37.9)
Other 772 36.6 (32.0–41.3)
Multiracial 2,125 46.4 (43.3–49.4)
Grade
10 16,078 43.2 (41.6–44.8)
12 14,415 45.6 (43.3–48.0)
LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 5,017 52.6 (49.8–55.4)
Non-LGBTQ+ 21,085 42.2 (40.4–44.1)
Unclear LGBTQ+ status 2,395 44.7 (40.4–49.0)
Mental health status
Good to excellent 18,914 39.5 (37.8–41.3)
Fair 7,057 51.8 (49.6–53.9)
Poor 3,014 55.3 (52.0–58.6)
Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.

When looking at susceptibility to vapes, cigarettes, and LCCs individually (Table 5-2), patterns of susceptibility varied by demographics. Female respondents were most susceptible to vapes (41.0%) out of all gender identities. Respondents who identified their gender in a different way were most susceptible to cigarettes (29.4%). Respondents who identified as males and respondents who identified in another way both had the highest susceptibility to LCCs (24.0%).

Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
5-3
Table 5-2. Proportion of High School Respondents Who Had Never Vaped, Never Smoked Cigarettes, and/or Never Smoked LCCs Who Were
Susceptible to Future Use of These Products, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, LGBTQ+ Status, and General Mental Health Characteristic
Vapes Cigarettes LCCs
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 24,693 37.8 (36.4–39.3) 28,865 20.1 (19.1–21.2) 30,054 21.4 (20.1–22.6) Gender identity
Male 11,313 34.5 (32.7–36.3) 12,882 18.6 (17.2–20.0) 13,285 24.0 (22.5–25.6) Female 10,620 41.0 (38.8–43.3) 12,734 20.5 (19.1–21.9) 13,293 18.0 (16.4–19.7) Identified in
another way
1,335 39.0 (35.2–43.0) 1,520 29.4 (25.5–33.6) 1,648 24.0 (21.2–27.0) Declined to
answer
139 34.9† (20.9–51.1) 176 22.4 (14.8–31.6) 187 19.9 (12.1–29.9) Race/ethnicity*
White 5,544 36.1 (34.0–38.3) 6,560 22.1 (20.2–24.1) 7,095 25.9 (23.9–28.0) African
American or
Black
523 38.5 (33.0–44.3) 651 12.2 (9.1–16.1) 662 12.2 (8.4–17.0) Hispanic 13,402 40.3 (38.0–42.7) 15,806 20.5 (19.1–22.0) 16,246 21.3 (19.7–22.9) Asian 2,841 30.7 (28.8–32.6) 3,070 17.6 (15.9–19.4) 3,139 14.5 (12.9–16.2) Other 658 28.1 (23.4–33.2) 729 14.4 (10.6–19.0) 762 18.9 (14.9–23.5) Multiracial 1,663 37.9 (33.9–41.9) 1,983 21.0 (18.5–23.7) 2,083 24.9 (22.5–27.5) Grade
10 13,558 37.1 (35.5–38.7) 15,431 20.0 (18.9–21.1) 15,884 19.9 (18.9–21.0) 12 11,135 38.7 (36.8–40.7) 13,434 20.3 (18.5–22.1) 14,170 23.0 (21.1–25.0) LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 3,687 44.2 (41.2–47.3) 4,525 28.6 (26.3–31.1) 4,942 24.6 (22.6–26.8) Non-LGBTQ+ 17,416 36.3 (34.7–38.0) 20,225 17.9 (16.7–19.1) 20,780 20.4 (18.9–21.8) Unclear LGBTQ+
status
2,042 39.2 (35.0–43.5) 2,257 23.3 (19.8–27.2) 2,372 21.3 (18.5–24.2) Mental health
status
Good to
excellent
15,937 33.1 (31.5–34.7) 18,110 16.7 (15.5–17.9) 18,667 18.8 (17.4–20.1) Fair 5,489 46.9 (44.6–49.1) 6,644 25.3 (23.5–27.1) 6,969 24.0 (22.0–26.2) Poor 2,113 47.9 (43.8–52.1) 2,712 29.3 (25.9–32.9) 2,943 29.0 (26.1–32.0) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
† The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

When examining susceptibility to specific products by race and ethnicity, Hispanic respondents had highest susceptibility to vapes (40.3%), and White respondents had the highest susceptibility to cigarettes (22.1%) and LCCs (25.9%). In general, respondents in Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
5-4
12th grade had a higher susceptibility than respondents in 10th grade for all products.

LGBTQ+ respondents had the highest susceptibility to all three products, followed by respondents with unclear LGBTQ+ status and non-LGBTQ+ respondents.

Table 5-2 also presents susceptibility to vaping, smoking cigarettes, and LCCs by self-rated general mental health, among respondents who had never vaped, never smoked cigarettes, and/or never smoked LCCs. The results broken down by individual product were consistent with the overall findings: respondents with poor mental health status were the most susceptible, and respondents with good to excellent mental health were the least susceptible.

5.2 Susceptibility to Vape and Cigarette Use by Peer Vaping and Smoking
One factor that affects youth susceptibility is peer tobacco use. The survey asked respondents to indicate the proportion of their friends who used vapes or smoked cigarettes.

It should be noted that this question asked about vapes generally and did not specify the substance in the vape (e.g., nicotine, marijuana, or only flavoring). As a result, responses could include friends who used vapes with marijuana.

Overall, peer use and individual susceptibility appeared to be positively correlated. Tables 5- 3 and 5-4 present the susceptibility to future vape or cigarette use (among respondents who had never used these products), by the self-reported proportion of their friends who used the tobacco product. Susceptibility to vaping among respondents increased as the proportion of their friends who vaped increased, with half (52.1%) of those who had never vaped and were susceptible to vaping reporting that most or all of their friends vaped.

Table 5-3. Prevalence of Susceptibility to Vaping Among High School Respondents Who had Never Vaped, by Friend Vaping Status Friends Who Vape
Susceptible to Vapes
N % (95% CI)
None 3,921 28.4 (27.1–29.8)
Some 4,449 48.3 (45.9–50.7)
Most/all 995 52.1 (47.0–57.2)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

Respondents who had never smoked cigarettes and reported having some (33.5%) or most/all (31.5%) friends who smoked had higher susceptibility to cigarettes than those who did not have friends who smoked cigarettes (18.0%).

Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
5-5
Table 5-4. Prevalence of Susceptibility to Cigarette Smoking Among High School Respondents Who Had Never Smoked Cigarette, by Friend Smoking Status
Friends Who Smoke Cigarettes
Susceptible to Cigarettes
N % (95% CI)
None 4,372 18.0 (17.0–19.0)
Some 1,114 33.5 (30.7–36.3)
Most/all 219 31.5 (23.7–40.3)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

5.3 Reasons for Vaping
Respondents who had vaped in the last 30 days were asked why they vaped. Table 5-5 shows the percentage of respondents who endorsed each reason. The most commonly endorsed response was “to relax or relieve stress and anxiety” (35.2%). The next top response was “for the nicotine buzz” (20.6%).

Table 5-5. Reported Reasons for Vaping Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Vaping
Reason for Vaping
Current Vapers
N = 2,069
% (95% CI)
To relax or relieve stress and anxiety 35.2 (31.1–39.4) For the nicotine buzz 20.6 (17.8–23.6)
To have a good time with my friends 9.8 (7.7–12.2)
Because I am “hooked” 5.6 (4.3–7.3)
Cloud competitions 4.7 (3.2–6.7)
To focus or concentrate 4.6 (3.1–6.6)
It looks cool 4.6 (2.8–7.0)
To control my weight 4.3 (2.7-6.4)
They are available in flavors I like 4.0 (2.8–5.5)
To fit in/peer pressure 2.9 (1.8–4.6)
To try to quit using other products 2.1 (1.2–3.4)
I can use them unnoticed or hide them at home or at school 1.6 (0.7–3.0) Note. CI = confidence interval.

Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
5-6

5.4 Adult Disapproval of Vaping and Smoking
Respondents were asked how adults who were important to them (such as parents, teachers, coaches, or relatives) would feel about the respondent using vapes. The same questions were asked about smoking cigarettes, using marijuana, and drinking alcohol.

Table 5-6 presents the percentage of respondents who reported that adults important to them would feel negatively (“negative” and “very negative” as opposed to “positive” or “very positive”) about the respondent vaping. Most respondents (96.3%) believed that adults important to them would feel negatively about the respondent vaping. Across all demographic categories, most respondents held this belief.

Table 5-6. Percentage of High School Respondents Who Believed That Adults Would Feel Negatively About Them Vaping and Smoking, by Demographics
Characteristic
Negative Views About Vaping Negative Views About Smoking N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 29,661 96.3 (95.6–96.9) 29,668 96.8 (96.2–97.3) Gender identity
Male 13,594 96.2 (95.1–97.0) 13,597 96.8 (96.0–97.4)
Female 13,399 97.4 (96.9–97.9) 13,404 97.8 (97.2–98.4)
Identified in another way 1,745 89.9 (87.3–92.2) 1,745 90.4 (87.7–92.6) Declined to answer 149 — — 149 — —
Race/ethnicity*
White 7,112 97.2 (96.4–97.9) 7,112 98.0 (97.4–98.5)
African American or Black 644 93.0 (90.1–95.2) 645 95.8 (92.0–98.1) Hispanic 15,921 96.0 (95.0–96.8) 15,924 96.4 (95.6–97.1) Asian 3,093 98.1 (97.2–98.8) 3,095 97.7 (96.7–98.5)
Other 750 91.6 (87.1–94.9) 750 92.4 (88.1–95.5)
Multiracial 2,078 96.2 (93.9–97.8) 2,079 96.6 (94.3–98.2) Grade
10 15,535 96.3 (95.5–97.0) 15,537 96.6 (95.9–97.2)
12 14,126 96.3 (95.5–96.9) 14,131 97.0 (96.3–97.6)
LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 5,100 95.0 (93.8–96.0) 5,103 95.4 (94.4–96.3)
Non-LGBTQ+ 21,134 97.0 (96.2–97.7) 21,139 97.6 (96.9–98.2) Unclear LGBTQ+ status 2,378 93.6 (91.4–95.3) 2,377 93.8 (91.6–95.6) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A.

Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
5-7
Table 5-6 also presents the percentage of respondents who reported that adults important to them would feel negatively about the respondent smoking cigarettes. Almost all respondents (96.8%) believed that adults important to them would feel negatively about the respondent smoking cigarettes. This opinion was consistent across demographic categories.

5.5 Peer Disapproval of Vaping and Smoking
In addition to being asked about adults, respondents were asked to describe the views of “other respondents at your school” on using vapes. Response options included “very positive,” “positive,” “negative,” and “very negative.” The same questions were asked about smoking cigarettes.

Tables 5-7 and 5-8 present the percentage of respondents who believed that their peers would view vaping and smoking cigarettes negatively (“negative” or “very negative”). A greater proportion of respondents reported that their peers would view smoking negatively (83.6%) than those who reported that their peers would view vaping negatively (49.8%).

The percentage of respondents endorsing these views for vaping varied by vaping status, with respondents who had never used vapes reporting the highest peer disapproval.

Table 5-7. Percentage of High School Respondents Who Believed That Close Friends and Other Respondents at School Would View Vaping Negatively, by Vaping Status
Use Status
Negative Views About Vaping
N % (95% CI)
Overall 29,585 49.8 (48.2–51.5)
Vaping status
Never 23,686 52.3 (50.4–54.2)
Former 3,920 39.5 (36.9–42.1)
Current 1,979 37.4 (33.9–41.0)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 5-8. Percentage of High School Respondents Who Believed That Close Friends and Other Respondents at School Would View Smoking Negatively, by Smoking Status
Use Status
Negative Views About Smoking
N % (95% CI)
Overall 29,589 83.6 (82.5–84.7)
Cigarette smoking status
Never 27,637 83.8 (82.7–85.0)
Former 1,518 80.9 (77.2–84.3)
Current 434 74.9 (66.4–82.2)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
5-8
The same was true for smoking, with the highest proportion of respondents who had never smoked believing their peers would view smoking negatively.

Table 5-9 presents the perceived prevalence of peers’ negative views of vaping and smoking by demographics. Male respondents had the highest perceived prevalence of negative views of both vaping (57.6%) and smoking cigarettes (86.8%). Across different races/ethnicities, Asian respondents most commonly reported that their peers viewed vaping negatively (63.2%), and African American or Black respondents most commonly reported that their peers viewed smoking cigarettes negatively (88.0%). It was more common for 10th-grade respondents to believe that peers viewed vaping negatively (52.2%) than 12th-grade respondents (47.2%), whereas 10th- and 12th-grade respondents held similar beliefs that their peers viewed smoking cigarettes negatively (83.5% and 83.7%, respectively).

