Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, June 10, 2025 (part 4 of 5)

This provision encourages the adaptive reuse of designated historic resources by permitting an additional use within some areas otherwise zoned primarily for residential, commercial or industrial uses.

1. Multifamily uses in single-family residential zone district, subject to RL zoning density, lot size and lot width standards.

29.93 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-15
59 2. Business and professional office uses (not including medical offices) in residential zone districts on up to two parcels where the majority of the parcel is within one hundred feet of commercially zoned property except for CN-zoned properties.

3. Expansion of single-family homes in RM and RT zone districts.

4. Expansion of nonconforming structures and uses.

5. Residential uses may be allowed on the ground floor in commercial zones, except in the Downtown Plan area and in the Community Commercial and Mixed Use zones of the Mission Street Urban Design Plan area. In the Professional and Administrative Office zone of the Mission Street Urban Design Plan area, residential uses may be allowed on the ground floor as part of a multifamily or mixed use.

Section 37. The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as a project has been considered under the City’s existing 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report and that it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Section 38. If any section or portion of this ordinance is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, which shall continue in full force and effect.

Section 39. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after final adoption for areas of the City outside the Coastal Zone and shall take effect and be in full force upon certification by the California Coastal Commission for areas of the City located within the Coastal Zone.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 27th day of May, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Trigueiro, Brunner, Newsome, Golder, O’Hara; Vice Mayor Kalantari-Johnson; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

29.94 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-15
60 PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this 10th day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2025-15 and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

29.95 Proof of Publication
(2015 C.C.P.)
I, the undersigned, declare:

That I caused the attached legal notice/advertisement to be published in the Santa Cruz Good Times, a weekly newspaper published and circulated in the County of Santa Cruz, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Santa Cruz, under Proceeding No. 68833; and that the legal notice/advertisement was published in the above-named newspaper on the following date(s), to wit:

June 4, 2025
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

This 4th day of June, 2025, Santa Cruz, California
____________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator

29.96 DECLARATION OF POSTING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ )
On the 2nd day of June, 2025, I posted conspicuously in three public places within the City of Santa Cruz, Ordinance No. 2025-15, to wit:

1. City Hall: 809 Center Street: Bulletin Board outside Room 9/10

2. City Hall: Bulletin Board outside Council Chambers

3. The City of Santa Cruz website
The document, posted in its entirety, consists of pages 1—60.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 2nd day of June, 2025, in Santa Cruz, California.
_______________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator

29.97 RESOLUTION NO.

NS-30,

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 24, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE, AS LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL

COMMISSION FOR FINAL CERTIFICATION
WHEREAS, in June 2012, the City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 and its associated Environmental Impact Report were adopted by City Council; and WHEREAS, in December of 2022 the City Council adopted an ordinance creating Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing; and WHEREAS, the design standards have been used to review a few dozen development proposals and some areas of challenge have been identified for adjustment; and
WHEREAS, the use allowances for certain non-residential occupancies have unnecessarily limited existing commercial spaces from being occupied after a vacancy, and by expanding the types of uses that are permitted to occupy Active Frontage areas at an appropriately reduced level of review, the City seeks to reduce commercial vacancies; and
WHEREAS, various state laws have been passed recently which require incorporation into the City’s Zoning Ordinance relating to requirements and allowances for Low Barrier Navigation Centers, Reasonable Accommodations for People with Disabilities, State Density Bonus Law, Community Care Licensed Residential Facilities, and Thrift Stores; and
WHEREAS, adjustments to the requirements for Loading Space Parking were also necessary in response to state laws that eliminate requirements for parking; and WHEREAS, certain historic properties in the vicinity of Mission Street have been limited from functioning as residential units due to commercial zoning, despite having been built as residential structures and having continued utility as such; and WHEREAS, the California Building Standards Codes have been updated substantially in recent years and now exceed the local requirements for Electric Vehicle Parking, making those local policies obsolete; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2025, the Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting where the proposed amendments to Title 24 of the Municipal Code were considered by the Commission, and the Commission recommended unanimously that the City Council adopt the amendments; and

29.98 WHEREAS, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City Guidelines, the proposed code amendments were determined to be addressed by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) drafted for the City's General Plan and approved by the City Council in April, 2012, and amendments were also exempt from CEQA under the general rule in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing at which the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code were introduced for publication; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing where the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code were approved; and WHEREAS, in making their decisions, including this direction, the Council considered the full public record for said items, including but not limited to the staff reports and associated materials in the packet; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now finds:

1. The proposed amendments to Title 24 are in the public interest as they address changes in State law or serve to address identified challenges in existing code language, and take steps to reduce development costs for housing and commercial development.

2. The proposed amendments to Title 24 are consistent and compatible with the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.

3. The proposed amendments to Title 24 are intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the Coastal Act (CA Section 30510).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that it hereby directs the City Manager to submit the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan changes, as shown in in Ordinance 2025-15 that makes modifications to Title 24 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code, to the Coastal Commission for certification.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that amendments to the Local Coastal Implementation Plan will become effective inside the Coastal Zone upon final certification by the California Coastal Commission.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

29.99 APPROVED: ________________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

29.100
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/22/2025
AGENDA OF: 05/27/2025
DEPARTMENT: Planning, Public Works
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendments Related to Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing updates, Parking, Bicycle Parking and Facilities, State Density Bonus, Reasonable Accommodations for People with Disabilities, Licensed Community Care Facilities, Low-Barrier Navigation Centers, and Historic Structures on Mission Street; a General Plan Land Use Chapter Text Amendment; and Amendments to Titles 10 and 15 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code Related to Standards for Driveways, Daylighting, Bicycle Parking, Electric Vehicle Charging, Loading, and Bicycle Facilities to Better Meet the City’s Policy Goals and Objectives and to Align with New State Laws. (PL, PW)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion that the City Council:
1) Adopt Ordinance amending Titles 10, 15 and 24 of the Municipal Code related to Parking, Bicycle Parking and Facilities, State Density Bonus, Licensed Community Care Facilities, and Low-Barrier Navigation Centers.
2) Adopt Ordinance amending the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan (IP) and Title 24 of the Municipal Code related to Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing, Reasonable Accommodations for People with Disabilities, Licensed Community Care Facilities, Low-Barrier Navigation Centers, and Historic Structures on Mission Street. 3) Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use chapter text. 4) Acknowledge the determination that the proposed amendments are covered by the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City’s General Plan and approved in June 2012 and find that the changes are also Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

29.101
BACKGROUND: Objective design standards for multifamily housing seek to set clear expectations for how new housing should look, feel, and function. Per state law, only objective standards can be used to review multifamily housing development applications.

After an extensive series of community engagement events in 2021 and 2022, Santa Cruz adopted Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing on November 15, 2022. The standards cover topics like the design of ground floors, walking paths, parking, landscaping, open space, the shapes of roofs and facades, building materials, and lighting for all new multifamily housing development outside the Downtown. The standards adopted in 2022 also included changes to the municipal code sections on transportation studies, traffic control devices, and sidewalk, bicycle, and transit facilities.

The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Objective 1.2b directs the City to maintain and review the standards on a regular schedule after adoption and consider updating them as needed. The proposed amendments represent the first update to these standards since they were first adopted in 2022. Maximum heights and widths of buildings are set in a different section of the code and are not proposed to change with these updates.

In addition to proposed updates to the Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing, this item proposes several other ordinance amendments that relate to Housing Element policies and consistency with state and federal laws. These topics include the State Density Bonus, reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, licensed community care facilities, low-barrier navigation centers, and updates to the standards governing historic structures on Mission Street.

Additionally, this item also proposes a General Plan clean up text amendment that addresses state law consistency.

Finally, this item includes a series of amendments proposed by the Public Works Department to update standards for driveways, daylighting, bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging, loading, and bicycle facilities to better meet the City’s policy goals and objectives and to align with new state laws.

DISCUSSION:

Objective Standards Updates
The overall goal of the Objective Design Standards portion of this amendment package is to further refine the Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing for improved development outcomes. Based on lessons learned from project implementation, developers, Economic Development and Housing Department staff, public meetings, and consultation with an urban design consultant, and three overarching areas of amendments emerged for the proposed updates:

1. Make changes to building shape and materials requirements for better design outcomes by adding flexibility to some standards and stricter requirements to others.

2. Refine ground floor design and activities requirements to better support ground-floor retail and commercial tenants by broadening which uses qualified as active frontage uses and by streamlining levels of review for their approval.

29.102

3. Clarify details and define new terms for better usability by all.

The proposed amendments range from potentially impactful design and use standards changes to minor text edits to clarify standards or align them better with other parts of the Code.

The amendments associated with each of these themes are summarized below, and details are contained in the attached table that lists the proposed code changes and compares them to the existing code. The attached proposed Municipal Code Amendments show all the proposed changes in track changes format. The ordinance amendments are separated into those that require an LCP amendment (which require Coastal Commission approval following Council approval) and those that do not. The attached staff report from the April 3, 2025 Planning Commission covered all the proposed Zoning Ordinance (Title 24) amendments. The attached January 27, 2025 Transportation and Public Works Commission staff report covered all the proposed changes in Titles 10 and 15 of the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code Amendments document attached to this item combines all the proposed changes in Titles 10, 15, and 24 into a single document.

Theme 1 – Building shape and materials requirements
Differentiate by building height to better address scale The current standards apply equally to all sizes of buildings. This has had the result of creating smaller projects that can be busy-looking due to their lack of cohesion in shape and materials.

This scaling issue can also result in larger projects that do not provide enough variation and lack visual appeal.

To address this, the amendments propose differentiating between shorter buildings (three stories or fewer) and taller buildings (more than three stories) and slightly adjusting the requirements depending on building size. The combined focus of these changes is to encourage developers to make more substantial natural breaks in the building to divide up the facade and roofline, resulting in projects that look more visually appealing. This tradeoff would provide some more flexibility in design, encouraging both better outcomes and more diverse building designs.

Reduce standards requiring multiple materials
The current standards require the use of multiple building materials in several situations. While these requirements were intended to create variety in appearance, they instead have a combined effect that can contribute to the busy and disjointed designs described above, especially on smaller buildings. The amendments requiring different changes in building shape based on height should encourage high quality building design more effectively than requiring changes in materials. Accordingly, the amendments propose to remove some of the requirements to incorporate multiple materials. The list of approved materials is unchanged.

Encourage new types of high-quality design
The amendments add a step-back option to meet roof form requirements to encourage reducing bulk at the tops of buildings. They also propose a new option that support more historic building styles by allowing a “flatter” but more richly textured façade by requiring more deeply inset windows and certain high-quality materials. This provides options for the developer, supports more historic building styles, and allows for more variation in building design outcomes, something that staff have heard expressed from some members of the community.

29.103
Theme 2 - Ground floor design and activities requirements The amendments propose that residential projects with 50% or more of the units below market rate have additional flexibility on their ground floor height requirements to potentially reduce costs and better facilitate the development of below-market rate housing. To support commercial leasing and reduce vacancies, the amendments also propose adding six new allowed uses to the Community Commercial (C-C) zoning district and to all Mixed-Use (MU) zoning districts. The current standards do not allow trash, electrical, and mechanical rooms on public frontages, and they require developers to create access from parking areas or alleys. The amendments provide guidance on where those rooms should be placed when projects include limited or no parking.

Theme 3 – Clarify details and define terms
An analysis of various development proposals and sites has revealed the need for small updates and new details that are proposed to provide clarity in the review process. This includes clarifying requirements about new public paths, outdoor dining, landscaping, and open space.

The proposed amendments also clarify when the standards apply in cases of remodeling, building on a non-vacant site, and when certain streamlined projects are exempted from the standards.

Some new definitions are proposed, and images have been updated throughout the document to reflect and illustrate the proposed amendments.

General Plan Amendment
The project also includes an amendment to the City’s 2030 General Plan to delete language that creates confusion for the public and development community. The amendments delete references to Zoning Ordinance criteria that do not exist for sites that have yet to be rezoned to mixed-use districts, and they delete the reference to a subjective decision-making process by the Planning Commission for determining consistency with those standards. As the General Plan and Zoning are inconsistent, the General Plan intensities prevail in this instance, per state law. To provide clarity and consistency with state law, staff recommend deleting the language to ensure clarity and consistency across all policy documents that govern development intensity. The proposed General Plan amendment is included in the attachments.

Other Ordinance Amendments
Objective Design Standards for Roadways and Bicycle facilities When the City passed the Objective Standards for Multifamily Development in 2022, the amendments also included changes to the Municipal Code sections on transportation studies, traffic control devices, and sidewalk, bicycle, and transit facilities. Based on lessons learned from implementation, conversations with Public Works staff, and after a public hearing at the Transportation and Public Works Commission, staff are proposing amendments to standards for driveways, daylighting, bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging, loading, and bicycle facilities to better meet the City’s policy goals and objectives and to align with new state laws.

Density Bonus
Over the last several years, California Density Bonus Law has been amended to create more options for housing developments to utilize density bonuses, and state law is likely to continue to evolve in the future. Two Housing Element objectives call for the City to maintain consistency with State Density Bonus Law. The proposed amendments add language to the Purpose section

29.104
of the City’s Density Bonus regulations to clarify that when the provisions of the local regulations conflict with the provisions of state law, then state law will prevail.

Reasonable Accommodations
The Fair Housing Act requires jurisdictions to provide reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, and procedures to make housing accessible for people with disabilities.

Housing Element objective 3.1c calls for the City to adopt such reasonable accommodations procedures. The proposed amendment package includes a section to codify a process to request a reasonable accommodation and the findings that will govern the decision-making process.

Requests for accommodation can be made by or on behalf of individuals with disabilities or by developers seeking to serve a specific population with disabilities. Applications will be made to the Planning and Community Development Department, and decisions will be made by the Zoning Administrator.

Licensed Community Care Residential Facilities
Community Care Residential facilities are any family home, group care facility, or a similar establishment that provide 24-hour non-medical care, services, supervision, or assistance essential for daily living or for the protection of residents. They function as residences and support children or adults with physical or developmental disabilities or mental disorders who need help in carrying out their day-to-day lives, as well as non-medical mental health treatment and rehabilitation, and foster family homes. Housing Element objective 3.1d calls for the City to update Zoning Ordinance requirements related to licensed community care residential facilities of seven or more people to allow these uses in all residential zones.

The Municipal Code currently allows Community Care Residential Facilities in the various residential zone districts, but it requires a special use permit for facilities with seven or more people. To fulfill the Housing Element objective and maintain consistency with state law, the proposed amendments would allow community care residential facilities as a by-right use within existing residential dwellings in all residential districts regardless of the size of facility.

Low-Barrier Navigation Centers
Housing Element objective 3.3l calls for the City to amend the Zoning Ordinance to implement state law by establishing a ministerial approval process and regulations to approve low-barrier navigation centers (LBNCs) by June 2025. State law defines a LBNC as a Housing First, low barrier, temporary, service-enriched shelter focused on helping homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing. State Assembly Bill AB101 (2019) requires local jurisdictions to allow LBNCs as a by-right use in all mixed-use or commercial zone districts that allow multi-family housing. A map showing the location of all these zones is attached.

State law also determines the operational standards that ensure that the navigation center can conduct assessments and provide services to connect people to permanent housing.

To conform with State and federal law, the proposed ordinance would amend the included commercial and mixed-use zone districts to allow LBNCs as a principally permitted use.

Historic Preservation on Mission Street
Thirteen buildings on the northeastern segment of Mission Street, between Highway 1 and Laurel Street, are listed on the City’s historic building survey and most, if not all, were originally constructed for residential use. The zoning requirement for ground floor commercial that currently applies to these properties can make it difficult for owners to secure economically

29.105
viable uses for these buildings and therefore decreases the likelihood that owners will be able to maintain the buildings’ historic qualities. The proposed code amendment would allow residential uses to occupy the entire ground floor as part of a mixed use or multi-family use with approval of a discretionary historic alteration permit on this stretch of Mission Street in the P-A zone. This minor amendment would therefore retain economic functionality of these 13 historic buildings while promoting continued rehabilitation and preservation of their historic qualities.

Transportation and Public Works Commission
At the Transportation and Public Works Commission meeting of January 27, 2025, the Commission asked for details from staff about the intentions of the changes to driveway and bicycle width requirements, impacts of potential piecemeal bike facility construction on Soquel, and options for making it more contiguous. They recommended that staff include more details on Public Right-of-Way Access Guidelines for loading zones. The motion to accept the proposed revisions included the following additions: Splitting code 15.20.060 into separate driveway, sidewalk, and bicycle facility subsections; considering language to require a smooth tie-in to adjacent facilities for code 15.20.060; adding Public Right-of-Way Access Guidelines for loading zones.

Public Works staff analyzed options for implementing the recommendations from Commissioners and are recommending additional text to require driveways to have a smooth tiein to adjacent sidewalks. Staff are not recommending restructuring code 15.20.060, as it would not change how the code is interpreted or change development outcomes compared to the current code, and the recommended restructuring of the code would require significant workload. Staff is also not recommending adding text about access guidelines for loading zones, as the Public Right-of-Way Access Guidelines and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements are already required by law. Duplicating that language in code is unnecessary. Staff’s recommended changes are included in the attached materials, highlighted in yellow.

Planning Commission
During the Planning Commission’s April 3, 2025 discussion of Objective Standards, the Commission asked for details about what size of buildings qualified, how the changes related to building shape would apply to the sides of buildings and ground floors, how ceiling heights were measured, and how buildings could satisfy roof form requirements. Staff provided responses, and Commissioners commented that future updates could consider removing the living walls option and find a way to encourage the use of tile and angled rooflines. It was noted that the ongoing updates to the standards were a good form of local control but that the City should pursue a light touch by looking to reducing, not increasing, the number of standards. Commissioners supported the promotion of historic building styles proposed in the amendments.

On the other amendment items, staff clarified that people requesting reasonable accommodations would receive support from the City to complete the process and that the process applies to all types of housing. Staff also clarified that the amendments on Low Barrier Navigations Centers make them allowed throughout certain zones but do not set a quota or goal of how many should be constructed.

In addition to supporting the staff recommendation, a motion was added for staff to study and propose additional code changes, where possible, related to defining a “dooryard” space at the front of commercial and live-work properties along corridors and an accompanying “curb zone” for street furnishings next to the roadway. Planning staff met with Public Works staff and an

29.106
urban design consultant to discuss developing these standards. Based on this analysis, staff is recommending a change to the inset depth of entrances, adding text to clarify landscaping options, and updating the accompanying diagram to meet the intent of the “dooryard” principle noted by the Planning Commission. Staff are not recommending defining a new “curb zone” space because the placement of street furnishing is already defined in Public Works’ standard design details. Lastly, staff proposed a clean up to make the treatment of ground floors with livework units consistent with the requirements for commercial ground floors. Staff’s recommended changes are included in the attached materials, highlighted in yellow.

LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) is the tool used by the City and the Coastal Commission to effectively regulate development activities within the Coastal Zone. Several of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are in sections of the Municipal Code that are part of the LCP Implementation Plan, including changes to Chapter 24.04 regarding appeals of reasonable accommodations requests, changes to Chapter 24.10 regarding allowed uses within zone districts in the coastal zone, and changes to Chapter 24.12 to amend the objective design standards for multi-family housing, add use standards for thrift stores and pawn shops, add use standards for low-barrier navigation centers, add use standards for community care residential facilities, and to amend the regulations for historic buildings (although it should be noted that the entire geographic area to which this last amendment applies is entirely outside the Coastal Zone).

Modifications to the objective design standards would facilitate allowed existing development capacities rather than increasing those capacities, which are already permitted by the LCP, and they would have no physical effect on the size or type of development permitted within the Coastal Zone. Proposed amendments to the allowed uses within zone districts would not substantially change the nature of uses within those zones and would not affect the size of allowable development within the Coastal Zone. Amendments related to navigation centers, community care residential facilities, and reasonable accommodations requests promote equitable access to the coast, creating the potential to provide additional social support within the Coastal Zone to those who need it the most. The proposed amendments to the Municipal Code would implement several policies and programs in the City’s LCP. The following are the LCP provisions that are supported by the actions included in this package of amendments:

Policy CD 1.1: Infill and intensify land uses consistent with existing neighborhood or commercial district patterns in developed areas currently served by municipal services.

Program CD 1.1.2: Develop design criteria to ensure compatibility of infill development with existing neighborhoods and proposed development patterns.

Policy CD 3.5: New or renovated development shall add to, not detract from City-identified landmarks, historic areas and buildings, and established architectural character worthy of preservation. (See Maps CD-4 and CD-5, policies under goal CR 4, L 4.3, S 2.3.1, S 2.4, and the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey.)
Policy CD 3.6: In pedestrian areas, require building design to be responsive to the pedestrian environment. These areas include but are not limited to Downtown, South of Laurel, the Beach, wharf, shoreline, and commercial shopping areas.

29.107
Policy CD 3.7: Require development to incorporate features to promote pedestrian use including new linkages to the pedestrian system.

Program L 2.1.2: Maximize land intensity or densities in areas unconstrained by resources or hazards and having adequate service capabilities.

Program L 2.6.4.3: Allow and encourage residential development in non-residential districts and develop appropriate design guidelines and incentives for this type of development.

Program L 2.9.1: Identify areas where mixed-use development opportunities exist and develop appropriate guidelines and incentives to encourage that type of development.

Policy L 5.3: Provide for high-density development and mixed uses, where appropriate, as well as transit- and pedestrian-oriented land use patterns to reduce dependence on the automobile and support the use of mass transit and other alternative transportation modes.

Policy CR 2.1 Protect and encourage restoration and rehabilitation of historic and architecturally significant buildings and landmarks. (See policies under CD 3.5.) This list demonstrates the conformance of the proposed amendment package with the goals, policies and programs of the LCP, and by extension the California Coastal Act.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:

The proposed amendments fall within the analysis in the City’s existing 2030 General Plan EIR, as they are intended to fully implement the adopted General Plan Land Use maps and policies.

The proposed amendments would not result in increased densities or intensification of uses beyond those already anticipated by the General Plan; rather, these proposed amendments will regulate the design and development character of projects achieving those planned densities, and they will allow for alternative uses or changes that are comparable in intensity and operational characteristics to other allowable uses contemplated in the General Plan. The proposed amendments are also exempt from CEQA under the general rule, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as a project that can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): In 2019, the City adopted a Health in All Policies strategy to eliminate inequities in health and well-being and attain equity for all residents. The proposed amendment package furthers the City’s Health in All Policies strategy, as one purpose of the proposed amendments is to support the creation of a wider variety of housing options, promoting more equitable access to housing. The proposed amendments support development of multifamily housing in areas of Santa Cruz with a mix of employment, housing, retail, and entertainment uses, promoting a sustainable development pattern and making efficient use of urbanized land. This land use pattern also encourages active transportation, which promotes personal health. Amendments related to navigation centers, community care residential facilities, and reasonable accommodations requests promote equitable access to the City, creating the potential to provide additional social support within the City to those who need it the most. By incentivizing a variety of new housing and service opportunities that meet residents’ needs, this proposal supports the social, economic, and environmental health of the community.

29.108
FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: These amendments have the potential to support multifamily housing project feasibility in some instances. However, in large part, they are providing for alternative architectural approaches and would not have a significant effect on project feasibility in most instances. Therefore, the amendments would generally have no fiscal impact.

Prepared By:

Bennett Williamson
Planning Technician
Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Clara Stanger
Senior Planner
Claire Gollogly
Principal Transportation Planner
Matt Starkey
Transportation Manager
Matt VanHua, AICP
Principal Planner
Submitted By:

Lee Butler, LEED AP, AICP
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS (NON-LCP).DOCX

2. PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS (NON-LCP) – TRACKED CHANGES.DOCX

3. PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS FOR LCP IP.DOCX

4. PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS FOR LCP IP – TRACKED CHANGES.DOCX

5. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION.DOCX

6. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT A.DOCX

7. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – TRACKED CHANGES.DOCX

8. APRIL 3, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT.PDF

9. APRIL 3, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION SUMMARY

10. JANUARY 27, 2025 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT.PDF

11. JANUARY 27, 2025 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.PDF

12. TABLE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.PDF

13. MAP OF MIXED-USE AND COMMERCIAL ZONES THAT MUST ALLOW LOWBARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS.PDF

29.109
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/22/2025
AGENDA OF: 06/10/2025
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: User Charges for Wastewater Services – Proposed Five-Year Increase (PW)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt a resolution adopting the revised wastewater user charges and rescinding Resolution No. NS-29,520.

BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz’s (City) Wastewater Enterprise Fund exclusively funds all operations, maintenance and construction needed to operate the City’s wastewater system. The system is comprised of approximately 160 miles of sanitary sewer pipelines within the City, 21 pump stations, an environmental compliance laboratory, and an award-winning regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) which on average, treats around 10 million gallons per day. The regional WWTF provides wastewater treatment and disposal via the City’s ocean outfall for the City of Santa Cruz and the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District (including Live Oak, Capitola, Soquel and Aptos). The City’s ocean outfall also provides disposal for the City of Scotts Valley. Additionally, the City’s WWTF is a regional partner with Soquel Creek Water District providing source water for the District’s Pure Water Soquel Water Purification Center which will recharge the critically over drafted Mid-County Groundwater Basin.

The City has responsibly managed the finances of the Wastewater Enterprise Fund through careful attention to operational costs, strategic investment in technologies and projects to support efficient operations including a renewable energy portfolio that offsets approximately 70% of electricity usage. Finally, to maintain balance with revenues and operating costs and to invest in critical infrastructure, proactive steps have been taken to gradually raise utility rates over the past decade to keep revenues in line with the cost of providing service. The gradual rate increases have enabled the City to maintain strong financial health of the utility and as such the Enterprise has sufficient reserves, coupled with a modest amount of debt service for ongoing capital investment. Notably, the City closed on a $26 million 30-year low interest loan in December 2024 to finance the construction of two large capital investment projects.

The last 5-year rate increases were adopted in 2019. Rates increased by 7% for the first three years and by 6% for the last two years. These rate increases were delayed one year due to the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in the last rate increase being implemented July 1, 2024. The City

30.1 has historically adopted utility rates in five year cycles, the maximum number of years allowed under proposition 218 which governs the rate setting process.

DISCUSSION: In fall 2024, the City contracted with Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) to create a long-range financial plan for the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, including a cost-of-service rate design, development of capacity fees, and the proposed upcoming 5 years of rate increases.

BWA completed work on the study in February 2025 and the final report titled: City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Enterprise Financial Plan and Rate Study Final Report is included as an attachment for reference. BWA identified a number of financial challenges in upcoming years that can be addressed via gradual annual rate increases.

Key Drivers for Rate Increases:

Capital Improvement Needs & Rehabilitation of Aging Infrastructure:

In 2018, the City completed the Wastewater Treatment Facility Infrastructure and Major Equipment Study which found an increased need for replacement and rehabilitation of aging equipment at the WWTF. Notable projects from the study that are currently in design and construction are the WWTF Electrical project which will replace end of life electrical distribution equipment with an estimated cost of $60 million and the WWTF Headworks project which is in construction with an expected completion date of December 2026 which will cost $19 million. In November of 2024, the City contracted with Brown and Caldwell to prepare a Master Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Facility which will ensure adequate planning for treatment process and permitting requirements.

The City takes a proactive approach to maintaining its wastewater system which requires a steady stream of repair, improvement, and replacement projects. The City has identified approximately $56.4 million of capital improvement projects over the next five years. The City will likely need to use a combination of financial reserves, rate revenue, and debt to fund this level of capital spending.

Operating Cost Escalation:

The City’s Wastewater Enterprise Fund faces ongoing operating cost escalation due to annual increases in a range of expenses including staffing, utilities, insurance, supplies, and more. On top of rate increases needed for other purposes, annual rate increases are needed to keep revenues aligned with cost inflation and prevent rates from falling behind the cost of providing service.

Reserves:

Prudent financial management of the Wastewater Enterprise fund includes establishment and maintenance of financial reserve targets. Through this plan and recommended rates, the City will be able to achieve the following financial reserve levels:
1) Six months of operating expenditures
2) One year of Annual Debt service
3) Emergency reserve of $4,000,000
At the February 24, 2025 Transportation and Public Works Commission (TPWC) meeting, staff provided a presentation on the rate development process, and the recommended rate increases.

The commission unanimously supported a motion that City Council move forward with the proposition 218 process to increase Wastewater rates.

30.2 The proposed Wastewater rates for fiscal years 2026-2031 are shown in Table 1 – Proposed Rates Table. Average rate increases over the five-year structure are summarized below, but in more detail in Table 2 per customer classification
A survey of comparable agencies and their charges for services is included as Figure 1 – Survey of Monthly Single Family Wastewater Charges.

Affordability
On November 19, 2024 the City Council approved the creation of the City’s Utility Customer Assistance Program (UCAP) which will provide ongoing financial support in the form of direct bill assistance to qualified, enrolled low-income program participants. UCAP will be funded using revenues from late payment fees collected from non-program participant utility customers.

UCAP will provide financial support to low-income community members promoting continued access to safe and reliable wastewater collection and treatment to all City customers in a method that is compliant with state law and financially sustainable.

Risks If Adequate Rates Are Not Adopted
The City’s wastewater system provides an essential service to the community and protects public health and environmental health. System failures due to equipment and/or infrastructure which is at the end of its useful life threatens public health and environmental health and may result in the City being unable to meet its regulatory requirements. The proposed rate increase supports the City’s efforts to operate and maintain the wastewater system in a responsible manner, safeguard public and environmental health, and provide the community with an essential service.

Outreach and Public Engagement
The City has engaged in a robust noticing and pubic engagement program to bring awareness to the proposed rates, discuss upcoming rehabilitation projects, and provide the community with opportunities to comment on the proposed rates. The proposed rates were presented at the February 24, 2025 TWPC meeting, staff attended the Public Works Community Open House on March 24, 2025.

At the March 25, 2025 City Council meeting staff presented recommended rates, and received feedback on the draft proposition 218 notice. Based on Council feedback and direction, the mailer was translated to Spanish and made available on the City website. The English language mailer included a Spanish language direction on where to find the Spanish language translation.

The mailing list was expanded to include tenants and all mailing addresses in the City in addition to property owners and Santa Cruz Municipal Utility (SCMU) wastewater customers. In total approximately 31,000 notices were mailed. Additionally, information has been provided via social media, the weekly City Manager’s report, on SCMU utility bills, and the City website.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:

Increasing wastewater rates is not a project under CEQA.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): This project promotes the following Health in All Policies Conditions: Health and Wellness and Healthy Environments The proposed wastewater rate increase is in alignment with the City’s HiAP initiative by supporting Health and Wellness and Healthy Environments. The City’s wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment facility safeguard public health and environmental health by

30.3 conveying and treating wastewater for ocean discharge in compliance with all regulatory standards and by augmenting water supply by providing a source for recycled water.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: Yes

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: The City has identified approximate $56 million of capital improvement projects over the next five years, and the Wastewater Enterprise Fund (Fund 721) faces ongoing operating cost inflation. The proposed rates are designed to fund operating and capital needs of the wastewater enterprise fund and to equitable recovered costs from all customers. The General Fund revenues from utility users’ taxes will increase if the proposed Wastewater user charges are adopted.

Prepared By:

Katie Stewart
Senior Professional Engineer
Submitted By:

Nathan Nguyen, P.E.

Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOC

2. TABLE 2 - PROPOSED RATES TABLE.PDF

3. FIGURE 1 SURVEY OF MONTHLY SINGLE FAMILY WASTEWATER CHARGES .PDF

4. WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL PLAN AND RATE STUDY.PDF

30.4 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

ADOPTING USER CHARGES FOR WASTEWATER SERVICES
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,520
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz has established a Wastewater Enterprise Fund; and WHEREAS, this fund is responsible for collection, treatment and disposal of sewage generated within the City; and
WHEREAS, the proper collection, treatment and disposal of such material is vital to the welfare of the City; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. NS-29,520 last established user charges for wastewater services; and
WHEREAS, the cost to perform this service has increased since user charges were last adopted.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that the attached schedule of fees for wastewater users, Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” and ‘E” are hereby adopted. This resolution shall take effect immediately.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the schedule of fees contained in Exhibit “A” shall apply to all billings from July 1, 2025 to and including June 30, 2026. The schedule of fees contained in Exhibit “B” shall apply to all billings from July 1, 2026 to and including June 30, 2027. The schedule of fees contained in Exhibit “C” shall apply to all billings from July 1, 2027 to and including June 30, 2028. The schedule of fees contained in Exhibit “D” shall apply to all billings from July 1, 2028 to and including June 30, 2029. The schedule of fees contained in Exhibit “E” shall apply to all billings from and after July 1, 2029.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that Resolution No. NS-29,520 be and is hereby rescinded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

AYE:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

30.5 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
APPROVED: ___________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:_________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

30.6 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
EXHIBIT “A”
The following fees shall apply to all billings from July 1, 2025 to and including June 30, 2026:

User Type Flat Fee Quantity
Per Month Rate
Per CCF
Residential
Single Family $69.74
Multi Family, Per Unit $57.58
Low Sewage Producer $41.94
Business
Low Strength $47.71 $5.25
Medium Strength $47.71 $5.79
High Strength $47.71 $12.22
Industrial/other
UCSC – Main Campus $71,471.30 $11.58
Graham Hill WTP $3,150.03 $19.30
Landfill Leachate $3,071.12 $9.09
Industrial $252.30 $7.25
Septage $109.07
Notes:

1. Initial rate increase effective July 1, 2025 includes modifications to the rate structure that result in a range of bill impacts depending on customer class and billed usage

30.7 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
EXHIBIT “B”
The following fees shall apply to all billings from July 1, 2026 to and including June 30, 2027:

User Type Flat Fee Quantity
Per Month Rate
Per CCF
Residential
Single Family $75.32
Multi Family, Per Unit $62.19
Low Sewage Producer $45.30
Business
Low Strength $51.53 $5.67
Medium Strength $51.53 $6.59
High Strength $51.53 $13.61
Industrial/other
UCSC – Main Campus $77,189.00 $12.51
Graham Hill WTP $3,402.03 $20.84
Landfill Leachate $3,316.81 $9.82
Industrial $272.48 $7.83
Septage $117.80

30.8 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Exhibit “C”
The following fees shall apply to all billings from July 1, 2027 to and including June 30, 2028:

User Type Flat Fee Quantity
Per Month Rate
Per CCF
Residential
Single Family $81.35
Multi Family, Per Unit $67.17
Low Sewage Producer $48.92
Business
Low Strength $55.65 $6.12
Medium Strength $55.65 $7.12
High Strength $55.65 $14.70
Industrial/other
UCSC – Main Campus $83,364.12 $13.51
Graham Hill WTP $3,674.19 $22.51
Landfill Leachate $3,582.15 $10.61
Industrial $294.28 $8.46
Septage $127.22

30.9 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Exhibit “D”
The following fees shall apply to all billings beginning on July 1, 2028 to and including June 30, 2029:

User Type Flat Fee Quantity
Per Month Rate
Per CCF
Residential
Single Family $87.04
Multi Family, Per Unit $71.87
Low Sewage Producer $52.34
Business
Low Strength $59.55 $6.55
Medium Strength $59.55 $7.62
High Strength $59.55 $15.73
Industrial/other
UCSC – Main Campus $89,199.61 $14.46
Graham Hill WTP $3,931.38 $24.09
Landfill Leachate $3,832.90 $11.35
Industrial $314.88 $9.05
Septage $136.13

30.10 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Exhibit “E”
The following fees shall apply to all billings beginning on July 1, 2029:

User Type Flat Fee Quantity
Per Month Rate
Per CCF
Residential
Single Family $93.13
Multi Family, Per Unit $76.90
Low Sewage Producer $56.00
Business
Low Strength $63.72 $7.01
Medium Strength $63.72 $8.15
High Strength $63.72 $16.83
Industrial/other
UCSC – Main Campus $95,443.58 $15.47
Graham Hill WTP $4,206.58 $25.78
Landfill Leachate $4,101.20 $12.14
Industrial $336.92 $9.68
Septage $145.66

30.11 Current Projected Wastewater Rates Effective July 1 Rates 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Residential
Fixed Monthly Rates (per Dwelling Unit)
Single Family $65.00 $69.74 $75.32 $81.35 $87.04 $93.13 Multi-Family 53.10 57.58 62.19 67.17 71.87 76.90
Low Sewage Producer 38.20 41.94 45.30 48.92 52.34 56.00 Commercial
Fixed Monthly Rates
All Customers Varies $47.71 $51.53 $55.65 $59.55 $63.72 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf)
Low Strength 4.88 5.25 5.67 6.12 6.55 7.01
Medium Strength 4.99 5.79 6.59 7.12 7.62 8.15
High Strength 10.82 12.22 13.61 14.70 15.73 16.83
Industrial & Other
UCSC - Main Campus
Fixed Monthly Rates $66,886.30 $71,471.30 $77,189.00 $83,364.12 $89,199.61 $95,443.58 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 10.66 11.58 12.51 13.51 14.46 15.47 Graham Hill WTP
Fixed Monthly Rates 5,511.40 3,150.03 3,402.03 3,674.19 3,931.38 4,206.58 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 16.70 19.30 20.84 22.51 24.09 25.78 Landfill Leachate
Fixed Monthly Rates 2,769.40 3,071.12 3,316.81 3,582.15 3,832.90 4,101.20 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 8.51 9.09 9.82 10.61 11.35 12.14 Industrial
Fixed Monthly Rates 238.40 252.30 272.48 294.28 314.88 336.92 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 6.70 7.25 7.83 8.46 9.05 9.68 Septage
Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 100.99 109.07 117.80 127.22 136.13 145.66 Note: Initial rate increase effective July 1, 2025 includes modifications to the rate structure that result in a range of bill impacts depending on customer class and billed usage.