Respondents with unclear LGBTQ+ status had the highest perceived prevalence of reporting that their peers had negative views of vaping (54.8%), whereas non-LGBTQ+ respondents had the highest prevalence of reporting that their peers had negative views of smoking (84.4%).

Table 5-9. Percentage of High School Respondents Who Believed That Close Friends or Other Respondents Would Feel Negatively About Them Smoking Cigarettes, by Demographics
Characteristic
Negative Views About Vaping
Negative Views About
Smoking
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 29,606 49.8 (48.2–51.5) 29,599 83.6 (82.5–84.7) Gender identity
Male 13,548 57.6 (55.5–59.7) 13,542 86.8 (85.3–88.1)
Female 13,316 42.6 (40.4–44.9) 13,315 81.6 (79.9–83.3)
Identified in another way 1,740 46.9 (42.2–51.7) 1,741 78.3 (74.7–81.6) Declined to answer 151 50.5† (34.4–66.6) 150 — —
Race/ethnicity*
White 7,096 44.5 (42.1–47.0) 7,095 84.8 (83.0–86.4)
African American or Black 648 50.7 (45.5–55.8) 648 88.0 (83.8–91.4) Hispanic 15,886 49.6 (47.6–51.6) 15,879 82.3 (80.8–83.8) Asian 3,083 63.2 (59.0–67.3) 3,085 86.6 (84.0–88.9)
Other 750 51.1 (46.0–56.2) 750 82.2 (77.3–86.4)
Multiracial 2,081 48.9 (44.6–53.3) 2,081 82.6 (79.4–85.5) Grade
10 15,482 52.2 (50.1–54.4) 15,470 83.5 (82.1–84.8)
12 14,124 47.2 (45.5–49.0) 14,129 83.7 (82.4–85.0)
(continued)
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
5-9
Table 5-9. Percentage of High School Respondents Who Believed That Close Friends or Other Respondents Would Feel Negatively About Them Smoking Cigarettes, by Demographics (continued)
Characteristic
Negative Views About Vaping
Negative Views About
Smoking
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 5,078 43.9 (41.0–46.9) 5,080 82.2 (79.9–84.4)
Non-LGBTQ+ 21,042 50.7 (48.9–52.5) 21,034 84.4 (83.2–85.6) Unclear LGBTQ+ status 2,365 54.8 (49.5–60.0) 2,366 81.4 (77.5–85.0) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

5.6 Summary
Almost half of respondents who had never used vapes, cigarettes, and/or LCCs were susceptible to one or more of these products. Susceptibility to these three products combined was highest for individuals who identified their gender in another way than the options listed in the survey, non-Hispanic multiracial respondents, LGBTQ+ respondents, 12th graders, and respondents with poor mental health. Susceptibility varied by product.

Differences in susceptibility by race and ethnicity also varied by product. In general, LGBTQ+ respondents and respondents with poor or fair mental health were more susceptible to tobacco use than their counterparts, regardless of product. Among high school respondents who were currently vaping, the most commonly endorsed reason for vaping was “to relax or relieve stress and anxiety.” Respondents believed that adults who were important to them held overwhelmingly negative views on vaping and smoking cigarettes. When asked about the beliefs of their peers, only about half of respondents reported that their peers would view vaping negatively, while almost all respondents reported that their peers viewed smoking cigarettes negatively. While there was little variation in perceptions about adults’ opinions by gender identity, race/ethnicity, grade, and LGBTQ+ status, there were differences in peers’ views by these variables.

Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 6-1

6. Tobacco Endgame Attitudes
As part of the survey, respondents were asked their opinions about several tobacco endgame policies. They were asked how much they disagreed or agreed with the following statements: (a) the sale of all tobacco products (e.g., cigarettes, cigars, chew, vapes) should end; (b) smoking cigarettes, little cigars, or cigarillos in all public places should end; and (c) the sale of flavored tobacco (e.g., cigarettes, chew, cigars, and vapes that taste like mint, fruit, candy, or liquor) should end. Response options were “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” Respondents were considered supporting these policies if they responded “strongly agree” or “agree” and not supporting them if they responded “disagree” or “strongly disagree.”
Table 6-1 shows responses to these questions by vaping status and cigarette smoking status. Overall, more than two-thirds of respondents supported these policies. The highest support was for a public tobacco use ban (73.7%), followed by a flavored tobacco ban (72.0%) and tobacco sales ban (66.9%). Respondents who had never vaped and never smoked cigarettes tended to express more support for these bans than those who formerly or currently vaped and smoked.

Table 6-1. Agreement with Tobacco Endgame Policies Among High School Respondents, by Vaping Status and Cigarette Smoking Status Characteristic
Support for Complete
Tobacco Sales Ban1
Support for Public
Tobacco Use Ban2
Support for Flavored
Tobacco Sales Ban3
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,127 66.9 (65.7–68.1) 30,037 73.7 (72.4–74.9) 30,099 72.0 (71.1–72.9) Vaping status
Never 24,093 71.2 (70.2–72.3) 24,030 77.0 (75.8–78.1) 24,070 76.9 (76.1–77.8) Former 3,994 53.7 (50.9–56.4) 3,983 64.8 (62.2–67.2) 3,993 57.4 (54.8–60.0) Current 2,019 34.2 (30.1–38.3) 2,004 46.5 (42.1–50.9) 2,016 35.3 (31.1–39.6) Cigarette
smoking status
Never 28,115 68.7 (67.6–69.7) 28,040 75.2 (74.0–76.4) 28,091 73.8 (72.9–74.7) Former 1,560 42.6 (37.8–47.5) 1,550 53.1 (48.0–58.1) 1,559 47.1 (42.6–51.7) Current 439 19.0 (13.0–26.3) 435 29.9 (23.1–37.4) 436 26.8 (20.1–34.4) Note. CI = confidence interval.
1 Responded “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement “the sale of all tobacco products (e.g., cigarettes, cigars, chew, vapes) should end.”
2 Responded “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement “smoking cigarettes, little cigars, or cigarillos in all public places should end.”
3 Responded “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement “the sale of flavored tobacco (e.g., cigarettes, chew, cigars, and vapes that taste like mint, fruit, candy, or liquor) should end.” Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
6-2
We examined support for tobacco endgame policies by demographics (Table 6-2). Female respondents reported the highest level of support for all three bans, compared with other gender categories. Within race/ethnicity categories, Asian respondents reported the highest support across all three bans (75.5%, 82.6%, and 81.2%, respectively), and White respondents reported the least support (60.1%, 69.8%, and 69.2%, respectively).

Respondents in the 10th grade reported more support for all three bans (69.5%, 75.4%, and 74.1%, respectively) than 12th-grade respondents did (64.0%, 71.7%, and 69.7%, respectively). Non-LGBTQ+ respondents reported the highest support for all three bans (68.6%, 75.3%, and 73.7%, respectively) and LGBTQ+ respondents reported the least support (60.5%, 69.0%, and 67.0%, respectively).

Table 6-2. Agreement With Tobacco Endgame Policies Among High School Respondents, by Demographics
Characteristic
Support for Complete
Tobacco Sales Ban1
Support for Public
Tobacco Use Ban2
Support For Flavored
Tobacco Sales Ban3
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,127 66.9 (65.7–68.1) 30,037 73.7 (72.4–74.9) 30,099 72.0 (71.1–72.9) Gender identity
Male 13,596 63.6 (61.8–65.5) 13,572 71.3 (69.7–72.8) 13,587 71.2 (69.7–72.7) Female 13,361 71.5 (69.9–73.0) 13,318 77.8 (76.2–79.4) 13,348 74.2 (72.9–75.5) Identified in
another way
1,747 57.4 (54.0–60.8) 1,738 63.5 (60.1–66.8) 1,744 64.5 (61.0–67.8) Declined to
answer
174 58.6 (44.5–71.7) 170 66.4 (52.4–78.7) 173 63.2 (49.3–75.6) Race/ethnicity*
White 7,202 60.1 (57.9–62.3) 7,181 69.8 (67.8–71.7) 7,199 69.2 (66.5–71.8) African
American or
Black
662 67.9 (61.4–73.9) 661 72.7 (65.6–79.1) 663 71.1 (66.6–75.3) Hispanic 16,204 68.4 (66.7–70.0) 16,149 73.9 (72.1–75.6) 16,181 71.9 (70.5–73.2) Asian 3,108 75.5 (73.1–77.9) 3,102 82.6 (80.5–84.6) 3,105 81.2 (79.1–83.2) Other 764 66.4 (60.0–72.3) 760 71.6 (66.5–76.4) 762 71.5 (64.8–77.6) Multiracial 2,120 63.8 (60.1–67.4) 2,118 72.9 (69.5–76.0) 2,123 70.2 (66.3–73.9) Grade
10 15,769 69.5 (67.8–71.2) 15,728 75.4 (73.6–77.1) 15,751 74.1 (72.7–75.6) 12 14,358 64.0 (62.3–65.6) 14,309 71.7 (70.1–73.4) 14,348 69.7 (68.2–71.2) (continued)
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
6-3
Table 6-2. Agreement With Tobacco Endgame Policies Among High School Respondents, by Demographics (continued)
Characteristic
Support for Complete
Tobacco Sales Ban1
Support for Public
Tobacco Use Ban2
Support For Flavored
Tobacco Sales Ban3
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 5,089 60.5 (58.2–62.7) 5,071 69.0 (66.7–71.3) 5,087 67.0 (64.7–69.2) Non-LGBTQ+ 21,103 68.6 (67.2–70.0) 21,055 75.3 (73.9–76.7) 21,086 73.7 (72.6–74.7) Unclear
LGBTQ+
status
2,385 65.8 (62.5–69.0) 2,376 71.9 (69.2–74.6) 2,379 70.0 (66.8–73.1) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. 1 Responded “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement “the sale of all tobacco products (e.g., cigarettes, cigars, chew, vapes) should end.”
2 Responded “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement “smoking cigarettes, little cigars, or cigarillos in all public places should end.”
3 Responded “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement “the sale of flavored tobacco (e.g., cigarettes, chew, cigars, and vapes that taste like mint, fruit, candy, or liquor) should end.”

6.1 Summary
Over two-thirds of high school respondents supported tobacco endgame policies. Support was highest for a public use ban on tobacco. The second most popular endgame policy was a ban on flavored tobacco products. Support for endgame policies was highest among respondents who had never or formerly smoked cigarettes or used vapes and among respondents who identified as female. Some differences existed by race/ethnicity for each ban, but support was over 60% for all race/ethnicity groups and all endgame policies measured. Tenth-grade respondents supported the bans more than 12th-grade respondents, and non-LGBTQ+ respondents supported the bans more than LGBTQ+ respondents and respondents of unclear LGBTQ+ status.

Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 7-1

7. Geographic Differences
This chapter examines geographic differences. We only examined whether differences were significant for counties and county groupings to make sense of the large number of estimates provided by dividing the state into these groups. For these comparisons, we compared individual counties and county groups to the state average for each outcome using independent two sample t-tests with unequal variance.

7.1 Rurality
To capture tobacco use by rurality, students were divided into three categories based on the locations of their schools. The categories were obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics using school address.10 Further information on this variable is available in Appendix A. Table 7-1 presents prevalence of current any tobacco use and current use of specific tobacco products by rurality. Current use was most prevalent among respondents living in towns or rural settings (9.6%), compared with cities (6.9%) and suburban areas (6.8%). Estimates for cities and suburban areas were similar. The same pattern was present for current vaping, with higher prevalence estimates observed for towns or rural setting (8.0%) and similar vaping prevalence estimates for cities (5.7%) and suburban areas (5.3%). In general, this finding applies to all tobacco products included in the survey with few exceptions. Current use of HTPs was identical for all areas. In addition, use of hookah was very similar across all categories of rurality (0.9% town or rural settings, 0.7% cities, and 0.7% suburban areas).

Table 7-1. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Rurality
Tobacco
Product
City Suburban Town or Rural
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Any tobacco use 11,637 6.9 (5.9–8.0) 12,853 6.8 (5.6–8.3) 6,476 9.6 (7.5–12.0) Vapes 11,626 5.7 (4.8–6.8) 12,835 5.3 (4.3–6.4) 6,469 8.0 (6.2–10.1) Cigarettes 11,628 1.1 (0.7–1.6) 12,844 1.0 (0.7–1.4) 6,471 1.9 (1.2–2.7) LCCs 11,634 0.7 (0.5–1.0) 12,844 0.4 (0.3–0.6) 6,473 1.0 (0.6–1.5) Cigars 11,628 0.9 (0.6–1.2) 12,848 0.6 (0.4–0.9) 6,471 1.3 (0.9–1.9) Hookah 11,637 0.7 (0.3–1.2) 12,853 0.7 (0.4–1.2) 6,476 0.9 (0.4–1.6) Smokeless 11,637 0.4 (0.2–0.8) 12,853 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 6,476 1.1 (0.6–1.9) HTPs 11,637 0.5 (0.3–0.8) 12,853 0.5 (0.3–0.8) 6,476 0.5 (0.1–1.1) (continued)
10 National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Education demographic and geographic estimates.