30.12 30.13
2025 Wastewater Rate Study February 21, 2025

30.14 30.15
February 21, 2025
City of Santa Cruz, Public Works Department
809 Center St., Rm 201
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Attention: Kevin Crossley, Assistant Public Works Director / City Engineer

Re: Wastewater Rate Study

Bartle Wells Associates is pleased to submit to the City of Santa Cruz (City) the attached Wastewater Rate Study. The study presents Bartle Wells Associate’s analysis of the operating and non-operating expenses of the City’s wastewater enterprise fund and provides five-year cash flow projections and rates. The primary purpose of this study was to analyze the City’s wastewater enterprise fund and make recommendations that would achieve financial sustainability while improving legal compliance and proportionality.

BWA finds that the rates and charges proposed in our report reflect the cost-of-service for each customer, follow generally accepted rate setting principles, and adhere to the substantive requirements of Proposition 218. The proposed rates incorporate both overall rate increases as well as some modifications to the rate structures designed to improve rate equity and align rates with the cost of providing service.

We have enjoyed working with the City on this rate study and appreciate the assistance of City staff members throughout the project. Please contact us with any future questions about this study and the rate recommendations.

Sincerely,

Erik Helgeson, MBA
Principal/ Vice President
2625 Alcatraz Ave, #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel 510 653 3399
www.bartlewells.com

30.16 Bartle Wells Associates
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Key Drivers of Proposed Rate Increases................................................................................ 1

1.3 Wastewater Rate Recommendations ................................................................................... 2

1.4 Regional Wastewater Rate Survey........................................................................................ 4 2 Background & Objectives............................................................................................ 5

2.1 Background and Wastewater System Overview................................................................... 5

2.2 Rate Study Objectives ........................................................................................................... 5 3 Legal Requirements & Rate Methodology................................................................... 6

3.1 Constitutional Rate Requirements........................................................................................ 6

3.2 Wastewater Rate-Setting Methodology ............................................................................... 7 4 Wastewater Financial Projections............................................................................... 9

4.1 Wastewater Financial Plan Overview.................................................................................... 9

4.2 Wastewater Financial Plan Assumptions.............................................................................. 9

4.3 Financial Plan Drivers..........................................................................................................12

4.4 Wastewater Cash Flow Projections.....................................................................................13 5 Cost of Service Analysis & Rate Derivation................................................................ 16

5.1 Wastewater Cost of Service Rate Derivation Process.........................................................16

5.2 Customer Characteristics....................................................................................................17

5.3 Customer Flows and Loadings.............................................................................................18

5.4 Cost of Service Analysis.......................................................................................................21

5.4.1 Cost Allocation Category Rate Revenue Requirements......................................................21

5.4.2 Functional Components......................................................................................................22

5.4.3 Functional Allocation...........................................................................................................23

5.4.4 Functional FY 24/25 Rate Revenue Requirements .............................................................24

5.4.5 Functional Component FY 24/25 Unit Costs.......................................................................24

5.4.6 Rate Revenue Requirements by Customer Class................................................................24

5.5 Rate Derivation....................................................................................................................26

5.5.1 Residential Rate Derivation................................................................................................. 26

5.5.2 Commercial Customer Class Rate Derivation......................................................................27

5.5.3 Industrial/Other Customer Class Rate Derivation...............................................................28

5.6 Proposed Wastewater Rates...............................................................................................29

5.7 Ready to Serve Rates...........................................................................................................30

5.8 Regional Wastewater Rate Survey......................................................................................30 6 Conclusion & Recommendations .............................................................................. 31

30.17 Bartle Wells Associates
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
TABLES
Table 1. Current and Proposed Wastewater Rates.............................................................................. 3 Table 2. Revenue Escalation Factors.................................................................................................... 9 Table 3. Cost Escalation Factors.........................................................................................................10 Table 4. Recommended Financial Reserves.......................................................................................11 Table 5. Capital Funding Sources .......................................................................................................12 Table 6. Detailed Cash Flow Projections............................................................................................14 Table 7. Customer Counts by Class....................................................................................................17 Table 8. Nonresidential Customer Flows...........................................................................................18 Table 9. Wastewater Flows................................................................................................................19 Table 10. Wastewater Strength and Loadings...................................................................................20 Table 11. Rate Revenue Requirements by Cost Allocation Category ................................................22 Table 12. Rate Revenue Requirements by Functional Components..................................................23 Table 13. FY 24/25 Functional Rate Revenue Requirements.............................................................24 Table 14. FY 24/25 Functional Component Unit Costs ......................................................................24 Table 15. Functional Allocation Units by Class...................................................................................24 Table 16. Total Functional Rate Revenue Requirements by Class.....................................................25 Table 17. Adjusted Rate Revenue Requirements by Class................................................................. 25 Table 18. Residential Rate Derivation ................................................................................................26 Table 19. Commercial Rate Derivation...............................................................................................28 Table 20. Industrial/Other Customer Class Rate Derivation..............................................................28 Table 21. Recommended Wastewater Rates.....................................................................................29 Table 22. Ready to Serve Rates..........................................................................................................30

FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Wastewater Rate Survey........................................................................................ 4 Figure 2: Cost-of-Service Rate Setting Methodology........................................................................... 8 Figure 3: Wastewater Projected Cashflow Graph..............................................................................15 Figure 4: Wastewater Cost of Service Analysis and Rate Derivation Process....................................16 Figure 5: Regional Single Family Residential Wastewater Rate Survey .............................................30 Appendix A - Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study Tables

30.18 Bartle Wells Associates
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Terms Descriptions
AWWA American Water Works Association
BWA Bartle Wells Associates
CCF One hundred Cubic Feet
CIP Capital Improvement Projects
City The City of Santa Cruz
COS Cost of Service
Cost Allocation Apportioning expenses to utility user fees and rates in order to charge customers proportionally to the level of benefit they receive
CPI Consumer Price Index/Indices
Enterprise Fund Funds are established to account for governmental activities that provide goods or services primarily to the public at large on a consumer fee basis Fixed Charges A charge that is held constant over a period of time and applied at even intervals FYE Fiscal Year End (June 30)
General Fund The main operating fund for the City
M1 Manual “Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges: Manual of Water Supply Practices M1", 6th edition published by AWWA
Meter Equivalent
Ratios
The ratio of a water meter's maximum safe flow in comparison to a smaller water meter
Multi-family Utility customers meeting the criteria of the multi-family class O&M Operations and maintenance
Prop. 218 Proposition 218, Added Articles 13C & 13D to the California Constitution R&R Repair and Replacement
Rate Setting Period Limited to five (5) years under Prop. 218.

Revenue
Requirements
The amount of future funding which needs to be recovered from an enterprise's user fees/rates
Solvent Able to pay long-term debts and other financial obligations Volumetric Rates Utility rate based on a metered volume of water

30.19 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 1
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction
The City of Santa Cruz (City) wastewater utility is a financially self-supporting enterprise that relies primarily on revenues from service charges to fund the costs of providing service. As such, the City’s rates need to be set at adequate levels to a) fund the costs of operating and maintaining the wastewater system, b) fund necessary capital improvements to keep the City’s infrastructure in good operating condition, and c) meet annual debt service funding requirements. The City has provided proactive financial stewardship by gradually raising rates over the past decade to keep revenues in line with the cost of providing service. The gradual rate increases have enabled the City to maintain the financial health of the utility.

In 2024, the City retained Bartle Wells Associates to develop long-term financial plans and rate studies for the City’s wastewater enterprise to determine recovery of costs for providing wastewater utility services. Proposed rates are designed to fund the operating and capital needs of the City’s utilities and equitably recover costs from all customers. Final recommendations incorporate input from City Staff.

1.2 Key Drivers of Proposed Rate Increases
The City’s wastewater utility faces a number of financial challenges in upcoming years that can be addressed via gradual annual rate increases. These financial challenges include:

Capital Improvement Needs & Rehabilitation of Aging Infrastructure The City takes a proactive approach to maintaining its wastewater system which requires a steady stream of repair, improvement, and replacement projects. The City has identified approximately $56.4 million of capital improvement projects over the next 5 years. The City will likely need to use a combination of financial reserves, rate revenue, and debt to fund this level of capital spending.

30.20 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 2
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

1.3 Wastewater Rate Recommendations
Updated financial projections for the wastewater enterprise indicate the need for annual wastewater revenue increases over the next five years. With the recommended rate increases, the City will be able to fund the capital projects necessary to continue providing a high level of wastewater service, pay for rising operating costs, and maintain the financial health of the enterprise.

BWA reviewed the City’s current wastewater rates and has the following recommendations to align rates with the current cost of providing service and improve compliance with the requirements of Proposition 218:
• Update the fixed and variable rates to proportionally reflect the cost-of-service analysis in this report.
• Consolidate hotels/motels and interdepartmental customers into the low, medium, and high strength customer categories as appropriate, based on class/customer characteristics. This recommendation is made because these classes lack substantive differentiation from the low, medium, and high strength classes.

Due to the cost-of-service analysis and structure adjustments, there will be some variation to the impacts to each customer class in the first year of the recommended rates, effective July 1, 2025.

The remaining four years of the recommended wastewater rate increases, starting July 1, 2026, are applied on an across‐the‐board basis with the same percentage increase to all charges.

The following table shows a schedule of proposed wastewater rates for the next five years.

30.21 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 3
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
Table 1. Current and Proposed Wastewater Rates
Note: Initial rate increase effective July 1, 2025 include modifications to the rate structure that result in a range of bill impacts depending on customer class and usage.

Current Projected Wastewater Rates Effective July 1
Rates 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Residential
Fixed Monthly Rates (per Dwelling Unit)
Single Family $65.00 $69.74 $75.32 $81.35 $87.04 $93.13 Multi-Family 53.10 57.58 62.19 67.17 71.87 76.90
Low Sewage Producer 38.20 41.94 45.30 48.92 52.34 56.00 Commercial
Fixed Monthly Rates
All Customers Varies $47.71 $51.53 $55.65 $59.55 $63.72 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf)
Low Strength 4.88 5.25 5.67 6.12 6.55 7.01
Medium Strength 4.99 5.79 6.59 7.12 7.62 8.15
High Strength 10.82 12.22 13.61 14.70 15.73 16.83
Industrial & Other
UCSC - Main Campus
Fixed Monthly Rates $66,886.30 $71,471.30 $77,189.00 $83,364.12 $89,199.61 $95,443.58 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 10.66 11.58 12.51 13.51 14.46 15.47 Graham Hill WTP
Fixed Monthly Rates 5,511.40 3,150.03 3,402.03 3,674.19 3,931.38 4,206.58 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 16.70 19.30 20.84 22.51 24.09 25.78 Landfill Leachate
Fixed Monthly Rates 2,769.40 3,071.12 3,316.81 3,582.15 3,832.90 4,101.20 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 8.51 9.09 9.82 10.61 11.35 12.14 Industrial
Fixed Monthly Rates 238.40 252.30 272.48 294.28 314.88 336.92 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 6.70 7.25 7.83 8.46 9.05 9.68 Septage
Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 100.99 109.07 117.80 127.22 136.13 145.66

30.22 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 4
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

1.4 Regional Wastewater Rate Survey
The following chart compares the wastewater bills for a typical single-family home to those of other regional agencies. The City’s wastewater rates are at the lower end of the range of coastal wastewater agencies. Many of these agencies are facing similar financial pressures and are either in the middle of multi-year rate increases or are anticipating raising rates in upcoming years.

Figure 1: Regional Wastewater Rate Survey

30.23 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 5
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
2 BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

2.1 Background and Wastewater System Overview
The City of Santa Cruz (City) wastewater system includes 21 pump stations and includes over 160 miles of sewer pipe and a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). The treatment facility treats more than 10 million gallons of wastewater each day, with approximately half of the waste generated within City limits and the other half generated by the Santa Cruz County and Sanitation District (SCCSD). The SCCSD is responsible for paying for their proportional share of operations and maintenance costs of the wastewater treatment facility.

On an annual basis, the City typically replaces 2,500 linear feet of deteriorated and undersized pipelines. Significant improvements to the wastewater system in recent years include the completion of 50 kilowatt photovoltaic system and integration of the 1.3 megawatt cogeneration system into the facility power grid. The City has been recognized on multiple occasions for its commitment to provide quality of life services to the community by maintaining outstanding wastewater maintenance procedures while helping to reduce the City’s carbon footprint and protect the environment.

The City’s utilities operate as self-supporting enterprise funds. Revenues are derived primarily from service charges. As such, the City must establish rates and charges adequate to fund the costs of providing service, including costs for ongoing operations, debt service, and capital improvements needed to keep the City’s aging utility infrastructure in safe and reliable operating condition.

2.2 Rate Study Objectives
In 2024, the City retained Bartle Wells Associates to develop a long-term financial plan and rate study for the City’s wastewater enterprise to determine recovery of costs for providing wastewater utility services. Key goals and objectives of this study include developing wastewater rates that:
• Recover the costs of providing service, including operating, capital, and debt funding needs; • Are fair and equitable to all customers;
• Are easy to understand and implement;
• Comply with the substantive requirements of the California Constitution, Article 13D, Section 6 (which was adopted by the voters as Proposition 218 in 1996) and the general mandate of Article 10, Section 2 that prohibits the wasteful use of water; • Support the City’s long-term operational and financial stability.

BWA worked closely with City staff to gather information and input, evaluate alternatives, and develop recommendations. This report summarizes key findings and recommendations for overall rate revenue increases over the next five years. The full set of tables are included in the appendix to this report.

30.24 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 6
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
3 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS & RATE METHODOLOGY

3.1 Constitutional Rate Requirements
The California Constitution includes two key articles that directly govern or impact the City’s wastewater rates: Article 10 and Article 13D. In accordance with California constitutional provisions, the proposed rates are designed to a) recover the City’s cost of providing service, b) recover revenues in proportion to the cost for serving each customer, and c) promote conservation and discourage waste.

Article 13D, Section 6
Proposition 218 was adopted by California voters in 1996 and added Articles 13C and 13D to the California Constitution. Article 13D, Section 6 governs property-related charges, which the California Supreme Court subsequently ruled includes ongoing utility system charges such as water, wastewater, and garbage service rates. Article 13D, Section 6 establishes a) procedural requirements for imposing or increasing property-related charges, and b) substantive requirements for those charges. Article 13D also requires voter approval for new or increased property-related charges but exempts rates for water, wastewater, and garbage services from this voting requirement if the rates are adopted by the appropriate procedure and meet the substantive requirements of Proposition 218.

The substantive requirements of Article 13D, Section 6 require the City’s wastewater rates to meet the following conditions:
1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property-related service.
2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.
3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. 4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question.
5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services, such as police or fire services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.

Statute of Limitations
Pursuant to California Government Code 53759, there is a 120-day statute of limitations for challenging any new, increased, or extended fees. This statute of limitations applies to the wastewater rates proposed in this rate study and is included in the Proposition 218 Notice.

30.25 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 7
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

3.2 Wastewater Rate-Setting Methodology
The California Constitution does not give agencies leeway to arbitrarily set rates purely based on policy preferences. Instead, it provides agencies with flexibility to implement rates within a framework established by Articles 10 and 13D. Together, these Articles establish that rates should both a) discourage waste and encourage conservation of water, and b) not exceed the costs of service attributable to each parcel or customer.

Wastewater utilities have used a wide range of approaches or perspectives for allocating and recovering their costs for providing service, and these costs are most commonly recovered from a combination of fixed and variable charges. The percentage of revenues derived from the fixed and variable charges varies for each agency. They should be proportional to each system’s expenditures and must not exceed the cost of providing service. A higher level of fixed charges provides better revenue stability and less dependence on variable sales. On the other hand, higher dependence on volumetric revenues provides a greater conservation incentive.

Depending on perspective, the same costs can reasonably be allocated 100 percent to fixed revenue recovery, 100 percent to variable rate recovery, or to some combination of the two. For example, debt service used to fund wastewater treatment facilities can legitimately be treated as a) a fixed annual cost that should be recovered from fixed charges, b) a cost related to meeting customer demand and therefore a cost that should be recovered from variable rates, or c) a cost that can be recovered from both fixed and variable rates in recognition of the two alternative perspectives.

Many of the utility’s costs are variable costs that vary by the size of the system including personnel, supplies, and utilities. However, a portion of these variable costs can reasonably be apportioned to fixed rate recovery, and vice versa with fixed costs. For example, a share of the fixed cost of salaries related to treatment plant operations can reasonably be recovered from usage-based charges as these costs are incurred to meet demand flows. For debt service, payments may be fixed annual costs but it is reasonable to recover some of these costs from usage-based rates as the costs are incurred to fund infrastructure that will improve the wastewater system. Ultimately, there is no single correct way to allocate or attribute costs. Hence, five similar agencies may have five different rate structures provided each agency can establish a reasonable cost basis for their own particular rate structure within the parameters of meeting the various requirements of the California Constitution.

While there is no single correct approach, BWA believes that costs should be allocated within a reasonable range of fixed and variable allocation that reflects both a) underlying cost causation, to the extent such causation can reasonably be determined or estimated, and b) the policy preferences of the agency in cases where a range of reasonable approaches can be justified.

30.26 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 8
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
Revenue Requirements
Determine future
funding requirements
from rates
Cost Allocation
Equitably apportion
costs to rate
components
Rate Design
Develop rates that
recover revenues in
proportion to the cost
of providing service
BWA uses a straightforward methodology to establish equitable charges that recover the cost of providing service and fairly apportion costs. The general methodology is summarized in the following figure.

Figure 2: Cost-of-Service Rate Setting Methodology
Key elements of this study include:
• Project Initiation and Data Collection – Review financial policies; collect financial and other relevant data; and review rate structures;
• Demand Analysis – Analyze past customer demands and customer characteristics to forecast future demands;
• Long Range Financial Plans – Develop financial projections to evaluate annual revenue requirements from rates and the overall level of rate increases needed to fund the costs of providing service and support long term financial stability; • Cost Allocation – Group the City’s costs in terms of the function they serve as a basis to proportionally allocate the revenue requirement from rates; • Cost-of-Service Rate Design – Develop rates that proportionately recover costs; and • Prop 218 Process – Ensure compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of Proposition 218.

30.27 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 9
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
4 WASTEWATER FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

4.1 Wastewater Financial Plan Overview
Bartle Wells Associates conducted an independent evaluation of the wastewater enterprise finances. Key observations include:
• The enterprise is in overall good financial health but will need rate increases to keep revenues in line with rising costs and fund needed capital improvements. • The City projects capital expenses of $56.4 million from FY 25/26 through FY 29/30. • Average wastewater operating expenses from FY 25/26 through FY 29/30 are projected to be $28.7 million per year.

BWA developed long-term cash flow projections to determine the wastewater enterprise’s annual revenue requirements and project required wastewater rate revenue increases. The financial projections incorporate the latest information available as well as a number of reasonable and slightly conservative assumptions developed with input from the City.

4.2 Wastewater Financial Plan Assumptions
Revenue Escalation Factors
The following table details the revenue escalation factors used to develop the long‐term cash flow projections. Escalation factors are based on input from City Staff, historical escalations, and conservative projections for future escalations to reasonably ensure that the maximum rates adopted by the City will provide sufficient revenues to support the City’s wastewater operations.

Table 2. Revenue Escalation Factors
Revenue Escalation Factors FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 Operating Costs 8.1% 5.9% 4.9% 4.6% 4.6%
Growth 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Interest on Reserves 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
Revenue Assumptions
• The wastewater enterprise is projected to begin FY 25/26 with about $26.5 million in reserves. • Projected customer growth is based on a conservative estimate of new customer connections to ensure rate revenue is sufficient to support wastewater operations. Most of the projected growth is coming from new planned multifamily housing units. • BWA did not escalate revenues for connection charges or other miscellaneous non-rate revenues in its projections. Recommended rates are the maximum rates the City can adopt, which is why BWA uses conservative estimates when making revenue projections.

30.28 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 10
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
• The City of Santa Cruz is responsible for the wastewater system in its entirety. SCCSD is only responsible for paying for their proportional share of costs for the WWTF. Operating cost revenues are for reimbursements allowed under the Joint Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement between Santa Cruz County and Sanitation District (SCCSD) and the City of Santa Cruz. These revenues are roughly 29% of annual O&M as of the date of this report and are directly tied to operating and maintenance costs incurred. This means that the revenues from reimbursements are expected to increase as operating costs increase, and decrease if operating costs decrease.
• Interest income is estimated based on projected reserve levels. Future projections are estimated based on a conservative interest earning estimate of 2.5%. Actual interest amounts will vary based on reserves and future interest earning rates.
• Rate adjustments are assumed to become effective July 1 of each year.

Cost Escalation Factors
The following table details the cost escalation factors used to develop long‐term cash flow projections. Escalation factors are based on input from City Staff, historical escalations, and conservative projections for future escalations to reasonably ensure that the maximum rates adopted by the City will provide sufficient revenues to support the City’s wastewater operations.

Table 3. Cost Escalation Factors
Cost Escalation Factors FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 General Inflation Factor 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Personnel Services 11.0% 7.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Professional Services 5.5% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Operating Supplies 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 4.5% 4.5%
Capital Costs 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Expense Assumptions
• Operating and maintenance costs are based on the FY 24/25 adopted budget and include updated estimates developed with the help of City Staff. • General operating and capital cost inflation is projected to escalate at an annual rate of 4%. This is a conservative estimated based on recent and historic inflation. • Operating Supply increases are partially driven by increases in chemical costs. Chemical costs have risen dramatically in recent years and the City projects chemical costs to increase at an annual rate of 10% for three more years. This report projects that the current and high inflation level will gradually drop back towards general inflation trends. • Personnel Services costs are increasing due to an adjustment in cost allocation methodology for central services provided to the wastewater enterprise and salary increase projections. The City is projecting an initial increase to the wastewater enterprise’s proportional share of central services for FY 25/26, allocation for future years is anticipated to drop back towards general

30.29 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 11
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
inflation trends. The City projects the cost of salaries and benefits to increase at an annual rate of 5% based on projected future cost of living adjustments and projected inflation of specific benefit expenses such as health insurance.
• Joint capital projects receive reimbursement under the Joint Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement between Santa Cruz County and Sanitation District and the City of Santa Cruz at an 8/17 ratio of project costs.
• Debt service projections are based on outstanding debt schedules and projected issuances of new debt. The financial plan assumes the issuance of a $36.0 million bond in FY 2028/29 to fund the wastewater treatment facility electrical upgrade project.

Fund Reserves
BWA recommends the City maintain prudent fund reserves. Fund reserves will fluctuate based on the timing of revenues and expenses, but the proposed rates are projected to provide the wastewater enterprise sufficient fund reserves. BWA reviewed the City’s reserve policy and recommends the wastewater enterprise aim to meet or exceed the reserve level criteria shown in the following table. The emergency fund reserve level should be periodically adjusted for inflation and risk levels.

Table 4. Recommended Fund Reserves
Reserve
Description
Recommended
Minimum Balance Purpose
Operations &
Maintenance
Six Months of Operating
Expenditures
Cash flow and liquidity in case of revenue
loss/interruption
Debt Service One Year Annual Debt
Service To meet debt service coverage ratios
Emergency $4,000,000 Additional funds available in an unforeseen catastrophic event or emergencies

30.30 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 12
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

4.3 Financial Plan Drivers
The City is anticipating a number of manageable financial challenges that will require gradual rate increases in upcoming years. Key drivers of future rate increases are summarized below.

Ongoing Cost Inflation
The City’s wastewater enterprise faces ongoing operating cost inflation due to annual increases in a range of expenses including staffing, utilities, insurance, supplies, etc. On top of rate increases needed for other purposes, annual rate increases are needed to keep revenues aligned with cost inflation and prevent rates from falling behind the cost of providing service. Historically, inflation consistently hovered between 2% and 3%. Currently, inflation has mostly normalized after fortyyear highs, but remains near 3%. Given the recent volatility, BWA designed the inflation projections to be slightly conservative to leave the City in a strong financial position while not driving excessive rate increases.

Capital Improvement Needs & Rehabilitation of Aging Infrastructure The City takes a proactive approach to maintaining its wastewater system which requires a steady stream of repair, improvement, and replacement projects. Accounting for construction cost inflation, the City has identified approximately $56.4 million of capital improvement projects over the next 5 years. SCCSD will participate in projects for the wastewater treatment plant (WWTF) and is expected to fund an additional $29.9 million of capital costs.

The largest upcoming capital project is the wastewater treatment facility electrical upgrade project.

SCCSD will provide 8/17 of the funding. This study assumes the City will finance its share of project costs by issuing a $36.0 million bond in FY 2028/29. With the recommended rate increases, the City has the capacity to secure the entirety of the funding and be reimbursed for the annual debt service by SCCSD. However, this is not recommended as it will limit the City’s capacity to secure future financing for other wastewater projects.

The following tables shows the projected capital funding sources for the next five years.

Table 5. Capital Funding Sources
Capital Funding FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Total Capital Expenditures $18,021,120 $10,194,080 $7,789,683 $24,596,276 $25,732,209 Capital Funding $18,021,120 $10,194,080 $7,789,683 $24,596,276 $25,732,209 Use of New Debt Proceeds 12,000,000 0 0 8,000,000 8,000,000 County WWTP Participation $2,581,647 $3,321,148 $2,527,636 $10,638,831 $10,906,935 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Cash Funded Capital $3,439,473 $6,872,932 $5,262,048 $5,957,445 $6,825,273

30.31 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 13
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

4.4 Wastewater Cash Flow Projections
Long-term cash-flow projections were developed based on the assumptions and key drivers of future rate increases described above. The projections were used to determine the wastewater utility’s annual revenue requirements and project required wastewater rate revenue increases. The long-term cash-flow projections incorporate the latest information available from the City’s budget, annual reports, capital spending projections, metered water demand data, as well as a number of reasonable assumptions developed with input from the City. The overall rate revenue increases are designed to fund the City’s cost of providing service, maintain roughly balanced budgets, maintain healthy debt service coverage, and maintain prudent reserves. The projections indicate the need for rate increases. Actual impacts to customers wastewater bills will vary based on strength category and water use, due to the outcome of the updated cost-of-service analysis.

In future years, the City can re-evaluate its finances and revenue requirements and adjust rates as needed based on updated projections. However, while the City always has the flexibility to implement rate adjustments that are lower than adopted, pursuant to Proposition 218, future rates cannot exceed adopted increases without going through the Proposition 218 process again.

The rate projections shown on the following table are designed to fund the City’s operating and capital costs while maintaining prudent reserves.

30.32 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 14
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
Table 6. Wastewater Cash Flow Projections
Wastewater Cashflow FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 Actual Est. Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue Growth 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Rate Revenue Increases 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.0% 7.0%
Beginning Reserve Balance 23,188,000 25,922,000 26,549,000 27,559,000 26,221,000 27,875,000 28,992,000 Revenues
Rate Revenue
Total Rate Revenue 19,852,000 21,004,000 22,911,000 24,991,000 27,260,000 29,460,000 31,837,000 Non-Rate Revenue
Sewer Service Charges - County 5,080,000 6,880,000 7,439,000 7,875,000 8,263,000 8,641,000 9,035,000 WTP/Landfill Discharge Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sewer Septage Service Charge 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,080,000 1,166,000 1,260,000 1,348,000 1,442,000 Sewer Connections - Customers 100,000 100,000 104,000 108,000 112,000 117,000 122,000 Other Revenue 24,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Non-Rate Revenue 6,549,000 8,387,000 9,039,000 9,574,000 10,069,000 10,549,000 11,051,000 Total Revenues 26,401,000 29,391,000 31,950,000 34,565,000 37,329,000 40,009,000 42,888,000 Projected Debt Proceeds 13,740,000 12,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 Expenses
Operating Expenses
Personnel Services 10,130,000 10,782,000 11,980,000 12,829,000 13,494,000 14,193,000 14,926,000 Professional Services 7,523,000 7,814,000 8,251,000 8,581,000 8,924,000 9,281,000 9,653,000 Operating Supplies 3,845,000 4,514,000 4,808,000 5,126,000 5,469,000 5,713,000 5,968,000 Other Materials and Services 63,000 107,000 111,000 116,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 Other Charges 461,000 447,000 464,000 483,000 502,000 522,000 543,000 Other Financing Uses 682,000 209,000 217,000 226,000 235,000 245,000 254,000 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Operating Expenses 22,704,000 23,873,000 25,831,000 27,361,000 28,744,000 30,079,000 31,474,000 Non-Operating Expenses
Debt Service 2020 I-Bank 176,000 176,000 176,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 174,000 Debt Service 2025 I-Bank 0 0 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 New Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 1,187,000 2,374,000
Rate Funded Capital 3,228,000 4,715,000 3,439,000 6,873,000 5,262,000 5,957,000 6,825,000 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Non-Operating Expenses 3,404,000 4,891,000 5,109,000 8,542,000 6,931,000 8,813,000 10,867,000 Total Expenses 26,108,000 28,764,000 30,940,000 35,903,000 35,675,000 38,892,000 42,341,000 Revenues Less Expenses 293,000 627,000 1,010,000 (1,338,000) 1,654,000 1,117,000 547,000 Ending Reserve Balance 23,481,000 26,549,000 27,559,000 26,221,000 27,875,000 28,992,000 29,539,000 Fund Reserve Target 2 15,528,000 16,112,500 18,585,500 19,349,500 20,041,000 21,895,500 23,779,000 180-days O&M+Debt Svc+$4M Emergency CIP
Debt Coverage Ratio, Min. 1.3 21.01 31.35 3.66 4.32 5.14 3.48 2.82 1 Assumes proposed rates are adopted July 1, 2025 and each July 1 thereafter. 2 180-days O&M+Debt Svc+$4M Emergency CIP

30.33 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 15
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
The following figure shows cash flow projections incorporating the assumptions described above.

Figure 3: Wastewater Projected Cashflow Graph
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60 Rate Funded Capital
Debt Service
O&M
Revenue
Reserves
City of Santa Cruz
Projected Sewer Revenues & Expenses ($ millions)

30.34 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 16
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
5 COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS & RATE DERIVATION

5.1 Wastewater Cost of Service Rate Derivation Process
BWA derived updated wastewater rates that account for both a) the overall rate increases identified in the financial projections, and b) proposed rate structure modifications. The proposed rates are designed to equitably apportion and recover costs from the City’s customer base. The basic methodology used to develop new rates includes the steps summarized in the figure below.

Figure 4: Wastewater Cost of Service Analysis and Rate Derivation Process Estimate Wastewater Flow & Strength Loadings
Wastewater flow volume, BOD concentrations, and TSS concentrations were determined for each customer class.

Determine Annual Revenue Requirements
Determine the utility’s costs for providing wastwater services and allocate costs by cost allocation category.

Allocate Cost to Functional Components
Each cost was allocated to function: fixed (per customer), flow, BOD, and TSS.

Derive Unit Cost for Functional Components Based on FY 24/25 Rate Revenue Divide costs allocated for recovery from functional components by allocation units to derive unit costs for functional components.

Determine FY 24/25 Rate Revenue Revenue Requirements by Customer Classes Multiply functional unit rates by the billing units associated with each functional component for each customer class to determine the revenue requirement of each class.

Residential Rate Derivation
Fixed and volumetric portions of
the residential revenue
requirement were identified.

The variable portion of the rates
for each class are based on
estimated use per dwelling unit.

The final residential rate
includes the fixed and
volumetric component.

Commercial Rate Derivation
The fixed rates were derived
based on the identified fixed
portion of the revenue
requirement. Volumetric
rates were derived to recover
the remaining revenue
requirement amount and
were calculated based on the
strength assumptions for
each sub-class.

Industrial/Other Rate
Derivation
The fixed rates were
derived based on the
identified fixed portion of
the revenue requirement.

Volumetric rates were
derived to recover the
remaining revenue
requirement amount.

30.35 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 17
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

5.2 Customer Characteristics
The following table summarizes the City’s wastewater customer counts by class.

Table 7. Customer Counts by Class
Customer Characteristics FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25
Customer Counts Actual Actual Projected
Residential
Single Family 8,162 8,291 8,291
Multi-Family 6,692 7,367 7,367
Low Sewage Producer 7,446 7,031 7,031 ________ ________ ________ Total 22,300 22,689 22,689
Commercial
Low Strength 887 880 880
Medium Strength 251 251 251
High Strength 110 108 108
Schools, 35% irrigation 1 1 1
Schools, 60% irrigation 3 3 3
Schools, 85% irrigation 3 3 3
Ready-to-Serve 2 2 2 ________ ________ ________
Total 1,257 1,248 1,248
Industrial/Other
Industrial 7 7 7
UCSC - Main Campus 1 1 1
Graham Hill WTP 1 1 1
Landfill Leachate 1 1 1 ________ ________ ________
Total 10 10 10
Total Customer Counts 23,567 23,947 23,947

30.36 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 18
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
The following table includes historic and projected water use by fiscal year for the City’s nonresidential customers.

Table 8. Nonresidential Customer Flows

5.3 Customer Flows and Loadings
Estimated flows and loadings of each customer class are based on analysis of recent water consumption data by fiscal year and wastewater strength assignments for each customer class. • Residential flows per unit are based on the average winter water use per unit. Residential wastewater strength concentrations are based on estimates previously published by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), adjusted for water conservation, City specific demands, and input from City Staff.
• Commercial/Other flows are estimated based on projected water use. A return to sewer factor (RTS) is applied to adjust water use to estimated flows into the wastewater system. Wastewater strength assumptions for the customer classes are based on the type of customers grouped in each class.

The resulting flow and strength projections for all wastewater customer classes are shown on the following tables. These projections provide the basis for allocating costs and deriving equitable wastewater rates for each customer class.

Customer Characteristics FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25
Billed Customer Flows (hcf) Actual Actual
Projected
(Avg. 23 & 24)
Commercial
Low Strength 150,189 154,336 152,263
Medium Strength 171,018 172,960 171,989
High Strength 46,112 49,635 47,874
Schools, 35% irrigation 551 1,174 863
Schools, 60% irrigation 2,690 2,780 2,735
Schools, 85% irrigation 4,133 4,626 4,380
Ready-to-Serve 6,282 7,443 6,863 ________ ________ ________ Total 380,975 392,954 386,965
Industrial/Other
Industrial 33,027 39,108 36,068
UCSC - Main Campus 172,616 173,149 172,883
Graham Hill WTP 24,823 25,971 25,397
Landfill Leachate 27,507 22,007 24,757 ________ ________ ________ Total 257,974 260,236 259,105
Total Billed Customer Flows 638,949 653,190 646,069

30.37 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 19
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
Table 9. Wastewater Flows
Sewer
Est. Mo.

Flow CCF
Annual
Water
Return to
Sewer
Classification Units Per Unit Use CCF1 Flow Factor2 CCF MG3 Residential
Single Family 8,291 5.30 527,308 100% 527,308 394
Multi-Family 7,367 3.90 344,776 100% 344,776 258
Low Sewage Producer 7,031 2.10 177,181 100% 177,181 133 Subtotal Residential 22,689 1,049,264 1,049,264 785
Commercial
Low Strength 7 880 152,263 80% 121,810 91
Medium Strength 8 251 171,989 80% 137,591 103
High Strength 108 47,874 80% 38,299 29
Schools, 35% irrigation 1 863 65% 561 0
Schools, 60% irrigation 3 2,735 40% 1,094 1
Schools, 85% irrigation 3 4,380 15% 657 0
Ready-to-Serve 2 6,863 10% 686 1
Subtotal Commercial 1,248 386,965 300,698 225
Other
Industrial 7 36,068 80% 28,854 22
UCSC - Main Campus 1 172,883 100% 172,883 129
Graham Hill WTP 1 25,397 100% 25,397 19
Landfill Leachate 1 24,757 100% 24,757 19
Subtotal Other 3 223,037 223,037 167
Total 23,947 1,695,334 1,601,853 1,198
1 "CCF" stands for hundred cubic feet.
2 Flow factor based on estimated flow returning to sewer. 3 "MG" stands for million gallons.
4 "GPD" stands for gallons per day.
5 "BOD" stands for biochemical oxygen demand.
6 "TSS" stands for total suspended solids.
7 City Facilities class incorporated into Low Strength class. 8 Hotels/Motels class incorporated into Medium Strength class.

Projected
Wastewater Flow

30.38 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 20
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
Table 10. Wastewater Strength and Loadings
Strength (mg/l) Loadings (lbs)
Customer Classification CCF MG3 GPD4 BOD5 TSS6 BOD TSS
Residential
Single Family 527,308 394 1,080,695 300 300 987,731 987,731 Multi-Family 344,776 258 706,603 300 300 645,819 645,819 Low Sewage Producer 177,181 133 363,125 300 300 331,888 331,888 Subtotal Residential 1,049,264 785 2,150,423 1,965,439 1,965,439 Commercial
Low Strength 7 121,810 91 249,644 150 150 114,085 114,085 Medium Strength 8 137,591 103 281,987 225 225 193,298 193,298 High Strength 38,299 29 78,492 800 800 191,306 191,306
Schools, 35% irrigation 561 0 1,149 150 150 525 525
Schools, 60% irrigation 1,094 1 2,242 150 150 1,025 1,025 Schools, 85% irrigation 657 0 1,346 150 150 615 615
Ready-to-Serve 686 1 1,406 150 150 643 643
Subtotal Commercial 300,698 225 616,267 501,496 501,496 Other
Industrial 28,854 22 59,135 270 270 48,643 48,643
UCSC - Main Campus 172,883 129 354,315 750 750 809,591 809,591 Graham Hill WTP 25,397 19 52,051 0 2,200 0 348,870
Landfill Leachate 24,757 19 50,739 400 250 61,833 38,646 Subtotal Other 223,037 167 457,105 871,424 1,197,106
Total 1,601,853 1,198 3,282,931 3,387,002 3,712,684
1 "CCF" stands for hundred cubic feet.
2 Flow factor based on estimated flow returning to sewer. 3 "MG" stands for million gallons.
4 "GPD" stands for gallons per day.
5 "BOD" stands for biochemical oxygen demand.
6 "TSS" stands for total suspended solids.
7 City Facilities class incorporated into Low Strength class. 8 Hotels/Motels class incorporated into Medium Strength class.

Projected
Wastewater Flow

30.39 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 21
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

5.4 Cost of Service Analysis
This section describes the steps BWA took to determine the rate revenue requirement need from each customer class that is proportional to their cost of service.

5.4.1 Cost Allocation Category Rate Revenue Requirements Cost allocation categories are groupings of the wastewater’s non-rate revenues and expenses that are then allocated to the utility’s functional components (Customer, Flow, BOD & TSS, described in the next section). In each cost allocation category, the expenses are reduced by non-rate revenues to determine the amount in each cost allocation category that needs to be funded by rates.

The cash flow shows revenues and expenses using the City's budget labels, which don't align well with the functions of the wastewater system. The City also tracks expenses by activity, and the activities do align with functions of the wastewater system. The revenues and expenses in the allocation categories presented in this section are the same as those in the cash flow except they are now grouped by activity. To ensure the rates derived for the next five years are proportional to the costs, the amounts in the allocation categories are based on an average of the projected revenues and expenses for the next five years.

The cost allocation categories are as follows:
• As All Other – Expenses in this category do not impact the functional allocation because they are driven by the overall activity of the utility. These expenses include other financing uses, namely transfers to other City funds. They were allocated entirely to the “As All Other” functional component.
• Customer Service – Expenses in this category are related to the customer service provided to the City’s wastewater customers. These costs are driven by the number of customers and are entirely allocated to the customer functional component. • Collection – Expenses in this category are related to the wastewater collection system. These costs are largely driven by the volume of wastewater flow and also impacted by the number of connections to the system. Expenses in this category are allocated to the customer and flow functional components.
• Treatment – Expenses in this category are related to wastewater treatment. These costs are largely driven by the volume of wastewater flows and loadings and also impacted by the number of connections to the system. Expenses in this category are allocated to the customer and flow and strength functional components.
• Admin – Expenses in this category are related to internal administration services provided to the wastewater utility. These costs are largely driven by the by the number of customers and also impacted by the volume of wastewater flows and loadings. Expenses in this category are allocated to the customer and flow and strength functional components.

30.40 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 22
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
• Engineering – Expenses in this category are related to engineering activities performed by the wastewater utility. Expenses in this category are allocated to the flow and strength functional components based on the blend of capital collection and treatment projects. • Capital – Expenses in this category reflect costs for capital projects. This category is allocated to the flow and strength functional components based on the blend of capital collection and treatment projects.
• Debt – Expenses in this category reflect annual debt service payments. Expenses in this category are allocated to the flow and strength functional components based on the blend of capital collection and treatment projects.

The following table shows rate revenue requirements by cost allocation category based on a fiveyear average of projected revenue and expenses for the City’s wastewater utility.

Table 11. Rate Revenue Requirements by Cost Allocation Category

5.4.2 Functional Components
Functional cost components reflect the functions of the utility that drive its costs. The functional cost components used in this study are as follows:
• Customer – Costs related to providing service to each customer were allocated to this functional component. These costs are related to the number of customers served by the City. • Flow – Costs related to system flows were allocated to this functional component. These costs are related to the volume of wastewater flows.
• BOD – Costs related to treating BOD are allocated to this functional component. These costs are allocated related to the pounds of BOD loadings treated. • TSS – Costs related to treating TSS are allocated to this functional component. These costs are allocated related to the pounds of TSS loadings treated. 5-Year Average
Allocation
Category Expenses
Less Non-Rate
Revenue
Revenue
Requirement
As All Other 235,400 433,200 (197,800)
Customer Service 491,162 0 491,162
Collection 4,692,693 0 4,692,693
Treatment 21,685,603 9,509,800 12,175,803
Admin 1,350,510 0 1,350,510
Engineering 242,433 0 242,433
Capital 5,671,200 112,700 5,558,500
Debt 2,381,200 0 2,381,200
Total $36,750,200 $10,055,700 $26,694,500

30.41 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 23
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

5.4.3 Functional Allocation
The purpose of the functional allocation is to determine the portion of rate revenues needed to support each function of the wastewater system. This is done by assigning wastewater system costs to each allocation category for revenue recovery via the functional cost components of customer costs, flow, BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), and TSS (total suspended solids). While there is no single correct approach for cost allocation, BWA believes that costs should be allocated within a reasonable range that reflects both a) underlying cost causation, to the extent such causation can reasonably be determined or estimated, and b) the policy preferences of the agency in cases where a range of reasonable approaches can be justified. This process is intended to proportionately allocate costs to each functional component to determine the revenue requirement for each component. The allocations to each functional component were based on input from City staff.

The following table shows a breakdown of the revenue recovery needed from rates (revenue requirement) for each cost allocation category allocated by function. The result of this allocation is the percent of the revenue requirement associated with each functional allocation category.

Table 12. Rate Revenue Requirements by Functional Components 5-Year Average
Allocation Category
Revenue
Requirement Customer Flow BOD TSS
As All
Other Total
As All Other (197,800) 0% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 100.0%
Customer Service 491,162 100% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 100.0%
Collection 4,692,693 0% 90% 5% 5% 0.0% 100.0%
Treatment 12,175,803 20% 32% 24% 24% 0.0% 100.0%
Admin 1,350,510 85% 5% 5% 5% 0.0% 100.0%
Engineering 242,433 25% 38% 19% 19% 0.0% 100.0%
Capital 5,558,500 25% 38% 19% 19% 0.0% 100.0%
Debt 2,381,200 25% 38% 19% 19% 0.0% 100.0%
Total $26,694,500 $6,119,789 $11,255,506 $4,758,503 $4,758,503 -$197,800 $26,694,500 Cost Allocation, $ $6,119,789 $11,255,506 $4,758,503 $4,758,503 $26,892,300 Cost Allocation, % 22.8% 41.8% 17.7% 17.7% 100%

30.42 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 24
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

5.4.4 Functional FY 24/25 Rate Revenue Requirements
To determine current rate revenue requirements by function, projected rate revenues for FY 24/25 are multiplied by the functional allocation percentages developed above. Approximately $4.8 million of the wastewater utility’s costs are fixed expenses that do not vary with changes in customer flow and strength characteristics.

Table 13. FY 24/25 Functional Rate Revenue Requirements FY 24/25 Functional Rate
Revenue Requirement
FY 24/25
Rate
Revenue Customer Flow BOD TSS
Functional Allocation % 100% 22.8% 41.8% 17.7% 17.7%
FY 24/25 Functional Rate
Revenue Requirements $ $21,004,000 $4,788,912 $8,779,672 $3,717,708 $3,717,708

5.4.5 Functional Component FY 24/25 Unit Costs
The table below calculates the unit rates for each functional cost component. The wastewater rate revenue requirements from the prior table for each functional component are divided by the units related to each function.

Table 14. FY 24/25 Functional Component Unit Costs
Allocation Units Fixed Flow BOD TSS
(Customers) (CCF) (LBS) (LBS)
Revenue Requirement $4,788,912 $8,779,672 $3,717,708 $3,717,708 Demand Units 23,947 1,601,853 3,387,002 3,712,684
Functional Unit Rates $199.98 $5.48 $1.10 $1.00

5.4.6 Rate Revenue Requirements by Customer Class
Total revenue requirements for each customer class is calculated by multiplying the unit rate for each functional cost component by the units related to each function. The table below details the units related to each function for each customer class.

Table 15. Functional Allocation Units by Class
Allocation Units Fixed Flow BOD TSS
(Customers) (CCF) (LBS) (LBS)
Residential 22,689 1,049,264 1,965,439 1,965,439
Commercial 1,248 300,698 501,496 501,496
Industrial 7 28,854 48,643 48,643
UCSC - Main Campus 1 172,883 809,591 809,591
Graham Hill WTP 1 25,397 0 348,870
Landfill Leachate 1 24,757 61,833 38,646
Total 23,947 1,601,853 3,387,002 3,712,684

30.43 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 25
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
The table below details the total revenue requirements by functional cost component for each customer class.

Table 16. Total Functional Rate Revenue Requirements by Class Revenue Requirements Fixed Flow BOD TSS
Total Revenue
Requirement
(Customers) (CCF) (LBS) (LBS)
Residential $4,537,338 $5,750,961 $2,157,344 $1,968,098 $14,413,741 Commercial 249,575 1,648,108 550,462 502,175 2,950,319
Industrial 1,400 158,147 53,393 48,709 261,649
UCSC - Main Campus 200 947,560 888,639 810,686 2,647,085 Graham Hill WTP 200 139,201 0 349,342 488,743
Landfill Leachate 200 135,694 67,870 38,698 242,463
Total 4,788,912 8,779,672 3,717,708 3,717,708 $21,004,000 After determining the revenue requirements by class, a portion of the flow functional cost component was reallocated to be recovered from the fixed charge to reflect the fixed nature of some collection system costs. The fixed allocation for the industrial and UCSC customer classes was determined in rate design to more reasonably collect the fixed charge from those customers.

Table 17. Adjusted Rate Revenue Requirements by Class
Adjusted Revenue
Requirements
Flow
Allocation
to Fixed Fixed Flow BOD TSS Total
Residential 25.0% $5,975,078 $4,313,221 $2,157,344 $1,968,098 $14,413,741 Commercial 25.0% 661,602 1,236,081 550,462 502,175 $2,950,319 Industrial n/a
UCSC - Main Campus n/a
Graham Hill WTP 25.0% 35,000 104,401 0 349,342 $488,743 Landfill Leachate 25.0% 34,124 101,771 67,870 38,698 $242,463

30.44 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 26
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

5.5 Rate Derivation
This section describes how rates for each sub-class of customer are derived to reflect the proportional cost of providing wastewater service.

5.5.1 Residential Rate Derivation
The City currently charges all residential customers a fixed monthly rate per dwelling unit.

Residential customers are split into three subclasses which include, single-family, multi-family, and low sewage producers. Low Sewage Producers are single-family customers or multi-family customers who average 225 cubic feet or less of water per month, per dwelling unit, during four out of the five winter months (December through April).

The total residential customer class revenue requirement was calculated above. A portion of the residential revenue requirement is recovered as a fixed amount per dwelling unit for each residential sub class to reflect the fixed capacity that must be maintained for each dwelling unit. The remaining portion of the revenue requirement, the flow portion, is recovered based on the estimated wastewater flow per dwelling unit for each residential subclass. Estimated flows per dwelling unit were based on an analysis of winter water use. The monthly fixed rate component and the monthly flow rate component are added together to derive the total monthly rate per dwelling unit.

The following table details the calculation for residential wastewater rates.

Table 18. Residential Rate Derivation
Residential Rate Derivation
Unit Cost Calculation Total Fixed Flow
(Dwelling Units) (CCF)
Revenue Requirement $14,413,741 $5,975,078 $8,438,663
Allocation % 100.0% 41.5% 58.5%
Allocation Units 22,689 1,049,264
Unit Cost ($ per Unit) $263.35 $8.04
Monthly Monthly Monthly Total
Fixed Rate Derivation Flow Flow Rate Fixed Rate Monthly Rate (Estimated CCF/ Dwelling Unit) ($/ Dwelling
Unit)
($/ Dwelling
Unit)
($/ Dwelling
Unit)
Single Family 5.30 $42.63 $21.95 $64.57
Multi-Family 3.90 $31.37 $21.95 $53.31
Low Sewage Producers 2.10 $16.89 $21.95 $38.83

30.45 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 27
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

5.5.2 Commercial Customer Class Rate Derivation
The existing commercial class has several sub classes with different strength and flow characteristics. Bartle Wells Associates recommends the City consolidate subclasses that have little differentiating characteristics from the low, medium, or high strength customer sub-classes. BWA recommends including hotels/motels in the medium strength sub-class, interdepartmental customers in the low strength sub-class, and reclassifying the smaller industrial customers into either the low, medium, or high strength sub-classes as appropriate based on each customer’s characteristics.

Commercial customers are currently charged monthly fixed rates per customer, plus a quantity rate per CCF of estimated wastewater discharge. The current fixed rates vary by sub-class. BWA recommends all commercial customers pay the same fixed charge to reflect the minimum fixed costs to serve the capacity of each connection. The costs related to the different strength and flow characteristics for each sub-class will be reflected in the quantity rate recovered per unit of water demand.

The total FY 2024/25 revenue requirement for this class is calculated above. The fixed revenue recovery was set to reflect the fixed capacity that must be maintained per connection.

The remaining portion of the revenue requirement was reallocated proportionally, based on the wastewater system allocation to flow, BOD and TSS. The volumetric unit cost per CCF is calculated based on strength assumptions for each sub-class and the commercial class flow, BOD and TSS unit costs. Volumetric costs are adjusted by the estimated return to sewer factor for each sub-class, to reflect the metered water use. This adjustment is necessary to account for the estimated sewer discharge of commercial customers based on year-round water use data, which includes some water use that does not enter the sewer system.

30.46 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 28
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
The following table displays the derivation of commercial wastewater rates.

Table 19. Commercial Rate Derivation

5.5.3 Industrial/Other Customer Class Rate Derivation
Customers in the Other customer class include industrial customers and other large wastewater customers. As shown above, each subclass has its FY 2024/25 revenue requirement calculated as if each subclass is its own customer class. Other class customers are charged a monthly fixed rate per customer plus a quantity rate per CCF of water use. Monthly fixed rates are calculated by dividing the total fixed revenue requirements for each customer by 12 (months). Volumetric costs are determined by dividing the remaining revenue requirement for each customer by their projected water use.

Table 20. Industrial/Other Customer Class Rate Derivation Commercial Rate Derivation
Unit Cost Calculation Total Fixed Flow BOD TSS
(Custome
)
(CCF) (LBS) (LBS)
Revenue Requirement $2,950,319 $661,602 $1,236,081 $550,462 $502,175 Allocation % 100.0% 22.4% 42.0% 17.8% 17.8%
Allocation Units 1,248 300,698 501,496 501,496
Unit Cost ($ per Unit) $530.13 $4.11 $1.10 $1.00
Total
Volumetric Volumetric Unit Cost Volumetric Return Volumetric Monthly Rate Derivation BOD SS Flow BOD TSS Unit Cost to Sewer Rates Fixed Rates (MG/L) (MG/L) ($/ CCF) ($/ CCF) ($/ CCF) ($/ CCF) ($/ CCF) ($/ CCF) Low Strength 150 150 $4.11 $1.03 $0.94 $6.07 80% $4.86 $44.18 Medium Strength 225 225 $4.11 $1.54 $1.41 $7.06 80% $5.65 $44.18 High Strength 800 800 $4.11 $5.48 $5.00 $14.59 80% $11.67 $44.18 Hotels/Motels 225 225 $4.11 $1.54 $1.41 $7.06 80% $5.65 $44.18 Schools, 35% irrigation 150 150 $4.11 $1.03 $0.94 $6.07 65% $3.95 $44.18 Schools, 60% irrigation 150 150 $4.11 $1.03 $0.94 $6.07 40% $2.43 $44.18 Schools, 85% irrigation 150 150 $4.11 $1.03 $0.94 $6.07 15% $0.91 $44.18 Ready-to-Serve 150 150 $4.11 $1.03 $0.94 $6.07 10% $0.61 $44.18 Strength
Industrial/Other Customer Class Rate Derivation
Fixed Rate Derivation Variable Rate Derivation
Strength Revenue Fixed Revenue Monthly Revenue Return Water Water BOD SS Requirement Allocation Requirement Customers Fixed Rate Requirement to Sewer Use Use (MG/L) (MG/L) (#) ($/ Customer) (CCF) ($/ CCF)
Industrial 270 270 $261,649 7.5% $19,624 7 $233.62 $242,025 80% 36,068 $6.71 UCSC - Main Campus 750 750 $2,647,085 30.0% $794,126 1 $66,177.13 $1,852,960 100% 172,883 $10.72 Graham Hill WTP 0 2200 $488,743 7.2% $35,000 1 $2,916.69 $453,743 100% 25,397 $17.87 Landfill Leachate 400 250 $242,463 7.2% $34,124 1 $2,843.63 $208,339 100% 24,757 $8.42

30.47 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 29
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

5.6 Proposed Wastewater Rates
The following table shows a 5-year schedule of proposed wastewater rates. The first rate increase is projected to become effective on July 1, 2025. The rates are designed to recover the City’s costs of providing wastewater service while achieving roughly balanced budgets.

Table 21. Proposed Wastewater Rates

Note: Initial rate increase effective July 1, 2025 includes modifications to the rate structure that result in a range of bill impacts depending on customer class and billed usage.

30.48 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 30
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study

5.7 Ready to Serve Rates
The City also serves a small number of customers whose water use does not accurately reflect their wastewater discharge. Rates for these customers are based on the standard commercial rates but account for reduced levels of wastewater discharge.

Table 22. Ready to Serve Rates

5.8 Regional Wastewater Rate Survey
The following chart compares the wastewater bills for a typical single-family home to those of other regional agencies. The City’s wastewater rates are at the lower end of the range of coastal wastewater agencies. Many of these agencies are facing similar financial pressures and are either in the middle of multi-year rate increases or are anticipating raising rates in upcoming years.

Figure 5: Regional Single Family Residential Wastewater Rate Survey Current Projected Wastewater Rates Effective July 1
Rates 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Ready to Serve
Fixed Monthly Rates
All Customers $41.70 $47.71 $51.53 $55.65 $59.55 $63.72 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf)
Schools, 35% irrigation 4.09 4.26 4.60 4.97 5.32 5.69
Schools, 60% irrigation 3.04 2.62 2.83 3.06 3.27 3.50
Schools, 85% irrigation 0.91 0.98 1.06 1.14 1.22 1.31
Other Ready-to-Serve 0.48 0.66 0.71 0.77 0.82 0.88

30.49 Bartle Wells Associates Page | 31
City of Santa Cruz – 2025 Wastewater Rate Study
6 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, the City's wastewater enterprise is in overall good financial health but will need rate increases in upcoming year to provide adequate funding for high-priority capital improvement needs and keep rates aligned with escalating costs of operations. The proposed 5-year schedule of wastewater rates is designed to recover the costs of providing wastewater service while supporting roughly balanced budgets in future years.

Based on the survey of regional wastewater charges, the City’s wastewater rates are currently in the lower-middle range and are projected to remain in the lower-middle to middle range in future years with the proposed rate increases. Many other regional agencies are facing similar financial challenges with cost inflation and the need to increase investment in aging infrastructure and are also anticipating rate increases in upcoming years.

General rate recommendations for the wastewater enterprise include:
• BWA recommends the City adopt the proposed wastewater rates starting July 1, 2025. • The City should update the wastewater financial projections within the next five years to evaluate funding needs and rate increases in subsequent years. • After the proposed rates are implemented, the City should continue to adopt annual rate increases to keep revenues in line with the cost of providing service and minimize the need for larger, periodic rate spikes.

30.50 APPENDIX A
Wastewater
Financial Plan and
Rate Study Tables

30.51 Draft Wastewater Financial Plan
and Rate Study Tables
City of Santa Cruz
February 21, 2025

30.52 Table 1, Historical Wastewater Rates
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Historical Wastewater Rates FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Fixed Monthly Rates
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Single Family 50.50 50.50 54.00 57.80 61.30 65.00
Multi-Family 41.30 41.30 44.20 47.30 50.10 53.10
Low Sewage Producer 29.70 29.70 31.80 34.00 36.00 38.20 Commercial (per customer)
Low Strength 32.40 32.40 34.70 37.10 39.30 41.70
Medium Strength 54.70 54.70 58.50 62.60 66.40 70.40
High Strength 107.90 107.90 115.50 123.60 131.00 138.90 Hotel / Motel 54.70 54.70 58.50 62.60 66.40 70.40
City Facilities 21.40 21.40 22.90 24.50 26.00 27.60
All Schools 32.40 32.40 34.70 37.10 39.30 41.70
Ready-to-Serve 32.40 32.40 34.70 37.10 39.30 41.70
Industrial/Other (per customer)
Industrial 185.30 185.30 198.30 212.20 224.90 238.40
UCSC - Main Campus 51,994.60 51,994.60 55,634.20 59,528.60 63,100.30 66,886.30 Graham Hill WTP 4,284.30 4,284.30 4,584.20 4,905.10 5,199.40 5,511.40 Landfill Leachate 2,152.80 2,152.80 2,303.50 2,464.70 2,612.60 2,769.40 Quantity Charges, per CCF 1
Commercial
Low Strength 3.79 3.79 4.06 4.34 4.60 4.88
Medium Strength 3.88 3.88 4.15 4.44 4.71 4.99
High Strength 8.41 8.41 9.00 9.63 10.21 10.82
Hotel / Motel 3.94 3.94 4.22 4.52 4.79 5.08
City Facilities 3.66 3.66 3.92 4.19 4.44 4.71
Schools, 35% irrigation 3.18 3.18 3.40 3.64 3.86 4.09
Schools, 60% irrigation 2.36 2.36 2.53 2.71 2.87 3.04
Schools, 85% irrigation 0.71 0.71 0.76 0.81 0.86 0.91
Ready-to-Serve 0.37 0.37 0.40 0.43 0.45 0.48
Industrial/Other
Industrial 5.21 5.21 5.57 5.96 6.32 6.70
UCSC - Main Campus 8.29 8.29 8.87 9.49 10.06 10.66
Graham Hill WTP 12.98 12.98 13.89 14.86 15.75 16.70
Landfill Leachate 6.62 6.62 7.08 7.58 8.03 8.51
1 CCF = 100 Cubic Feet or approximately 748 gallons

30.53 Table 2, Operating Expenses and Non-Rate Revenue
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Escalation Factors 1 Factor FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 General Inflation Factor Gen. 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% No Escalation None 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Operating Costs Op. 8.1% 5.9% 4.9% 4.6% 4.6% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% Interest on Reserves Int. 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Rate Revenue Rate 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.0% 7.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Personnel Services Per. 11.0% 7.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Professional Services Pro. 5.5% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Operating Supplies Sup. 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% Non-Rate Revenues 2 Factor FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 24-25 3 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 Actual Ado. Budget Est. Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected County Reimbursements 4 Op. 6,691,289 5,080,000 6,880,000 7,439,020 7,874,691 8,263,470 8,640,618 9,035,142 9,405,127 9,790,298 10,191,279 10,608,721 11,043,300 Septage Service Charge Rate 750,103 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,080,000 1,166,400 1,259,712 1,347,892 1,442,244 1,485,512 1,530,077 1,575,979 1,623,259 1,671,956 Capacity Charges Gen. 122,457 100,000 100,000 104,000 108,160 112,486 116,986 121,665 126,532 131,593 136,857 142,331 148,024 Interest on Reserves 5 Int. 555,164 345,042 345,042 353,668 362,510 371,572 380,862 390,383 398,191 406,155 414,278 422,563 431,015 Other Revenues None 187,707 23,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ Total Non-Rate Revenues 8,306,721 6,548,542 8,386,542 9,038,188 9,573,261 10,068,741 10,547,857 11,050,935 11,476,862 11,919,623 12,379,893 12,858,374 13,355,796 Operating Expenses 6 Factor FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 24-25 3 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 Actual Ado. Budget Est. Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Personnel Services 7 Per. 10,129,746 10,931,492 10,782,255 11,968,303 12,806,084 13,446,388 14,118,708 14,824,643 15,417,629 16,034,334 16,675,708 17,342,736 18,036,445 Professional Services 8 Pro. 7,522,722 9,742,618 7,814,316 8,244,103 8,573,868 8,916,822 9,273,495 9,644,435 10,030,212 10,431,421 10,848,678 11,282,625 11,733,930 Operating Supplies 9 Sup. 3,845,247 3,923,330 4,513,550 4,806,931 5,119,381 5,452,141 5,697,487 5,953,874 6,221,798 6,501,779 6,794,359 7,100,106 7,419,610 Other Materials & Services Gen. 63,127 255,200 106,900 111,176 115,623 120,248 125,058 130,060 135,263 140,673 146,300 152,152 158,238 Other Charges Gen. 461,100 446,500 446,500 464,360 482,934 502,252 522,342 543,236 564,965 587,564 611,066 635,509 660,929 Other Financing Uses Gen. 682,027 116,817 209,021 217,382 226,077 235,120 244,525 254,306 264,478 275,057 286,060 297,502 309,402 __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ Total Operating Expenses 22,703,969 25,415,957 23,872,542 25,812,255 27,323,967 28,672,971 29,981,615 31,350,554 32,634,345 33,970,828 35,362,170 36,810,629 38,318,554 Operating Costs Increase % 8.1% 5.9% 4.9% 4.6% 4.6% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 2 Not escalated unless otherwise noted.
3 Wastewater budget amounts adjusted based on input from City Staff for rate-making purposes. 4 Escalated by operating costs factor for reimbursements allowed under the Joint Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement between Santa Cruz County and Sanitation District and the City of Santa Cruz. 5 This is the assumed interest rate which is applied to projected reserves in the model. 6 Escalated by general inflation factor unless otherwise noted. 7 Escalated by salary and benefits cost factor based on projected future cost of living adjustments and projected inflation of specific benefit expenses such as health insurance. 8 Reflects internal services increasing by 10% in FY 25/26 due to the revised Central Services Cost Allocation Plan. 9 Reflects assumption of continued above average chemicals cost inflation. 1 General inflation factor based on conservative estimates of costs. Specific escalation factors based on recent revenue and expense trends and input from City staff.

30.54 Table 3, Capital Improvement Costs (Current $)
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
CIP (Current Dollars) FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 01 - Active (8/17th County Share)
Jessie Street Marsh 12,520 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neary Lagoon Park Rehab-Maint (annual) 985,510 275,000 275,000 525,000 275,000 275,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 WWTF Infra. And Major Equip Study (annual) 1,259,882 3,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 WWTF -CMMS Upgrade 174,753 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WWTF - Electrical System 106,178 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 15,250,000 15,250,000 15,250,000 15,250,000 0 0 0 WWTF - Equipment Replacement (annual) 1,417,066 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 WWTF Master Plan 0 1,750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WWTF Odor Control Project 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02 - Active
City WWTF Headworks Replacement 496,989 13,500,000 10,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Front-Spruce-Pacific-Sewer Main Rehab 80,465 6,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Isbel Pump Station Replacement 17,769 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pelton Ave Pump Station Generator 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Lorenzo River Sanitary Sewer Siphon 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sewer System Improvements (annual) 511,123 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 03 - Future (8/17th County Share)
WWTF - Laboratory Modernization 0 0 500,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WWTF - Upgrade Digester Equipment 10,584 0 0 0 0 800,000 0 0 0 800,000 0 0 04 - Future
Fairmount/Harrison Sewer Main Upgrade 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 May/Coulson/Berry Trunk Sewer 0 0 250,000 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monterey St. and Lighthouse Ave. Sewer 0 0 0 0 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sewer Realignment Project 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trevethan Ave Sewer 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 Arroyo Seco Slide 0 0 50,000 850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
High Street Sewer Upsizing 0 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lee Street Bridge Sewer Crossing Replacement 0 0 353,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total CIP (Current Dollars) 5,072,839 30,705,000 17,328,000 9,425,000 6,925,000 21,025,000 21,150,000 22,550,000 22,550,000 8,100,000 7,300,000 7,300,000 Total (8/17th County Share) 1,866,585 3,894,118 2,482,353 3,070,588 2,247,059 9,094,118 8,964,706 9,435,294 9,435,294 2,635,294 2,258,824 2,258,824 Total Santa Cruz CIP 3,206,254 26,810,882 14,845,647 6,354,412 4,677,941 11,930,882 12,185,294 13,114,706 13,114,706 5,464,706 5,041,176 5,041,176

30.55 Table 4, Capital Improvement Costs (Future $)
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
CIP (Inflated Dollars) FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Annual Inflation Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 01 - Active (8/17th County Share)
Jessie Street Marsh 12,520 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neary Lagoon Park Rehab-Maint (annual) 985,510 275,000 286,000 567,840 309,338 321,711 364,996 379,596 394,780 410,571 426,994 444,073 WWTF Infra. And Major Equip Study (annual) 1,259,882 3,000,000 1,560,000 1,622,400 1,687,296 1,754,788 1,824,979 1,897,979 1,973,898 2,052,854 2,134,968 2,220,366 WWTF -CMMS Upgrade 174,753 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WWTF - Electrical System 106,178 2,000,000 2,080,000 2,163,200 2,249,728 17,840,343 18,553,957 19,296,115 20,067,960 0 0 0 WWTF - Equipment Replacement (annual) 1,417,066 1,000,000 1,040,000 1,081,600 1,124,864 1,754,788 2,433,306 3,795,957 3,947,795 4,105,707 4,269,935 4,440,733 WWTF Master Plan 0 1,750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WWTF Odor Control Project 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02 - Active
City WWTF Headworks Replacement 496,989 13,500,000 10,400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Front-Spruce-Pacific-Sewer Main Rehab 80,465 6,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Isbel Pump Station Replacement 17,769 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pelton Ave Pump Station Generator 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Lorenzo River Sanitary Sewer Siphon 0 0 0 0 281,216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sewer System Improvements (annual) 511,123 1,300,000 1,352,000 1,406,080 1,462,323 1,520,816 1,824,979 3,163,298 3,289,829 3,421,423 3,558,280 3,700,611 03 - Future (8/17th County Share)
WWTF - Laboratory Modernization 0 0 520,000 1,622,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WWTF - Upgrade Digester Equipment 10,584 0 0 0 0 935,887 0 0 0 1,094,855 0 0 04 - Future
Fairmount/Harrison Sewer Main Upgrade 0 0 0 0 0 467,943 0 0 0 0 0 0 May/Coulson/Berry Trunk Sewer 0 0 260,000 811,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monterey St. and Lighthouse Ave. Sewer 0 0 0 0 674,918 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sewer Realignment Project 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trevethan Ave Sewer 0 0 104,000 0 0 0 729,992 0 0 0 0 0 Arroyo Seco Slide 0 0 52,000 919,360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
High Street Sewer Upsizing 0 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lee Street Bridge Sewer Crossing Replacement 0 0 367,120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total CIP (Inflated Dollars) 5,072,839 30,705,000 18,021,120 10,194,080 7,789,683 24,596,276 25,732,209 28,532,944 29,674,262 11,085,409 10,390,176 10,805,783 Total (8/17th County Share) 1,866,585 3,894,118 2,581,647 3,321,148 2,527,636 10,638,831 10,906,935 11,938,657 12,416,203 3,606,582 3,215,010 3,343,611 Total Santa Cruz CIP 3,206,254 26,810,882 15,439,473 6,872,932 5,262,048 13,957,445 14,825,273 16,594,287 17,258,058 7,478,827 7,175,166 7,462,173

30.56 $26.8
$15.4
$6.9
$5.3
$14.0 $14.8
$16.6 $17.3
$7.5 $7.2 $7.5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 33-35 Treatment Plant
Collection System
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Capital Improvements ($ millions)
Source: City of Santa Cruz CIP; future $ includes 4.0% annual construction cost inflation. Note: Amounts include City of Santa Cruz capital expenses only.