Retrieved March 1, 2023, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/Geographic/LocaleBoundaries Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
7-2
Table 7-1. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Rurality (continued)
Tobacco
Product
City Suburban Town or Rural
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Nicotine
pouches
11,637 0.8 (0.6–1.1) 12,853 1.1 (0.7–1.5) 6,476 1.7 (1.2–2.2) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos; CI = confidence interval.

Table 7-2 presents intentions to quit vaping in the next 30 days among respondents who currently vaped by rurality. Respondents who currently vaped and were living in suburban areas were most likely to report intending to quit (42.0%), and those living in a city were least likely to report this intention (35.7%).

Table 7-2. Percentage of Respondents Who Reported Intending to Quit Vaping in the Next 30 Days Among High School Respondents Who Were Currently Vaping, by Rurality
Characteristic
Intending to Quit
N % (95% CI)
Overall 2,099 38.8 (34.3–43.3)
Rurality
City 755 35.7 (29.2–42.5)
Suburban 793 42.0 (34.1–50.3)
Town or rural 551 38.3 (32.6–44.2)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

7.2 County-Level Estimates
In addition to analyses by rurality, because the 2023 CYTS was designed to enable countylevel prevalence estimates for tobacco use, we also examined tobacco use by county or county grouping. Figure 1 displays the counties that were combined into county groups. The individual counties that compose each county grouping are listed in a footnote of Table 7-3.

Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
7-3
Figure 1. Map of County Groups
Table 7-3 presents these results for ever and current use of any tobacco product. The pvalues in the table represent comparisons with the state average. The five counties with the highest level of any tobacco ever use were Shasta (41.2%), county group A (37.8%), county group D (36.4%), Butte (33.2%), and county group C (29.3%). The five counties with the lowest prevalence of ever use were Tulare County (15.0%), Contra Costa (15.5%), Merced (16.2%), Los Angeles (16.6%), and Santa Clara (17.5%).

Table 7-3. Prevalence of Ever and Current Use of Any Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by County Grouping
Characteristic
Ever Use Current Use
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,966 21.6 (20.3–22.9) 30,966 7.3 (6.5–8.1)
County Group
County group A 810 37.8* (32.3–43.4) 810 16.4* (13.2–20.1) County group B 1,126 27.1 (20.7–34.2) 1,126 11.6 (6.9–17.8) County group C 491 29.3 (19.6–40.6) 491 12.3* (8.9–16.3) County group D 1,498 36.4* (26.2–47.6) 1,498 17.4* (9.1–28.8) County group E 607 20.8 (13.0–30.6) 607 5.5† (2.1–11.4) Alameda 622 20.9 (12.4–31.9) 622 7.7† (3.0–15.5)
(continued)
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
7-4
Table 7-3. Prevalence of Ever and Current Use of Any Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by County Grouping (continued) Characteristic
Ever Use Current Use
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Butte 815 33.2* (24.3–43.2) 815 15.4* (7.5–26.8)
Contra Costa 472 15.5* (8.7–24.7) 472 2.8†* (0.2–11.7)
Fresno 348 22.9 (19.4–26.7) 348 6.4† (0.4–26.1)
Imperial 868 21.9 (18.5–25.7) 868 6.1 (4.6–7.9)
Kern 572 25.2* (21.0–29.9) 572 7.1 (5.3–9.3)
Kings 947 23.9 (17.1–31.9) 947 7.3 (4.8–10.6)
Los Angeles 1,300 16.6* (12.5–21.5) 1,300 5.0* (3.2–7.5) Madera 925 18.7* (15.2–22.6) 925 4.2* (2.4–6.6)
Merced 1,181 16.2* (11.7–21.6) 1,181 4.5* (2.4–7.6)
Orange 1,075 23.2 (17.0–30.4) 1,075 9.5 (5.7–14.7)
Placer 966 23.3 (17.8–29.6) 966 9.3 (6.8–12.4)
Riverside 725 24.1 (17.9–31.3) 725 7.3 (3.8–12.4)
Sacramento 1,434 19.1 (15.8–22.7) 1,434 5.6 (3.5–8.4)
San Bernardino 524 26.4 (19.8–33.8) 524 9.0 (5.8–13.1)
San Diego 1,100 24.1 (19.6–29.0) 1,100 9.0 (5.7–13.4)
San Francisco 212 21.6 (14.1–30.7) 212 6.0† (0.1–34.3)
San Joaquin 907 23.1 (18.6–28.0) 907 8.1 (5.0–12.2)
San Luis Obispo 1,251 29.2* (21.9–37.3) 1,251 12.4* (8.5–17.2) San Mateo 1,101 20.4 (12.7–30.1) 1,101 7.4† (3.3–13.8)
Santa Barbara 1,786 20.9 (18.4–23.7) 1,786 6.0 (3.5–9.4) Santa Clara 1,056 17.5 (12.2–23.8) 1,056 5.8 (3.4–9.1)
Santa Cruz 662 20.9† (9.4–37.2) 662 9.2† (2.6–22.1)
Shasta 1,022 41.2* (35.1–47.5) 1,022 16.8* (14.0–19.9)
Solano 568 28.5* (21.9–35.7) 568 8.8 (6.0–12.3)
Sonoma 168 26.5 (21.7–31.7) 168 10.5† (0.2–49.2)
Stanislaus 1,131 24.8 (20.4–29.6) 1,131 7.9 (5.3–11.3)
Tulare 962 15.0* (10.8–20.2) 962 4.2* (2.6–6.5)
Ventura 909 21.2 (13.6–30.6) 909 7.9† (3.6–14.7)
Yolo 825 21.2 (15.7–27.6) 825 7.3 (5.9–9.0)
Note. County group A includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity counties. County group B includes Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, and Yuba counties. County group C includes Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, Sierra, and Tuolumne counties. County group D includes Marin and Napa counties. County Group E includes Monterey and San Benito counties. CI = confidence interval. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.
* p < 0.05. P-values compare the estimate for each individual county or county grouping with the state average prevalence for that outcome, using independent two sample t-tests with unequal variance.

Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
7-5
For current use of any tobacco, the five counties with the highest prevalence were county group D (17.4%), Shasta (16.8%), county group A (16.4%), Butte (15.4%), and San Luis Obispo (12.4%). The five counties with the lowest current use prevalence were Contra Costa (2.8%), Tulare (4.2%), Madera (4.2%), Merced (4.5%), and county group E (5.5%).

Estimates for Contra Costa and county group E should be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes.

In addition to conducting analyses for any tobacco use, we also examined current use of all products included in the survey by county or county group. Tables 7-4a, 7-4b, and 7-4c present these estimates. Butte County (13.9%) had the highest prevalence of current vaping, and Contra Costa County (2.5%) had the lowest prevalence of current vaping, but both estimates should be interpreted with caution given limited precision (Table 7-4a).

For current cigarette smoking, county group D (6.0%) had the highest prevalence, and Tulare and Sacramento (both 0.4%) had the lowest prevalence of cigarette smoking. For current LCC use, San Francisco County (3.2%) had the highest prevalence of current use, and Santa Barbara (0.1%) had the lowest prevalence. For cigars, San Francisco County had the highest current use estimate (3.2%), but this estimate should be interpreted with caution given limited precision (Table 7-4b). Tulare had the lowest prevalence (0.2%).

For hookah, county group C (2.0%) had the highest current use prevalence, and Madera, Yolo, Merced, and Solano had the lowest prevalence (0.1%). For smokeless tobacco use, county group A (2.1%) had the highest current prevalence, and Kings County (0.1%) had the lowest prevalence of use. For HTP use (Table 7-4c), county group A (1.5%) had the highest prevalence of current use, and Madera, Kings, Santa Cruz, Ventura, and Contra Costa had the lowest prevalence (0.1%).

Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
7-6
Table 7-4a. Prevalence of Current Use of Vapes, Cigarettes, and LCCs Among High School Respondents, by County Grouping
Vapes Cigarettes LCCs
Characteristic N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,930 5.9 (5.3–6.5) 30,943 1.2 (0.9–1.5) 30,951 0.6 (0.5–0.8) County Group
County group A 810 13.3* (10.7–16.4) 810 2.7* (1.3–4.9) 810 2.1* (1.1–3.5) County group B 1,124 9.4 (5.6–14.6) 1,124 1.9 (0.7–4.0) 1,125 1.8* (0.7–3.7) County group C 491 9.7* (5.7–15.2) 490 2.1 (0.6–5.3) 490 0.9 (0.0–4.7) County group D 1,497 12.8†* (6.0–23.0) 1,496 6.0†* (2.6–11.6) 1,496 1.0 (0.4–2.1) County group E 607 4.6† (1.5–10.7) 607 0.5* (0.1–1.5) 607 0.9 (0.2–2.8) Alameda 622 6.5† (2.5–13.1) 622 2.1† (0.5–5.6) 622 0.9 (0.2–2.9) Butte 815 13.9†* (5.7–26.7) 815 2.7† (0.7–6.7) 814 0.6 (0.1–1.9) Contra Costa 471 2.5† (0.1–12.9) 472 0.5* (0.0–2.3) 472 — — Fresno 347 5.1† (0.5–18.8) 347 1.0 (0.3–2.3) 348 1.7† (0.2–6.1) Imperial 868 5.7 (4.7–6.8) 868 0.7 (0.1–2.2) 868 0.2 (0.0–2.1) Kern 572 5.8 (4.7–7.2) 572 1.3† (0.1–5.9) 572 1.3† (0.1–5.3) Kings 945 5.9 (3.6–8.9) 946 0.6* (0.1–1.7) 945 0.8 (0.2–1.9) Los Angeles 1,298 3.5* (2.2–5.3) 1,297 0.5* (0.1–1.3) 1,299 0.2* (0.0–0.6) Madera 922 3.1†* (1.1–6.8) 924 0.7† (0.0–8.0) 925 0.5 (0.1–1.4) Merced 1,180 3.2* (1.8–5.4) 1,180 1.1 (0.3–2.9) 1,180 1.2 (0.5–2.4) Orange 1,072 7.2 (4.1–11.5) 1,074 2.2 (1.0–4.1) 1,075 1.0* (0.6–1.6) Placer 964 7.8 (5.2–11.1) 963 1.7 (0.9–2.9) 964 0.9 (0.5–1.5) Riverside 722 6.2 (3.1–10.7) 724 0.5* (0.1–1.3) 724 0.4 (0.1–1.3) Sacramento 1,434 4.8 (2.8–7.5) 1,433 0.4* (0.2–0.7) 1,434 0.4 (0.2–0.8) San Bernardino 524 7.6 (5.3–10.5) 524 2.3† (0.5–6.2) 524 0.7 (0.1–2.5) San Diego 1,100 7.8 (4.9–11.6) 1,100 1.2 (0.3–2.8) 1,100 0.5 (0.1–1.4) San Francisco 212 3.7† (0.0–25.5) 212 2.7† (0.0–18.7) 212 3.2† (0.0–38.4) San Joaquin 904 6.1 (3.8–9.1) 907 0.8 (0.3–1.5) 907 0.6 (0.2–1.6) San Luis Obispo 1,248 10.0* (6.8–13.9) 1,250 2.0* (1.4–2.8) 1,251 1.4* (0.8–2.1) San Mateo 1,101 6.7† (2.9–12.9) 1,101 1.6 (0.4–4.1) 1,101 0.3* (0.1–0.8) Santa Barbara 1,784 4.2* (2.7–6.1) 1,784 1.1 (0.2–3.2) 1,785 0.1* (0.0–0.3) Santa Clara 1,056 5.2 (3.1–8.3) 1,056 0.6* (0.2–1.5) 1,056 0.4 (0.1–1.2) Santa Cruz 659 6.5† (1.8–15.8) 661 3.0† (0.3–11.7) 662 0.4 (0.1–1.5) Shasta 1,021 14.8* (11.7–18.3) 1,022 2.6* (1.5–4.0) 1,022 1.9* (1.1–3.0) Solano 568 7.7 (5.4–10.7) 568 1.0 (0.2–3.3) 567 0.4 (0.1–1.4) Sonoma 168 10.0†* (0.8–35.3) 168 2.3* (1.2–4.1) 168 0.3† (0.0–31.9) Stanislaus 1,128 7.1 (4.9–9.8) 1,131 1.0 (0.4–2.0) 1,130 0.2* (0.0–0.7) Tulare 962 3.4* (1.9–5.7) 961 0.4* (0.1–1.1) 962 0.2* (0.0–0.9) Ventura 909 6.2† (2.5–12.5) 909 1.2 (0.5–2.2) 909 0.9 (0.3–2.1) Yolo 825 5.5 (3.9–7.5) 825 1.8 (0.6–4.1) 825 1.5* (0.7–2.7) Note. LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. County group A includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity counties. County group B includes Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, and Yuba counties. County group C includes Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, Sierra, and Tuolumne counties. County group D includes Marin and Napa counties. County Group E includes Monterey and San Benito counties. CI = confidence interval. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05.
*p < 0.05. P-values compare the estimate for each individual county or county grouping with the state average prevalence for that outcome, using independent two sample t-tests with unequal variance.

Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
7-7
Table 7-4b. Prevalence of Current Use of Cigars, Hookah, and Smokeless Tobacco Among High School Respondents, by County Grouping
Cigars Hookah Smokeless
Characteristic N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,947 0.8 (0.7–1.0) 30,966 0.7 (0.5–1.0) 30,966 0.5 (0.4–0.7) County Group
County group A 810 2.3 (0.9–4.8) 810 1.4 (0.5–3.2) 810 2.1* (1.0–3.7) County group B 1,126 1.8 (0.8–3.6) 1,126 0.7 (0.1–1.9) 1,126 1.7* (0.6–3.7) County group C 491 1.3 (0.5–2.6) 491 2.0* (0.9–3.8) 491 1.5 (0.5–3.6) County group D 1,496 1.2 (0.6–2.0) 1,498 1.1 (0.6–1.8) 1,498 1.3 (0.3–3.7) County group E 606 0.9 (0.1–3.8) 607 0.6 (0.3–1.1) 607 0.2 (0.0–1.8) Alameda 621 0.9 (0.2–2.3) 622 0.6 (0.1–1.7) 622 0.3 (0.0–1.1) Butte 815 0.6 (0.1–1.8) 815 0.9 (0.6–1.3) 815 1.1 (0.1–4.5) Contra Costa 472 0.2* (0.0–1.9) 472 — — 472 0.4 (0.0–1.6) Fresno 348 1.4 (0.2–4.6) 348 0.5† (0.0–11.5) 348 0.5† (0.0–11.5) Imperial 868 0.3* (0.0–1.5) 868 0.3 (0.0–3.1) 868 — —
Kern 571 1.5† (0.1–5.9) 572 1.0† (0.0–5.8) 572 0.9† (0.0–6.0) Kings 946 0.9 (0.3–2.0) 947 0.4 (0.0–1.9) 947 0.1* (0.0–0.6) Los Angeles 1,298 0.4* (0.1–0.9) 1,300 1.0 (0.3–2.5) 1,300 0.3 (0.1–1.1) Madera 925 0.3* (0.0–1.5) 925 0.1* (0.0–0.6) 925 0.2 (0.0–3.2) Merced 1,180 1.3 (0.4–3.0) 1,181 0.1* (0.0–0.3) 1,181 0.3 (0.1–1.0) Orange 1,075 1.0 (0.3–2.2) 1,075 0.7 (0.3–1.6) 1,075 0.6 (0.1–1.5) Placer 964 1.7* (1.3–2.3) 966 1.4* (0.8–2.3) 966 1.4* (1.0–2.0) Riverside 724 0.6 (0.1–2.3) 725 1.0 (0.1–3.5) 725 0.7 (0.1–2.7) Sacramento 1,434 0.5* (0.2–0.9) 1,434 0.2* (0.1–0.6) 1,434 0.2* (0.0–0.5) San Bernardino 524 1.1 (0.1–3.6) 524 0.9 (0.1–3.8) 524 0.9 (0.1–3.8) San Diego 1,100 0.8 (0.3–1.9) 1,100 0.8 (0.1–2.8) 1,100 0.2* (0.0–0.7) San Francisco 211 3.2† (0.0–38.3) 212 — — 212 — —
San Joaquin 907 0.2* (0.0–0.9) 907 0.8 (0.3–1.7) 907 0.2 (0.0–1.6) San Luis Obispo 1,249 2.1* (1.1–3.5) 1,251 0.6 (0.2–1.2) 1,251 0.6 (0.2–1.2) San Mateo 1,101 0.8 (0.4–1.6) 1,101 0.6 (0.2–1.4) 1,101 0.3 (0.0–0.9) Santa Barbara 1,784 0.6 (0.2–1.5) 1,786 0.2* (0.1–0.6) 1,786 0.4 (0.2–0.7) Santa Clara 1,056 0.7 (0.1–2.2) 1,056 0.5 (0.1–1.5) 1,056 0.5 (0.1–1.2) Santa Cruz 661 0.8 (0.1–2.9) 662 0.2 (0.0–2.0) 662 0.4 (0.0–2.0) Shasta 1,022 1.9 (0.6–4.3) 1,022 1.0 (0.6–1.5) 1,022 1.9* (0.7–4.3) Solano 568 0.8 (0.2–1.9) 568 0.1* (0.0–1.2) 568 0.4 (0.0–1.6) Sonoma 168 1.6† (0.0–89.6) 168 — — 168 0.3† (0.0–38.1)
Stanislaus 1,131 1.1 (0.3–2.7) 1,131 0.4 (0.1–1.2) 1,131 0.5 (0.2–1.0) Tulare 961 0.2* (0.0–1.4) 962 0.3 (0.1–1.0) 962 0.2* (0.0–0.8) Ventura 909 1.3 (0.5–2.9) 909 0.4 (0.0–1.3) 909 — —
Yolo 825 1.3* (0.8–1.8) 825 1.1 (0.6–1.8) 825 0.6 (0.1–2.3) Note. County group A includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity counties. County group B includes Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, and Yuba counties. County group C includes Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, Sierra, and Tuolumne counties. County group D includes Marin and Napa counties. County Group E includes Monterey and San Benito counties. CI = confidence interval.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
7-8
Table 7-4c. Prevalence of Current Use of Heated Tobacco Products and Nicotine Pouches Among High School Respondents, by County Grouping HTPs Nicotine Pouches
Characteristic N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,966 0.5 (0.3–0.7) 30,966 1.1 (0.9–1.3)
County Group
County group A 810 1.5* (0.7–2.9) 810 3.3* (1.4–6.2)
County group B 1,126 0.9 (0.3–1.8) 1,126 2.6* (1.1–5.0) County group C 491 0.5 (0.0–2.3) 491 2.7* (1.4–4.8)
County group D 1,498 1.2* (0.7–1.7) 1,498 4.8* (2.5–8.4) County group E 607 0.5 (0.0–2.6) 607 0.8 (0.2–2.2)
Alameda 622 0.9 (0.3–2.2) 622 0.6 (0.2–1.5)
Butte 815 0.5 (0.1–1.5) 815 1.3 (0.1–5.1)
Contra Costa 472 0.1* (0.0–1.4) 472 0.1* (0.0–1.0)
Fresno 348 — — 348 1.0 (0.3–2.4)
Imperial 868 0.2 (0.0–1.9) 868 0.8 (0.2–2.3)
Kern 572 0.9+ (0.0–6.0) 572 1.7 (0.5–4.3)
Kings 947 0.1* (0.0–0.8) 947 0.9 (0.3–2.3)
Los Angeles 1,300 0.6 (0.2–1.3) 1,300 0.8 (0.3–1.8)
Madera 925 0.1* (0.0–0.4) 925 0.4* (0.0–3.4)
Merced 1,181 0.2* (0.0–0.5) 1,181 0.4* (0.2–0.9)
Orange 1,075 0.6 (0.2–1.4) 1,075 1.6 (0.8–3.0)
Placer 966 0.8 (0.5–1.3) 966 2.5* (1.4–4.1)
Riverside 725 1.0 (0.1–3.6) 725 1.2 (0.4–2.9)
Sacramento 1,434 0.2 (0.0–0.7) 1,434 0.3* (0.0–1.2)
San Bernardino 524 0.2 (0.0–1.5) 524 0.8 (0.2–2.2)
San Diego 1,100 0.2 (0.0–0.7) 1,100 0.8 (0.3–1.8)
San Francisco 212 1.3† (0.0–27.2) 212 0.7 (0.0–3.3)
San Joaquin 907 0.3 (0.0–1.0) 907 1.4 (0.2–5.1)
San Luis Obispo 1,251 0.5 (0.1–1.3) 1,251 2.0 (1.0–3.6) San Mateo 1,101 0.2* (0.0–0.6) 1,101 0.9 (0.6–1.3)
Santa Barbara 1,786 0.2* (0.1–0.4) 1,786 0.7 (0.2–1.6)
Santa Clara 1,056 0.3 (0.0–1.1) 1,056 0.7 (0.2–1.8)
Santa Cruz 662 0.1* (0.0–0.9) 662 1.3 (0.1–5.1)
Shasta 1,022 0.6 (0.2–1.6) 1,022 4.1†* (1.9–7.4)
Solano 568 0.4 (0.0–1.5) 568 1.3 (0.2–4.3)
Sonoma 168 0.4† (0.0–31.1) 168 2.1† (0.0–81.6)
Stanislaus 1,131 0.4 (0.1–1.0) 1,131 0.6* (0.3–1.1)
Tulare 962 — — 962 0.6 (0.2–1.4)
Ventura 909 0.1* (0.0–0.8) 909 0.8 (0.2–2.1)
Yolo 825 1.1* (0.6–1.7) 825 1.7 (0.7–3.5)
Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. County group A includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity counties. County group B includes Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, and Yuba counties. County group C includes Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, Sierra, and Tuolumne counties. County group D includes Marin and Napa counties. County Group E includes Monterey and San Benito counties. CI = confidence interval.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
7-9
For nicotine pouches, county group D (4.8%) had the highest prevalence of current use, while Sacramento had the lowest use (0.3%).

7.3 Region
In addition to county-level estimates, we calculated regional estimates for ever and current any tobacco use. Table 7-5 presents these estimates. For ever use, the Northern region had the highest prevalence estimate (25.0%), and the Greater Bay Area had the lowest prevalence (20.9%). In terms of current use, the Northern region had the highest prevalence estimate (9.6%), and the Central region had the lowest estimate (6.4%).

Table 7-5. Prevalence of Ever and Current Use of Any Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Region
Characteristic
Ever Use Current Use
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,966 21.6 (20.3–22.9) 30,966 7.3 (6.5–8.1)
Region
Northern 7,424 25.0 (22.7–27.4) 7,424 9.6 (7.9–11.5)
Central 6,131 22.3 (20.7–24.1) 6,131 6.4 (5.0–8.0)
Greater Bay 7,873 20.9 (18.9–23.2) 7,873 7.0 (5.7–8.5)
Southern 9,538 21.1 (19.0–23.3) 9,538 7.2 (6.0–8.5)
Note. The Northern region of California includes the following counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Tuolumne, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba. The Central region includes the following counties: Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, Stanislaus, and Tulare. The Greater Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Solano, Sonoma. The Southern region includes the following counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. CI = confidence interval.

Table 7-6 presents current tobacco prevalence estimates for the tobacco products included in the 2023 CYTS, by region. For vaping, the Northern region (8.1%) had the highest prevalence estimate, and the Central region (5.1%) had the lowest prevalence estimate.

The prevalence estimates for the remaining tobacco products varied little by region.

Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
7-10
Table 7-6. Prevalence of Current Use of Tobacco Products Among High School Respondents, by Region Vapes Cigarettes LCCs Cigars
Characteristic N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) Overall 30,930 5.9 (5.3–6.5) 30,943 1.2 (0.9–1.5) 30,951 0.6 (0.5–0.8) 30,947 0.8 (0.7–1.0) Region
Northern 7,419 8.1 (6.6–9.8) 7,418 1.4 (1.0–1.9) 7,419 0.9 (0.6–1.2) 7,422 1.1 (0.9–1.5) Central 6,121 5.1 (4.1–6.4) 6,125 1.0 (0.5–1.6) 6,127 1.1 (0.6–1.8) 6,127 1.1 (0.6–1.9) Greater Bay 7,865 5.9 (4.7–7.2) 7,870 1.4 (1.0–2.0) 7,870 0.7 (0.4–1.1) 7,867 0.9 (0.5–1.3) Southern 9,525 5.6 (4.7–6.7) 9,530 1.1 (0.7–1.6) 9,535 0.5 (0.3–0.7) 9,531 0.7 (0.5–1.0) Hookah Smokeless HTPs Nicotine Pouches
Characteristic N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) Overall 30,966 0.7 (0.5–1.0) 30,966 0.5 (0.4–0.7) 30,966 0.5 (0.3–0.7) 30,966 1.1 (0.9–1.3) Region
Northern 7,424 0.9 (0.6–1.2) 7,424 1.0 (0.7–1.3) 7,424 0.6 (0.5–0.8) 7,424 1.7 (1.2–2.3) Central 6,131 0.6 (0.2–1.4) 6,131 0.5 (0.1–1.4) 6,131 0.3 (0.0–1.1) 6,131 1.0 (0.6–1.4) Greater Bay 7,873 0.4 (0.3–0.6) 7,873 0.4 (0.2–0.5) 7,873 0.5 (0.3–0.8) 7,873 1.0 (0.7–1.4) Southern 9,538 0.8 (0.5–1.4) 9,538 0.5 (0.2–0.8) 9,538 0.5 (0.3–0.8) 9,538 1.0 (0.7–1.4) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. The Northern region of California includes the following counties:

Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Tuolumne, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba. The Central region includes the following counties: Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, Stanislaus, and Tulare. The Greater Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Solano, Sonoma.