30.57 Table 5, Existing and Proposed Debt
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Fiscal Year
2020 I-Bank
Wastewater Loan
2025 I-Bank
Wastewater Loan
2029 Proposed
Wastewater Loan
Status Existing Existing Proposed
Principal $25,740,000 $36,000,000
Financing Costs $260,000 $500,000
Interest 3.95% 5.00%
Term (Years) 30 30
FY 2025 175,913
FY 2026 175,629 1,494,468
FY 2027 175,337 1,494,468
FY 2028 175,038 1,494,468
FY 2029 174,732 1,494,468 1,187,000
FY 2030 174,418 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2031 174,096 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2032 173,767 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2033 173,429 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2034 173,082 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2035 172,727 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2036 172,363 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2037 171,990 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2038 171,607 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2039 171,215 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2040 170,813 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2041 170,402 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2042 169,979 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2043 169,547 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2044 169,103 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2045 168,649 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2046 168,183 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2047 167,705 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2048 167,215 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2049 166,713 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2050 166,199 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2051 165,672 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2052 0 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2053 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2054 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2055 1,494,468 2,374,000
FY 2056 0 2,374,000
FY 2057 2,374,000
FY 2058 2,374,000
FY 2059 2,374,000
FY 2060 0
Total Debt Service $4,625,524 $44,834,036 $72,407,000

30.58 Table 6, Capital Funding
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Capital Funding FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 Actual Adj. Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Capital Expenditures 5,072,839 30,705,000 18,021,120 10,194,080 7,789,683 24,596,276 25,732,209 28,532,944 29,674,262 11,085,409 10,390,176 10,805,783 Capital Funding 5,072,839 30,705,000 18,021,120 10,194,080 7,789,683 24,596,276 25,732,209 28,532,944 29,674,262 11,085,409 10,390,176 10,805,783 Use of New Debt Proceeds 13,740,000 12,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 Grants 364,706
County WWTP Participation 1,844,557 11,884,992 2,581,647 3,321,148 2,527,636 10,638,831 10,906,935 11,938,657 12,416,203 3,606,582 3,215,010 3,343,611 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Rate Funded Capital 3,228,282 4,715,302 3,439,473 6,872,932 5,262,048 5,957,445 6,825,273 6,594,287 7,258,058 7,478,827 7,175,166 7,462,173

30.59 Table 7, Cash Flow Projection City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025 Wastewater Cashflow FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 Actual Est. Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue Growth 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Rate Revenue Increases 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.0% 7.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Beginning Reserve Balance 23,188,000 25,922,000 26,549,000 27,559,000 26,221,000 27,875,000 28,992,000 29,539,000 30,427,000 30,751,000 30,951,000 31,542,000 Revenues
Rate Revenue
Total Rate Revenue 19,852,000 21,004,000 22,911,000 24,991,000 27,260,000 29,460,000 31,837,000 32,825,000 33,844,000 34,894,000 35,977,000 37,093,000 Non-Rate Revenue
Sewer Service Charges - County 5,080,000 6,880,000 7,439,000 7,875,000 8,263,000 8,641,000 9,035,000 9,405,000 9,790,000 10,191,000 10,609,000 11,043,000 Sewer Septage Service Charge 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,080,000 1,166,000 1,260,000 1,348,000 1,442,000 1,486,000 1,530,000 1,576,000 1,623,000 1,672,000 Sewer Connections - Customers 100,000 100,000 104,000 108,000 112,000 117,000 122,000 127,000 132,000 137,000 142,000 148,000 Other Revenue 24,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Non-Rate Revenue 6,549,000 8,387,000 9,039,000 9,574,000 10,069,000 10,549,000 11,051,000 11,478,000 11,920,000 12,380,000 12,859,000 13,356,000 Total Revenues 26,401,000 29,391,000 31,950,000 34,565,000 37,329,000 40,009,000 42,888,000 44,303,000 45,764,000 47,274,000 48,836,000 50,449,000 Projected Debt Proceeds 13,740,000 12,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 Expenses
Operating Expenses
Personnel Services 10,130,000 10,782,000 11,980,000 12,829,000 13,494,000 14,193,000 14,926,000 15,542,000 16,183,000 16,849,000 17,542,000 18,263,000 Professional Services 7,523,000 7,814,000 8,251,000 8,581,000 8,924,000 9,281,000 9,653,000 10,039,000 10,440,000 10,858,000 11,292,000 11,744,000 Operating Supplies 3,845,000 4,514,000 4,808,000 5,126,000 5,469,000 5,713,000 5,968,000 6,234,000 6,513,000 6,804,000 7,109,000 7,427,000 Other Materials and Services 63,000 107,000 111,000 116,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000 141,000 146,000 152,000 158,000 Other Charges 461,000 447,000 464,000 483,000 502,000 522,000 543,000 565,000 588,000 611,000 636,000 661,000 Other Financing Uses 682,000 209,000 217,000 226,000 235,000 245,000 254,000 264,000 275,000 286,000 298,000 309,000 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Operating Expenses 22,704,000 23,873,000 25,831,000 27,361,000 28,744,000 30,079,000 31,474,000 32,779,000 34,140,000 35,554,000 37,029,000 38,562,000 Non-Operating Expenses
Debt Service 2020 I-Bank 176,000 176,000 176,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 173,000 173,000 173,000 Debt Service 2025 I-Bank 0 0 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,494,000 New Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 1,187,000 2,374,000 2,374,000 2,374,000 2,374,000 2,374,000 2,374,000 Rate Funded Capital 3,228,000 4,715,000 3,439,000 6,873,000 5,262,000 5,957,000 6,825,000 6,594,000 7,258,000 7,479,000 7,175,000 7,462,000 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Non-Operating Expenses 3,404,000 4,891,000 5,109,000 8,542,000 6,931,000 8,813,000 10,867,000 10,636,000 11,300,000 11,520,000 11,216,000 11,503,000 Total Expenses 26,108,000 28,764,000 30,940,000 35,903,000 35,675,000 38,892,000 42,341,000 43,415,000 45,440,000 47,074,000 48,245,000 50,065,000 Revenues Less Expenses 293,000 627,000 1,010,000 (1,338,000) 1,654,000 1,117,000 547,000 888,000 324,000 200,000 591,000 384,000 Ending Reserve Balance 23,481,000 26,549,000 27,559,000 26,221,000 27,875,000 28,992,000 29,539,000 30,427,000 30,751,000 30,951,000 31,542,000 31,926,000 Fund Reserve Target 2 15,528,000 16,112,500 18,585,500 19,349,500 20,041,000 21,895,500 23,779,000 24,431,500 25,112,000 25,818,000 26,555,500 27,322,000 180-days O&M+Debt Svc+$4M Emergency CIP
Debt Coverage Ratio, Min. 1.3 21.01 31.35 3.66 4.32 5.14 3.48 2.82 2.85 2.88 2.90 2.92 2.94 1 Assumes proposed rates are adopted July 1, 2025 and each July 1 thereafter. 2 180-days O&M+Debt Svc+$4M Emergency CIP

30.60 $0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Rate Funded Capital
Debt Service
O&M
Revenue
Reserves
City of Santa Cruz
Projected Sewer Revenues & Expenses ($ millions)

30.61 Table 8, Expense Allocation by Activity
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Allocation by Activity
Personnel
Services
Professional
Services
Operating
Supplies
Other Materials
and Services
Other Charges and
Financing Uses
Other Financing
Uses Total
5-Year Average Projected Expenses by Activity $13,484,400 $8,938,000 $5,416,800 $120,400 $502,800 $235,400 $28,697,800 FY 2025 Amount by Activity 1
As All Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Customer Service 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Collection 25% 8% 5% 1% 64% 0%
Treatment 75% 69% 94% 97% 36% 0%
Admin 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Engineering 0% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
5-Year Average Projected Expenses
As All Other 0 0 0 0 0 235,400 235,400
Customer Service 0 491,162 0 0 0 0 491,162
Collection 3,392,836 688,912 287,375 944 322,625 0 4,692,693 Treatment 10,091,564 6,208,025 5,088,742 117,097 180,175 0 21,685,603 Admin 0 1,350,510 0 0 0 0 1,350,510
Engineering 0 199,391 40,683 2,359 0 0 242,433
Total $13,484,400 $8,938,000 $5,416,800 $120,400 $502,800 $235,400 $28,697,800 1 Based on adopted budget by activity.

30.62 Table 9, Non-Rate Revenues by Allocation Activity City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Non Rate Revenue Activity Category Five Year Average
(FY 26-30)
County Reimbursements Treatment 8,250,600
Sewer septage service charge Treatment 1,259,200
Capacity Charges Capital 112,700
Interest on Reserves As All Other 371,700
Other Revenues As All Other 61,500
Total $10,055,700

30.63 Table 10, Functional Cost Allocation
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
5-Year Average
Allocation Category Expenses
Less Non-Rate
Revenue
Revenue
Requirement Customer Flow BOD TSS
As All
Other Total
As All Other 235,400 433,200 (197,800) 0% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 100.0% Customer Service 491,162 0 491,162 100% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 100.0% Collection 4,692,693 0 4,692,693 0% 90% 5% 5% 0.0% 100.0% Treatment 21,685,603 9,509,800 12,175,803 20% 32% 24% 24% 0.0% 100.0% Admin 1,350,510 0 1,350,510 85% 5% 5% 5% 0.0% 100.0%
Engineering 242,433 0 242,433 25% 38% 19% 19% 0.0% 100.0% Capital 5,671,200 112,700 5,558,500 25% 38% 19% 19% 0.0% 100.0% Debt 2,381,200 0 2,381,200 25% 38% 19% 19% 0.0% 100.0%
Total $36,750,200 $10,055,700 $26,694,500 $6,119,789 $11,255,506 $4,758,503 $4,758,503 -$197,800 $26,694,500 Cost Allocation, $ $6,119,789 $11,255,506 $4,758,503 $4,758,503 $26,892,300 Cost Allocation, % 22.8% 41.8% 17.7% 17.7% 100%

30.64 Table 11, Customer Characteristics
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Customer Characteristics FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25
Customer Counts Actual Actual Projected
Residential
Single Family 8,162 8,291 8,291
Multi-Family 6,692 7,367 7,367
Low Sewage Producer 7,446 7,031 7,031
________ ________ ________
Total 22,300 22,689 22,689
Commercial
Low Strength 887 880 880
Medium Strength 251 251 251
High Strength 110 108 108
Schools, 35% irrigation 1 1 1
Schools, 60% irrigation 3 3 3
Schools, 85% irrigation 3 3 3
Ready-to-Serve 2 2 2
________ ________ ________
Total 1,257 1,248 1,248
Industrial/Other
Industrial 7 7 7
UCSC - Main Campus 1 1 1
Graham Hill WTP 1 1 1
Landfill Leachate 1 1 1
________ ________ ________
Total 10 10 10
Total Customer Counts 23,567 23,947 23,947
Billed Customer Flows (hcf) Actual Actual
Projected
(Avg. 23 & 24)
Commercial
Low Strength 150,189 154,336 152,263
Medium Strength 171,018 172,960 171,989
High Strength 46,112 49,635 47,874
Schools, 35% irrigation 551 1,174 863
Schools, 60% irrigation 2,690 2,780 2,735
Schools, 85% irrigation 4,133 4,626 4,380
Ready-to-Serve 6,282 7,443 6,863 ________ ________ ________ Total 380,975 392,954 386,965
Industrial/Other
Industrial 33,027 39,108 36,068
UCSC - Main Campus 172,616 173,149 172,883
Graham Hill WTP 24,823 25,971 25,397
Landfill Leachate 27,507 22,007 24,757 ________ ________ ________ Total 257,974 260,236 259,105
Total Billed Customer Flows 638,949 653,190 646,069

30.65 Table 12, Wastewater Flows and Loadings
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Sewer
Est. Mo.

Flow CCF
Projected
Annual Water Return to Sewer Strength (mg/l) Loadings (lbs) Customer Classification Units Per Unit Use CCF1 Flow Factor2 CCF MG3
GPD4BOD5TSS6

BOD TSS
Residential
Single Family 8,291 5.30 527,308 100% 527,308 394 1,080,695 300 300 987,731 987,731 Multi-Family 7,367 3.90 344,776 100% 344,776 258 706,603 300 300 645,819 645,819 Low Sewage Producer 7,031 2.10 177,181 100% 177,181 133 363,125 300 300 331,888 331,888 Subtotal Residential 22,689 1,049,264 1,049,264 785 2,150,423 1,965,439 1,965,439 Commercial
Low Strength 7 880 152,263 80% 121,810 91 249,644 150 150 114,085 114,085 Medium Strength 8
251 171,989 80% 137,591 103 281,987 225 225 193,298 193,298 High Strength 108 47,874 80% 38,299 29 78,492 800 800 191,306 191,306 Schools, 35% irrigation 1 863 65% 561 0 1,149 150 150 525 525 Schools, 60% irrigation 3 2,735 40% 1,094 1 2,242 150 150 1,025 1,025 Schools, 85% irrigation 3 4,380 15% 657 0 1,346 150 150 615 615 Ready-to-Serve 2 6,863 10% 686 1 1,406 150 150 643 643
Subtotal Commercial 1,248 386,965 300,698 225 616,267 501,496 501,496 Other
Industrial 7 36,068 80% 28,854 22 59,135 270 270 48,643 48,643 UCSC - Main Campus 1 172,883 100% 172,883 129 354,315 750 750 809,591 809,591 Graham Hill WTP 1 25,397 100% 25,397 19 52,051 0 2,200 0 348,870 Landfill Leachate 1 24,757 100% 24,757 19 50,739 400 250 61,833 38,646 Subtotal Other 3 223,037 223,037 167 457,105 871,424 1,197,106 Total 23,947 1,695,334 1,601,853 1,198 3,282,931 3,387,002 3,712,684 1 "CCF" stands for hundred cubic feet.
2 Flow factor based on estimated flow returning to sewer. 3 "MG" stands for million gallons.
4 "GPD" stands for gallons per day.
5 "BOD" stands for biochemical oxygen demand.
6 "TSS" stands for total suspended solids.
7 City Facilities class incorporated into Low Strength class. 8 Hotels/Motels class incorporated into Medium Strength class.

Projected
Wastewater Flow

30.66 Table 13, Unit Cost Derivation
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
FY 24/25 Revenue
Requirement by Function
FY 24/25 Rate
Revenue Customer Flow BOD TSS
Cost Allocation % 100% 22.8% 41.8% 17.7% 17.7%
FY 24/25 Rate Revenue $ $21,004,000 $4,788,912 $8,779,672 $3,717,708 $3,717,708 FY 24/25 Functional Unit Cost Customer Flow BOD TSS
(Customers) (CCF) (LBS) (LBS)
Revenue Requirement $4,788,912 $8,779,672 $3,717,708 $3,717,708 Demand Units 23,947 1,601,853 3,387,002 3,712,684
Unit Rate ($ per Unit) $199.98 $5.48 $1.10 $1.00

30.67 Table 14, Class Allocation
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
FY 24/25 Class Revenue Requirements Fixed Flow BOD TSS
Total Revenue
Requirement
(Customers) (CCF) (LBS) (LBS)
Unit Rate ($ per Unit) $199.98 $5.48 $1.10 $1.00
Allocation Units
Residential 22,689 1,049,264 1,965,439 1,965,439
Commercial 1,248 300,698 501,496 501,496
Industrial 7 28,854 48,643 48,643
UCSC - Main Campus 1 172,883 809,591 809,591
Graham Hill WTP 1 25,397 0 348,870
Landfill Leachate 1 24,757 61,833 38,646
Total 23,947 1,601,853 3,387,002 3,712,684
Revenue Requirements
Residential $4,537,338 $5,750,961 $2,157,344 $1,968,098 $14,413,741 Commercial 249,575 1,648,108 550,462 502,175 2,950,319
Industrial 1,400 158,147 53,393 48,709 261,649
UCSC - Main Campus 200 947,560 888,639 810,686 2,647,085 Graham Hill WTP 200 139,201 0 349,342 488,743
Landfill Leachate 200 135,694 67,870 38,698 242,463
Total 4,788,912 8,779,672 3,717,708 3,717,708 $21,004,000 Adjusted Revenue
Requirements
Flow Allocation
to Fixed
Residential 25.0% $5,975,078 $4,313,221 $2,157,344 $1,968,098 $14,413,741 Commercial 25.0% 661,602 1,236,081 550,462 502,175 $2,950,319 Industrial n/a
UCSC - Main Campus n/a
Graham Hill WTP 25.0% 35,000 104,401 0 349,342 $488,743 Landfill Leachate 25.0% 34,124 101,771 67,870 38,698 $242,463

30.68 Table 15, Residential Rate Derivation
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Residential Rate Derivation
Unit Cost Calculation Total Fixed Flow
(Dwelling Units) (CCF)
Revenue Requirement $14,413,741 $5,975,078 $8,438,663
Allocation % 100.0% 41.5% 58.5%
Allocation Units 22,689 1,049,264
Unit Cost ($ per Unit) $263.35 $8.04
Monthly Monthly Monthly Total
Fixed Rate Derivation Flow Flow Rate Fixed Rate Monthly Rate (Estimated CCF/
Dwelling Unit)
($/ Dwelling
Unit)
($/ Dwelling
Unit)
($/ Dwelling
Unit)
Single Family 5.30 $42.63 $21.95 $64.57
Multi-Family 3.90 $31.37 $21.95 $53.31
Low Sewage Producers 2.10 $16.89 $21.95 $38.83

30.69 Table 16, Commercial Rate Derivation
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Commercial Rate Derivation
Unit Cost Calculation Total Fixed Flow BOD TSS
(Custome
rs)
(CCF) (LBS) (LBS)
Revenue Requirement $2,950,319 $661,602 $1,236,081 $550,462 $502,175 Allocation % 100.0% 22.4% 42.0% 17.8% 17.8%
Allocation Units 1,248 300,698 501,496 501,496
Unit Cost ($ per Unit) $530.13 $4.11 $1.10 $1.00
Total
Volumetric Volumetric Unit Cost Volumetric Return Volumetric Rate Derivation BOD SS Flow BOD TSS Unit Cost to Sewer Rates (MG/L) (MG/L) ($/ CCF) ($/ CCF) ($/ CCF) ($/ CCF) ($/ CCF) Low Strength 150 150 $4.11 $1.03 $0.94 $6.07 80% $4.86
Medium Strength 225 225 $4.11 $1.54 $1.41 $7.06 80% $5.65 High Strength 800 800 $4.11 $5.48 $5.00 $14.59 80% $11.67 Hotels/Motels 225 225 $4.11 $1.54 $1.41 $7.06 80% $5.65 Schools, 35% irrigation 150 150 $4.11 $1.03 $0.94 $6.07 65% $3.95 Schools, 60% irrigation 150 150 $4.11 $1.03 $0.94 $6.07 40% $2.43 Schools, 85% irrigation 150 150 $4.11 $1.03 $0.94 $6.07 15% $0.91 Ready-to-Serve 150 150 $4.11 $1.03 $0.94 $6.07 10% $0.61 Strength

30.70 Table 17, Industrial/Other Rate Derivation
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Industrial/Other Customer Class Rate Derivation
Fixed Rate Derivation Variable Rate Derivation
Strength Revenue Fixed Revenue Monthly Revenue Return Water Water BOD SS Requirement Allocation Requirement Customers Fixed Rate Requirement to Sewer Use Use (MG/L) (MG/L) (#) ($/ Customer) (CCF) ($/ CCF)
Industrial 270 270 $261,649 7.5% $19,624 7 $233.62 $242,025 80% 36,068 $6.71 UCSC - Main Campus 750 750 $2,647,085 30.0% $794,126 1 $66,177.13 $1,852,960 100% 172,883 $10.72 Graham Hill WTP 0 2200 $488,743 7.2% $35,000 1 $2,916.69 $453,743 100% 25,397 $17.87 Landfill Leachate 400 250 $242,463 7.2% $34,124 1 $2,843.63 $208,339 100% 24,757 $8.42

30.71 Table 18, Projected Rates
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Current Projected Wastewater Rates Effective July 1
Rates 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Residential
Fixed Monthly Rates (per Dwelling Unit)
Single Family $65.00 $69.74 $75.32 $81.35 $87.04 $93.13 Multi-Family 53.10 57.58 62.19 67.17 71.87 76.90
Low Sewage Producer 38.20 41.94 45.30 48.92 52.34 56.00 Commercial
Fixed Monthly Rates
All Customers Varies $47.71 $51.53 $55.65 $59.55 $63.72 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf)
Low Strength 4.88 5.25 5.67 6.12 6.55 7.01
Medium Strength 4.99 5.79 6.59 7.12 7.62 8.15
High Strength 10.82 12.22 13.61 14.70 15.73 16.83
Industrial & Other
UCSC - Main Campus
Fixed Monthly Rates $66,886.30 $71,471.30 $77,189.00 $83,364.12 $89,199.61 $95,443.58 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 10.66 11.58 12.51 13.51 14.46 15.47 Graham Hill WTP
Fixed Monthly Rates 5,511.40 3,150.03 3,402.03 3,674.19 3,931.38 4,206.58 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 16.70 19.30 20.84 22.51 24.09 25.78 Landfill Leachate
Fixed Monthly Rates 2,769.40 3,071.12 3,316.81 3,582.15 3,832.90 4,101.20 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 8.51 9.09 9.82 10.61 11.35 12.14 Industrial
Fixed Monthly Rates 238.40 252.30 272.48 294.28 314.88 336.92 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 6.70 7.25 7.83 8.46 9.05 9.68 Septage
Quantity Rates ($ per ccf) 100.99 109.07 117.80 127.22 136.13 145.66 Note: Initial rate increase effective July 1, 2025 includes modifications to the rate structure that result in a range of bill impacts depending on customer class and billed usage.

30.72 Table 19, Projected Ready to Serve Rates
City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rate Study - Draft 2/21/2025
Current Projected Wastewater Rates Effective July 1
Rates 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Ready to Serve
Fixed Monthly Rates
All Customers $41.70 $47.71 $51.53 $55.65 $59.55 $63.72 Quantity Rates ($ per ccf)
Schools, 35% irrigation 4.09 4.26 4.60 4.97 5.32 5.69
Schools, 60% irrigation 3.04 2.62 2.83 3.06 3.27 3.50
Schools, 85% irrigation 0.91 0.98 1.06 1.14 1.22 1.31
Other Ready-to-Serve 0.48 0.66 0.71 0.77 0.82 0.88

30.73 57.22

61.72 65.00

67.47 69.74

70.21 71.53

79.40 85.78

89.44 106.81
112.00
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Survey of Monthly Single Family Wastewater Charges
Rates effective January 2025
Current
Proposed
July 1, 2025

30.74 Brittany Inclan
From: Sue Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2025 11:35 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Waste Water Fees Hearing June 10, 2025
Attachments: Wastewater Fees.docx
Dear Bonnie and staff,
Could you please include the attached letter in the agenda packet for the special session on June 10th regarding wastewater fees? Please let me know if you have any questions or need more information.

Thank you,
Susan Gilchrist
Transportation and Public Works Commission

30.75 Mayor Fred Keeley and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
809 Center Street, Room 8
Santa Cruz, California 95060

Subject: Proposed Wastewater Fee Increases, Special Meeting June 10, 2025
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Members,
I am writing in support of the staff recommendation proposing to increase wastewater fees which is the subject of your special meeting on Tuesday, July

10. The Transportation and Public Works Commission recently considered the proposed wastewater fee increases and voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the fee increase. The increases are not only needed to replace aging infrastructure, but to also cover increased costs of materials and labor for ongoing maintenance and repair.

Our wastewater plant serves the city and most of the urban areas of the county. It is important to our whole community that the system function efficiently and in an environmentally safe manner. Even with the proposed increase in fees, our rates will be lower than most of our region. In addition, there is a program Utility Customer Assistance Program (UCAP), to assist customers who are, experiencing financial hardship.

We often take essential services such as safe wastewater collection and environmentally sound waste processing for granted, because when these services are efficient and protect the environment, we do not notice them.

They are, however, essential to our quality of life.

Please approve the staff recommendation as presented to you at this hearing. Thank you for your consideration.

Susan Gilchrist
Vice Chair Transportation and Public Works Commission

30.76 Brittany Inclan
From: Jane Mio <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 6:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 6/10/25 Agenda item #30
Dear City Council Members,
It was not easy to become a low water user, which I achieve by exploring creative, frugal, alternative water reduction options.

Regrettably I didn't find any Supporting Documents for agenda item #30 that showed that the Water Department has pursued any exploration to lowering any of their operational expenses.

Although the supplied Plan & Rate addressed the rational for the Wastewater rate increase in great detail, it didn't include any suggestions/advice for the Water Department to achieve effective expense reductions.

This raises the question if the Water Department can reduce the increase due to exploring innovative, effective savings in their operational processes.

Thank you for considering my input.

Sincerely ~
jane mio

30.77 Brittany Inclan
From: Alicia Watrous <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 1:53 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley
Cc: Alicia Watrous
Subject: Objection to Proposed Sewage Rate Increase
Subject: Objection to Proposed Sewage Rate Increase
To Santa Cruz Mayor Keeley and City Council,
I am writing as a customer of Santa Cruz Municipal Utilities to formally protest the proposed increase in sewage rates. I understand the need for ongoing infrastructure investment and maintenance, but I am deeply concerned about the disproportionate burden this rate structure places on property owners like myself.

We own a legal duplex, and a significant portion—currently about one-third—of our monthly utility bill goes toward sewage service. This would be more understandable if it reflected actual usage. However, the current billing model charges us for both units regardless of occupancy. Even when one of the residences is unoccupied for extended periods, we are still required to pay the full sewage charge as if both households are in continuous use. This is neither equitable nor reflective of actual system impact.

My husband and I have lived here since the 1980s through many droughts. We learned water conservation methods that we continue to this day. We already only flush when necessary, take very short showers, and collect the cold water in buckets (while it's heating for showers and dishwashing) to water our plants. Many of our neighbors do the same.

I urge the city to reconsider the proposed rate increase and to explore a more nuanced and usage-based approach to sewage billing, especially for multi-unit properties. A flat rate per unit, regardless of occupancy, is not only financially burdensome but also fundamentally unfair. UCSC is being forced to accept more students, and the water/wastewater burden should be shared by them. UCSC should prove their commitment to conservation by including a required course on water conservation to all incoming students and add it to their Student Tenant Readiness certification program. The city of Santa Cruz should also consider asking UCSC to install timed showers (like they have at Harvey West and Simpkins pools) to limit wasteful water usage in the dorms and at the athletic areas.

Please take these concerns into account before approving any increase. SCMU customers should not be penalized for water or sewage services they do not use. I request that you revisit this policy and consider adjustments that would ensure greater fairness, accountability, and responsiveness to actual usage patterns.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

30.78 Alicia Watrous
434 Locust St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Parcel # 00640114

30.79 Brittany Inclan
From: Ryan Meckel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Items #30 and #31 on 6/10/2025 agenda Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of the proposed revisions to wastewater user charges (Item #30) and sewer connection fees (Item #31) on your June 10, 2025 agenda.

On February 24, 2025 the Transportation and Public Works Commission (TPWC) received a staff presentation regarding the wastewater rate increases and why such changes were needed. After many questions and thorough discussion, the TPWC voted unanimously to recommend City Council adopt these changes.

These increases are important to ensure that we continue to have a reliable wastewater system and that critical upgrades and repairs are not put off. It is in the interest of all city residents and wastewater customers that our treatment plant, pipelines, and pump stations are well maintained.

Please approve the staff recommendation to move these changes forward. Your support ensures that city staff can continue to safeguard public health, protect our environment, and provide this critical service to our community without interruption.

Sincerely,
Ryan Meckel
Chair, Transportation and Public Works Commission

30.80 City of Santa Cruz
Wastewater Rates
June 10, 2025

30.81 Presentation
Overview
Rate Setting Process Overview
Rate Recommendations
Capital Improvement Projects
Risks If Adequate Rates Are Not Adopted
Outreach
Questions and Comments
2 30.82
Proposed Rate
Increases
• BWA developed financial projections to identify
future funding needs & evaluate rate increases
• Proposed rate increases phased in over 5 years
• Rates need to be set at levels adequate to fund
the full cost of providing service
3 July 1
2025
July 1
2026
July 1
2027
July 1
2028
July 1
2029
Rate Revenue
Increase (%): 8%* 8% 8% 7% 7%
*Initial bill impacts will vary based on customer class and usage due to rate structure adjustments realigning rates with cost of service

30.83 4
Monthly Residential Sewer Rate Survey
Average Single Family Residential Water Use: 5.3 CCF
Note: Other agencies have adopted or are anticipating rate increases in upcoming years 57.22 61.72 65.00 67.47 69.74 70.21 71.53 79.40

85.78 89.44
106.81
112.00
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Survey of Monthly Single Family Wastewater Charges
Rates effective January 2025
Current
Proposed
July 1, 2025

30.84 Wastewater
Capital
Improvement
Planning
Efforts
• Projected 5-Year Capital Costs: $56 million
5 $26.8
$15.4
$6.9 $5.3
$14.0 $14.8
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30
Treatment Plant
Collection System
Wastewater Capital Improvements ($ millions)
Source: City of Santa Cruz CIP; future $ includes 4.0% annual construction cost inflation, excludes Santa Cruz County share of Wastewater 30.85 Treatment Facility projects.

Recently
Completed Capital
Improvement
Projects
• WWTF UV Disinfection System Replacement-
$3.5 million, completed in 2022
• WWTF Gravity Thickener No. 2 Rehabilitation -
$2.3 million, completed in 2024
• WWTF CMMS Upgrade $300,000, completed in
2024
• Neary Street Sewer Project $400,000,
completed in 2024
• 54” Liner Project - $4.6 million, completed in
2025, funded via a low interest iBank loan
6 30.86
Current and
Upcoming Capital
Improvement
Projects and
Planning Efforts
• WWTF Headworks Project - $20 million, in
construction, funded by a low interest iBank
loan
• WWTF Electrical Project – est $60 million, in
design, will be debt financed
• WWTF Master Plan – $2 million
• Planning for the next 30 years including climate
resiliency, nutrient removal regulation,
collection system modeling
7 30.87
Risks if
Adequate
Rates are not
Adopted
• The WWTF is a critical facility protecting public
health and the environment and provides an
essential service to our community and regional
partners.
• WWTF operates 24/7, 365 days a year
• Unexpected electrical failures in the winter of
2023 cost approximately $1.1 million in
temporary generator rentals and fuel costs until
utility power could be restored.
8 30.88
Rate
Affordability
• Utility Customer Assistance Program (UCAP)
• Monthly $25 Credit to entire SCMU bill
• Currently open to single family account holders,
multi-family program expansion in 2026
• 200 accounts currently enrolled
• Low Sewage Producer Rate
• Monthly $27.80 savings for single family accounts
• Over 7,000 residential customers qualify for this
rate which accounts for 31% of the City’s total
residential customers
• All eligible residential (single and multifamily)
account are automatically enrolled if eligible
9 30.89
Outreach
• Prop 218 Mailer – was sent to over 31,000 property
owners, SCMU customers, and current tenants.
• The mailer included information on the UCAP program
and a Spanish language direction on where to find the
complete mailer translated into Spanish on the City
website
• Additional Noticing: City website, social media, City Manager Weekly Updates, and SCMU bills
• Public Engagement:
• Feb 2025 Transportation and Public Works
Commission (TPWC)
• March 2025 Public Works TPWC Open House
• March 2025 City Council Meeting 10 30.90
Motion To: Adopt a Resolution adopting the revised
wastewater user charges and rescinding
Resolution No. NS-29,520
11 30.91

BARTLE WELLS
ASSOCIATES 30.92
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/22/2025
AGENDA OF: 06/10/2025
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: User Charges for Wastewater Services – Proposed Sewer Connection Fees (PW)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt a resolution adopting the revised sewer connection fees, adding the updated sewer connection fees to the City-Wide Fee Schedule, and rescinding Resolution No. NS-29,801.

BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz’s (City) wastewater system is comprised of approximately 160 miles of sanitary sewer pipelines within the City, 21 pump stations, an environmental compliance laboratory, and an award-winning regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) which on average, treats around 10 million gallons per day.

When a property connects to the City’s wastewater system, a one-time fee is paid to the City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Fund for the right to connect. That fee is considered the cost to buy-in to the wastewater system that has been built and maintained through monthly user fees over the last 90 years.

BWA completed work on the study in February 2025 and the final report titled: City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study. BWA reviewed the City’s current capacity fees (cost to connect to the wastewater system, or to upsize a service during redevelopment). As part of that review BWA conducted a survey of the capacity fees of regional and similar agencies, recalculated the current capacity and value of the City’s existing system.

A key finding of the study was that current capacity fees are too low. Current fees do not reflect the actual buy-in costs of the wastewater system infrastructure that supports new development.

The recommended fees are designed to fairly recover costs from new connections based on how much capacity each development needs. These fees follow standard industry practices and meet the legal requirements of the California Government Code. BWA has developed recommended capacity charges that are equitable and simple to administer. BWA’s capacity fees comply with

31.1 Government Code Section 66013 (established by AB1600). The proposed capacity fees are attached as Table 1 – Proposed Capacity Charges.

Outreach and Public Engagement
The City has engaged in a robust noticing and pubic engagement program to bring awareness to the proposed capacity charges and provide the community with opportunities to comment on the proposed fees. The proposed fees were presented at the March 25, 2025 City Council Meeting, staff attended the Public Works Community Open House, and a legal ad was run in the Santa Cruz Sentinel. Additionally, information has been provided via social media, the weekly City Manager’s report, to community members who opted in to be notified of fee changes via the City Managers listserv, on SCMU utility bills, and the City website.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:

Increasing wastewater capacity fees is not a project.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): This project promotes the following Health in All Policies Conditions: Health and Wellness and Healthy Environments The proposed wastewater capacity fee increase is in alignment with the City’s HiAP initiative by supporting Health and Wellness and Healthy Environments. The City’s wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment facility safeguard public health and environmental health by conveying and treating wastewater for ocean discharge in compliance with all regulatory standards and by augmenting water supply by providing a source for recycled water.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: The revenue generated through connection fees can change dramatically every year as the revenue is dependent on permitted new construction.

There is no impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Katie Stewart
Senior Professional Engineer
Submitted By:

Nathan Nguyen, P.E.

Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOC

2. TABLE 1 - PROPOSED CAPACITY CHARGES.PDF

3. WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE STUDY.PDF

31.2 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

ESTABLISHING FEES TO CONNECT TO THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ SEWER SYSTEM AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,801
WHEREAS, Resolution No. NS-29,801 last established fees to connect to the City of Santa Cruz Sewer System.

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz contracted with Bartle Wells Associates to perform an independent evaluation of the City’s existing wastewater capacity charges and developed updated charges designed to reflect the current value of infrastructure and help ensure that new and expanded connections pay for their share of the capacity in the City’s wastewater system.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

That commencing 60 days after June 10, 2025, the following fees shall be collected from every person owning or controlling property to be connected with any portion of the existing sewage system of the City, or any extension thereof, as set forth below.

An applicant for sewer service shall pay at the Municipal Utilities Business Office, subsequent to issuance of any building permit in conjunction therewith, and before connecting, in addition to all other connection fees and charges imposed, a sewer system connection fee as follows:

Meter Size Fee
5/8” $3,894
3/4” $5,841
1” $9,735
1 ½” $19,471
2” $31,154
3” $68,148
4” $122,667
6” $253,123
Greater than 6” fee shall be
determined by the Public Works
Director
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that Resolution No. NS-29,801 be and is hereby rescinded.

31.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

AYE:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ___________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:_________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

31.4 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
EXHIBIT “A”
The following fees shall apply to all billings from July 1, 2025 to and including June 30, 2026:

1. Initial rate increase effective July 1, 2025 includes modifications to the rate structure that result in a range of bill impacts depending on customer class and billed usage

31.5 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
EXHIBIT “B”
The following fees shall apply to all billings from July 1, 2026 to and including June 30, 2027:

31.6 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Exhibit “C”
The following fees shall apply to all billings from July 1, 2027 to and including June 30, 2028:

31.7 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Exhibit “D”
The following fees shall apply to all billings beginning on July 1, 2028 to and including June 30, 2029:

31.8 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Exhibit “E”
The following fees shall apply to all billings beginning on July 1, 2029:

31.9 Current Proposed
Water Meter Size
in Inches
Capacity Charge
in Dollars
Water Meter Size
in Inches
Capacity Charge
in Dollars
5/8” $2,400 5/8” $3,894
3/4” $2,700 3/4” $5,841
1” $4,500 1” $9,735
1 ½” $8,000 1 ½” $19,471
2” $12,800 2” $31,154
3” $24,100 3” $68,148
4” $40,100 4” $122,667
6” $80,300 6” $253,123
Capacity charges for meter sizes
greater than 6 inches will be
determined by the Public Works
Director
Capacity charges for meter sizes
greater than 6 inches will be
determined by the Public Works
Director
***Sewer Capacity fees are based on a development's water meter size

31.10 Wastewater
Capacity Charge Study
March 1, 2025
DRAFT

31.11 31.12
March 1, 2025
City of Santa Cruz, Public Works Department
809 Center St., Rm 201
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Attention: Kevin Crossley, Assistant Public Works Director / City Engineer Re: Wastewater Capacity Charge Study
Bartle Wells Associates is pleased to submit the attached Wastewater Capacity Charge Study. The study develops updated capacity charges designed to equitably recover the costs of wastewater system infrastructure and assets benefiting new development. Key objectives of the study include developing new capacity charges that recover the costs of capacity in the City’s wastewater system infrastructure, are fair and equitable to both existing customers and new connections, are based on industry standard methodology, and comply with all legal requirements.

The proposed wastewater capacity charges are higher than the City’s current charges but are in line with neighboring agencies. In future years, BWA recommends that the City adjust its capacity charges annually based on the change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index or other appropriate measure to account for construction cost inflation, with allowance for a multi-year adjustment if an annual update is ever deferred.

We have enjoyed working with the City and appreciate the ongoing collaboration, input and assistance received from City staff. Please contact me anytime if you have questions about this report or other issues related to utility rates, fees, and finances.

Sincerely,

BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
Erik Helgeson, MBA
Principal / Vice President
2625 Alcatraz Ave, #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel 510 653 3399
www.bartlewells.com

31.13 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES
Water & Wastewater Capacity Charge Study
Table of Contents

1. Background & Objectives ................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background...............................................................................................................................1

1.2. Objectives.................................................................................................................................1

1.3. Proposed Charges.....................................................................................................................2

1.4. Survey of Regional Charges......................................................................................................3

2. Government Code & Fee Methodology............................................................................... 4

2.1. Government Code ....................................................................................................................4

2.2. General Fee Methodology........................................................................................................5

2.3. System Buy-In Approach ..........................................................................................................5

2.4. Asset Valuation Approach ........................................................................................................6

3. Wastewater Capacity Charges ............................................................................................ 7

3.1. Current Wastewater Capacity Charges....................................................................................7

3.2. Existing Wastewater System Facilities & Assets ......................................................................7

3.3. Existing Wastewater Collection Assets ....................................................................................7

3.4. Existing Wastewater Treatment Assets ...................................................................................8

3.5. Wastewater System Assets for Fee Recovery..........................................................................9

3.6. Current and Projected Wastewater System Capacity............................................................10

3.7. Wastewater System Cost Recovery per MEU ........................................................................11

3.8. Wastewater Capacity Charge Survey .....................................................................................12

4. Capacity Charge Application ..............................................................................................13

4.1. Capacity Charge Ordinances: Purpose of Charge...................................................................13

4.2. Use of Capacity Charge Revenues..........................................................................................13

4.3. Capacity Charge Credits for Redevelopment.........................................................................13

4.4. Future Fee Adjustments.........................................................................................................14 Appendices
Appendix A – Government Code Pertaining to Water & Wastewater Capacity Charges Appendix B – Wastewater Assets & Costs

31.14 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study
List of Tables
Wastewater Capacity Charge Tables
Table 1 – Proposed Wastewater Capacity Charges .............................................................................2 Table 2 – Current Wastewater Capacity Charges ................................................................................7 Table 3 – Wastewater Collection Assets Costs ....................................................................................8 Table 4 – WWTF Assets Costs...............................................................................................................9 Table 5 – Wastewater System Assets for Fee Recovery ......................................................................9 Table 6 – Current Meter Equivalent Units .........................................................................................10 Table 7 – Projected Wastewater Demand .........................................................................................11 Table 8 – MEU Fee Recovery for Wastewater System.......................................................................11 List of Figures
Wastewater Capacity Charge Figures
Figure 1 – Regional Wastewater Capacity Charge Survey ...................................................................3 Figure 2 – Wastewater Capacity Fee Methodology .............................................................................5 Figure 3 – Regional Wastewater Capacity Charge Survey .................................................................12

31.15 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 1
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study

1. Background & Objectives

1.1. Background
The City of Santa Cruz provides wastewater services to approximately 15,000 residential, commercial, and other non-residential connections. The City was incorporated in 1866 and is located on the northern part of the Monterey Bay approximately 74 miles south of San Francisco and 30 miles west of San Jose.

The City has an area of 12 square miles and an estimated population of 102,000. The City’s wastewater system includes 21 pump stations, over 160 miles of sewer pipe, and a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). The WWTF treats more than 10 million gallons of wastewater each day, with approximately half of the waste generated within City limits and the other half generated by the Santa Cruz County and Sanitation District (SCCSD). Under the Joint Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement between Santa Cruz County and Sanitation District and the City of Santa Cruz, SCCSD has contractual rights for approximately 8/17 of WWTF capacity and is responsible for paying for their proportional share of costs for the WWTF.

The City’s wastewater system is nearly fully developed (built-out) meaning new connections will largely be served by existing infrastructure. The majority of new connections within City limits is expected to come from planned multifamily housing units through redevelopment and land use intensification. The City levies wastewater capacity charges on new and expanded connections to the City’s wastewater system to recover the costs of infrastructure benefiting new development. The City’s current capacity charges were adopted by resolution in 2021 to capture major infrastructure upgrades made to the City’s WWTF and wastewater collection system which were not reflected in the previous capacity charge resolution adopted nearly twenty years prior in 2001.

1.2. Objectives
In 2024, the City retained Bartle Wells Associates to perform an independent evaluation of the City’s existing capacity charges and develop updated charges designed to reflect the current cost of infrastructure and help ensure that new and expanded connections pay for their share of capacity in the City’s wastewater system. The recommendations presented in this report were developed with substantial input from the City’s project team and include some fee structure adjustments to align fees with industry standard practices and methodologies.

Key objectives of the study include developing updated wastewater capacity charges that:
▪ Recover the current costs of wastewater system infrastructure and assets that benefit new development to help ensure that growth pays its own way;

31.16 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 2
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study
▪ Proportionally recover costs from new connections to the wastewater system based on the capacity needs of each new development;
▪ Are consistent with industry-standard practices and methodologies; ▪ Comply with the legal requirements of California Government Code.

1.3. Proposed Charges
The updated charges calculated in this report are based on a System Buy-In Approach under which new connections “buy in” for their proportionate share of costs (in current dollars) for capacity needed in the City’s existing wastewater system facilities and assets. A System Buy-In Approach is one of the most widely used and accepted methods for calculating capacity charges, particularly for agencies with utility infrastructure that is largely built out and has excess capacity available to serve growth.

Proposed wastewater capacity charges are shown on Table 1 and are applied by meter size to reflect differences in estimated wastewater discharge into the system based on the American Water Works Association (AWWA) maximum safe operating capacity standards.

Table 1 – Proposed Wastewater Capacity Charges
Connection Type Proposed Capacity Charge
All Customer Connection Types 1
Meter Size
5/8" $3,894
3/4" $5,841
1" $9,735
1 1/2" $19,471
2" $31,154
3" $68,148
4" $122,667
6" $253,123
1 Capacity charges for meter sizes greater than 6 inches will be determined by the Public Works Director.

31.17 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 3
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study

1.4. Survey of Regional Charges
In general, BWA recommends that capacity charges be independently reviewed and updated as needed approximately once every five years. The City last updated its wastewater system capacity charges in 2021. As shown on the following chart the City’s current capacity charges are nearly the lowest compared to other regional agencies surveyed.

While the proposed capacity charges developed in this study are higher than the City’s existing charges, they remain below the average charge among other regional agencies surveyed and are developed to reflect the current cost of infrastructure and help ensure that new and expanded connections pay for their share of capacity in the City’s wastewater system Figure 1 – Regional Wastewater Capacity Charge Survey
2,391
2,700
3,000
5,037
5,615
5,841
6,094
7,548
8,744
9,735
11,273
12,497
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Wastewater Capacity Charge Survey
Typical Single Family Residence (3/4" meter)
Capacity Charges effective February 2025
Current
Proposed
July 1, 2025

31.18 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 4
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study

2. Government Code & Fee Methodology

2.1. Government Code
Development impact fees are governed by California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. These provisions of the Government Code were initially established by Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 and are commonly referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act (Act). Pursuant to the Act, a development impact fee is not a tax or special assessment, but is, instead, a voluntary charge levied to defray the cost of public facilities needed to serve new development.

Capacity charges are not development impact fees, because they are not imposed as a condition of new development. As such, only a small portion of the Act applies to capacity charges, including Section 66013 of the Government Code, which specifically governs water and wastewater capacity charges. This section defines a “capacity charge” to mean “…a charge for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged…” This section distinguishes “capacity charges” from “fees” which are defined as fees for the physical facilities necessary to make a water or sewer connection, such as costs related to installation of meters and pipelines from a new building to a water or sewer main.

According to Section 66013, a water or wastewater capacity charge “shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed” unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electors. Section 66013 does not detail any specific methodology for calculating capacity charges.

Sections 66016 and 66016.6 of the Government Code identify the procedural requirements for adopting or increasing water and wastewater capacity charges, and Section 66022 summarizes the general process by which the charges can be legally challenged. The full text of Sections 66013, 66016, 66016.6 and 66022 are attached in Appendix A.

31.19 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 5
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study

2.2. General Fee Methodology
The general methodology used to calculate updated wastewater capacity charges in this report is summarized below.

Figure 2 – Wastewater Capacity Fee Methodology

2.3. System Buy-In Approach
Public agencies have used a wide range of methodologies to calculate capacity charges. BWA recommends continued use of a System Buy-In Approach, under which new connections “buy in” for their proportionate share of capacity needed in the City’s existing wastewater system facilities and assets.

The charge represents the average cost per unit of capacity in existing facilities and is calculated by dividing a) the cost of existing facilities and assets (in current, inflation-adjusted dollars) by b) the projected capacity that the City’s sewer facilities will serve. The resulting unit charges reasonably reflect the average cost of capacity in the City’s wastewater facilities and are subsequently applied to the estimated wastewater demands of new or expanded connections.

BWA believes that continued use of a System Buy-In Approach is appropriate for a number of reasons including:

Step 4 - Apply Cost per Unit to the Capacity Needs of New Development Apply the unit costs for capacity to the infrastructure capacity needs of each new development to determine an equitable capacity charge per new connection.

Step 3 - Calculate Cost per Unit of Capacity
Calculate the cost per unit of capacity by dividing the costs identified for fee recovery in Step 1 by the capacity of those facilities identified in Step 2.

Step 2 - Identify Capacity of Facilities
Identify the projected service capacity of facilities and assets identified in Step 1.

Step 1 - Determine Cost of Facilities & Assets for Fee Recovery Determine the recoverable cost of facilities and assets benefiting new development that will be recovered by each capacity charge.

31.20 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 6
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study
• The City’s existing wastewater infrastructure has significant excess capacity available to serve new development. While some improvements may be needed to increase the capacity of various system components or mitigate bottlenecks (depending on where growth occurs), the existing utility infrastructure is largely built out and capable of handling the capacity demands of growth for many years.
• A System Buy-In Approach is one of the most widely used and accepted approaches for calculating capacity charges, particularly for agencies with utility infrastructure that is largely built out and has excess capacity available to serve growth.
• This approach is consistent with the methodology used in the capacity charge calculation that formed the basis for the City’s current wastewater capacity charges.

2.4. Asset Valuation Approach
There are a number of widely-used methods for valuing infrastructure and assets for determining facility costs that will be recovered by capacity charges. The capacity charges calculated in this report determine wastewater system valuation based on Estimated Replacement Cost less Depreciation.

Replacement Cost New less Depreciation (RCNLD)
This approach takes into consideration the change in wastewater system assets over time. Under this approach, the current (or replacement) value of wastewater assets is estimated based on an inventory of existing wastewater collection and treatment assets and updated construction cost estimates (in current dollars). Depreciation takes into account the anticipated losses in system value caused by aging.

At the same time, this approach a) may underestimate the actual replacement cost of existing facilities, b) does not account for the theoretical cost of interest that future customers would have to repay existing customers for the implicit loan provided by existing customers prefunding facilities for growth, and c) does not account for the cost of maintaining capacity in existing infrastructure for growth.

31.21 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 7
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study

3. Wastewater Capacity Charges

3.1. Current Wastewater Capacity Charges
Table 2 shows a schedule of the City’s current wastewater capacity charges.

Table 2 – Current Wastewater Capacity Charges
(Effective July 1, 2021)
Meter Size 1 Current Fee
5/8" $2,400
3/4" 2,700
1" 4,500
1 1/2" 8,000
2" 12,800
3" 24,100
4" 40,100
6" 80,300
1 Capacity charges for meter sizes greater than 6 inches will be determined by the Public Works Director.

3.2. Existing Wastewater System Facilities & Assets
For purposes of estimating the current construction cost of the City’s wastewater system infrastructure, facilities are broken out into wastewater a) collection assets and b) treatment assets.

3.3. Existing Wastewater Collection Assets
The following table shows an inventory of sewer collection system assets along with current replacement cost estimates. Cost estimates per unit of measurement are based on estimates provided by the City’s Department of Public Works and based on wastewater construction projects from recent years. To provide recognition of the physical effects of aging, percent useful life remaining for each asset type is determined by dividing the average age of assets by type by their estimated useful life. This adjustment takes into account the anticipated reduction of asset wear, tear, and decay caused by aging to determine wastewater collection assets for fee recovery.

31.22 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 8
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study
Table 3 – Wastewater Collection Assets Costs
1 Includes only City-owned collection system assets.
2 Estimated replacement costs based on City of Santa Cruz sewer construction projects from recent years and cost estimates provided by the Department of Public Works.

3.4. Existing Wastewater Treatment Assets
The original WWTF was constructed in 1928, and the major construction projects that account for the majority of infrastructure currently in operation were completed in 1988 and 1998. In 2018, the City developed an infrastructure planning study which outlined construction costs needed to maintain the WWTF in safe operating condition. Under the Joint Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement between Santa Cruz County and Sanitation District and the City of Santa Cruz, SCCSD has contractual rights for approximately 8/17 of WWTF capacity.

The following table shows an inventory of the WWTF assets along with replacement cost estimates in current dollars. Cost estimates are based on estimates provided by the City of Santa Cruz WWTF Infrastructure and Major Equipment Study escalated into current dollars using the Engineering NewsRecord Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI) to account for construction cost inflation. To provide recognition of the physical effects of aging, percent useful life remaining for each asset type is determined by dividing the average age of assets by type by their estimated useful life. This adjustment takes into account the anticipated reduction of asset wear, tear, and decay caused by aging. To determine wastewater treatment assets for fee recovery, the estimated total construction cost of projects is further reduced to account for only the City’s share of WWTF capacity. This approach ensures that new connections buy-in for the full inflation-adjusted cost of facilities.

Asset
Type 1 Units
Unit
Measure
Replacement
Costs per
Unit 2
Total
Replacement
Costs
Useful
Life
Average
Age
Avg
% Life
Remaining
Adjusted
Replacement
Costs
Manholes 3,026 # $15,000 $45,390,000 70 52 25% $11,503,331 Vaults 7 # 25,000 175,000 70 34 51% 90,000
Pump Stations 25 # 1,500,000 37,500,000 70 48 31% 11,785,714 Pipelines 1,159,183 LF 350 405,713,957 70 57 19% 75,346,878 Total $488,778,957 $98,725,923

31.23 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 9
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study
Table 4 – WWTF Assets Costs
1 Original replacement cost estimates provided by the City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility Infrastructure and Major Equipment Study, escalated to 2024 dollars.
2 Remaining replacement cost estimates calculated by multiplying the full replacements costs by the average percent life remaining.

3.5. Wastewater System Assets for Fee Recovery
The following table shows total recoverable costs of wastewater system infrastructure accounting for both a) estimated current construction cost of sewer collection assets as shown above plus b) wastewater treatment assets escalated into current dollars based on the change in the ENR-CCI from 2018 to 2024. A detailed list of City wastewater assets and costs used for calculating cost recovery is included in Appendix B. Wastewater collection assets account for the majority of the costs of the City’s wastewater system. The system value is reduced to account for the City’s share of outstanding principal on wastewater debt which represents system costs that the City has not yet paid for.

Table 5 – Wastewater System Assets for Fee Recovery
Asset Description System Value for Capacity Charges
Asset Value
Treatment Assets 1 $42,223,192
Collection Assets 2 98,725,923
Total System Value 140,949,115
Less Outstanding Debt Principal 3(29,254,806)
Total Value of Assets for Capacity Charges $111,694,309 1 Replacement costs estimated by inflating the original cost by the change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index and adjusting for percent remaining asset life. Source: City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility Infrastructure and Major Equipment Study. 2 Replacement costs estimated based on City of Santa Cruz sewer construction projects from recent years and input from the Department of Public Works, adjusted for percent remaining asset life. Source: City of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works.
3 Source: City of Santa Cruz debt schedules.

WWTF Assets
Replacement
Costs 1
Avg % Life
Remaining
Adjusted
Replacement Costs 2
Influent 13,711,875 19% 2,618,927
Primary Treatment 36,426,585 35% 12,701,423
Secondary Treatment 60,323,472 31% 18,850,189
Disinfection/Disposal 24,608,439 24% 6,028,602
Solids Treatment/Disposal 91,211,986 26% 24,171,010
Site Utilities & Yard Piping 57,218,063 24% 13,813,186
Misc Buildings 6,167,336 25% 1,571,580
Total 289,667,754 79,754,918
City of Santa Cruz Portion (9/17) $153,353,517 $42,223,192

31.24 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 10
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study

3.6. Current and Projected Wastewater System Capacity
The next step in calculating capacity charges for the City’s wastewater system is to determine the current capacity of the system. Existing customer connections are converted into Meter Equivalent Units (MEUs) by meter size. The benefit of using MEUs is that they relate the relative capacity of connections by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards for maximum safe operating capacity by meter size. In short, using MEUs accounts for the relative capacity of connections with meters of various sizes and the likelihood of larger meters generating more wastewater discharge into the system. Since single family residences are the City’s primary wastewater connection type, and since current development requirements for new single family connections require a minimum ¾” meter, this study calculates the meter equivalent ratio based on a ¾” meter base. The meter ratio for all other meters is determined by dividing the capacity for that meter by the capacity for a ¾” meter

Table 6 summarizes the data used to determine the City’s current number of MEUs, which is reflective of the current capacity of the system.

Table 6 – Current Meter Equivalent Units
1 Based on the American Water Works Association (AWWA) maximum safe operating capacity.
2 This study assumes all existing 5/8" SRF connections have a 3/4" meter equivalency since current design requirements for new residential homes require 3/4" meters.

Table 7 projects the number of MEUs for the City’s future customer base through 2045 based on a) the City’s most recent population estimates and b) the City’s existing MEU count. The projections shown represent the total customer demand that the City’s wastewater system is projected to serve through 2045.

Meter Size
Number
of Meters
AWWA Meter
Capacity 1 Meter Ratio
Meter
Equivalents 2
5/8" 2,376 20 0.67 1,584
3/4" 11,718 30 1.00 11,718
1" 748 50 1.67 1,247
1 1/2" 233 100 3.33 777
2" 167 160 5.33 891
3" 25 350 11.67 292
4" 11 630 21.00 231
6" 1 1,300 43.33 43
8" 1 2,800 93.33 93
10" 2 4,200 140.00 280
Totals 15,282 17,155

31.25 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 11
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study
Table 7 – Projected Wastewater Demand
Customers Served
Population 2025 101,964
Population 2045 1 113,650
Population Increase % 11.5%
Current MEU 17,155
Population Increase % 11.5%
Projected 2045 MEUs 19,121
1 Projection based on the City of Santa Cruz 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

3.7. Wastewater System Cost Recovery per MEU
Table 8 calculates an updated wastewater capacity charge by dividing a) the recoverable cost of wastewater system assets by b) the projected future capacity of the City’s wastewater system. The calculation results in a wastewater system capacity charge of $5,841 per MEU.

Table 8 – MEU Fee Recovery for Wastewater System
Capacity Charge Component Amount
System Cost Recovery $111,694,309
Projected 2045 MEUs 19,121
Capacity Charge per MEU $5,841

31.26 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 12
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study

3.8. Wastewater Capacity Charge Survey
In general, BWA recommends that capacity charges be independently reviewed and updated as needed approximately once every five years. The City last updated its wastewater system capacity charges in 2021. As shown on the following chart, the City’s current capacity charges are nearly the lowest compared to other regional agencies surveyed.

While the proposed capacity charges developed in this study are higher than the City’s existing charges, they remain below the average charge among other regional agencies surveyed and are developed to reflect the current cost of infrastructure and help ensure that new and expanded connections pay for their share of capacity in the City’s wastewater system Figure 3 – Regional Wastewater Capacity Charge Survey
2,391
2,700
3,000
5,037
5,615
5,841
6,094
7,548
8,744
9,735
11,273
12,497
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Wastewater Capacity Charge Survey
Typical Single Family Residence (3/4" meter)
Capacity Charges effective February 2025
Current
Proposed
July 1, 2025

31.27 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 13
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study

4. Capacity Charge Application
This section highlights some key issues regarding the application and implementation of capacity charges.

4.1. Capacity Charge Ordinances: Purpose of Charge
Pursuant to Government Code 66013, revenues derived from the City’s wastewater capacity charges can only be used for the purpose for which the charges are collected. In order to give the City maximum flexibility for use of capacity charge revenues, BWA recommends that the City’s ordinance broadly define the purpose of the capacity charges, such as to recover costs for capacity in wastewater system infrastructure benefiting new development.

4.2. Use of Capacity Charge Revenues
The proposed capacity charges recover costs for buying into capacity in existing wastewater facilities. As such, BWA believes capacity charge revenues can broadly be used to help fund any facilities and assets that support the provision of wastewater system capacity to new development. This can generally include:
• New facilities that increase system capacity (e.g. pipeline upsizings, wastewater treatment facility expansion, upgrades to increase solids handling capacity); • Replacement of existing facilities that provide system capacity (e.g. pipeline replacements, major equipment replacements, replacements of pump stations and sewer lift stations); • Other capital improvements that support the provision of system capacity (e.g. wastewater treatment facility electrical system upgrades that are needed to support reliable operations and use of treatment facility capacity);
• Debt service repayment for debt issued to fund any of the purposes listed above.

4.3. Capacity Charge Credits for Redevelopment
A significant share of future growth within the City is expected to come from redevelopment projects, which may include rebuilding, expanding, or converting existing buildings into new developments. For example, an existing warehouse may be torn down and redeveloped as a mixed-use residential and commercial development.

Capacity charges for redevelopment projects should be based on the incremental wastewater discharge generated from each project. As such, the capacity charges for a redevelopment project would be calculated based on a) capacity charges applied to the new redevelopment project, less b) a credit for capacity charges applied to the previously existing development, with all calculations based on the capacity charges in effect at the time of the fee calculation.

31.28 BARTLE WE LLS ASSOCIATES 14
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Capacity Charge Study

4.4. Future Fee Adjustments
The proposed capacity charges are calculated based on the cost for buying-in to existing facilities and assets in current dollars. In future years, BWA recommends the City adjust its capacity charges annually or periodically based on the change in the ENR-CCI (20-Cities Average). This is a widely used practice for keeping capacity charges up-to-date and accounting for future construction cost inflation.

The capacity charge adjustment should be based on the change in the ENR-CCI used as basis for the preceding charge update. This allows for a multi-year fee adjustment if the City ever defers an annual adjustment. BWA recommends that the City’s capacity charge ordinance include language authorizing automatic annual fee adjustments along with the ability to implement a “catch-up” adjustment if an annual adjustment is ever deferred or only partially implemented.

In general, BWA recommends that capacity charges be independently reviewed and updated as needed approximately once every five years.

31.29 APPENDIX A
California Government Code:

Key Sections Pertaining to Wastewater Capacity Charges

31.30 California Government Code
Key Sections Pertaining to Water & Wastewater Capacity Charges Sections 66013, 66016, 66022 & 66023
This appendix includes the full text of key sections of California Government Codes pertaining wastewater capacity charges as of February 2025. Sections of Government Code are periodically amended which could result in changes to the legal requirements governing capacity charges. The City should consult its legal counsel for legal interpretations of Government Code or other legislation governing water and wastewater capacity charges.
66013
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency imposes fees for water connections or sewer connections, or imposes capacity charges, those fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee or charge imposed in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue. (b) As used in this section:
(1) “Sewer connection” means the connection of a structure or project to a public sewer system. (2) “Water connection” means the connection of a structure or project to a public water system, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) “Capacity charge” means a charge for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged, including supply or capacity contracts for rights or entitlements, real property interests, and entitlements and other rights of the local agency involving capital expense relating to its use of existing or new public facilities. A “capacity charge” does not include a commodity charge.
(4) “Local agency” means a local agency as defined in Section 66000. (5) “Fee” means a fee for the physical facilities necessary to make a water connection or sewer connection, including, but not limited to, meters, meter boxes, and pipelines from the structure or project to a water distribution line or sewer main, and the estimated reasonable cost of labor and materials for installation of those facilities bears a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the water connection or sewer connection.

31.31 (6) “Public facilities” means public facilities as defined in Section 66000. (c) A local agency receiving payment of a charge as specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) shall deposit it in a separate capital facilities fund with other charges received, and account for the charges in a manner to avoid any commingling with other moneys of the local agency, except for investments, and shall expend those charges solely for the purposes for which the charges were collected. Any interest income earned from the investment of moneys in the capital facilities fund shall be deposited in that fund.
(d) For a fund established pursuant to subdivision (c), a local agency shall make available to the public, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, the following information for that fiscal year:
(1) A description of the charges deposited in the fund. (2) The beginning and ending balance of the fund and the interest earned from investment of moneys in the fund.
(3) The amount of charges collected in that fiscal year. (4) An identification of all of the following:
(A) Each public improvement on which charges were expended and the amount of the expenditure for each improvement, including the percentage of the total cost of the public improvement that was funded with those charges if more than one source of funding was used. (B) Each public improvement on which charges were expended that was completed during that fiscal year.
(C) Each public improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken in the following fiscal year. (5) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the capital facilities fund. The information provided, in the case of an interfund transfer, shall identify the public improvements on which the transferred moneys are, or will be, expended. The information, in the case of an interfund loan, shall include the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the fund will receive on the loan.
(e) The information required pursuant to subdivision (d) may be included in the local agency’s annual financial report.
(f) The provisions of subdivisions (c) and (d) shall not apply to any of the following:

31.32 (1) Moneys received to construct public facilities pursuant to a contract between a local agency and a person or entity, including, but not limited to, a reimbursement agreement pursuant to Section 66003.
(2) Charges that are used to pay existing debt service or which are subject to a contract with a trustee for bondholders that requires a different accounting of the charges, or charges that are used to reimburse the local agency or to reimburse a person or entity who advanced funds under a reimbursement agreement or contract for facilities in existence at the time the charges are collected.
(3) Charges collected on or before December 31, 1998.
(g) Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the ordinance, resolution, or motion imposing a fee or capacity charge subject to this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 66022.
(h) Fees and charges subject to this section are not subject to the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000), but are subject to the provisions of Sections 66016, 66022, and 66023.
(i) Subdivisions (c) and (d) only apply to capacity charges levied pursuant to this section. (Amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 370, Sec. 180. (SB 1371) Effective January 1, 2021.) 66016
(a) Prior to levying a new fee or service charge, or prior to approving an increase in an existing fee or service charge, a local agency shall hold at least one open and public meeting, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data required by this section is available, shall be mailed at least 14 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting on new or increased fees or service charges. Any written request for mailed notices shall be valid for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed. Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service. At least 10 days prior to the meeting, the local agency shall make available to the public data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including General Fund revenues. Unless there has been voter approval, as prescribed by Section 66013 or 66014, no local agency shall levy a new fee or service charge or increase an existing fee or service charge to an amount which exceeds the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied. If, however, the fees

31.33 or service charges create revenues in excess of actual cost, those revenues shall be used to reduce the fee or service charge creating the excess.
(b) Any action by a local agency to levy a new fee or service charge or to approve an increase in an existing fee or service charge shall be taken only by ordinance or resolution. The legislative body of a local agency shall not delegate the authority to adopt a new fee or service charge, or to increase a fee or service charge.
(c) Any costs incurred by a local agency in conducting the meeting or meetings required pursuant to subdivision (a) may be recovered from fees charged for the services which were the subject of the meeting.
(d) This section shall apply only to fees and charges as described in Sections 51287, 56383, 65104, 65456, 65584.1, 65863.7, 65909.5, 66013, 66014, and 66451.2 of this code, Sections 17951, 19132.3, and 19852 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 41901 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 21671.5 of the Public Utilities Code.
(e) Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the ordinance, resolution, or motion levying a fee or service charge subject to this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 66022.
(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 643, Sec. 19. Effective January 1, 2007.) 66016.6
(a) Prior to levying a new fee or capacity charge, a local agency shall evaluate the amount of the fee or capacity charge. The evaluation shall include evidence to support that the fee or capacity charge does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing service, in accordance with Section 66013.If an ordinance, resolution, or motion provides for an automatic adjustment in a fee or service charge, and the automatic adjustment results in an increase in the amount of a fee or service charge, any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the increase shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the increase.
(b) All information constituting the evaluation shall be made publicly available at least 14 days prior to a meeting held in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 66016. (c) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Capacity charge” has the same meaning as defined in Section 66013. (2) “Fee” has the same meaning as defined in Section 66013. (3) “Local agency” has the same meaning as defined in Section 66013.

31.34 (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve a local agency of the requirement that it comply with Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012), the California Constitution, or applicable case law when calculating the amount of a fee.
(Added by Stats. 2022, Ch. 128, Sec. 2. (AB 2536) Effective January 1, 2023.) 66022
(a) Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a new fee or service charge, or modifying or amending an existing fee or service charge, adopted by a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance, resolution, or motion.

If an ordinance, resolution, or motion provides for an automatic adjustment in a fee or service charge, and the automatic adjustment results in an increase in the amount of a fee or service charge, any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the increase shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the increase.
(b)Any action by a local agency or interested person under this section shall be brought pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (c) This section shall apply only to fees, capacity charges, and service charges described in and subject to Sections 66013, 66014, and 66016.
(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 643, Sec. 20. Effective January 1, 2007.)