The Southern region includes the following counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange. CI = confidence interval.

Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
7-1

7.4 Summary
We compared tobacco prevalence estimates by rurality, region, and county or county group for any tobacco use and the use of specific products. We found multiple differences. In general, towns and rural settings tended to have higher tobacco use in comparison to cities and suburban areas. Estimates varied by county. Estimates for specific products were consistent across regions, with the exception of vaping, which was higher in the Northern region of the state.

Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 8-2

8. Marijuana Use
This chapter presents data on the prevalence of ever and current marijuana use across demographic characteristics, the usual mode of marijuana use among respondents who reported using more than one mode of administration, and marijuana and tobacco co-use.

Finally, this chapter presents data on secondhand exposure to marijuana smoke by demographics and how respondents acquired marijuana. Measuring marijuana use in the CYTS is important given high levels of marijuana use among respondents who use tobacco and the use of some tobacco products to consume marijuana (e.g., LCCs).

8.1 Marijuana Use
Table 8-1 presents the prevalence of ever and current marijuana use among high school respondents by demographic characteristics. The rates of ever using marijuana (23.0%) and currently using marijuana (10.4%) were higher than the rates of ever and currently using tobacco (21.6% and 7.3%, respectively).

Table 8-1. Prevalence of Marijuana Use Among High School Respondents, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, Grade, and LGBTQ+ Status Ever Use Current Use
Characteristic N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,928 23.0 (21.7–24.4) 30,920 10.4 (9.4–11.5)
Gender identity
Male 13,742 20.9 (19.1–22.7) 13,739 9.3 (8.3–10.5)
Female 13,513 24.2 (22.8–25.7) 13,509 10.6 (9.3–12.1)
Identified in another way 1,764 27.7 (23.7–32.0) 1,764 14.1 (11.3–17.3) Declined to answer 197 24.8 (16.5–34.6) 197 12.6 (6.4–21.4) Race/ethnicity*
White 7,377 29.2 (27.1–31.4) 7,375 14.9 (13.3–16.5)
African American or Black 687 30.8 (25.8–36.3) 687 18.1 (13.2–23.8) Hispanic 16,672 21.9 (20.5–23.3) 16,667 8.9 (7.8–10.0)
Asian 3,171 9.0 (7.2–11.1) 3,171 3.4 (2.4–4.5)
Other 785 17.3 (13.7–21.3) 785 9.2 (6.6–12.2)
Multiracial 2,166 29.2 (26.2–32.2) 2,165 13.9 (11.7–16.3) Grade
10 16,229 17.7 (16.2–19.2) 16,226 7.2 (6.3–8.2)
12 14,699 28.9 (27.0–31.0) 14,694 14.0 (12.4–15.6)
LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 5,141 34.6 (32.0–37.3) 5,140 18.0 (15.8–20.4)
Non-LGBTQ+ 21,334 21.0 (19.7–22.4) 21,329 8.9 (7.9–10.0) Unclear LGBTQ+ status 2,413 15.2 (12.7–17.9) 2,413 6.4 (5.0–8.0) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.

Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
8-3
We observed differences in marijuana use by demographics. Respondents who identified their gender in another way (14.1%) and respondents who declined to answer gender identity questions (12.6%) had a higher prevalence of current marijuana use than respondents who identified as female (10.6%) or male (9.3%). African American or Black respondents (18.1%) had the highest prevalence of current use of marijuana. Asian respondents had the lowest rate of marijuana use (3.4%). The prevalence of current marijuana use among 12th-grade respondents was almost twice that of 10th-grade respondents (14.0% vs. 7.2%, respectively). Prevalence of current use among LGBTQ+ respondents was more than double (18.0%) that of non-LGBTQ+ respondents (8.9%) and respondents of unclear LGBTQ+ status (6.4%).

The CYTS included questions designed to determine methods of using marijuana.

Respondents who reported ever using marijuana were asked how they had used it. Those who endorsed ever using more than one type of marijuana product were asked, “During the last 30 days, how did you usually use marijuana?” Table 8-2 presents the usual mode of marijuana use among these respondents. Smoking (49.0%) was the most common mode of use, followed by vaping (37.9%).

Table 8-2. Usual Mode of Marijuana Use Among High School Respondents Who Reported Currently Using Multiple Marijuana Products
Mode of Use
Usual Mode of Use
N = 3,444
% (95% CI)
Smoked 49.0 (45.4–52.6)
Ate 9.2 (7.7–10.9)
Drank 0.2 (0.1–0.5)
Dabbed 2.7 (1.7–3.9)
Vaped 37.9 (34.4–41.4)
Used in some other way 1.1 (0.5–2.0)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

8.2 Marijuana Use and Tobacco Co-use
Table 8-3 further categorizes current marijuana use into current co-use of marijuana and any tobacco product or current use of marijuana only. Overall, the prevalence for current use of marijuana only (5.5%) was higher than current use of both marijuana and tobacco (4.9%). When looking by gender identity, race/ethnicity and grade, this pattern generally remained, but there were several exceptions. Respondents who identified their gender in another way and those who declined to answer the gender question reported higher co-use than use of marijuana only. The same was true for Asian respondents and those in the other race category.

Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
8-4
Table 8-3. Prevalence of Current Marijuana-Only Use and Current Co-Use of Marijuana and Any Tobacco Product Among High School Respondents, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, and Grade
Characteristic N
Use of Marijuana Only
% (95% CI)
Co-Use of Marijuana
and Any Tobacco
Product
% (95% CI)
Overall 30,920 5.5 (4.9–6.3) 4.9 (4.3–5.5)
Gender identity
Male 13,739 4.9 (4.3–5.7) 4.4 (3.7–5.1)
Female 13,509 6.0 (5.0–7.2) 4.6 (3.9–5.4)
Identified in another way 1,764 5.1 (3.5–7.2) 9.0 (6.6–11.9) Declined to answer 197 3.2† (0.8–8.2) 9.4† (4.0–17.9)
Race/ethnicity*
White 7,375 7.7 (6.7–8.8) 7.2 (6.1–8.3)
African American or Black 687 11.7 (7.4–17.3) 6.4 (4.1–9.4) Hispanic 16,667 4.7 (4.1–5.5) 4.1 (3.5–4.9)
Asian 3,171 1.6 (1.0–2.4) 1.7 (1.1–2.6)
Other 785 3.7 (2.0–6.0) 5.5 (3.1–8.9)
Multiracial 2,165 7.2 (5.6–9.2) 6.6 (5.0–8.6)
Grade
10 16,226 3.7 (3.0–4.6) 3.5 (2.9–4.1)
12 14,694 7.5 (6.7–8.4) 6.4 (5.5–7.5)
LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 5,140 9.7 (7.9–11.9) 8.3 (6.7–10.1)
Non-LGBTQ+ 21,329 4.8 (4.1–5.4) 4.2 (3.6–4.8)
Unclear LGBTQ+ status 2,413 3.0 (2.1–4.2) 3.4 (2.4–4.6) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Table 8-3 also compares co-use of marijuana and tobacco and marijuana-only use across demographics. Among all gender identity categories, co-use was highest among respondents who declined to answer the gender question (9.4%) or identified their gender in another way (9.0%). In terms of race/ethnicity, co-use of marijuana and tobacco was highest among White respondents (7.2%) compared to all other race/ethnicity categories.

Co-use was higher among 12th graders (6.4%) than among 10th graders (3.5%). Use of Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
8-5
marijuana only was also higher for 12th graders (7.5%) than 10th graders (3.7%).

Marijuana-only use and co-use were both higher among LGBTQ+ respondents (9.7% and

8.3%, respectively) than non-LGBTQ+ respondents (4.8% and 4.2%, respectively) or respondents of unclear LGBTQ+ status (3.0% and 3.4%, respectively).

Table 8-4 presents the prevalence of use of vapes, cigarettes, and LCCs among respondents who reported current marijuana use. Among respondents currently using marijuana, 39.1% reported currently vaping, 8.6% reported currently smoking cigarettes, and 5.2% reported currently smoking LCCs.

Table 8-4. Prevalence of Current Co-Use of Marijuana and Tobacco Among High School Respondents Currently Using Marijuana, by Tobacco Product Currently Used
Tobacco Product N
Co-Use of Marijuana and Tobacco
% (95% CI)
Vapes 3,450 39.1 (35.4–43.0)
Cigarettes 3,450 8.6 (6.8–10.8)
LCCs 3,450 5.2 (4.1–6.6)
Note. LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos; CI = confidence interval.

8.3 Exposure to Secondhand Marijuana Smoke in Last 2 Weeks The 2023 CYTS asked about high school respondents’ exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke in a car or room in the last 2 weeks. The survey also asked about exposure to marijuana smoke outside, which includes being near someone who was smoking marijuana outside of a restaurant, outside of a store, on a sidewalk, or at a park, playground, or beach in the last 2 weeks.

Table 8-5 presents exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke by race/ethnicity. Overall,

21.3% of respondents reported being exposed to marijuana smoke in a car or room, and

26.6% of respondents reported exposure outside in the last 2 weeks. Rates of exposure to marijuana smoke in a car or room were highest among African American or Black respondents (31.3%) and lowest for Asian respondents (9.0%). The rate of exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke outside was highest among White respondents (34.8%) and lowest for Asian respondents (18.6%).

Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
8-6
Table 8-5. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Marijuana Smoke in Car or Room or Outside Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity Exposure in Car or Room Exposure Outside
Characteristic N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 30,880 21.3 (19.8–22.9) 30,606 31.1 (29.4–32.8) Race/ethnicity*
White 7,371 29.2 (27.2–31.3) 7,300 34.8 (32.1–37.6)
African American or Black 687 31.3 (26.8–36.1) 678 30.5 (23.2–38.6) Hispanic 16,639 18.8 (17.2–20.5) 16,491 31.7 (29.4–34.0) Asian 3,171 9.0 (7.2–11.1) 3,155 18.6 (16.2–21.1)
Other 780 19.2 (14.9–24.1) 773 30.2 (23.1–38.1)
Multiracial 2,162 27.8 (24.9–30.9) 2,142 34.0 (30.4–37.9) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.

Table 8-6 presents data on secondhand exposure to marijuana smoke in a car or room by race/ethnicity and marijuana user status. Respondents who reported current users of marijuana also reported greater exposure in a car or room (77.9%), relative to respondents who reported former (38.0%) and never (11.0%) use. Patterns observed by user status were consistent across race/ethnicity categories.

Table 8-6. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Marijuana Smoke in Car or Room Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity and Marijuana Use Status
Characteristic
Never Use Former Use Current Use
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 23,133 11.0 (10.0–12.0) 4,303 38.0 (34.3–41.8) 3,444 77.9 (75.0–80.7) Race/ethnicity*
White 4,975 15.3 (13.4–17.3) 1,140 41.5 (36.9–46.1) 1,256 84.0 (80.2–87.3) African American
or Black
449 15.3 (10.6–21.1) 125 51.5 (36.7–66.1) 113 78.2 (70.6–84.6) Hispanic 12,700 9.9 (8.7–11.1) 2,390 35.4 (30.4–40.7) 1,549 73.7 (68.8–78.3) Asian 2,824 5.1 (3.7–6.8) 223 35.3 (27.1–44.1) 124 71.0 (56.2–83.2) Other 624 10.3 (6.5–15.3) 83 38.1† (21.7–56.8) 73 — —
Multiracial 1,499 15.6 (12.9–18.5) 338 38.8 (30.0–48.1) 325 78.6 (70.0–85.8) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
8-7
Table 8-7 presents data on secondhand exposure to marijuana smoke outside in the last 2 weeks by race/ethnicity and marijuana use status. Respondents who were currently using marijuana reported higher exposure to marijuana smoke outside (64.8%) than those who reported former (42.8%) or never (24.6%) use. Patterns observed by user status were consistent across race/ethnicity categories.