31.35 66023
(a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (3), a person may request an audit in order to determine all of the following:
(A) Whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility, as defined in Section 66000, or service provided by the local agency.
(B) When the revenue generated by a fee or charge is scheduled to be expended. (C) When the public improvement is scheduled to be completed. (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if a person makes a request pursuant to paragraph (1), the legislative body of the local agency may retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit to determine whether the fee or charge is reasonable, when the revenue generated by a fee or charge is scheduled to be expended, and when the project is scheduled to be completed. (B) The legislative body is not required to conduct the audit if an audit has been performed for the same fee within the previous 12 months.
(3) Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1) shall not apply to a fee subject to Section 66013. (b) To the extent that the audit determines that the amount of any fee or charge does not meet the requirements of this section, the local agency shall adjust the fee accordingly. This subdivision does not apply to a fee authorized pursuant to Section 17620 of the Education Code, or Sections 65995.5 and 65995.7.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (h), the local agency shall retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit only if the person who requests the audit deposits with the local agency the amount of the local agency’s reasonable estimate of the cost of the independent audit. At the conclusion of the audit, the local agency shall reimburse unused sums, if any, or the requesting person shall pay the local agency the excess of the actual cost of the audit over the sum which was deposited. (d) Any audit conducted by an independent auditor to determine whether a fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of providing the product or service shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards. (e) The procedures specified in this section shall be alternative and in addition to those specified in Section 54985.

31.36 (f) The Legislature finds and declares that oversight of local agency fees is a matter of statewide interest and concern. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature that this chapter shall supersede all conflicting local laws and shall apply in charter cities.
(g) This section shall not be construed as granting any additional authority to any local agency to levy any fee or charge which is not otherwise authorized by another provision of law, nor shall its provisions be construed as granting authority to any local agency to levy a new fee or charge when other provisions of law specifically prohibit the levy of a fee or charge. (h) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), if a local agency does not comply with subdivision (b) of Section 66006 for three consecutive years, both of the following shall apply:
(1) The local agency shall not require a deposit for an independent audit requested pursuant to this section and shall pay the cost of the audit.
(2) The independent audit conducted shall include each consecutive year the local agency did not comply with subdivision (b) of Section 66006.
(Amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 741, Sec. 3. (AB 516) Effective January 1, 2024)

31.37 APPENDIX B
Wastewater Assets & Costs

31.38 Appendix B, WWTF Assets City of Santa Cruz Draft Wastewater Capacity Charge Study Wastwater Treatment Facility Assets
Replacement
Costs 1
Avg % Life
Remaining
Adjusted Replacement
Costs 2
Influent
Septage $1,964,508 24% $474,151
Influent Pump Station Bar Screens 4,706,758 18% 843,173 Influent Pump Station 7,040,609 18% 1,301,603
Influent Totals: 13,711,875 2,618,927
Primary Treatment
Pre-Aeration / Grit Removal 17,549,947 29% 5,156,055
Primary Sedimentation 18,876,638 40% 7,545,368
Primary Treatment Totals: 36,426,585 12,701,423
Secondary Treatment
Secondary Interstage Pumping 11,228,794 35% 3,922,588
Trickling Filters 18,095,240 26% 4,738,144
Solids Contact Tank 13,997,765 39% 5,455,267
Secondary Equipment Gallery 9,338,668 27% 2,522,552
Secondary Clarifier No. 1 3,292,235 40% 1,326,639
Secondary Clarifier No. 2 1,259,825 32% 407,285
Secondary Clarifier No. 3 3,110,946 15% 477,715
Secondary Treatment Totals: 60,323,472 18,850,189
Disinfection/Disposal
UV Disinfection 13,489,792 21% 2,868,751
Effluent Pump Station 11,118,647 28% 3,159,851
Disinfection/Disposal Totals: 24,608,439 6,028,602
Solids Treatment/Disposal
Sludge Thickening 7,077,929 16% 1,098,854
Sludge Feed Tank 1,697,044 27% 453,029
Digester 1 7,174,470 21% 1,539,404
Digester 2 3,372,189 41% 1,398,779
Digester 3 3,983,830 41% 1,620,887
Digester 4 11,805,836 44% 5,252,013
Digester 5 7,308,720 38% 2,757,697
Solids Dewatering 23,489,861 25% 5,868,058
Cogeneration/Heat Recovery System 25,302,107 17% 4,182,289 Solids Treatment/Disposal Totals: 91,211,986 24,171,010 Site Utilities & Yard Piping
Effluent Filtration 2,576,149 15% 376,444
Non Potable Water Tank/Chlorination Bldg 3,314,783 20% 667,362 Flow Meter Vault 274,720 36% 100,040
Odor Control 2,687,592 55% 1,484,655
Standby Generators 15,765,303 6% 892,840
Power Generation\Administration Building 13,689,353 31% 4,199,589 Site Utilities/Yard Piping 18,910,164 32% 6,092,256
Site Utilities and Yard Piping Totals: 57,218,063 13,813,186 Misc Buildings
Operations Building 2,900,759 25% 712,458
Locker & Garage Building 984,846 42% 411,562
Maintenance/Fab/Electrical Building 2,281,732 20% 447,560 Misc Buildings Totals: 6,167,336 1,571,580
Total 289,667,754 79,754,918
City of Santa Cruz Portion (9/17) $153,353,517 $42,223,192 1 Original replacement cost estimates provided in 2018 dollars (ENR 11,062) by the City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility Infrastructure and Major Equipment Study, escalated to 2024 dollars (ENR 13,571.30). 2 Remaining replacement cost estimates calculated by multiplying the full replacements costs by the average percent

31.39 Brittany Inclan
From: Ryan Meckel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Items #30 and #31 on 6/10/2025 agenda Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of the proposed revisions to wastewater user charges (Item #30) and sewer connection fees (Item #31) on your June 10, 2025 agenda.

Sincerely,
Ryan Meckel
Chair, Transportation and Public Works Commission

31.40 City of Santa Cruz
Capacity Charges
June 10, 2025

31.41 Capacity
Charges
• One-time fee paid by new customers as a
condition of development or changes in
property use that result in increased capacity
needs.
• Levied to recover costs for capacity in facilities
benefiting new development
• Government Code Section 66013 (AB1600)
•Capacity charges can recover costs for existing
facilities or future facilities
2 31.42
Proposed
Capacity
Charges
3 31.43
Outreach
• Legal Notice in the Santa Cruz Sentinel
• Distributed notice to community members who
opted in to notification regarding updates to City
Permits, Fees, and Licenses
• Additional Noticing: City website, social media, City Manager Weekly Updates, and SCMU bills
• Public Engagement:
• March 2025 Public Works TPWC Open House
• March 2025 City Council Meeting
4 31.44
Motion Resolution adopting the revised sewer
connection fees, adding the updated sewer
connection fees to the City-Wide Fee
Schedule and rescinding Resolution No.

NS-29,801
5 31.45

BARTLE WELLS
ASSOCIATES 31.46
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/22/2025
AGENDA OF: 06/10/2025
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: First Reading of An Ordinance Amending Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 6.07 to Prohibit the Sale of Filtered Tobacco Products (CM) LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending Chapter 6.07 “Tobacco Retailer Licenses” of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code to prohibit the sale of filtered tobacco products; 2) Direct staff to collaborate with the County of Santa Cruz and local stakeholders to develop and implement educational outreach for affected retailers, assisting them in the transition away from selling filtered tobacco products;
3) Affirm the City’s commitment to support staff efforts in collaborating with the County of Santa Cruz and local stakeholders to enhance public education efforts; and 4) Approve the CEQA determination contained in this agenda report and direct staff to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption. This action is not a “project” under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections: 15378(b)(2) (“general policy and procedure making”) and 15378(b)(5) (“organizational and administrative activities” that do not result in physical changes to the environment). And, even if it were considered a CEQA “project”, this action is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section: 15307 (action “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource”); 15308 (action “to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment”); and 16061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

BACKGROUND: Cigarette butts are the most littered item on the planet and a significant contributor to plastic pollution, particularly in coastal communities like Santa Cruz. Made from materials such as cellulose acetate, these filters do not biodegrade; instead, they break down into microplastics that contaminate the environment, harm wildlife, and pose emerging threats to human health. Recent studies have detected microplastics in human organs, including the lungs, liver, and placenta.

32.1 In recognition of this issue, the City Council (Council) has taken several steps to address tobacco product waste (TPW):
• On April 27, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution NS-29,807, which supports policy action to ban plastic cigarette filters.
• In 2022, the Council supported Assembly Bill 1690, which aimed to prohibit the sale of certain single-use smoking products.
• The City hosted various community engagement initiatives, conducted surveys, and collaborated with the Health in All Policies (HiAP) Committee and regional stakeholders on strategies to reduce TPW, outlined in the Discussion section below.

Similarly, in May 2023, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (Board) passed a resolution recognizing TPW as an environmental and public health threat. The Board established a Countyled Tobacco Waste Ad Hoc Subcommittee (Subcommitee) to develop policies and outreach initiatives across jurisdictions. In October 2024, the Board approved, in concept, a recommendation from the Subcommittee to ban the sale of filtered tobacco products. Full enforcement in unincorporated County areas is set to begin on January 1, 2027.

The County’s approach has been shaped by growing global research on the environmental and health impacts of microplastics. The Subcommittee highlighted that cigarette filters, which are made of non-biodegradable plastic, release toxic chemicals like arsenic, lead, and nicotine into the environment. Wildlife and children are particularly vulnerable to the risks posed by ingesting discarded filters. Additionally, a 2023 NOAA study found that 24.5% of all marine debris in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary was tobacco-related, with cigarette filters comprising more than 94%.

Since 2017, the County’s Health Services Agency and the Tobacco Education Coalition have led extensive educational efforts, including over 30 presentations, 22 cleanups, various community events, and the creation of a bilingual campaign and a short film titled “Within an Inch.” To date, all five jurisdictions in the County, including the City of Santa Cruz, have passed resolutions recognizing TPW as a health and environmental concern. Regional collaboration has been prioritized to ensure consistent policies and educational initiatives across jurisdictions:
• 2021: Cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville
• 2023: County of Santa Cruz and City of Capitola
• 2024: City of Scotts Valley
DISCUSSION: Filtered tobacco products, primarily cigarettes with non-consumable filters, significantly contribute to TPW. Filters do not provide any health benefits to smokers and are known to increase the depth of inhalation, which leads to greater health risks. Additionally, filters leach toxins such as arsenic, lead, and nicotine into ecosystems, posing ingestion risks to wildlife, children, and pets.

Cigarette filter cleanup is costly and ongoing. A study by San Diego State University estimates that the City of Santa Cruz spends over $2 million annually on tobacco waste cleanup.

Improperly discarded filters also increase the risk of wildfires.

Since 2017, the County's Tobacco Education and Prevention Program has conducted significant outreach in collaboration with the Tobacco Education Coalition and community partners. These

32.2 efforts have included school presentations, public campaigns, beach cleanups, and data collection on tobacco waste. The City of Santa Cruz has also participated in multiple cross-jurisdictional planning meetings and outreach events to engage businesses and residents.

A 2023 survey involving nearly 200 community members indicated that most residents support reducing cigarette litter. By April 30, 2025, a relaunch of the survey received 69 responses, reflecting ongoing community interest.

City of Santa Cruz Outreach Summary (2023–2025)
• 2023: Launched community survey (199 responses) and stakeholder engagement launched; presented to the Health in All Policies (HiAP) Committee. • 2024: Collected two additional survey responses and continued regional collaboration • 2025: Conducted survey, tabling, outreach, and public engagement activities including:
o March 5: Survey relaunch (88 responses) and Cigarette Surfboard Film Screening
o April 5 and 26: Save Our Shores Beach Cleanup Events
o April 19: Earth Day Event
o April and May: Two email blast to tobacco retailer businesses (hand-delivered flyers to businesses where emails bounced back)
o April 29: Friends of the Library Event and TWP Open House o May 29: TPW Community webinar
County Outreach Summary (2017–2025)
• Conducted over 30 presentations and training courses for schools, nonprofits, and environmental groups
• Organized 22 beach and community cleanups
• Held public art and speaker events
• Launched a bilingual radio, billboard, and documentary campaign • Provided policy education, polling, and outreach materials Key Elements of the Proposed Ordinance
• Prohibits the sale of cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco products with embedded, nonconsumable filters • Does not ban all tobacco products (unfiltered cigarettes, vapes, loose tobacco, nicotine pouches, and chewing tobacco remain permitted)
• Enforcement will not begin until January 1, 2027, allowing a transition period • Does not criminalize smoking or personal possession of filtered tobacco products Next Steps
• Return to City Council on June 24, 2025, for a second reading and final adoption. • Launch an outreach campaign to inform retailers and the public. • Coordinate with County and regional partners for enforcement alignment and continued public education.

The City will work closely with local retailers to support the transition, including outreach, compliance resources, and collaboration with health providers to expand tobacco cessation programs.

32.3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: This action is not a “project” under CEQA because it does not meet all of the requirements set out in Pub. Resources Code § 21065. (CEQA Guidelines Sections: 15378(b)(2) (“general policy and procedure making”) and 15378(b)(5) (“[o]rganizational and administrative activities” that do not result in physical changes to the environment).) In the alternative, if the Council action is considered a CEQA “project”, it is exempt from CEQA under the following exemptions:
 CEQA Guidelines § 15307 – The Council action is intended “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15307.)  CEQA Guidelines § 15308 – The Council action is intended “to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15308.)”
 CEQA Guidelines § 16061(b)(3) – The common sense exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Council action may have a significant effect on the environment. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15061(b)(3)).

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): This ordinance supports the City’s HiAP goals by addressing the intersections of equity, sustainability, and public health. It reduces disproportionate pollution burdens that tobacco waste imposes on low-income and coastal communities, advances sustainable environmental stewardship through plastic pollution prevention, and promotes long-term community and environmental health through upstream tobacco product waste control. The policy development process—driven by inclusive engagement, data collection and alignment with regional partners—reflects HiAP’s emphasis on cross-sector collaboration and system-level change.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: While some tax revenue loss from tobacco sales is possible, national and state smoking rates continue to decline, and the ordinance allows for shifts to legal non-filtered tobacco products. The City anticipates potential long-term cost savings in cleanup efforts and public health. No new enforcement of staffing or budget is expected.

Prepared By:

Emeline Nguyen
Principal Management
Analyst
Claire Hard
Deputy City Attorney
Submitted By:

Michelle Templeton
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. ORDINANCE – CLEAN.DOCX

2. ORDINANCE – TRACK CHANGES.DOCX

3. RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,807.PDF

4. CITY TPW INFO REPORT UPDATE.PDF

5. COUNTY TPW SUBCOMMITTEE OUTREACH ACTIVITIES.PDF

6. SUPERVISORS CUMMINGS AND KOENIG LETTER IN SUPPORT.PDF

32.4 7. COMBINED LETTERS TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT.PDF

32.5 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTER 6.07 OF THE

SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSES WHEREAS, cigarette butts are the most littered item on the planet and a significant contributor to plastic pollution, particularly in coastal communities like the City of Santa Cruz; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are an unsightly blight on Santa Cruz City sidewalks, parks, playgrounds, recreation trails, and other public spaces; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are made from non-biodegradable materials, such as cellulose acetate, which breaks down into microplastics that contaminate the environment, harm wildlife, and pose emerging threats to human health; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are not just litter but toxic waste, leaching dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment; and WHEREAS, improperly discarded cigarette butts can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life; and
WHEREAS, improperly discarded cigarette butts are a fire hazard, responsible for burning more than roughly 88,898 acres in California since 1980; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are the remnants of a deadly product that is responsible for killing almost half a million people in the United States each year, including 40,000 Californians:
and
WHEREAS, emerging forms of tobacco waste include electronic cigarettes or vaping devices, and the e-juice, cartridges, batteries, and accessories associated with them; and WHEREAS, tobacco waste is a health equity issue, disproportionately found in lower income communities and communities of color; and
WHEREAS, Big Tobacco takes no responsibility for its toxic waste, forcing the physical and financial burden of cleanup onto local government agencies and volunteer organizations; and WHEREAS, previous approaches including anti-litter laws, anti-smoking signage, increased waste disposal containers, and robust cleanup efforts have failed to solve the problem; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, City council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,807, recognizing the public health and environmental threat tobacco product waste (TPW) poses to the City and its residents; and

32.6 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2022, the City Council received an informational presentation from the Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Program regarding policy options being explored to address the public health and environmental threat posed by TPW; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the City Council received a presentation update from staff and Councilmembers from the Health in All Policies (HiAP) Committee and directed staff to continue working with the Committee, the County, and stakeholders on community engagement, and provide feedback as needed; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (Board) passed a resolution recognizing TPW as an environmental and public health threat and establishing a County-led Tobacco Waste Ad Hoc Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to develop policies and outreach initiatives across jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2024, the Board approved the Subcommittee’s recommendation to ban the sale of filtered tobacco products, with enforcement of the ban beginning on January 1, 2027, or on a date that two additional jurisdictions in the County approve a similar ordinance, whichever date is later.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 6.07 “Tobacco Retailer Licenses” of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is amended as follows:

A. Section 6.07.010 “Definitions” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“6.07.010 DEFINITIONS.

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
(a) “Chief of police” shall refer to the city of Santa Cruz chief of police or the person designated by the chief of police.
(b) “Cigarette” means:
(1) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; and
(2) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described herein.

32.7 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX
(c) “Cigar” means any roll of tobacco wrapped entirely or in part in leaf tobacco or any substance containing tobacco.
(d) “Drug paraphernalia” shall have the definitions set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 11014.5, as that section may be amended from time to time. (e) “E-cigarette” means any electronically or battery-operated device, often shaped like a cigarette, containing a nicotine-based liquid, sometimes flavored, that is vaporized and inhaled, and which is used to simulate the experience of smoking tobacco or other combustible substances.
(f) “Partially Inconsumable Cigarette” means any Cigarette containing an embedded component or part commonly referred to or marketed as a filter that is not intended to be consumed, whether it is made of any material including, but not limited to, plastic, cellulose acetate, other fibrous plastic material, or any other inorganic, organic, or biodegradable material.
(g) “Partially Inconsumable Cigar” means any Cigar containing an embedded component or part commonly referred to or marketed as a filter that is not intended to be consumed, whether it is made of any material including, but not limited to, plastic, cellulose acetate, other fibrous plastic material, or any other inorganic, organic, or biodegradable material. (h) “Person” shall mean any natural person, partnership, cooperative association, corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity. (i) “Proprietor” shall mean a person with an ownership or managerial interest in a business. An ownership interest shall be deemed to exist when a person has a ten percent or greater interest in the stock, assets, or income of a business other than the sole interest of security for debt. A managerial interest shall be deemed to exist when a person can or does have or share ultimate control over the day-to-day operations of a business. (j) “Tobacco paraphernalia” shall mean cigarette papers or wrappers, pipes, holders of smoking materials of all types, cigarette rolling machines, and any other item designed for the smoking, preparation, storing, or consumption of tobacco products. (k) “Tobacco product” shall mean as set forth in Section 6.06.020. (l) “Tobacco retailer” shall mean any person or business which sells, offers for sale, or does or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes, or who distributes free or low-cost samples of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes. “Tobacco retailing” shall mean the doing of any of these things. This definition is without regard to the quantity of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes sold, offered for sale, exchanged, or offered for exchange.”

32.8 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX
B. Section 6.07.020 “Tobacco retailer license – Violations” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“6.07.020 Tobacco retailer license – Violations.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a tobacco retailer, or to display or advertise the sale of tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes, without obtaining and maintaining a valid tobacco retailer’s license pursuant to this chapter for each location at which that activity is to occur.
(b) It shall be a violation of this chapter for any tobacco retailer or any of the tobacco retailer’s agents or employees to sell or offer for sale, or to possess with intent to sell or offer for sale, Partially Inconsumable Cigarettes or Partially Inconsumable Cigars. (1) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco retailer in possession of four or more packages containing any Partially Inconsumable Cigarettes or Partially Inconsumable Cigars possesses such packages of Partially Inconsumable Cigarettes or Partially Inconsumable Cigars is with the intent to sell or offer for sale.
(2) Enforcement of subsection (b) of SCMC 6.07.020 will begin January 1, 2027, or on a date that two other jurisdictions within the County, aside from the City, have approved a similar ordinance, whichever date is later.
(c) Tobacco retailing by persons on foot or from vehicles is prohibited. (d) Each tobacco retailer license shall be prominently displayed in a publicly visible location at the licensed location.
(e) In the course of tobacco retailing or in the operation of a business or maintenance of a location for which a tobacco retailer’s license has been issued, it shall be a violation of this chapter for a licensee, or any of the licensee’s agents or employees, to violate any local, state, or federal law applicable
to tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, tobacco retailing, narcotics, or e-cigarettes. (f) Tobacco retailing in violation of Section 6.06.030 is prohibited.” SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This action is not a “project” under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections: 15378(b)(2) (“general policy and procedure making”) and 15378(b)(5) (“[o]rganizational and administrative activities” that do not result in physical changes to the environment). And, even if it were considered a CEQA “project”, this action is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section: 15307 (action “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource”); 15308 (action “to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment”); and 16061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

32.9 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

Enforcement of subsection (b) of SCMC 6.07.020 will begin January 1, 2027, or on a date that two other jurisdictions, aside from the City, within the County have approved a similar ordinance, whichever date is later, as set out in SCMC 6.07.020(b)(2).

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 10th day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this XX day of XX, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2025-xx and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

32.10 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTER 6.07 OF THE

32.11 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2022, the City Council received an informational presentation from the Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Program regarding policy options being explored to address the public health and environmental threat posed by TPW; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the City Council received a presentation update from staff and Councilmembers from the Health in All Policies (HiAP) Committee and directed staff to continue working with the Committee, the County, and stakeholders on community engagement, and provide feedback as needed; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (Board) passed a resolution recognizing TPW as an environmental and public health threat and establishing a County-led Tobacco Waste Ad Hoc Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to develop policies and outreach initiatives across jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2024, the Board approved the Subcommittee’s recommendation to ban the sale of filtered tobacco products, with enforcement of the ban beginning on January 1, 2027, or on a date that two additional jurisdictions in the County approve a similar ordinance, whichever date is later.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 6.07 “Tobacco Retailer Licenses” of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is amended as follows:

A. Section 6.07.010 “Definitions” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“6.07.010 DEFINITIONS.

32.12 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
(c) “Cigar” means any roll of tobacco wrapped entirely or in part in leaf tobacco or any substance containing tobacco.
(db) “Drug paraphernalia” shall have the definitions set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 11014.5, as that section may be amended from time to time. (ec) “E-cigarette” means any electronically or battery-operated device, often shaped like a cigarette, containing a nicotine-based liquid, sometimes flavored, that is vaporized and inhaled, and which is used to simulate the experience of smoking tobacco or other combustible substances.
(f) “Partially Inconsumable Cigarette” means any Cigarette containing an embedded component or part commonly referred to or marketed as a filter that is not intended to be consumed, whether it is made of any material including, but not limited to, plastic, cellulose acetate, other fibrous plastic material, or any other inorganic, organic, or biodegradable material.
(g) “Partially Inconsumable Cigar” means any Cigar containing an embedded component or part commonly referred to or marketed as a filter that is not intended to be consumed, whether it is made of any material including, but not limited to, plastic, cellulose acetate, other fibrous plastic material, or any other inorganic, organic, or biodegradable material. (hd) “Person” shall mean any natural person, partnership, cooperative association, corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity. (ie) “Proprietor” shall mean a person with an ownership or managerial interest in a business. An ownership interest shall be deemed to exist when a person has a ten percent or greater interest in the stock, assets, or income of a business other than the sole interest of security for debt. A managerial interest shall be deemed to exist when a person can or does have or share ultimate control over the day-to-day operations of a business. (jf) “Tobacco paraphernalia” shall mean cigarette papers or wrappers, pipes, holders of smoking materials of all types, cigarette rolling machines, and any other item designed for the smoking, preparation, storing, or consumption of tobacco products. (kg) “Tobacco product” shall mean as set forth in Section 6.06.020. (lh) “Tobacco retailer” shall mean any person or business which sells, offers for sale, or does or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes, or who distributes free or low-cost samples of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes. “Tobacco retailing” shall mean the doing of any of these things. This definition is without regard to the quantity of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes sold, offered for sale, exchanged, or offered for exchange.”

32.13 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
B. Section 6.07.020 “Tobacco retailer license – Violations” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“6.07.020 Tobacco retailer license – Violations.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a tobacco retailer, or to display or advertise the sale of tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes, without obtaining and maintaining a valid tobacco retailer’s license pursuant to this chapter for each location at which that activity is to occur.
(b) It shall be a violation of this chapter for any tobacco retailer or any of the tobacco retailer’s agents or employees to sell or offer for sale, or to possess with intent to sell or offer for sale, Partially Inconsumable Cigarettes or Partially Inconsumable Cigars. (1) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco retailer in possession of four or more packages containing any Partially Inconsumable Cigarettes or Partially Inconsumable Cigars possesses such packages of Partially Inconsumable Cigarettes or Partially Inconsumable Cigars is with the intent to sell or offer for sale.
(2) Enforcement of subsection (b) of SCMC 6.07.020 will begin January 1, 2027, or on a date that two other jurisdictions within the County, aside from the City, within the County have approved a similar ordinance, whichever date is later. (cb) Tobacco retailing by persons on foot or from vehicles is prohibited. (dc) Each tobacco retailer license shall be prominently displayed in a publicly visible location at the licensed location.
(ed) In the course of tobacco retailing or in the operation of a business or maintenance of a location for which a tobacco retailer’s license has been issued, it shall be a violation of this chapter for a licensee, or any of the licensee’s agents or employees, to violate any local, state, or federal law applicable
to tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, tobacco retailing, narcotics, or e-cigarettes. (fe) Tobacco retailing in violation of Section 6.06.030 is prohibited.” SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This action is not a “project” under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections: 15378(b)(2) (“general policy and procedure making”) and 15378(b)(5) (“[o]rganizational and administrative activities” that do not result in physical changes to the environment). And, even if it were considered a CEQA “project”, this action is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section: 15307 (action “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource”); 15308 (action “to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment”); and 16061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

32.14 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption. Enforcement of subsection (b) of SCMC 6.07.020 will begin January 1, 2027, or on a date that two other jurisdictions, aside from the City, within the County have approved a similar ordinance, whichever date is later, as set out in SCMC 6.07.020(b)(2).

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 10th day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 202x-xx and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________

32.15 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

32.16 32.17

32.18 Reso No. 250-21 (CM)
P:\COUNCIL\2021\091421\Tobacco Waste.docx
ri 9/16/2021 4:39:56 PM
1 RESOLUTION NO. 250-21 (CM)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WATSONVILLE RECOGNIZING TOBACCO WASTE AS A PUBLIC

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Watsonville's streets and waterways, where they are washed into the Monterey Bay and contribute to a common form of litter in the world’s oceans; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are an unsightly blight on Watsonville's sidewalks, parks, playgrounds, recreation trails, and other public spaces; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks down into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are not just litter but toxic waste, leaching dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment; and WHEREAS, improperly discarded cigarette butts can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life; and
WHEREAS, improperly discarded cigarette butts are a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are the remnants of a deadly product that is responsible for killing almost half a million people in the United States each year, including 40,000 Californians: and
WHEREAS, emerging forms of tobacco waste include electronic cigarettes or vaping devices, and the e-juice, cartridges, batteries, and accessories associated with them; and
WHEREAS, tobacco waste is a health equity issue, disproportionately found in lower income communities and communities of color; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 161185E1-8035-42C1-B2EC-41EDC6E0C3FD 4913

32.19 Reso No. 250-21 (CM)
P:\COUNCIL\2021\091421\Tobacco Waste.docx
ri 9/16/2021 4:39:56 PM
2 WHEREAS, Big Tobacco takes no responsibility for its toxic waste, forcing the physical and financial burden of cleanup onto local government agencies and volunteer organizations; and
WHEREAS, previous approaches including anti-litter laws, anti-smoking signage, increased waste disposal containers, and robust cleanup efforts have failed to solve the problem.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the Council hereby recognizes and declares tobacco waste a public health and environmental threat to the residents of the City.

2. That the Council resolves to advance policy approaches to reduce or eliminate this toxic waste in our community.

3. That the Council requests the Mayor to write a letter to our local legislative representatives urging them to encourage the California State Legislature to ban plastic cigarette filters.
*******************************************
DocuSign Envelope ID: 161185E1-8035-42C1-B2EC-41EDC6E0C3FD

32.20 Reso No. 250-21 (CM)
P:\COUNCIL\2021\091421\Tobacco Waste.docx
ri 9/16/2021 4:39:56 PM
3 The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Watsonville, held on the 14th day of September , 2021, by Member Montesino, who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Member Hurst , was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Estrada, García, Hurst, Montesino, Parker, Dutra
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
____________________________
Jimmy Dutra, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
_______________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
City Attorney
************************************
I, Beatriz Vázquez Flores, City Clerk of the City of Watsonville, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 250-21 (CM) was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Watsonville City Council at a meeting thereof held on the 14th day of September , 2021, and that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of said Resolution. ________________________________
Beatriz Vázquez Flores, City Clerk
Date__________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 161185E1-8035-42C1-B2EC-41EDC6E0C3FD 9/21/2021 | 7:45 AM PDT
9/21/2021 | 7:45 AM PDT
OS
r DocuSigned by:

L<i::~

32.21 BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 101-2023
On the motion of Supervisor Cummings
duly seconded by Supervisor Koenig
the following resolution is adopted.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ RECOGNIZING TOBACCO

WASTE AS A PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are the most littered item on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches, where they are washed into the Monterey Bay and contribute to a common form of litter in the world’s oceans; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are an unsightly blight on Santa Cruz County sidewalks, parks, playgrounds, recreation trails, and other public spaces; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks down into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are not just litter but toxic waste, leaching dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment; and WHEREAS, improperly discarded cigarette butts can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life; and
WHEREAS, improperly discarded cigarette butts are a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts do not actually filter out harmful chemicals from cigarette smoke and provide no demonstrated health benefits to smokers; and WHEREAS, emerging forms of tobacco waste include electronic cigarettes or vaping devices, and the e-juice, cartridges, batteries, and accessories associated with them; and
WHEREAS, tobacco waste is a health equity issue, disproportionately found in lower income communities and communities of color; and
WHEREAS, Big Tobacco takes no responsibility for its toxic waste, forcing the physical and financial burden of cleanup onto local government agencies and volunteer organizations; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29E0045E-0581-4267-A85E-F00694C23179 Adopted 05/16/2023 Board of Supervisors DOC-2023-447 8.a 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 325679B1-A05C-4EFB-8F5A-25E8FB6EC40C

32.22 WHEREAS, previous approaches including anti-litter laws, anti-smoking signage, increased waste disposal containers, and robust cleanup efforts have failed to solve the problem.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors as follows:

1. That the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes and declares tobacco waste a public health and environmental threat to the residents of the County.

2. That the Board of Supervisors resolves to create a tobacco waste ad hoc committee that will work with staff and local stakeholders to create a process for advancing policies to reduce or eliminate cigarette butt litter that include but are not limited to drafting an ordinance that would prohibit the sale of plastic filtered tobacco products in the County that would return for board action before January of 2025 unless extended.

3. That the Board of Supervisors directs the Chair to write a letter to the city councils of Santa Cruz and Watsonville expressing our support of their efforts and our commitment to joining them in addressing plastic tobacco litter and write a letter to Capitola and Scotts Valley urging them to join the County and cities of Watsonville and Santa Cruz in eliminating plastic cigarette butt waste.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz, State of California, this 16th day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

Supervisors Koenig, Hernandez, Cummings, McPherson and Friend None
None
None
ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:
______________________________________
Zach Friend
ATTEST: Chair of the Board
____________________________

CLERK OF THE BOARD
DATE: ______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Office of the County Counsel
5/5/2023 (AMS# 14501)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29E0045E-0581-4267-A85E-F00694C23179 Resolution 101-2023 2
Juliette Burke
DocuSign Envelope ID: 325679B1-A05C-4EFB-8F5A-25E8FB6EC40C 5/16/2023
5/16/2023

32.23 RESOLUTION NO. 4339

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA

RECOGNIZING TOBACCO WASTE AS A PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are the most littered item on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches, where they are washed into the Monterey Bay and contribute to a common form of litter in the world’s oceans; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are an unsightly blight on City of Capitola sidewalks, parks, playgrounds, recreation trails, Capitola Beach, and other public spaces; and WHEREAS, Since 2018, local nonprofit Save Our Shores has collected 116,748 cigarette butts from Monterey Bay beaches, open spaces, and public areas; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks down into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are not just litter but toxic waste, leaching dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment; and WHEREAS, improperly discarded cigarette butts can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life; and
WHEREAS, improperly discarded cigarette butts are a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts do not actually filter out harmful chemicals from cigarette smoke and provide no demonstrated health benefits to smokers; and WHEREAS, emerging forms of tobacco waste include electronic cigarettes or vaping devices, and the e-juice, cartridges, batteries, and accessories associated with them; and WHEREAS, tobacco waste is a health equity issue, disproportionately found in lower income communities and communities of color; and
WHEREAS, Big Tobacco takes no responsibility for its toxic waste, forcing the physical and financial burden of cleanup onto local government agencies and volunteer organizations; and WHEREAS, previous approaches including anti-litter laws, anti-smoking signage, increased waste disposal containers, and robust cleanup efforts have failed to solve the problem.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7591D619-EB8C-47B5-ADD3-CEB8BA84F7FE

32.24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Capitola City Council hereby recognizes and declares tobacco waste a public health and environmental threat to the residents of the City of Capitola.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Capitola, California, at a regular meeting held this 12th day of October, by the following vote:

AYES: BROOKS, CLARKE, PEDERSEN, BROWN, KEISER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
____________________________________
Margaux Keiser, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7591D619-EB8C-47B5-ADD3-CEB8BA84F7FE

32.25 RESOLUTION NO. 2045

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY

RECOGNIZING TOBACCO WASTE AS A

PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are the most littered item on riverways and beaches, where they are washed into the Monterey Bay and contribute to a common form of litter in the world’s oceans; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts are an unsightly blight on Scotts Valley sidewalks, parks, playgrounds, recreation trails, and other public spaces; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks down into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are not just litter but toxic waste, leaching dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment; and WHEREAS, improperly discarded cigarette butts can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life; and
WHEREAS, improperly discarded cigarette butts are a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980; and
WHEREAS, cigarette butts do not actually filter out harmful chemicals from cigarette smoke and provide no demonstrated health benefits to smokers; and WHEREAS, emerging forms of tobacco waste include electronic cigarettes or vaping devices, and the e-juice, cartridges, batteries, and accessories associated with them; and WHEREAS, tobacco waste is a health equity issue, disproportionately found in lower income communities and communities of color; and
WHEREAS, Big Tobacco takes no responsibility for its toxic waste, forcing the physical and financial burden of cleanup onto local government agencies and volunteer organizations; and
WHEREAS, previous approaches including anti-litter laws, anti-smoking signage, increased waste disposal containers, and robust cleanup efforts have failed to solve the problem.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D58A1E65-D9E5-4323-AFF3-FCAF91B22D49

32.26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley recognizes and declares tobacco waste a public health and environmental threat to the residents of Scotts Valley.

This resolution was adopted at a duly held regular meeting of the City Council on the 3 rd
day of April, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: JOHNSON, DILLES, LIND, TIMMS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: TIMM
ABSTAIN: NONE
Approved: ____________________________
Randy Johnson, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: D58A1E65-D9E5-4323-AFF3-FCAF91B22D49

32.27 32.28

32.29 32.30

32.31 32.32

32.33 32.34

32.35 32.36

32.37 32.38

32.39 32.40

32.41 32.42

32.43 32.44

32.45 32.46

32.47 32.48
Attachment I: Subcommittee Participants, Engagement Activities, and Supporters This attachment is provided to help inform the community about the work of the subcommittee, which was established by the Board of Supervisors, to develop the Tobacco Waste Policy, including outreach conducted and letters of support received.

This list does not capture all of the letters received in support for this item, which will be found in public correspondence.

Table 1: Subcommittee Policy Development Participants
This list reflects the county department, local jurisdictions, and non-profit organizations who were consulted at the outset of the establishment of the subcommittee to propose policy options for consideration.

Subcommittee Participants
City of Santa Cruz
City of Capitola
City of Scotts Valley
City of Watsonville
Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Division
Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency
Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department
Santa Cruz County Counsel
Save Our Shores
The Cigarette Surfboard
Surfrider Foundation, Santa Cruz Chapter
Save the Waves
Seymour Marine Discovery Center
Tobacco Education Coalition
Public Health Law Center
Santa Cruz Waves

32.49 TABLE 2: The Subcommittee conducted policy outreach through a variety channels, and met with diverse stakeholders from throughout the county to gather community input and conduct education on the proposed policy to help inform the policy and ensure that the community was aware of the policy proposal. This included beach cleanups, presentations to student organizations, businesses interest groups, non-profits, and many more. The list of activities is not in chronological order.

Organization/Event Activity Date
UCSC Popbio Presentation 1/12/2024
Trash Talkers Presentation 1/25/2024
Natural History Symposium Presentation 2/24/2024
Take Down Tobacco Day Proclamation 4/1/2024
El Nido Presentation 12/6/2023
El Nido Cigarette Butt Cleanup Watsonville 10/1/ 2024
Santa Cruz County Cleanup
Day Community Cleanup 5/11/2024
Scotts Valley High Group Presentation to environmental clubs 3/28/2024 Scotts Valley City Council
Meeting Presentation 4/3/2024
Santa Cruz High School Presentation to AVID class 5/3/2024 Earth Day, Santa Cruz Tabling event 4/20/2024
Retailer Subcommittee Presentation 5/29/2024
SOS/Seymour Center
Speaker Series - 1 Community Event 5/19/2024
California Coastal Cleanup
Day Beach Cleanup 9/21/2024
World Oceans Day Tabling 6/8/2024
Save Our Shores, Pitch In
Santa Cruz, Promotoras,
Safe and Active
Transportation, Tobacco
Education and Prevention
Program Beach Cleanup 8/15/2024
Rural Bonny Doon
Association Presentation 9/26/2024
Santa Cruz County Fish and
Wildlife Commission Presentation 9/5/2024
Santa Cruz County
Commission on the
Environment Presentation 9/25/2024
Community Action Board Presentation 9/18/2024

32.50 Santa Cruz County Business
Council Presentation 9/19/2024
Longboard Union Presentation 9/4/2024
Branciforte School Presentation 9/3/2024
Mike Rotkin UCSC Course Presentation 9/9/2023
Don Croll UCSC Course Presentation 2/12 2024
Save Our Shores Annual
Coastal Cleanup Day Beach cleanup/Presentation 9/21/2024 TABLE 3: Letters of support received from various organizations and numerous community leaders, as of September 30, 2024. We received additional letters of support, which can be found in the public correspondence letters associated with this board agenda item.

Organization
All Waters Protection and Access Coalition Coalition
Breathe California Nonprofit
California Marine Sanctuary Foundation Nonprofit
Coastal Watershed Council Nonprofit
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. Nonprofit Empower Watsonville Nonprofit
Fishwise Nonprofit
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Advisory Council Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Foundation Nonprofit Ocean Conservancy Nonprofit
O’Neill Sea Odyssey Nonprofit
Oral Health Access Santa Cruz County Nonprofit
Pajaro Valley Prevention & Student Assistance Nonprofit Santa Cruz County Commission on the Environment Government Santa Cruz County Fish and Wildlife Advisory Commission Government Advisory Board
Santa Cruz Longboard Union Nonprofit
Santa Cruz County Office of Education Government Advisory Board
Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition Community Santa Cruz Waves Business
Save Our Shores Nonprofit
Seymour Marine Discovery Center Nonprofit

32.51 Surfrider Foundation, Santa Cruz Chapter Nonprofit Trash Talkers/Pitch In Santa Cruz Community
Valley Women’s Club of San Lorenzo Valley, Environmental Committee Community
Individuals Affiliation
Bill Monning
California State Senate
Majority Leader,
Emeritus
Carlos Diaz Castillo
Associate Research
Professor UCSC
Dan Haifley
Former Director O’Neil
Sea Odyssey
David Terrazas
Former Mayor, City of
Santa Cruz
Gail Pellerin
California State
Assembly Member, 28th
District
Kaitiln Gaffney Resources Legacy Fund
Mark Stone
California State
Assemblymember,
Emeritus
Raquel Chamorro Garcia
Assistant Professor
UCSC
Dr. Thomas Novotny
Cigarette Butt Pollution
Project; Professor
Emeritus San Diego
State University
Yadira Flores Martinez
Latino Affairs
Commissioner
Yogi Hale Hendlin, PhD
Tobacco Control
Researcher; Professor
Erasmus School of
Philosophy

32.52 County of Santa Cruz

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
701 OCEAN STREET, SUITE 500, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4069
(831) 454-2200 FAX: (831) 454-3262 TDD/TTY - Call 711

MANU KOENIG KIMBERLY DE SERPA JUSTIN CUMMINGS FELIPE HERNANDEZ MONICA MARTINEZ

FIRST DISTRICT SECOND DISTRICT THIRD DISTRICT FOURTH DISTRICT FIFTH DISTRICT June 3, 2025
The Honorable Fred Keeley and
Santa Cruz City Councilmembers
809 Center St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Councilmembers,

We write to express our strong support for the proposed ordinance banning the sale of filtered tobacco products in the City of Santa Cruz.

In April 2021, the City stepped out as a leader on this issue, adopting a resolution recognizing tobacco waste as a public health and environmental threat. Since then, other jurisdictions have followed suit including Watsonville, Capitola, Scotts Valley and the County. An ordinance banning these products at the City would strengthen the regional effort to help reduce filter pollution on our beaches and in our environment. It would directly complement the County’s own tobacco filter ban and further our shared goals of protecting public health and preserving our environment.

As the first jurisdiction to formally address tobacco waste as a significant problem, the City was tapped as a key partner during the formation of the County’s Tobacco Waste Subcommittee. As we crafted our policy, City leaders and staff played a valued role in shaping the County’s ordinance, helping us navigate a range of practical and community concerns. Your continued leadership on this issue is both timely and essential.

The data is clear that filtered tobacco products are a persistent source of toxic waste in our communities, on our beaches and in our waterways. Tobacco product waste makes up nearly a quarter of all litter cleaned off our beaches each year, the vast majority of this is cigarette butts. Banning the sale of filtered products will significantly reduce tobacco litter and the associated public health and environmental harms. It will also ease the financial burden on residents, volunteers, and public agencies who bear the cost of cleanup efforts.

32.53

Page 2 ends

RE: SUPPORT FOR BAN OF FILTERED TOBACCO PRODUCTS
June 3, 2025
We recognize that policy changes of this nature may require a transition for a small number of local retailers. However, it’s important to note that the County’s flavored tobacco ban, which faced similar initial resistance, ultimately had no lasting negative economic impact. After a brief adjustment period, many businesses not only adapted, but exceeded prior sales levels. We fully expect a similar result here. A key element for consideration is that if the policy passes, the City will offer an unprecedented amount of time - a year and a half - prior to implementation and enforcement in January of 2027.

This ordinance reflects a clear commitment to a shared public good: a clean, healthy, and vibrant Santa Cruz for both residents and visitors. It also strengthens the regional identity of Santa Cruz as an environmental leader and steward of our marine and coastal ecosystems. When the County passed its ordinance last October, we received overwhelming community support through letters and testimony from elected leaders across the region as well as businesses, health, environmental and educational organizations at the local, regional, state and national levels. Residents from all backgrounds across the County wrote to us and showed up to speak passionately about the issue. The sheer magnitude of support resulted in a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors. Please stand with us by advancing this policy to further our shared goal of reducing tobacco product waste.

Sincerely,

JUSTIN CUMMINGS MANU KOENIG
Third District Supervisor First District Supervisor
County of Santa Cruz County of Santa Cruz

32.54 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste
9/13/2024
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing on behalf of PVPSA, Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance, to support the passage of a policy that bans the retail sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is a critical step to address one of the most littered items in our County and on the planet, toxic cigarette butts.

PVPSA, Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance, has a long history of tobacco use prevention work with area youth, educating them on the harms of tobacco use and advocating for a tobacco-free lifestyle and environment. We know, from listening to youth in our school and community groups, that they care passionately about both human and environmental health and want to make a difference. Youth know that cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a nonbiodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms.

They know that cigarette butts leech dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life.

Through their work on tobacco waste cleanups and education events, our students also recognize that tobacco waste is a health equity and environmental justice issue, disproportionately found in lower income communities and communities of color. Frankly, they are tired of being targeted by the tobacco industry with their misleading advertising and greenwashing campaigns.

Please pass a policy banning the sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products. It’s time for Big Tobacco to clean up its own corporate pollution and stop relying on children to pick up the toxic waste of a billion-dollar industry!
Sincerely,
Alexis Rojo-Cárdenas
PVPSA Youth Advocate

32.55 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
9/25/24
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing on behalf of All Waters Protection and Access Coalition to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts.

All Waters Protection & Access Coalition (AWPAC) exists to protect and conserve ocean resources and the rights of anglers and freedivers so that younger generations may experience the ocean firsthand and carry on our traditions. We are a group of passionate environmental advocates dedicated to preserving the beauty and health of our oceans. Our team works tirelessly to disseminate information between all parties, promote sustainable practices, educate the public, and advocate for policies that protect our waters. The ban of filtered tobacco products is a very important initiative for us to provide support in any way possible.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches. In fact, according to a 2023 NOAA study, an astounding 24.5% of all litter collected on the shoreline of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 could be attributed to smoking! Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980.

We believe that we have the community and local government support, the decades of litter data, and the regional strategy to justify a strong policy that favors our sanctuary and its people over the profit motives of an exploitative industry. Please ban filtered cigarettes.

Thank you for your continued leadership.

32.56 Respectfully,
Chris Killen
All Waters Protection and Access Coalition
408-666-7490

32.57 .5
Tanya Payyappilly, MD,
MPH
CEO
July 2, 2024
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products (Support) Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, On behalf of Breathe California of the Bay Area, Golden Gate and Central Coast, I am writing in support of the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County.

This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts.

For over a century, Breathe California has been a champion for healthy lungs in California, striving to make it one of the nation's healthiest places to breathe.

Founded in 1911, we advocate for lung health in all its forms. We've witnessed and fought against decades of manipulative tactics by the tobacco industry, which profited by addicting young people. While public awareness of the health risks of Big Tobacco's products has grown, the lesser-known issue of toxic air pollution in our communities remains a pressing concern.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches. In fact, according to a 2023 NOAA study, an astounding 24.5% of all litter collected on the shoreline of the Monterey Bay National Martine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 could be attributed to smoking! Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics - tiny toxic fibers that pollute our environment and could harm us all. They even bioaccumulate in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980.

These chemicals' hazardous nature classifies them as "toxic waste," and make it impossible to dispose of safely.

Breathe California
of the Bay Area,
Golden Gate, and
Central Coast
1469 Park Avenue
San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 998-5865
Toll-Free: 1-877-3-BREATHE
Fax: (408) 998-0578
www.lungsrus.org
[email protected]
Tax ID#: 94-1156307

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairperson
Amresh Prasad
Secretary
Sulochina Lulla, MD
Treasurer
Justin Henry
Directors
Roslyn Bienenstock, RRT,
MPH
Joann Blessing-Moore, MD
Robert Carr
Thomas M. Dailey, MD,
FCCP
Frank DeBiaso
Ray Mendoza
Richard Stedman
Terry Trumbull
Astha Sharma
Chief Executive Officer
Tanya Payyappilly, MD, MPH
Deputy Executive Director
Margo Sidener, MS, CHES
A member of the
Breathe America ™
Alliance

32.58 We, the community, have decades of litter data and a regional strategy in place. Together, with your support, we can enact a strong policy that prioritizes the health of our sanctuary and its residents over the profit interests of the exploitative cigarette industry. A filtered cigarette ban is essential to safeguard our endangered environment. Thank you for your continued leadership in protecting our community.

Sincerely,
Tanya Payyappilly, MD, MPH
CEO

32.59 From: Debbie Bulger
To: Board Of Supervisors
Subject: sale of filtered cigarettes
Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 8:28:54 PM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Dear Supervisors,
As retired residents my husband and I often pick up litter during our frequent walks. It's an easy way to contribute to the community.

Much of the trash we collect, I am sad to say, are cigarette butts.

Filtered cigarettes do not break down; they leach dangerous chemicals into the Monterey Bay. My husband and I support a policy to ban the sale of filtered cigarettes in Santa Cruz County.

Best regards,
Debbie Bulger
Richard Stover

32.60 32.61
From: Judith Carey
To: Board Of Supervisors
Cc: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: Support for a ban on the sale of cigarette filters Date: Monday, August 5, 2024 6:47:46 PM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Dear Supervisors Cummings, Friend, Hernandez, Koenig, and McPherson:

I'm writing to register my strong support for a ban on the sale of cigarette filters.

I live near West Cliff and frequently walk and run along Cowell's Beach to Main Beach. I'm appalled and anguished at the stunning number of filters I see in the sand and on the shoreline.

The filters degrade our beautiful shore and are a clear hazard for the many birds that peck along the water every day. It's painful to witness our beaches trashed and our waters and wildlife poisoned. Even with all the many volunteers and nonprofits pitching in for beach cleanups, the tobacco waste quickly builds up. We need a tobacco product waste policy to keep cigarette butts off our beaches and out of our community.

It's time to end the hazards of tobacco waste. I implore you to do your part and vote to ban the sale of cigarette filters.

Thank you,
Judith Carey
City of Santa Cruz Resident

32.62 Catherine Bayer
4727 Bonny Doon Rd
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
831-429-0180
Supervisors Cummings and Koenig,
I have been made aware of your work with the Tobacco Waste Subcommittee and am writing to voice my very strong support of your efforts and findings.

Banning the sale of filtered cigarettes in the county would put a dent in the amount of butts dropped on our beaches and would open a door as an example to other counties in CA.

I have read the alarming facts posted on your site and cannot agree more that steps should be taken at this time.

Thank you for your hard work!
Best to each of you,
Catherine Bayer
Membership Chair for the Rural Bonny Doon Association
Resident of Santa Cruz North Coast since 1978

32.63 Board of Supervisors
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Support for a ban on the sale of cigarette filters
September 6, 2024
Dear Supervisors Cummings, Friend, Hernandez, Koenig, and McPherson, We are writing as researchers studying the effect of tobacco exposure and as Scotts Valley residents to support the passage of a policy that bans the retail sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars in Santa Cruz County. This policy is a critical step to address one of the most littered items in our County and on the planet, toxic cigarette butts.

We are professors at the University of California, Santa Cruz, where we lead a research team that studies the adverse metabolic effects associated to exposure to chemicals found in tobacco products not only in individuals directly exposed but also in their unexposed offspring.

Cigarette butts are the most littered item on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches and are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment. Improperly discarded cigarette butts can poison every organism in our community, including small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life.

Our research has shown that exposure to tobacco products leads to metabolic disorders, such as glucose intolerance, which is highly associated with type 2 diabetes. Currently, one third of the U.S. population over the age of 18 has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and nearly 9 out of 10 adults who smoke cigarettes daily first try smoking by age 18. Keeping our environment free of tobacco products and its associated waste becomes timely and important to protect our community and our future generations from the devastating effects of tobacco products.

Based on our research, we urge the Board of Supervisors to protect the health of Santa Cruz County residents and its environment by banning the retail sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars in Santa Cruz County.

Sincerely,
Raquel Chamorro-Garcia, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
University of California, Santa Cruz
Scotts Valley Resident
Carlos Diaz-Castillo, Ph.D.

Associate Research Professor
University of California, Santa Cruz
Scotts Valley Resident

32.64 CALIFORNIA MARINE SANCTUARY FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 8346, Santa Cruz, CA 95061
californiamsf.org
September 18, 2024
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Support for a Ban on the Sale of Cigarette Filters
Dear Supervisors Cummings, Friend, Hernandez, Koenig, and McPherson, I am writing on behalf of the California Marine Sanctuary Foundation to express our strong support for the proposed ban on the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products in Santa Cruz County. This policy represents a critical step toward addressing the persistent and pervasive issue of tobacco waste, particularly cigarette butts, which are a significant environmental hazard in our community.

They contain toxic chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine, which leach into our soil and water, posing a poisoning risk to small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life.

4.5 trillion cigarette butts are littered on the planet at any given time. Moreover, the 2024 Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee Report indicates that discarded cigarette filters may release nearly a half million tons of microfibers into the aquatic environment annually.

For too long, the environmental community has overlooked the issue of cigarette butt litter, while the tobacco industry has taken no responsibility for this toxic waste. Instead, the burden of cleaning up this hazardous material has fallen on local volunteers, non-profit organizations, and government agencies. An economic model developed by San Diego State University’s Center on Tobacco and the Environment estimates that the City of Santa Cruz spends over $2 million annually on tobacco waste mitigation—a cost that could be better allocated to other pressing community needs.

Furthermore, research indicates that cigarette filters provide no health benefits to smokers.

According to the World Health Organization, there is no evidence that filters reduce the harmful effects of cigarette smoke. In essence, these filters serve no purpose other than to contribute to the global problem of plastic pollution.

The policy under consideration by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is a straightforward solution to this widespread problem. By banning the sale of filtered tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, the county can take a decisive step in protecting both public

32.65 CALIFORNIA MARINE SANCTUARY FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 8346, Santa Cruz, CA 95061
californiamsf.org
health and the environment. This ban would reduce the toxic waste entering our ecosystem, protect wildlife and marine life, and alleviate the economic burden on local communities.

The California Marine Sanctuary Foundation stands in full support of this groundbreaking local policy. The health of our ocean, marine life, and coastal communities depends on proactive measures like this one. We urge you to adopt this policy and help Santa Cruz County lead the way in addressing the environmental and health impacts of tobacco waste.

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to environmental stewardship. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or require further information.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
Robert Mazurek
Executive Director
California Marine Sanctuary Foundation

32.66 BOARD OF EDUCATION
Mr. Ed Acosta
Mr. Edward Estrada
Ms. Sandra Nichols
Ms. Sue Roth
Mr. Abel Sanchez
Mr. Bruce Van Allen
Ms. Rachel Williams
400 Encinal Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 ⬩ Tel (831) 466-5600 ⬩ Fax (831) 466-5607 ⬩ www.santacruzcoe.org September 17, 2024
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, As Santa Cruz County Superintendent of Schools, I write to urge your Board to pass an ordinance banning the retail sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products such as cigarettes and cigarillos in Santa Cruz County. This policy is a critical step to address one of the most littered items in our County and across the planet: toxic cigarette butts.

The Santa Cruz County Office of Education (Santa Cruz COE) has a long history of tobacco use prevention work with youth in our community. These efforts include our Tobacco Use Prevention and Education (TUPE) program, which provides support, training, technical assistance and information to school districts to assist with the development and implementation of tobacco free policies and practices in schools. In addition, our TUPE program provides direct education to students and families, working to ensure families understand the harms and signs of tobacco addiction, as well as how to resist peer pressure, approach difficult conversations, and access resources to quit using tobacco.

Through their work on tobacco waste cleanups and education events, we know that our students recognize that tobacco waste is a health equity and environmental justice issue, disproportionately found in lower income communities and communities of color. Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. We know cigarette butts leech dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. What’s more, we know that according to the World Health Organization, cigarette butts do not have any proven health benefits compared to smoking filterless cigarettes.

The County of Santa Cruz is among several local jurisdictions that has passed resolutions proclaiming tobacco waste as a public health and environmental threat. On behalf of our school community, I urge you to move this work forward by passing a ban on the sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products.

Sincerely,
Dr. Faris Sabbah
Santa Cruz County Superintendent of Schools

32.67 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
DATE 8 /26 /2024
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing as a Commissioner, non formal environmental educator and community member to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County.

This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts.

As a Commissioner, non-formal environmental educator, and community member, I urge you to support a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products—such as cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars—in Santa Cruz County. This step is vital not just for environmental reasons, but also for the well-being of our children and future generations. Cigarette butts are one of the most persistent forms of litter in our county and around the world, posing a toxic threat to our beaches, rivers, and wildlife.

They break down into harmful microplastics that can end up in the food chain, impacting the very ecosystem our kids will inherit.

Beyond the environmental harm, allowing these products to flood our communities sends the wrong message to our youth. We need to prioritize their health and their future by reducing exposure to harmful substances, both in the environment and through tobacco use. Protecting the land, water, and air they will grow up in is a responsibility we all share. It’s time to make choices that reflect the values of a cleaner, safer, and more just future for our youth. Let’s stand up for our kids, our community, and our planet.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz County’s river-ways and beaches. In fact, according to a 2023 NOAA study, an astounding 24.5% of all litter collected on the shoreline of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 could be attributed to smoking! Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980.

Thank you for your continued leadership.

Sincerely, Yadira Flores Martinez.

Latino affair Commissioner, non formal environmental educator, volunteer, Community members and mothers of four.

32.68 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste
08/15/2024
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing as a San José State University public health student. I spend a lot of time in Santa Cruz County, usually eating bagels and visiting the beautiful beaches. With my knowledge on public health and the environment, I understand that it is crucial for you to ban the sale of filtered tobacco products in the County.

When considering public health, we must remember that filters do not have any positive effect on the health of smokers. Big Tobacco began releasing filtered cigarettes to make the product seem healthier, but the industry has known all along that the filters make the smoke easier to inhale, causing smokers to continue using the product. Banning the sale of filtered tobacco products in the county could cause an increase of people quitting tobacco and a decrease of people beginning to use tobacco. This policy would also decrease exposure to secondhand smoke, which causes more than 40,000 deaths per year.

A policy against the sale of filtered tobacco products in the county would impact the environment because it would decrease cigarette butt litter. Cigarette butts are the most littered item in the world. They are toxic waste and they kill animals. When a cigarette butt is dropped into a liter of water, it kills half of the fish. Think about all of the fish that have died because of cigarette butts littered in Santa Cruz County. We are lucky to live near the ocean, but we need to protect marine life and realize that none of the animals deserve to be exposed to toxic substances in their own home.

Big Tobacco is not our friend. They are profiting off of addiction. They are killing smokers, non-smokers, pets, wildlife, and marine life. Their products are the most littered items in the world. We must fight against their agenda by banning the sale of filtered cigarettes in the county.

Let’s make a change. Let’s protect our people and the environment. Let’s make sure that Big Tobacco can’t target yet another generation of people. By passing this policy, you would be making history. Please vote to ban the sale of filtered tobacco products in Santa Cruz County.

Sincerely,
Madeline DaSilva

32.69 From: Dave Alexander
To: Board Of Supervisors
Cc: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: Support for a ban on the sale of cigarette filters Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 10:04:00 AM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez and McPherson, I am requesting your support and vote to ban filtered cigarette products.

Having participated in river and beach cleanups in the City and County of Santa Cruz I have experienced first hand the appalling abundance of cigarette butts that collect in our community spaces and in our fragile riparian and marine environments. Data from NOAA and in particular the recent Marine Debris Coordinating Committee Report clearly show that cigarette filters are a major contributor to toxic materials in our aquatic environment.

Efforts to educate smokers on the harm from smoking cigarettes has done little to curb this self destructive behavior. Similarly, education and those nice shark fin bins have had little impact on smoking associated litter. The filters do not mitigate the health issues with smoking and are the major source of litter associated with smoking. Funds to mitigate tobacco use and waste can and should be better spent on other more tractable community health issues.

Banning the sale of filtered cigarettes and all filters for smoking products is a step change in the approach to trash polluting our community and the marine systems we have built our community around. In the same way the plastic bag ban had immediate positive impacts, so too a cigarette filter ban will lift another waste burden from our environment and demonstrate how data guided policy can inform environmental stewardship and advance community health.

Be brave!
David Alexander
3rd district Santa Cruz.

32.70 DAVENPORT/NORTH COAST ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 251, Davenport, CA 95017 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County October 4, 2024 701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, The Davenport/North Coast Association, as local representatives of Davenport and the North Coast communities, support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches and have been for decades. As visitorship to North Coast beaches continues to rise year over year, the impact of littering of all types continues to grow, negatively impacting human and ecosystem health in public spaces.

Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980.

We believe that we have the community and local government support, the decades of litter data, and the regional strategy to justify a strong policy that favors our coastal environment and its people over the profit motives of an exploitative industry. Please ban filtered cigarette products. Thank you for your continued leadership.

Respectfully,
Katie Webb, Board Chair, Davenport/North Coast Association

32.71 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste
9/16/24
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing on behalf of Empower Watsonville to support the passage of a policy that bans the retail sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is a critical step to address one of the most littered items in our County and on the planet, toxic cigarette butts.

Empower Watsonville has a long history of tobacco use prevention work with area youth, educating them on the harms of tobacco use and advocating for a tobacco-free lifestyle and environment. We know, from listening to youth in our school and community groups, that they care passionately about both human and environmental health and want to make a difference.

Youth know that cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. They know that cigarette butts leech dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life.

32.72 FishWise • PO BOX 233 • Santa Cruz • CA 95061 • 831.427.1707 • www.fishwise.org Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County August 30, 2024 701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Support for Ban on the Sale of Filtered Tobacco Products Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, On behalf of FishWise, a local, non-profit 501(c)3 whose mission is to protect ocean ecosystems and the people who depend on them, I am writing to strongly support a sales ban in Santa Cruz County for all filtered and rolled tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars.

FishWise has deep roots in Santa Cruz County. Our organization was founded in 2003 by two graduate students from UCSC who developed a business model for ocean conservation with local retailers. Although FishWise now has a global footprint, many of our staff still reside in Santa Cruz County and are deeply concerned about the health of our local beaches and waterways.

Cigarette butts have long been a significant source of pollution in Santa Cruz County’s riverways, beaches, and marine environments. Over the past decade, our colleagues at Save Our Shores have collected 439,358 cigarette butts from beaches, open spaces, and public areas. This staggering number is just a glimpse of the widespread cigarette litter that continues to threaten both human health and the ecosystems we work so hard to protect.

A 2023 NOAA study using community science data found that 24.5% of all litter collected along the shoreline of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 was attributed to smoking. Cigarette butts are composed of non-biodegradable plastic that breaks down into microplastics, accumulating in marine organisms. The toxic materials in cigarette butts release harmful chemicals - including lead, arsenic, and nicotine - into the environment, posing severe risks to children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. Moreover, cigarette butts also present a significant fire hazard, having caused the burning of 88,898 acres in California since 1980.

Local jurisdictions and conservation nonprofits have long borne the burden of cleaning up this pollution, incurring significant costs to protect our environment while the tobacco industry continues to profit. It is time for a proactive solution that holds Big Tobacco accountable for its environmental impact.

We believe that a sales ban in Santa Cruz County for filtered tobacco products will benefit the local environment and send a strong signal to Big Tobacco and the rest of the nation that the social license is waning for an industry that prioritizes profits over the health of its people and the environment.

Thank you for your continued leadership and consideration.

Respectfully,
Ashley Greenley, Advancement Director
FishWise

32.73 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
09/25/24
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches.

In fact, according to a 2023 NOAA study, an astounding 24.5% of all litter collected on the shoreline of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 could be attributed to smoking! Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980.

I believe that we have the decades of litter data to justify a strong policy that favors our sanctuary and its people over the profit motives of an exploitative industry. Please ban the sale of filtered rolled tobacco products.

Thank you for your continued leadership.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Hicken
Executive Director
Seymour Marine Discovery Center | UC Santa Cruz

32.74 August 22, 2024
Board of Supervisors
Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: SUPPORT for Proposed County Ban on Sale of Filtered Cigarettes Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I write to you both as a 25-year resident of Santa Cruz County with a strong personal and professional interest in public health, social welfare, and environmental protection, and as a parent, to urge your support for adoption of a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products in Santa Cruz County.

The evidence supporting this policy is overwhelming:
• Local cigarette pollution is prevalent. Over the past five years, nearly 25 percent of the litter collected from the beaches off the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary was cigarette butts.
• Cigarette butts harm ocean wildlife. Made of non-biodegradable plastic, they breaks down into tiny particles that poison fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. • Cigarette butts are toxic. They contain harmful chemicals like arsenic and lead. • Cleaning up cigarette pollution is expensive and difficult. Local governments and nonprofit organizations are forced to waste limited funding and valuable volunteer time to collect trash that never should have been discarded in the environment in the first place.

My two children were born at Sutter Maternity Center. They both attended local public schools.

Every year of elementary school, they participated in beach cleanup field trips to Seabright State Beach. Year after year, I served as parent volunteer on these field trips. And year after year, I watched small children spend a morning filling buckets with hundreds of cigarette butts left on the beach by adults who could not be bothered to pack their own trash. My children are now long out of elementary school, but the endless supply of littered cigarette butts continue to contaminate our beaches and watersheds. Year after year. It is long past time for it to stop and you are the ones who can stop it. I urge your support for a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products in Santa Cruz County.

With your leadership, our county can help lead the state and the nation on an issue that is important to our environment, our community, and our children. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Kaitilin Gaffney

32.75 My children’s first annual coastal cleanup at ages 4 and nine months.

32.76 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste
9/16/24
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing on behalf of Empower Watsonville to support the passage of a policy that bans the retail sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is a critical step to address one of the most littered items in our County and on the planet, toxic cigarette butts.

32.77 From: Laura Perkins
To: Board Of Supervisors
Cc: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste
Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 3:48:14 PM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste
September 20, 2024
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson:

I am writing as a resident of Santa Cruz County. I have lived in Felton for the past 17 years and I love our redwood forests, our wetlands, and our seashore.

I believe that banning the sale of filtered tobacco products would have a positive impact on our environment. This policy is a critical step to address one of the most littered items in our county and on the planet: toxic cigarette butts.

These filters are designed to fool people into thinking they make cigarettes safer to smoke.

Before 1950, less than 1% of commercial cigarettes were filtered. But the increasing press coverage of the potential dangers of smoking led to an explosion of filter development and marketing. By 1960, filtered cigarettes represented 51% of the market. By 2005, they represented 99% of the market. (See the NLM’s How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease)
This National Library of Medicine report cites studies that show filters actually do not make cigarettes safer to smoke.

As unhealthy as they are for the people who use filtered tobacco products, they also pollute our environment with toxins, carcinogens, and microplastics.

Please pass a policy banning the sale of filtered tobacco products. Santa Cruz County residents, animals, and marine life deserve an environment free of toxic tobacco waste.

Sincerely,

32.78 Laura Perkins

32.79 SANTA CRUZ LONGBOARD UNION
To preserve, promote and perpetuate the values, belief and essence of surfing • PO Box 7495 • 850 Front Street • Santa Cruz, California • 95061 • www.santa-cruz-longboard-union.com Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County September 12, 2024 701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, The Santa Cruz Longboard Union (SCLU) supports the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts. The SCLU was founded 1981, we are a 501(C)(4) not-for-profit surf club. As an organization we bring together surfers of all ages in our county to create a community that supports one another and works to protect the ocean. Our mission is to preserve, promote and perpetuate the values, belief and essence of surfing. We uphold our mission through beach clean-ups, supporting our local youth surf teams and supporting organizations that work to protect our oceans. We applaud the efforts of Supervisors Cummings and Koenig who have, over the past year, convened a coalition of experts in policy, sustainability, and community engagement, building upon the decades of existing collaboration to address tobacco waste in Santa Cruz County and Monterey Bay.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches and have been for decades. Between 2013 - 2023, Save Our Shores alone collected 439,358 cigarette butts from beaches, open spaces, and public areas. As a top littered item locally, we know that number is just a snapshot of the total cigarette litter that continues to negatively impact human and ecosystem health as our organization picks them up too and/or encounters them in our public spaces. In addition, according to a recent NOAA study released in October 2023 titled “Marine debris on the shoreline of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary: As assessment of activities contributing to marine debris, categories and composition, spatial distribution, and predictor variables,” cigarette butts comprise 24.5% of litter by count in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Please support a policy solution that bans the sale of filtered cigarettes in Santa Cruz County to reduce the ongoing scourge of plastic pollution and marine debris in our sanctuary. Thank you for your continued leadership.

Best,
Matt Freeman & SCLU Board
SCLU President
[email protected]
President – Matt Freeman
Vice President – Rowland Baker
Secretary – Marina Ramon
Treasurer – Sara Wait
Sargent at Arms – James Nakahara
Member at Large – Kim McCready
Member at Large –John Medina
Member at Large – Sara Baker
Jr. Member at Large – Healey Skelton
Team Captain – Mike Watson

32.80 From: Diana Manibusan
To: Board Of Supervisors
Cc: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: "Support for a ban on the sale of cigarette filters." Date: Thursday, August 15, 2024 3:55:03 PM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Dear Supervisors Cummings, Friend, Hernandez, Koenig, and McPherson, I am sending an email in support of cigarette filters ban.

I grew up spending a lot of time in Santa Cruz.

My kids and I are there a few times a week to enjoy the beach and walking trails. We love to make memories at the boardwalk.

It has been more frequent that we encounter cigarette butts every few steps. It seems out of control. My toddler niece has even picked one up to put it in her mouth.

This has been one of our favorite pastimes but now seems like it has become a hazard! Please ban the sale of cigarette filters!!!
With sincere thanks,
Diana Bettencourt Silva

32.81 32.82
May 17, 2024
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: County of Santa Cruz’s policy solutions to tobacco product waste in 2024 Dear Supervisors Cummings, Friend, Hernandez, Koenig, and McPherson, We, the undersigned, represent NOAA’s Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council and write today requesting your support to adopt a tobacco product waste policy in 2024 that bans the retail sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars in Santa Cruz County. We applaud the efforts of Supervisors Cummings and Koenig who have, over the past year, convened a coalition of experts in policy, sustainability, and community engagement, building upon the decades of existing collaboration to address tobacco waste in Santa Cruz County and Monterey Bay. We encourage you to agendize the proposed actions that result from this coalition, to listen to their recommendations, and to adopt a strong policy that addresses one of the most persistent litter items found along the shorelines of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and within its many tributaries: cigarette butts.