Table 8-7. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Marijuana Smoke Outside Among High School Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity and Marijuana Use Status
Characteristic
Never Use Former Use Current Use
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 22,952 24.6 (22.9–26.4) 4,253 42.8 (39.3–46.3) 3,398 64.8 (60.2–69.3) Race/ethnicity*
White 4,938 26.4 (24.0–29.0) 1,126 42.7 (36.5–49.1) 1,233 67.4 (63.1–71.5) African American
or Black
442 25.8 (19.4–33.1) 123 40.5+ (25.9–56.4) 113 — —
Hispanic 12,600 25.7 (23.3–28.2) 2,362 43.4 (38.1–48.8) 1,529 67.1 (62.5–71.5) Asian 2,809 15.8 (13.6–18.1) 222 40.0 (30.4–50.3) 124 57.8 (45.6–69.2) Other 616 23.6 (16.2–32.5) 82 45.3+ (29.6–61.7) 75 76.1 (60.3–88.0) Multiracial 1,487 25.9 (21.7–30.5) 334 41.7 (32.8–51.0) 321 67.4 (58.7–75.2) Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

8.4 Acquisition of Marijuana
Table 8-8 presents how respondents who were currently using marijuana reported acquiring marijuana. The most common method was buying it themselves (38.2%), followed by someone giving it to them (27.0%). Of those who reported buying it themselves, the most common method of buying it was from another person (44.9%) or from a store or dispensary (38.3%).

Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
8-8
Table 8-8. Method of Acquiring Marijuana Among High School Respondents Currently Using Marijuana
Method
Overall
N = 3,417
% (95% CI)
I ask someone to buy it for me 14.4 (12.4–16.5)
Someone gives it to me 27.0 (24.4–29.7)
I ask someone for it 7.4 (6.0–9.0)
I take it from someone 2.9 (1.8–4.5)
I grow my own 3.2 (2.1–4.8)
I get it some other way 6.8 (5.4–8.5)
I buy it myself* 38.2 (35.1–41.4)
From a store or dispensary 38.3 (32.5–44.5)
On the internet (including apps) 4.2 (2.2–7.1)
From a delivery service 5.6 (3.1–9.4)
From someone 44.9 (39.4–50.4)
Some other way 7.0 (4.7–10.0)
Note. CI = confidence interval.
* Numbers below this row represent the percentage of respondents endorsing each location among those who reported buying their own marijuana.

8.5 Summary
Current use of marijuana was higher than current use of tobacco products. Current marijuana use was highest among respondents who declined to answer gender questions or identified their gender in another way. African American or Black respondents reported the highest use among race/ethnicity categories, and 12th-grade respondents reported higher use than respondents in 10th grade. LGBTQ+ respondents had the highest prevalence of current use. The two most common modes of marijuana use were smoking and vaping.

The prevalence of current use of marijuana only was slightly higher than co-use of tobacco and marijuana. Co-use was highest among White respondents, respondents who declined to answer questions about gender identity, 12th graders, and LGBTQ+ respondents. Vaping was the most common form of tobacco use among respondents co-using marijuana and tobacco, followed by cigarettes and LCCs.

Exposure to marijuana smoke was higher outside than in a car or room and was highest for respondents currently using marijuana. Exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke in a car or room was highest among African American or Black respondents, and exposure outside was highest among multiracial respondents. Among respondents currently using marijuana, the most common method of obtaining marijuana among high school respondents was buying it for themselves and, among those who purchased it, the most popular purchasing source was from someone else.

Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 9-1

9. Changes in Tobacco Use Between 2022 and 2023
This chapter compares the prevalence of current tobacco use for high school students between the 2022 and 2023 CYTS. When making comparisons, the reader should note that COVID-19 resulted in fewer responding students than expected in 2022. As a result, the confidence intervals for 2022 estimates tend to be wider than the confidence intervals for 2023 due to the differences in sample size. This hindered our ability to detect significant changes between 2022 and 2023. There were no changes in question wording or other aspects of the instrument that would affect the ability to compare responses to survey items between 2022 and 2023.

9.1 Tobacco Product Use
Table 9-1 presents the prevalence of ever and current use for any tobacco use and all tobacco products measured in both surveys. Current use of hookah increased, and ever and current use of nicotine pouches increased.

Table 9-1. Prevalence of Ever and Current Tobacco Product Use by Year Among High School Students
Ever Use Current Use
Tobacco Product
2022
N = 8,909
% (95% CI)
2023
N = 30,966
% (95% CI)
2022
N = 8,909
% (95% CI)
2023
N = 30,966
% (95% CI)
Any tobacco use 20.3 (18.4–22.2) 21.6 (20.3–22.9) 6.6 (5.4–8.1) 7.3 (6.5–8.1) Vapes 17.6 (15.9–19.4) 18.3 (17.2–19.5) 5.6 (4.5–6.9) 5.9 (5.3–6.5) Cigarettes 5.3 (4.3–6.6) 5.6 (4.9–6.5) 1.2 (0.7–2.0) 1.2 (0.9–1.5) LCCs 2.1 (1.7–2.6) 2.3 (2.0–2.6) 0.6 (0.4–0.8) 0.6 (0.5–0.8) Cigars 3.1 (2.4–3.9) 3.3 (2.9–3.7) 0.6 (0.4–0.8) 0.8 (0.7–1.0) Hookah 2.2 (1.8–2.6) 2.5 (2.0–3.0) 0.4 (0.3–0.6)* 0.7 (0.5–1.0)* Smokeless 1.3 (0.9–1.8) 1.5 (1.3–1.7) 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 0.5 (0.4–0.7) HTPs 0.9 (0.6–1.2) 1.2 (1.0–1.4) 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 0.5 (0.3–0.7) Nicotine pouches 2.4 (1.9–2.9)* 3.1 (2.7–3.5)* 0.6 (0.4–0.9)* 1.1 (0.9–1.3)* Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos; CI = confidence interval. * p < 0.05 for comparisons between 2022 and 2023.

9.2 Flavored Tobacco Product Use
Table 9-2 presents the prevalence of flavored tobacco use among high school respondents who reported currently using each tobacco product. For cigarettes, flavored use refers to using menthol cigarettes in the last 30 days. For all other products, flavored use refers identifying a flavor other than tobacco or unflavored as the most commonly used flavor. The survey asked questions about flavored tobacco use for all products except nicotine pouches.

Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
9-2
For products with sufficient sample sizes, the table presents analyses for both 2022 and 2023. There were no significant changes in flavored use of tobacco overall or for any specific product between 2022 and 2023.

Table 9-2. Prevalence of Flavored Tobacco Product Use by Year Among High School Students Who Were Currently Using Each Product
2022 2023
Tobacco Product N* % (95% CI) N* % (95% CI)
Any flavored
tobacco use*
619 86.3 (82.3–89.7) 2,464 85.6 (82.6–88.2)
Vapes 529 91.7 (88.9–93.9) 2,070 89.1 (85.8–91.9)
Cigarettes** 124 32.1 (19.2–47.3) 457 45.0 (36.4–53.9)
LCCs 55 55.2 (40.0–69.8) 232 50.1 (38.5–61.7)
Cigars 53 37.0† (22.5–53.3) 294 49.9 (38.1–61.6)
Hookah 47 76.9† (59.4–89.5) 195 77.2 (60.8–89.2)
Note. LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. Heated tobacco products, smokeless tobacco, and nicotine pouches were excluded from this table due to the small proportion of respondents who endorsed current use of these products in 2022 and/or 2023. CI = confidence interval. * Includes use of vapes, cigarettes, LCCs, cigars, hookah, smokeless tobacco, and/or HTPs. ** Menthol was the only available flavor for cigarettes. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

9.3 Current Tobacco Use by Demographics
Table 9-3 shows changes in prevalence of current any tobacco use by year and gender identity. There were no changes over time in any tobacco use.

Table 9-3. Prevalence of Current Any Tobacco Use by Year and by Gender Identity Among High School Students
2022 2023
Gender identity N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 8,909 6.6 (5.4–8.1) 30,966 7.3 (6.5–8.1)
Male 3,951 6.1 (4.8–7.6) 13,750 6.5 (5.7–7.5)
Female 3,841 5.9 (4.5–7.6) 13,537 7.0 (6.1–8.0)
Identified in another way 533 10.1 (6.7–14.4) 1,767 12.5 (9.8–15.5) Declined to answer 55 9.4† (3.7–18.9) 198 15.6 (8.4–25.5) Note. CI = confidence interval.
† The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
9-3
Table 9-4 shows the prevalence of current vaping, cigarette smoking, and LCC smoking by year and gender identity. There were no significant changes over time in current vaping, cigarette smoking, or LCC use.

Table 9-4. Prevalence of Current Vaping, Cigarette Smoking, and LCC Smoking by Year and by Gender Identity Among High School Students Gender
Identity
Vapes Cigarettes LCCs
2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023
Male 5.2 (4.2–6.5) 5.1 (4.4-5.8) 1.0 (0.5–1.7) 1.1 (0.8–1.5) 0.6 (0.3–0.9) 0.5 (0.4–0.7) Female 5.1 (3.8–6.7) 6.0 (5.1-6.9) 1.0 (0.5–2.0) 0.7 (0.5–1.1) 0.3 (0.1–0.6) 0.3 (0.2–0.5) Identified in
Another
Way

7.3 (4.5–10.9) 8.6 (6.8-10.8) 3.6 (2.0–5.9) 5.2 (3.6–7.2) 2.4 (1.2–4.3) 3.9 (2.5–5.6) Declined to
Answer

5.9† (1.8–13.6) 2.3+ (5.8-21.9) 3.8† (0.5–12.6) 1.5 (0.2–5.1) — — 0.7 (0.2–1.8) Note. LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. CI = confidence interval. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Table 9-5 shows changes in current any tobacco use across all race/ethnicity groups between 2022 and 2023. From 2022 to 2023, there were no significant changes in the prevalence of current any tobacco use by race and ethnicity.

Table 9-5. Prevalence of Current Any Tobacco Use by Year and by Race/Ethnicity Among High School Students
2022 2023
Race/Ethnicity* N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 8,909 6.6 (5.4–8.1) 30,966 7.3 (6.5–8.1)
White 1,935 10.2 (7.0–14.1) 7,386 10.7 (9.4–12.2)
African American/Black 396 5.8 (3.1–9.8) 688 7.9 (5.4–11.1) Hispanic 5,014 5.6 (4.6–6.7) 16,691 6.3 (5.5–7.1)
Asian 705 3.5 (1.9–5.9) 3,172 3.3 (2.5–4.2)
Other 231 7.4 (4.0–12.2) 786 8.4 (5.2–12.8)
Multiracial 617 7.3 (4.6–10.8) 2,168 9.5 (7.7–11.7)
Note. CI = confidence interval.
* With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. The table also shows the individual categories that make up “other” race. American Indian or Alaska Native respondents are not shown due to a small sample size.

Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
9-4
Table 9-6 displays changes over time in the prevalence of current vaping, cigarette smoking, and LCC smoking by race and ethnicity. We did not find any significant increases by race/ethnicity for these products, with one exception. There was a significant increase in cigarette smoking among high school students who identified as being of some other race not listed in the survey between 2022 and 2023.

Table 9-6. Prevalence of Current Vaping, Cigarette Smoking, and LCC Smoking by Year and Race/Ethnicity Among High School Students
Race/
Ethnicity
Vapes Cigarettes LCCs
2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023
White 9.1 (6.4–12.5) 8.7 (7.6–9.9) 2.6 (1.2–5.0) 2.3 (1.6–3.1) 0.5 (0.2–1.0) 0.6 (0.3–0.9) African
American/
Black

5.2 (3.0–8.5) 5.4 (2.9–9.0) 1.7 (0.5–4.3) 1.4 (0.2–4.5) 1.2 (0.3–3.3) 0.7 (0.1–1.9) Hispanic 4.6 (3.7–5.6) 5.1 (4.4–5.9) 0.7 (0.5–1.1) 0.7 (0.5–0.9) 0.6 (0.3–0.9) 0.7 (0.5–0.9) Asian 3.2 (1.7–5.5) 2.7 (2.1–3.4) 0.4 (0.1–1.3) 0.6 (0.3–1.2) 0.1 (0.0–0.6) 0.4 (0.1–0.9) Other 5.7† (2.7–10.4) 6.1 (3.1–10.5) 0.1 (0.0–0.7)* 1.8 (0.7–3.8)* 0.6 (0.1–2.5) 0.7 (0.1–1.9) Multiracial 5.4 (3.5–8.0) 7.6 (5.9–9.6) 2.0 (0.9–3.8) 2.1 (1.3–3.3) 0.9 (0.3–2.3) 0.8 (0.3–1.7) Note. LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos.
* p < 0.05 for comparisons between 2022 and 2023.

With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. The table also shows the individual categories that make up “other” race.

American Indian or Alaska Native respondents are not shown due to a small sample size. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Table 9-7 shows changes over time in any tobacco use and the use of specific tobacco products by grade. For specific products, there was significant increase in hookah use among 12th graders. For 10th graders, there was a significant increase in use of smokeless tobacco. Current use of nicotine pouches increased over time among both 10th and 12th graders.

Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
9-5
Table 9-7. Prevalence of Current Tobacco Use by Year and by Grade Among High School Students
Grade 10 Grade 12
Tobacco Product
2022
N = 5,002
% (95% CI)
2023
N = 16,255
% (95% CI)
2022
N = 3,907
% (95% CI)
2023
N = 14,711
% (95% CI)
Any tobacco use 5.1 (3.9–6.5) 5.3 (4.6–6.2) 8.3 (6.5–10.4) 9.4 (8.2–10.8) Vapes 4.2 (3.2–5.4) 4.3 (3.7–5.0) 7.2 (5.6–9.1) 7.6 (6.6–8.6) Cigarettes 0.9 (0.5–1.5) 0.8 (0.5–1.1) 1.6 (0.9–2.7) 1.6 (1.2–2.1) LCCs 0.6 (0.3–1.0) 0.6 (0.4–0.8) 0.6 (0.3–0.9) 0.7 (0.5–0.9) Cigars 0.5 (0.2–0.9) 0.7 (0.5–1.0) 0.7 (0.4–1.0) 1.0 (0.7–1.3) Hookah 0.4 (0.2–0.6) 0.4 (0.3–0.6) 0.5 (0.2–0.8)* 1.0 (0.6–1.6)* Smokeless 0.2 (0.1–0.4)* 0.6 (0.4–0.9)* 0.4 (0.2–0.7) 0.4 (0.2–0.6) HTPs 0.3 (0.1–0.7) 0.5 (0.3–0.7) 0.2 (0.1–0.5) 0.5 (0.3–0.9) Nicotine pouches 0.5 (0.3–0.7)* 0.9 (0.7–1.2)* 0.7 (0.4–1.1)* 1.2 (0.9–1.5)* Note: HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos; CI = confidence interval. *p < 0.05 for comparisons between 2022 and 2023.

Table 9-8 shows changes over time in any tobacco use by LGBTQ+ status. There was no significant increase in any tobacco use by LGBTQ+ status over time.

Table 9-8. Prevalence of Current Any Tobacco Use by Year and by LGBTQ+ Status Among High School Students
2022 2023
LGBTQ+ Status* N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 8,909 6.6 (5.4–8.1) 30,966 7.3 (6.5–8.1)
LGBTQ+ 1,513 10.8 (7.9–14.2) 5,146 11.4 (9.5–13.6)
Non-LGBTQ+ 6,084 5.2 (4.1–6.4) 21,360 6.4 (5.6–7.2)
Unclear LGBTQ+ Status 688 6.3 (4.0–9.5) 2,414 5.3 (4.0–6.8) Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * Respondents who reported (a) their gender identity as transgender or “something else” and/or (b) identified their sexual orientation as gay or lesbian, bisexual, “something else,” or “don’t know what this question means” were considered LGBTQ+. Respondents who identified as female or male and straight (that is, not gay or lesbian) were considered non-LGBTQ+. Respondents who responded (a) unsure for gender identity and straight for sexual orientation or (b) male, female, or unsure for gender identity and unsure or “don’t know” for sexual orientation were considered to have unclear LGBTQ+ status.

Table 9-9 shows changes over time in vaping, cigarettes smoking, and LCC smoking by LGBTQ+ status. There were no significant changes over time.

Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
9-6
Table 9-9. Prevalence of Current Vaping, Cigarette Smoking, and LCC Smoking by Year and LGBTQ+ Status Among High School Students
LGBTQ+
Status
Vapes Cigarettes LCCs
2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023
LGBTQ+ 8.2 (5.8–11.2) 9.1 (7.7–10.7) 3.0 (1.7–4.9) 2.5 (1.8–3.3) 1.1 (0.6–1.8) 1.6 (1.1–2.2) NonLGBTQ+4.6 (3.7–5.8) 5.1 (4.5–5.9) 0.6 (0.3–1.1) 0.9 (0.6–1.2) 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 0.4 (0.3–0.5) Unclear
LGBTQ+
Status

4.8 (2.9–7.5) 4.0 (2.8–5.4) 2.2 (0.9–4.2) 1.1 (0.6–1.8) 1.4 (0.4–3.6) 0.4 (0.2–0.8) Note. LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos.

Table 9-10 shows changes over time in any tobacco use by general mental health status.

There was no significant change in any tobacco use by mental health status over time.

Table 9-10. Prevalence of Current Any Tobacco Use by Year and by General Mental Health Among High School Students
General mental health
2022 2023
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 8,909 6.6 (5.4-8.1) 30,966 7.3 (6.5–8.1)
Good to excellent 5,429 5.0 (4.0–6.3) 19,149 5.9 (5.1–6.7) Fair 2,014 6.8 (5.0–9.1) 7,155 7.2 (6.0–8.7)
Poor 1,019 12.6 (9.9–15.8) 3,107 14.8 (12.3–17.6)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 9-11 shows changes over time in current any tobacco use by rurality. We did not find any significant changes for any tobacco use by rurality over time.

Table 9-11. Prevalence of Current Any Tobacco Use By Year and Rurality Among High School Students
Rurality
2022 2023
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Overall 8,909 6.6 (5.4–8.1) 30,966 7.3 (6.5–8.1)
City 4,178 6.6 (5.0–8.6) 11,637 6.9 (5.9–8.0)
Suburban 3,852 6.1 (4.3–8.4) 12,853 6.8 (5.6–8.3)
Town or rural 1,887 9.1† (2.8–20.6) 6,476 9.6 (7.5–12.0) Note. CI = confidence interval. Cities are defined as large territories located inside urbanized areas and principal cities. Suburbs are territories outside of principal cities but inside urbanized areas. Towns or rural areas are territories inside an urban cluster or rural territories. See Appendix A for additional information. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
9-7

9.4 Marijuana Use and Marijuana Tobacco Co-use
Table 9-12 presents marijuana use and marijuana/tobacco co-use estimates over time.

There were no significant changes in ever marijuana use, current marijuana use, current marijuana-only use (current use of marijuana but not reporting current use of any tobacco product), or current co-use of marijuana and tobacco (reporting current use of marijuana and one or more tobacco products).

Table 9-12. Prevalence of Ever and Current Marijuana Use and Marijuana Co-Use by Year Among High School Students
Marijuana Use Category
2022 2023
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
Marijuana use
Ever marijuana use 8,904 21.4 (19.0–23.9) 30,928 23.0 (21.7–24.4) Current marijuana use 8,904 8.8 (7.2–10.5) 30,920 10.4 (9.4–11.5) Marijuana/ tobacco co-use
Use of marijuana only 8,905 4.5 (3.8–5.4) 30,920 5.5 (4.9–6.3) Co-use of marijuana and any tobacco 8,905 4.2 (3.3–5.4) 30,920 4.9 (4.3–5.5) Note. CI = confidence interval.

9.5 Summary
We found a few changes in specific types of tobacco product use in certain groups. We found an increase in current cigarette smoking over time among students who identified as non-Hispanic other race. We found an increase in current hookah use among 12th graders, current smokeless tobacco use among 10th graders, and current nicotine pouch use for students in both grades. However, due to the effects of COVID-19 on the 2022 CYTS data collection and changes in methodology between 2022 and 2023, we recommend interpreting these differences with caution. Findings for flavored tobacco use over time should be interpreted with particular caution, given that the 2023 CYTS asked about “most commonly used” flavor, as opposed to all flavors used in the past 30 days, for all products except cigarettes. For interpretations of comparisons of flavored tobacco use between 2022 and 2023 within the context of SB 793, please see the Conclusions section of the report.

Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 10-1

10. 8th-Grade Tobacco Use
The following chapter summarizes key tobacco use data for 8th-grade respondents. Due to differences in the prevalence of use of tobacco products and the sampling approach between middle and high schools (8th-grade respondents were undersampled), data for 8th-grade respondents are presented separately.

10.1 Tobacco Use among 8th-Grade Respondents
Table 10-1 presents the prevalence of ever and current use of tobacco among 8th-grade respondents. The prevalence of current tobacco use was lower for 8th-grade respondents (3.2%) than high school respondents (7.3%). As with high school respondents, among 8thgrade respondents, current vaping was the most common form of current tobacco use (2.5% of 8th-grade respondents), followed by nicotine pouches (0.6%) and cigarettes and cigars (both 0.4%).

Table 10-1. Prevalence of Tobacco Use Among 8th-Grade Respondents Tobacco Product N
Ever Use
% (95% CI) N
Current Use
% (95% CI)
Any tobacco use 10,789 11.4 (9.9–13.1) 10,789 3.2 (2.5–3.9) Vapes 10,778 9.3 (7.9–10.8) 10,777 2.5 (1.9–3.3)
Cigarettes 10,785 2.4 (1.9–3.0) 10,784 0.4 (0.3–0.5)
LCCs 10,785 1.0 (0.8–1.3) 10,784 0.3 (0.2–0.4)
Cigars 10,785 1.3 (0.9–1.8) 10,785 0.4 (0.2–0.5)
Hookah 10,789 1.3 (0.7–2.1) 10,789 0.3 (0.2–0.5)
Smokeless 10,789 1.0 (0.8–1.3) 10,789 0.3 (0.2–0.5)
HTPs 10,789 0.9 (0.6–1.4) 10,789 0.2 (0.1–0.4)
Nicotine pouches 10,789 1.8 (1.4–2.5) 10,789 0.6 (0.4–0.8) Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos. CI = confidence interval.

Table 10-2 presents current tobacco use prevalence among 8th-grade respondents by demographics. Current tobacco use was highest among 8th-grade respondents who identified their gender in another way (6.8%). Among race/ethnicity categories, multiracial respondents reported the highest current use (5.9%), and Asian respondents reported the lowest (0.7%). LGBTQ+ respondents reported the highest current use (6.9%), followed by respondents of unclear LGBTQ+ status (2.5%) and non-LGBTQ+ respondents (2.4%).

Respondents who rated their mental health status as poor reported higher current use (9.7%) than those who rated their mental health fair (3.4%) or good to excellent (2.0%).

Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
10-2
Table 10-2. Prevalence of Current Use of Any Tobacco Among 8th-Grade Respondents, by Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, LGBTQ+ Status, and Mental Health Status
Characteristic
Current Use
N % (95% CI)
Overall 10,789 3.2 (2.5–3.9)
Gender identity
Male 4,854 2.1 (1.6-2.9)
Female 4,357 3.6 (2.7–4.7)
Identified in another way 722 6.8 (3.5–11.8)
Declined to answer 109 4.3† (1.0–11.5)
Race/ethnicity*
White 2,355 3.2 (1.8–5.1)
African American or Black 267 1.3 (0.4–3.1)
Hispanic 5,683 3.5 (2.7–4.6)
Asian 1,142 0.7 (0.2–1.7)
Other 420 2.3 (0.7–5.5)
Multiracial 870 5.9 (3.5–9.2)
LGBTQ+ status
LGBTQ+ 1,548 6.9 (4.6–10.0)
Non-LGBTQ+ 7,251 2.4 (1.8–3.1)
Unclear LGBTQ+ status 1,069 2.5 (1.3–4.3)
Mental health status
Good to excellent 6,966 2.0 (1.4–2.6)
Fair 2,027 3.4 (2.4–4.7)
Poor 1,100 9.7 (7.0–13.0)
Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning; CI = confidence interval. * With the exception of Hispanic, all ethnicities are classified as non-Hispanic. The following groups are included in the other race category: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and any race not captured by the survey. The table also shows the individual categories that make up “other” race.
† The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

10.2 Flavored Tobacco Use among 8th-Grade Respondents
Table 10-3 presents the prevalence of flavored tobacco use among current vapers.

Consistent with the findings for high school respondents (Chapter 2), the use of flavored vapes (91.9%) was prevalent among 8th-grade respondents who currently vaped.

Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
10-3
Table 10-3. Prevalence of Flavored Tobacco Use Among 8th-Grade Respondents Currently Using Each Tobacco Product
Tobacco Product
Flavored Product Use
N % (95% CI)
Any of the below* 430 89.4 (83.4–93.7)
Vapes 375 91.9 (88.2–94.8)
Cigarettes** 65 68.5† (51.5–82.5)
LCCs 44 68.4 (56.0–79.1)
Cigars 44 54.6 (41.1–67.6)
Hookah 42 83.0 (68.2–92.8)
Smokeless 33 51.8 (42.0–61.6)
HTPs 36 — —
Note. HTPs = heated tobacco products; LCCs = little cigars or cigarillos; CI = confidence interval. * As the sample size for the subgroup for each product varies, estimates for each product may be greater than that of “any of the below.”
** Menthol was the only available flavor for cigarettes. — The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

10.3 Exposure to Secondhand Vapor and Tobacco Smoke in Last 2 Weeks Among 8th-Grade Respondents
Table 10-4 reports 8th-grade respondents’ exposure to secondhand vapor and tobacco smoke in a car or room, outside, and in MUH. Among 8th-grade respondents, 20.3% had been exposed to vapor in a car or room, and 31.8% had been exposed to vapor outside in the last 2 weeks. Exposure to tobacco smoke in a car or room was lower (15.2%) than exposure to vaping in a car or room, but exposure to tobacco smoke outside was higher (54.3%) than outside exposure to vapor. Of the 35.3% of 8th-grade respondents who lived in MUH, 49.2% reported smoke intruding into their unit rarely or more often in the last 6 months.

Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
10-4
Table 10-4. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Vapor and Tobacco Smoke in Car or Room, Outside, or Multiunit Housing Among 8th-Grade Respondents Living in Multiunit Housing
Location of Exposure
Vapor Exposure Tobacco Smoke Exposure
N % (95% CI) N % (95% CI)
In a car or room 10,765 20.3 (18.2–22.6) 10,771 15.2 (13.0–17.7) Outside 10,634 31.8 (28.9–34.8) 10,634 54.3 (50.1–58.4) In multiunit housing* N/A N/A N/A 3,038 49.2 (45.3–53.1) Note. CI = confidence interval. This question was not asked for vapor exposure, so those cells are marked not applicable or N/A.
* Only asked of respondents who reported living in a home attached to one or more other homes or a building with two or more apartments. Exposure is defined as reporting smoke intrusion rarely, sometimes, often, or most of the time in the last 6 months.

Eighth-grade respondents had lower rates of exposure to vapor in a car or room (20.3%) and outside (31.8%) compared with high school respondents (29.0% and 36.5%, respectively; see Chapter 4). Eighth-grade respondents’ exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in a car or room (15.2%), outside (54.3%), or in MUH (49.2%) was similar to that of high school respondents (14.1%, 51.1%, and 48.8%, respectively; see Chapter 4).

10.4 Access to Vapes and Cigarettes Among 8th-Grade Respondents Table 10-5 shows methods of obtaining vapes (or pods or e-liquid) among 8th-grade respondents reporting current vaping. The most commonly reported sources were buying their own (26.2%) and being given a vape by someone else (22.2%). Of those who bought their own, the most common purchasing source was from another person (45.1%).

Table 10-6 presents how 8th-grade respondents who were currently using cigarettes reported obtaining them. Small sample sizes for some categories limit interpretation, but of the methods available, the most commonly reported sources were someone giving them to the respondent (38.6%), followed by the respondents buying their own (26.3%). Methods of the respondent “buying them myself” were excluded from the table due to estimates being suppressed, imprecise, or respondents not endorsing the response option.

Table 10-5. Method of Accessing Vapes (or Pods or e-Liquid) Among 8th-Grade Respondents Who Were Currently Vaping
Method
Overall
N = 366
% (95% CI)
I ask someone to buy them for me 15.1 (11.2–19.8)
Someone gives them to me 22.2 (18.1–26.7)
(continued)
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
10-5
Table 10-5. Method of Accessing Vapes (or Pods or e-Liquid) Among 8th-Grade Respondents Who Were Currently Vaping (continued)
Method
Overall
N = 366
% (95% CI)
I ask someone for them 15.5 (11.8–19.9)
I take them from someone 6.6 (3.2–11.7)
I get them some other way 14.4 (10.3–19.3)
I buy them myself* 26.2 (20.2–32.9)
From a gas station or convenience store 10.9† (4.9–20.2) From a grocery store 0.3 (0.0–1.8)
From a drugstore or pharmacy 4.5+ (0.7–14.2)
From a liquor store 0.3 (0.2–0.4)
From a tobacco or smoke shop 9.9† (3.1–22.4)
From a vape shop 0.2 (0.0–0.9)
From a mall or shopping center kiosk/ stand 0.0 N/A
On the internet (including apps) 18.8 (11.5–28.0)
From someone 45.1† (30.2–60.8)
Some other way 10.0† (3.6–21.2)
Note. CI = confidence interval. N/A is used because a value of 0 does not have a confidence interval.

The value of 0 indicates that no participant endorsed that response option. * Numbers below this row represent the percentage of respondents endorsing each location among those who reported buying their own vapes.
† The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

Table 10-6. Methods of Accessing Cigarettes Among 8th-Grade Respondents Who Were Currently Smoking Cigarettes
Method
Overall
N = 64
% (95% CI)
I ask someone to buy them for me 3.4† (0.4–12.0)
Someone gives them to me 38.6 (28.1–50.0)
I ask someone for them 6.4† (2.8–12.2)
I take them from someone 13.3 (9.0–18.8)
(continued)
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
10-6
Table 10-6. Methods of Accessing Cigarettes Among 8th-Grade Respondents Who Were Currently Smoking Cigarettes (continued)
Method
Overall
N = 64
% (95% CI)
I get them some other way — —
I buy them myself 26.3 (18.8–35.0)
Note. CI = confidence interval.
— The estimate has been suppressed due to small sample sizes, specifically, a nominal or effective sample size less than 30. For definitions of nominal and effective sample size, see Appendix A. † The estimate should be interpreted with caution given concerns about precision. The estimate meets one or both of the following criteria: (a) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval for the estimate is ≥ 0.30 OR (b) the absolute width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is < 0.30 and > 0.05 and the relative width of the Korn-Graubard confidence interval is greater than 130% of the estimate.

10.5 Marijuana Use Among 8th-Grade Respondents
Table 10-7 presents the prevalence of ever and current marijuana use among 8th-grade respondents. The rates of ever using marijuana (8.5%) and currently using marijuana (3.1%) were lower than rates reported by high school respondents (23.0% and 10.4%, respectively; see Chapter 8).

Table 10-7. Prevalence of Marijuana Use Among 8th-Grade Respondents Marijuana Use
Overall
N % (95% CI)
Ever use 10,781 8.5 (7.1–10.1)
Current use 10,778 3.1 (2.2–4.1)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

10.6 Exposure to Secondhand Marijuana Smoke in Last 2 Weeks Table 10-8 reports 8th-grade respondents’ exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke in a car or room and outside in the last 2 weeks. Respondents were considered exposed outside if they reported having been near someone who was smoking marijuana outside of a restaurant, outside of a store, on a sidewalk, or at a park, playground, or beach in the last 2 weeks.

Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
10-7
Table 10-8. Prevalence of Last-2-Week Exposure to Marijuana Smoke in Car or Room or Outside Among 8th-Grade Respondents
Exposure
Overall
N % (95% CI)
Exposure in car or room 10,764 11.0 (10.0–12.1)
Exposure outside 10,628 24.0 (20.7-27.6)
Note. CI = confidence interval.

Overall, 11.0% of 8th-grade respondents reported being exposed to marijuana smoke in a car or room within the last 2 weeks. Fewer 8th-grade respondents reported exposure in a car or room than high school respondents (21.3%; see Chapter 8). Less than a quarter of 8th-grade respondents (24.0%) reported being exposed outside; this figure was lower than that reported for high school respondents (31.1%; see Chapter 8).

10.7 Summary
The prevalence of current tobacco use was lower for 8th-grade respondents than high school respondents. Vaping was the most common form of use. Current tobacco use was highest among 8th-grade respondents who identified their gender in another way and were multiracial. Flavored tobacco use was high among respondents currently using tobacco products, similarly to high school respondents. Among 8th-grade respondents, exposure to secondhand vapor and smoke in a car or room and outside was lower than that of high school respondents, but exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke was similar in a car or room, outside, and in MUH. Respondents who vaped most frequently reported purchasing their own vapes as their most common method of obtaining them. Eighth-grade respondents who smoked cigarettes most commonly obtained them by being given them by someone else. The prevalence of marijuana use among 8th-grade respondents was lower than that of high school respondents, as was exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke.

Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) 11-1

11. Conclusion
Overall, tobacco use among high school respondents remains low, with 7.3% reporting having used any tobacco product in the last 30 days. Vapes continue to be the most commonly used tobacco product, with 5.9% of high school respondents reporting using them in the last 30 days.

Differences in tobacco use were observed when looking at gender identity, LGBTQ+ status, race/ethnicity, general mental health, and experiences of discrimination. Polytobacco use was highest among LGBTQ+ respondents and those who identified their gender in another way. Two-thirds of high school respondents experienced one or more types of discrimination in the last month, and experiences of discrimination were more commonly reported by respondents who were currently using tobacco than those who weren’t.

Quit attempts and intention to quit also varied by demographics. A higher proportion of respondents with fair or good to excellent mental health status had attempted to quit in the past year, and they also had higher intention to quit vaping in the next 30 days, compared to those with poor mental health.

Flavored tobacco use remains high, with most respondents who were currently using tobacco reporting flavored product use across gender identity, race/ethnicity, and grade.

The popularity of flavor types varied by product. Fruit was the most popular flavor for vapes and almost half of cigarette smokers used menthol cigarettes.

The minimum legal age to purchase tobacco products, including vapes, in California is 21 years old, but many youth who reported current vaping also reported buying their own vapes. Respondents reported buying vapes from other people, tobacco or smoke shops, vape shops, and gas stations or convenience stores. Cigarette smokers also purchased their cigarettes from gas station or convenience stores, tobacco or smoke shops, and from other people. Of vapes, cigarettes, and flavored tobacco products, respondents perceived that it was easiest to obtain vapes. Perceived access varied by location, with respondents reporting that it was more difficult to obtain vapes, cigarettes, and flavored tobacco products from stores than from the internet or another person. For vapes and cigarettes, perceived access varied by respondents’ vaping and smoking status.

Most high school respondents lived in homes with a complete ban on tobacco smoking and vaping. About half of respondents who lived in MUH reported exposure to tobacco smoke in their home in the last 6 months. Exposure to tobacco smoke and vapor was highest among current smokers and vapers. When it came to exposure on social media, most respondents did not have a favorite vaping ad and over half did not pay attention to these posts.

Exposure varied by smoking status.

Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023 Annual Report (9.1(a)--Accept Report and Provide Direction Regarding Tobacco Retailing) Results of the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey
11-2
Susceptibility to future tobacco use varied by demographics and poor mental health was associated with greater susceptibility. Susceptibility also appeared to be correlated with peer tobacco use. The most commonly reported reason for vaping was to relax or relieve stress and anxiety.

Overall, most high school respondents believed that adults would disapprove of them vaping or smoking, and about half believed peers would disapprove. This varied by vaping and smoking status, with a larger proportion of respondents who had never vaped or smoked endorsing this belief. Over two-thirds of respondents supported tobacco endgame policies, although this also varied by vaping and smoking status. Support was highest among respondents who had never vaped or smoked.

Towns and rural settings tended to have higher tobacco use compared to cities and suburban areas. Tobacco use outcomes varied widely across counties and county groups for any tobacco use and the use of specific products. Estimates for specific products were consistent across regions, with the exception of vaping, which was higher in the Northern region of the state.

Current use of marijuana was more common that current use of tobacco, and use varied by demographic categories. The usual mode of using marijuana was smoking, followed by vaping. Among respondents currently using tobacco, the most commonly used tobacco product was the vape. Respondents currently using marijuana most commonly obtained the product by buying it themselves.

Results from 2023 were compared to 2022, and only a few significant differences were found for specific tobacco products among members of specific racial/ethnic groups (nonHispanic other race) and for specific grades. These differences should be interpreted with caution, given the impact of COVID-19 on the 2022 CYTS and changes in the methodology of the CYTS between 2022 and 2023.

Finally, 8th-grade respondents were summarized separately. The prevalence of current tobacco and marijuana use was lower for 8th-grade respondents than high school respondents. Like high school students, vaping was the most common form of tobacco use, and flavored product use was high among middle school students. Eighth-grade respondents most commonly obtained vapes by purchasing them.

11.1 Implications
The results of the 2023 CYTS are in line with results from 2022. Rates of youth tobacco use in California are generally low, but youth continue to vape. Marijuana use remains more common than tobacco use. Exposure to secondhand smoke, vapor, and marijuana continues to occur. This year, we examined differences in use, exposure, and beliefs across vaping and smoking status, and found that differences exist.