According to a recent NOAA study released in October 2023 titled “Marine debris on the shoreline of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary: As assessment of activities contributing to marine debris, categories and composition, spatial distribution, and predictor variables,” cigarette butts comprise 24.5% of litter by count in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Designated in 1992, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) is a federally protected marine area offshore of California's central coast. The sanctuary contains extensive kelp forests and one of North America's largest underwater canyons and closest-to-shore deep ocean environments. Its diverse marine ecosystem also includes rugged rocky shores, wave-swept sandy beaches, and tranquil estuaries. These habitats harbor an incredible variety of marine life, including 36 species of marine mammals, more than 180 species of seabirds and shorebirds, at least 525 species of fishes, and an abundance of invertebrates and algae. Known as the "Serengeti of the Sea," it is one of our nation's largest national marine sanctuaries, a driver for the local tourism economy. A clean sanctuary is essential to the health of a coastal community like Santa Cruz County. Visitors and residents recreate on its shorelines, children and families play in coastal parks and watersheds, and fishers’ livelihoods depend on the harvest of safe seafood.

32.83 MBNMS was established for the purpose of resource protection, research, education, and public use. The MBNMS Advisory Council was established by federal law to assure continued public participation in the management of the sanctuary. In 2021, NOAA MBNMS adopted its MBNMS Management Plan which includes a Marine Debris Action Plan. The plan states that “Source reduction is the most effective strategy to limit the amount of debris entering the ocean. Reducing the amount of plastic marine debris is especially imperative since plastics never fully degrade but rather break down into progressively smaller particles, releasing chemical additives, while also absorbing chemicals from the ambient water.” Marine Debris Strategy 2 outlined in the plan further specifies that NOAA MBNMS “support policies leading to reduced marine debris (focus on plastic pollution).”
Cigarette butts are the most littered item on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches and are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment. Improperly discarded cigarette butts can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. According to NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries “Marine animals and seabirds in the sanctuary can be harmed by ingesting marine debris, often mistaking it for food resulting in starvation or poisoning. Plastics in the marine environment never fully degrade and recent studies show plastic is consumed by organisms at all levels of the marine food web. The sanctuary’s Beach COMBERS monitoring program has collected carcasses of dead seabirds for study by local researchers. Analysis of the stomach contents of 190 Northern Fulmars collected along Monterey Bay beaches in 2003-2004 found that 71% of the birds had plastic in their stomachs.

In similar studies, plastic was observed in the stomachs of 67% of the 27 Red Phalaropes collected in 2005-2006 and 56% of the 16 Horned Puffins collected in 2007. These species of seabirds, and other seabirds such as albatrosses and shearwaters, are migratory birds that depend on the highly productive waters of Monterey Bay to feed.”
Tobacco waste is a health equity and environmental justice issue, disproportionately found in lower-income communities and communities of color. Cigarette butts do not actually filter out harmful chemicals from cigarette smoke and provide no demonstrated health benefits to smokers, and are associated with the most common form of lung cancer. According to the World Health Organization, “There is no evidence that filters have any proven health benefits. WHO calls on policy-makers to treat cigarette filters, as what they are, single-use plastics, and consider banning cigarette filters to protect public health and the environment.” The cities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Capitola, and the County of Santa Cruz have all passed resolutions proclaiming tobacco waste as a public health and environmental threat and are all participating in a cross-jurisdictional effort to support policies that address this pollution. All local stormwater jurisdictions are beholden to address cigarette-sized litter items through the State’s Trash Amendments in their stormwater permits and management plans. These jurisdictions are upstream of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and are within crucial watersheds that contribute plastic pollution to receiving waters which ultimately become marine debris.

Sincerely,
Pamela Need-Wade, Chair
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Advisory Council

32.84 From: Michelle McKinney
To: Board Of Supervisors
Cc: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: Support for a ban on the sale of cigarette filters Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 3:55:11 PM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Dear Supervisors Cummings, Friend, Hernandez, Koenig, and McPherson, I am writing to share my strong support for a ban on the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products with filters.

I live on the lower Westside and frequently walk and run along the roads and shorelines of our beautiful community. I’m appalled and anguished at the stunning number of filters I see in the sand, on the shoreline and even at parks.

The filters degrade our beautiful shore and are a clear hazard for the many birds that forage along the water every day.

This issue is very important me as my little grandson recently moved in with us and it’s only a matter of time until he will be mobile and in danger of handling others’ disgusting cigarette filter waste.Please protect him from the dangers of disease and filth.

It’s painful to witness our beaches, walkways, and the places where our children play, being trashed and our waters and wildlife poisoned. Even with all the volunteers and nonprofit organizations pitching in for beach cleanups, the tobacco waste quickly builds up. We need a tobacco product waste policy to keep cigarette butts off our beaches and out of our community. It’s time to end the hazards of tobacco waste.

I employ you to do your part and vote to ban the sale of cigarette filters.

Thank you,
Michelle McKinney
Santa Cruz Resident and grandma to Jackson

32.85 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
September 17, 2024
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts.

As Chair of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, I help lead a department whose mission is to facilitate learning, make scientific discoveries, provide access to research, and engage with the community through our research and conservation practices. We study ecological and evolutionary processes in marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments. The core of our educational mission encompasses how we may facilitate change to mitigate the effects of anthropogenic activities that directly harm our environment. Our basic and applied research programs integrate socioeconomical factors for more effective environmental conservation. This policy to ban the sale of all filtered rolled tobacco products aligns with our abilities to facilitate change in our community.

We believe that we have the decades of litter data to justify a strong policy that favors our sanctuary and its people over the profit motives of an exploitative industry. Please ban the sale of filtered rolled tobacco products.

Thank you for your continued leadership.

Sincerely,
Professor and Chair Rita Mehta

32.86 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County August 12, 2024 701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, We, as local representatives of environmental organizations and community members, support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts.

According to a 2023 NOAA study that used community science data, an astounding 24.5% of all litter collected on the shoreline of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 could be attributed to smoking! Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980.

Respectfully,
Erica Donnelly-Greenan, M.Sc. Executive Director, Save Our Shores Laurie Egan, Executive Director, Coastal Watershed Council Ginaia Kelly, Chapter Director, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Foundation

32.87 September 3, 2024
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Delivered via email:

[email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Re: SUPPORT – Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Dear Supervisors Cummings, Friend, Hernandez, Koenig and McPherson:

As the oldest marine conservation organization in the United States, Ocean Conservancy is proud to support the adoption of a policy to ban the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products in Santa Cruz County, where our California office and staff are located. We commend the leadership of the Board of Supervisors and the Tobacco Waste Subcommittee in addressing the ongoing problem of tobacco waste throughout the Santa Cruz region, including on its beaches, in its rivers and waterways, and throughout the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). The MBNMS is the crown jewel of the Central Coast, hosting 36 species of marine mammals, nearly 200 species of seabirds and shorebirds, over 500 species of fish, and countless species of invertebrates and seaweeds. A clean Sanctuary, free of harmful tobacco pollution, is vital to the health of the coastal community of Santa Cruz and all its inhabitants, human and otherwise.

For 39 years, Ocean Conservancy has organized the International Coastal Cleanup, the largest volunteer effort on behalf of the ocean. Over 18 million volunteers have removed nearly 380 million pounds of trash and plastics from over 150 countries around the world, including across all 50 U.S. states. These volunteers have catalogued every piece of trash collected and year after year, cigarette butts have been the number one item collected, by count. The numbers are staggering: 63 million butts collected worldwide; 35 million butts removed across the U.S, with 8.5 million collected in the state of California. From 2013-2023, our local partner Save Our Shores alone collected over 400,000 cigarette butts from the beaches, open spaces, and public areas in the Santa Cruz region.

32.88 2
The consequences of this tobacco waste to human health and the environment are welldocumented and severe; cigarette filters are bad for the marine environment, bad for marine wildlife, and bad for people. Filters are toxic waste, leaching lead, arsenic, nicotine, and a host of other chemicals into the marine environment. Butts are plastic and like other plastics they don’t degrade but rather break apart into thousands of microplastics; plastic fibers from cigarettes and other sources have been found throughout the marine food web, from the smallest zooplankton to the largest whales, including the fish and shellfish that are vital to a healthy and sustainable seafood supply. To make matters worse, cigarette filters do not make smoking safer; 60 years ago, the U. S. Surgeon General confirmed that filters were ineffective at protecting smokers from diseases caused by smoking and later research provided evidence that filters can actually increase the risk of certain types of cancer in smokers.

As Ocean Conservancy well knows, environmental volunteers across the state of California spend millions of hours of their free time trying to clean up this preventable litter from beaches and other areas. The tobacco industry takes zero responsibility for their toxic waste, forcing the physical and financial burden of its cleanup onto local volunteer organizations, government agencies, and generous local residents.

Given this host of concerns, Ocean Conservancy strongly urges you to adopt the proposed policy to ban the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos and little cigars in Santa Cruz County. If approved, this policy would be a first-of-its-kind anywhere in the United States. The policy itself and the leadership taken to pass it would serve as inspiration for other jurisdictions throughout the state and across the nation.

Thank you for your continued vision and action on behalf of the ocean.

Sincerely,
George H. Leonard, Ph.D. Anja Brandon, Ph.D.

Chief Scientist Associate Director, U.S. Plastics Policy

32.89 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste
9/27/2024
Dear Santa Cruz County Supervisors Cummings, Friend, Hernandez, Koenig, and McPherson, Oral Health Access (OHA) Santa Cruz County is writing to express support for a policy that would ban the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars in Santa Cruz County. This is an important step in limiting the harms of deadly, addictive nicotine products in our community.

OHA’s mission is to improve the oral health of Santa Cruz County by uniting stakeholders and advocating for an increase in access to dental care and oral health education. For the past eight years, OHA has been steadily working towards creating a measurable impact. We’ve already made great strides including but not limited to:
• 3,400 more people with Medi-Cal are going to the dentist. • Clinical capacity has grown 39% thanks to Dientes and Salud. • 225% increase for children with Medi-Cal going to the dentist by their first tooth or first birthday.
• New Strategic Plan expanding focus to improve oral health access to pregnant people, teens, and seniors.

In an effort to limit access and exposure of these toxic materials, OHA supports a ban on the sale of filtered cigarettes due to the negative health implications that smoking cigarettes can have on oral health and overall health. Smoking can lead to not only staining or yellowing of the teeth, but also tooth loss, gum disease, and even mouth cancer. People who smoke are more likely to produce bacterial plaque which leads to gum disease, still the most common cause of tooth loss for adults. Every year, thousands of people die from mouth cancer caused by smoking.

So-called “filters” do not actually filter out harmful chemicals from cigarette smoke. In fact, recent studies have concluded that cigarette filters have no benefit in preventing the adverse health effects of smoking, including the death of half a million people in the United States each year. They are just a marketing tool designed to decrease the perception of smoking’s harm.

OHA urges the Board of Supervisors to ban the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products.

Sincerely,
Sheree Storm
Chief Strategy Officer, Dientes
OHA Co-Chair
David Brody
Executive Director, First 5 Santa Cruz County
OHA Co-Chair
Docusign Envelope ID: FF5975FA-AD15-41A6-A613-04913AF243C6 9/27/2024 9/27/2024

32.90 September 17th, 2024
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products.

Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, On behalf of Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance (PVPSA), I am writing in support of the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts.

Since 1991 PVPSA has been providing comprehensive health education, mental health services, substance abuse and intervention and prevention services, and direct counseling to the students and families of the Pajaro Valley including the Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD), the largest school district in Santa Cruz County which also includes North Monterey County. PVPSA created the dedicated nonprofit-agency model, in reference to the unique and special relationship it has with the local school district.

In addition to its longstanding involvement with the school district, PVPSA has cultivated partnerships with other cities, counties, and state organizations, both private and public, to collaborate on community issues such as alcohol and drug use, mental health, and especially reducing expulsions and improving educational outcomes.

32.91 From its inception, PVPSA has maintained a leadership role in prevention and intervention. With a deep commitment to addressing the social determinants of health, the agency utilizes an upstream public health approach to achieving community health and wellness. This includes health related public policy advocacy efforts. PVPSA staff plays a key role in promoting prevention services and intervention activities for local youth and families in our schools and throughout the community.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches, especially in our downtown Watsonville Plaza. Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics - tiny toxic fibers that pollute our environment and could harm us all. They even bioaccumulate in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. Being the home to many sloughs, Pinto Lake Park, and Monterey Bay. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980.

These chemicals' hazardous nature classifies them as "toxic waste," and make it impossible to dispose of safely. Empower Watsonville, a youth leadership group under PVPSA that focuses on reducing youth substance use and tobacco product waste and amplifying youth voices in the Pajaro Valley. We, the community, have decades of litter data and a regional strategy in place. Together, with your support, we can enact a strong policy that prioritizes the health of our sanctuary and its residents over the profit interests of the exploitative cigarette industry. A filtered cigarette ban is essential to safeguard our endangered environment. Thank you for your continued leadership in protecting our community.

Sincerely,
Luz Sotelo
Luz Sotelo
Youth Program Manager

32.92 32.93
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County August 12, 2024 701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, We have signed onto this Save Our Shores letter as community members (100 individuals) to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts.

Respectfully,
MaryJane Dow, Santa Cruz, Retired
Karsten Mueller, Santa Cruz, Real Estate
Isabel Piekarski, Monterey, Medical Interpreter
Teri Sigler, Santa Cruz

32.94 RichardRammer, Santa Cruz, Retired
Rob Tobias, Santa Cruz,Executive
Jeff Perkins, Santa Cruz, Dentist
Elisabeth, Kooi, Santa Cruz, Designer
Makana Crannell, Santa Clara, Student
Eri Dem, Canada, Retired
Patrice Riley, Santa Cruz, Accountant
Ava Bobby, Santa Cruz, Civil Engineer
Clive Bagshaw, Santa Cruz, Retired biochemist
Edwin Aiken, Santa Clara, Retired
Josh Stuart, Santa Cruz, Professor
Lucas Roy Lehman, Santa Cruz The Entepreneur’s Coach
Douglas Shinoda, San luis obispo, Retired
Tara Leonard, Santa Cruz, Public Heatlh
Anna Brigantino, Monterey, Retired
Maria Korakas, Santa Clara, Retired
Pauline Seales, Santa Cruz, Retired
RichardPalm, Santa Cruz, Retired
Brian Corser, Santa Cruz, Retired
Dan Haifley, Santa Cruz, Retired
Lorien Phippeny, Santa Cruz, Steward Ship Scientist
Jonathan Hicken, Santa Cruz, Executive Director, Seymour Center Claudia Espino Romero,Santa Cruz, Health Program Specialist Mary Scheller, Santa Cruz, Retired
Melissa Mahoney, Santa Cruz, Non-profit Executive Director Jody McGinnis, Stanislaus, Stay at home
Chris, Stolrow Manatee, People Manager
Pam North, Santa Cruz
Andy Carman, Santa Cruz, Psychologist
Scott Davidson, Santa Clara, Sales Leadership, Consulting Julie Williams, Santa Cruz, Community member
Rebecca Braslau, Santa Cruz, Professor of Chemistry
Chris Whitaker, Santa Clara, Retired community member
Tina Mazzei, Santa Cruz, Community member
Mark Feldman, Santa Cruz, Retired
Leslie Cucuel, Santa Cruz, Health care
Paul Andrade, Santa Cruz, Retired
Kay Orsini, Santa Cruz, Retired
Marlene Wells, Santa Cruz, Retired
Ariel Hunter, Santa Cruz, Community member
Destiny Godinez, Stanislaus, Student
Tiina Seppalainen, Santa Cruz, Retired community member Tristan Kass, Santa Cruz, Financial Services
Bobby Davidson, Santa Cruz County, Community member

32.95 Christina Farnsworth, Monterey, Music Therapist, Dining Room Host Bri Quinn, Santa Cruz, Administrator
Colleen Young, Santa Cruz, Biologist
Deborah Lindsay, Santa Cruz, Executive Director of Environmental Volunteers Danielle Lewis, Santa Cruz, Non-Profit Event Coordinator Matt Driscoll, Santa Clara, Teacher/Lecturer at Santa Clara University Beth Callaghan, Monterey, Educator
Alida Canale, Santa Cruz, Retired Registered Nurse
Johanna Epps, Santa Cruz, Retired
Marley Bryant Santa Cruz, Retail worker
Sarah Gerhardt, Santa Cruz, Teacher
Brian Fan, Santa Cruz
Donald Ripatti, San Mateo, Engineer
Kerstyn Crumb, San Mateo, Retired
Sheri Montoya, Santa Cruz, Retired
Robert Derber, Santa Cruz, Retired CPA/Attorney
Elon Skolnik, Santa Cruz
Alejandro Marti, Santa Cruz, Manager at Tech
Elizabeth Gray, CA, Agtech / Operations
Andy Carman, Santa Cruz, Psychologist
Gina Carrillo, Santa Cruz, Environmental Educator
Samantha Wildman, Santa Cruz, Registered Dietitian
Eliza Linley, Santa Cruz, Retired
Jodi Frediani, Santa Cruz, Photographer
Kris Damhorst, Santa Cruz, Self Employed
Christine Morgan, Santa Cruz, Retired hospice chaplain
Meg Sandow, Santa Cruz, Retired Community Mental Health provider Michael Keenan, Santa Cruz
Erica Dem, Canada, Retired
Jean Brocklebank, Santa Cruz County, Retired
Darla Damhorst, Santa Cruz, Community member
Makenna Damhorst, Santa Cruz Student
Pauline Seales, Santa Cruz, Retired teacher
Jonathan Scher, Santa Cruz
Delia Gilligan, Santa Cruz, Airbnb host
Liz Ricks, Santa Cruz, Retired
Eric Lombardo, Santa Cruz County, Policy Manager and community member Ann Garside, Monterey,Community member
Sara McLellan, Santa Cruz, Community member
Mary Scheller, Santa Cruz, Retired
Matheus Arnellas, Santa Cruz, Business manager
Robin Spring, Santa Cruz, Retired
Anita Lipson, Santa Cruz County, Student
Katie Fick, Santa Cruz, Google

32.96 Samantha Rupel, Santa Cruz, Volunteer and Outreach Coordination JasmineEspinoza Verdugo, Santa Cruz, Community member
Julia Ribeiro, Santa Cruz , Waste Reduction
Katie Thompson, Santa Cruz, Incoming Executive Director Erica Donnelly-Greenan, Santa Cruz, Outgoing Executive Director, Marine Ecologist Kevin Greenan, Santa Cruz, Engineer
Andrea Dempsey, Santa Cruz, Education Coordinator
Santiago Meza, Santa Cruz, Student, Education Assistant

32.97 From: Sean Anderson
To: Board Of Supervisors
Cc: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: Support for a ban on the sale of cigarette filters Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 9:47:07 AM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Dear Supervisors Cummings, Friend, Hernandez, Koenig and McPherson, As a long time Santa Cruz resident, I am happy to see the work the tobacco waste subcommittee is doing.

As an avid beach volleyball player, I see cigarette butts all over our county beaches. It upsets me that throwing cigarette butts on the ground is the norm for smokers, despite "no-smoking" signs and trash cans being readily available.

Whenever I walk along the beach with my dog, I make an effort to collect trash, but I'm hesitant to pick up cigarette butts because they've been in people's mouths and are filled with toxins.

I'd like to see the Board of Supervisors do anything and everything they can to reduce the amount of cigarette butts that are littered on our beaches and in our parks.

Thank you for your time,
Sean Anderson

32.98 ATTN:

Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
October 7th, 2024
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe – cigarette butts!!
As a lifelong resident of Santa Cruz and surfing for over 22 years, I've seen first-hand how many cigarette butts find their way to the beach and into the ocean. It's saddening to see a beautiful ecosystem being trashed by such a chemically toxic product. But it's not just a problem here in Santa Cruz – I've traveled the world to some of the best surfing locations and seen the insane amount of cigarette butts littered along the coast. I believe it is here in Santa Cruz where this policy can start a movement to the bigger picture for communities around the world to follow and do their part to look after their unique part of the world. With a Marine Sanctuary and a World Surfing Reserve, Santa Cruz is already internationally recognized as a leader in ocean protection. I believe you, the board of supervisors with Santa Cruz county can be worldwide leaders to defend ocean pollution by adopting this policy.

Thank you for your continued leadership.

Respectfully,
Shaun Burns
Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve Coordinator
Professional Surfer
Santa Cruz born & raised
(831)331-5817
[email protected]

32.99 Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
October 3, 2024
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing to support the adoption of a policy banning the sale of all filtered rolled tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is essential for addressing the significant litter caused by cigarette butts, one of the most common pollutants both locally and globally.

While you will receive statistics on the litter these products generate, I want to emphasize the broader implications for public health. With over two decades of experience in public health efforts in Santa Cruz County, I can attest that cigarette litter disproportionately affects underserved communities, including youth, low-income residents, and BIPOC populations. This upstream policy can significantly reduce both environmental damage and public health risks.

Currently, local jurisdictions and conservation nonprofits shoulder the burden of cleanup costs to protect our environment from tobacco pollution, while the tobacco industry continues to profit. It is time to hold Big Tobacco accountable for its corporate pollution through proactive measures.

Santa Cruz County has a history of leading in such initiatives, and we can set a precedent once again.

I urge you to support the ban on the sale of filtered rolled tobacco products.

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson

32.100
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
August 29, 2024
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing on behalf of Surfrider Foundation Santa Cruz Chapter to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts.

The Surfrider Foundation is a nonprofit grassroots organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of our world’s ocean, waves, and beaches for all people through a powerful activist network. Beach cleanups are our most popular volunteer activity and cigarette butts are the most common litter item collected overall every year. As an organization, we don’t weigh in regarding smoking in general, but we are adamant in our anti-litter stance and finding solutions to the toplittered items, like the proposed ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches.

Local jurisdictions and conservation nonprofits like Surfrider have borne the brunt of the cleanup work and associated costs to protect the sanctuary and its human and nonhuman inhabitants from toxic tobacco pollution while the tobacco industry maintains exorbitant profits. It is time for an upstream solution that holds Big Tobacco responsible for its own corporate pollution.

Thank you for your continued leadership.

Sincerely,
Bill Hickman
Sr. Manager Central California Region
[email protected]

32.101
Coali&on
Chair
Luz
Areli
Sotelo
Member
Organiza-ons
Breathe California
Capitola Police Department
Community Preven.on Partners
Dominican Hospital
Downtown Streets Team
Pajaro Valley Community
Health Trust
Pajaro Valley Preven-on and
Student Assistance, Inc.

Salud Para La Gente
Salud y Cariño
Santa Cruz Police Department
County of Santa Cruz
Department of Public Works
County of Santa Cruz
Friday Night Live
County of Santa Cruz
Health Services Agency
Santa Cruz County
Office of Educa,on
Santa Cruz County Sheriffs
Save Our Shores
Sco$s Valley Police Department
Watsonville Department of
Public Works
Watsonville Police Department
Watsonville Wetlands Watch
and Community Members
Contact
Informa,on
P.O. Box 962
1070 Emeline Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
PH: (831) 454-‐4141
FAX: (831) 454-‐5048
September
10,
2024
Santa
Cruz
County
Board
of
Supervisors
701
Ocean
Street,
Room
500
Santa
Cruz,
CA
95060
Support
for
Policy
on
Tobacco
Product
“Filters”
Dear
Supervisors
Cummings,
Friend,
Hernandez,
Koenig,
and
McPherson:

I
am
wri(ng
on
behalf
of
the
Santa
Cruz
County
Tobacco
Educa(on
Coali(on
(TEC)
to
encourage
your

support
for
a
policy
in
the
unincorporated
area
of
Santa
Cruz
County
that
puts
an
end
to
the
sale
of

“filters”
in
tobacco
products.

The
Tobacco
Educa,on
Coali,on
is
a
nonprofit
partnership
of
Santa
Cruz
people
and
organiza,ons

commi%ed
to
advoca,ng
for
a
tobacco-‐free
lifestyle
and
environment. Since
1985,
Tobacco
Educa3on

Coali&on
members
have
worked
to
promote
health across
the
county
– and
for
good
reason,
since

tobacco
remains
the
largest
preventable
cause
of
death,
killing
half
a
million
Americans
per

year. Tobacco
waste
is
the
biggest
source
of
li2er
harming
our
local
environment
– tobacco
bu(s
are
the

most
li(ered
item
in
Santa
Cruz
County
streets,
parks,
and
beaches.

For
the
last
seven
years,
Tobacco
Educa5on
Coali5on
members
have
been
educa5ng
the
public
and
local

policymakers
about
issues
with
tobacco
waste.

We
have
conducted
public
opinion
polls
and
key
informant
interviews,
given
presenta1ons,
and
provided
informa1onal
trainings. We
have
educated

youth
and
engaged
media
throughout
the
county. We’ve
held
a
tobacco
waste
photo
contest,
and
even

hosted
a
“Tobacco
Bu/
Night”
at
the
Museum
of
Art
and
History.

Tobacco
Educa/on
Coali/on
members

and
community
partners
have
picked
up
tens
of
thousands
of
cigare5e
bu5s
from
Watsonville
to
Felton.

The
tobacco
industry
uses
so-‐called
“filters”
in
tobacco
products
as
a
decep3ve
tool: to
decrease
the

public's percep%on of
how
harmful
tobacco
products
are,
while
not
actually
providing
any
meaningful

change
to
how
dangerous
tobacco
products
are. One
in
four
cancer
deaths
in
California
are
due
to

smoking. Tobacco
industry
marke2ng
efforts
have
created
the
illusion that
cigare*e
filters
have
some

impact
on
the
harmful
chemicals
in
cigare2e
smoke. Yet,
according
to
the
World
Health
Organiza4on,

“There
is
no
evidence
that
filters
have
any
proven
health
benefits.”
As
early
as
1958,
Philip
Morris

scien&sts
recognized
that
selec/ve
filtra/on
of
the
harmful
compounds
in
cigare7e
smoke
was
“a

thermodynamic
impossibility.”
Meanwhile,
cigare.e
bu.s'
toxic
plas7c
remnants
li.er
our
streets,
parks,
and
beaches,
harming

residents'
quality
of
life,
making
beaches
and
parks
less
a,rac.ve
to
both
residents
and
visitors,
and

causing
local
jurisdic.ons
and
conserva.on
nonprofits to
pay
to
clean
up
this
extensive
toxic
li1er.

Happily,
all
five
local
jurisdic3ons
within
the
county,
including
the
County
Board
of
Supervisors,
have

already passed
resolu+ons
recognizing
tobacco
waste
as
a
public
health
and
environmental
threat.

Tobacco
Educa*on
Coali*on
members
have
frequently
worked
to
support
local
leaders
in
addressing

concerns
related
to
passing
tobacco
preven$on
policies. Our
work
will
con,nue
even
a0er
a
policy

dealing
with
tobacco
“filters”
were
to
pass: tobacco
retailers
will
need
guidance
in
transi1oning
away

from
the
sale
of
“filtered”
products. People
who
smoke
“filtered”
tobacco
products
will
need
quit-‐
smoking
services
and
support. Tobacco
Educa*on
Coali*on
members
will
con*nue
to
work
towards

mee#ng
the
needs
of
all
local
cons#tuents
as
we
advocate
for
a
health-‐promo%ng,
tobacco-‐free
lifestyle

and
environment
for
the
community.

Tobacco
Educa&on
Coali&on
members
believe
that
the
Board
of
Supervisors
has
the
community
support,

research-‐based
evidence
about
the
science
and
history
about
tobacco
filters,
as
well
as
extensive
data

on
health
issues
and
plas.c
pollu.on
locally,
to
jus.fy
a policy
on
tobacco
filters
that
is
pro-‐health,
pro-‐
family,
and
pro-‐environment. Please
put
an
end
to
the
sale
of
health-‐deceiving,
environment-‐damaging

“filtered”
tobacco
products.

Sincerely,
Randy
Uang

32.102
From: David J. Terrazas
To: Board Of Supervisors
Cc: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee; Monica Terrazas
Subject: Support In Favor of Ban ban on the Sale of Filtered Cigarette Products Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 10:34:43 AM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County August 12, 2024 701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the Sale the Sale of Filtered Tobacco Products Dear Board Chair Cummings and Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Hernandez, and McPherson:

Our family is grateful for the beautiful natural environment which provides our community with significant social and economic benefits and joy. We must therefore care for our environment and take appropriate action to protect our community from environmental harm.

This correspondence is to express our support for the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors adoption of a policy which bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County.

This policy will address one of the most persistent beach litter items in Santa Cruz County and across the globe, cigarette butts. Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches and have
been for decades. As you may know, between 2013 - 2023, Save Our Shores alone collected 439,358 cigarette butts frombeaches, open spaces, and public areas. As a top littered item locally, we know that number is just a
snapshot of the total cigarette litter that continues to negatively impact human and ecosystem health as our organization picks them up too and/or encounters them in our public spaces. As a former Save Our Shores board member I have seen first hand the amount of time and effort countless numbers of volunteers and local officials have taken to keep our beaches clean. This action will go a long way to addressing this matter and reduce the amount of economic and community resources to address this persistent problem. Additionally, local jurisdictions and conservation nonprofits have also borne the brunt of the cleanup work and associated costs to protect the sanctuary and its human and nonhuman inhabitants from toxic tobacco pollution. It is time for local policy to counteract the significant impact filtered cigarette products have on our community.

As parents, I am also deeply concerned about the public health impacts of filtered cigarette products. Scientific research has indicated that cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980. We believe that we have the community and local government support, the decades of litter data, and the regional strategy to justify a strong policy that favors our sanctuary and its people.

Please take action to support a ban on the sale of filtered cigarette products which will protect

32.103
our environment and the public health of our community.

Thank you for your service and for your time considering this action.

Sincerely,
David & Monica Terrazas
Santa Cruz, California

32.104
From: Trina Barton
To: Tara Leonard; Justin Cummings
Subject: FW: Letter to Supervisors - please send to them.

Date: Sunday, August 18, 2024 2:34:34 PM
FYI
From: PitchIn Santa Cruz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2024 2:11 PM
To: Trina Barton <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to Supervisors - please send to them.
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.**** Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste
Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, Thank you for your consideration of the adoption of the ban on filtered tobacco products in Santa Cruz County. This will send an important message to the Tobacco Industry, and move the dial on impeding this environmental hazard from further impacting our county.

The Pitch In Initiative in Santa Cruz County is focused on eliminating litter and illegal dumping.

Our coalition of agencies and organizations include The offices of Congressman Panetta, Congresswoman Lofgren, Speaker Rivas, and Senator Laird, the County of Santa Cruz, all of the Cities, Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, The Farm Bureau, State Parks, The Community Foundation, CalTrans, Law Enforcement, The Land Trust, PVUSD, COE, Coastal Watershed Council, Watsonville Wetlands Watch, Chambers, Rotaries and others.

I am writing on behalf of the Trash Talkers and the County-wide Pitch In Initiative because we know firsthand the negative impacts that cigarette butts have on our communities, our children, and our wildlife. We are out there participating in cleanups, and picking up the volume of cigarette butts and tobacco waste that is entering our neighborhoods, watersheds, agricultural lands and it is abhorrent!
These “filters” do nothing to reduce the life-threatening dangers of smoking. These nonbiodegradable, toxic laden microplastics are instead, adversely affecting human health, impacting our children, our communities and creating irreversible damage to marine and other organisms.

You as Supervisors have a responsibility to safeguard the health and wellbeing of our community and its members and we encourage you to act on this policy.

We have been working with individuals focused on eliminating Tobacco Waste Products to amplify the message, that cigarette butts are the most littered item, and it needs to stop! The Trash Talkers Coalition and the Pitch In Initiative are engaging all community members in our goal to

32.105
Make Santa Cruz the Cleanest County in the State eliminating the sale of tobacco waste products in our county will help.

Thank you for your continued care of and leadership in our community.

Sally-Christine Rodgers
Trash Talkers Organizer
Eliminate Litter and Illegal Dumping
pitchinsantacruz.org

32.106
From: Russell Weisz
To: Board Of Supervisors
Cc: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: Support for a ban on the sale of cigarette filters Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 7:03:45 PM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Dear Supervisors Cummings, Friend, Hernandez, Koenig, and McPherson, Please ban the sale of cigarette filters in Santa Cruz County. I am a long-time resident of Westside Santa Cruz and live near West Cliff Dr. where I walk most days. Cigarette remains (filters) are the most common type of trash that I see and cause significant visual and environmental damage. I also frequently visit many of the beaches in the County and help with cleanups. Again cigarette remains are the most common trash. Please ban this toxic and disgusting trash by banning the sale of filters.
thanks,
Russell Weisz
319 Laguna St. Santa Cruz CA 95060
8312461770

32.107
From: yogi hendlin
To: Board Of Supervisors; Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: Butt free helps everyone
Date: Sunday, September 22, 2024 10:02:03 PM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Dear Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and Tobacco Waste Subcommittee, In anticipation of the October 8, 2024 vote on banning butts, I urge you to follow through with this health and environmental commitment.

As a tobacco control researcher, focusing on the environmental effects of tobacco for the past 20 years, I can confirm that:
(1) Conventional filters in cigarettes serve no health purpose whatsoever, and likely cause additional health harm than cigarettes without them.
(2) 2/3 of all cigarettes are littered, with butts the #1 item found in park and beach clean ups. (3) Butts remain very toxic after discarded, and kill umpteen pets, sea creatures (i.e., birds, fish, mammals) annually.
(4) Babies die every year from consuming tobacco product waste. (5) Butts were only introduced to cigarettes by the industry in the 1950s after the US Surgeon General started discussing publicly the cancer risks of cigarettes, as a visual distraction and reassuring prophylactic to assuage people’s fears and keep people smoking. (6) The industry is under a federal legal gag order from claiming any health benefits from filters, as the science is clear that they provide no health benefits, and that the industry has milked 70 years of duping the public into thinking that cigarettes’ health hazards can be mitigated without changing their core product.
(7) California population smoking levels are falling precipitously, and banning butts can help more people get off this addiction costing us publicly billions annually, by helping them realize that there is no safe cigarette. Removing deceptive devices to trick consumers into thinking that smoking is not so bad from their help will help them quit — 70-80% of smokers quit by themselves unaided once they have reason to do so. Save a life, and give them a reason to do so.

I have co-written a WHO report on the Tobacco and its environmental impact: an overview as well as numerous studies on the environmental harms of tobacco, including e-cigarettes. There are few policy measures which will have more of an immediate, noticeable change on our environment, health, and the signs we give to the next generation than banning butts. Let’s celebrate your legacies as public health champions.

I look forward to your positive vote passing the ordinance banning the retail sale of single use filtered tobacco products. Other cities will follow.

Sincerely,
Yogi
Yogi Hale Hendlin, PhD

32.108
Environmental Philosopher and Public Health Scientist
www.yogihendlin.com
Assistant Professor, Erasmus School of Philosophy
Core Faculty, Dynamics of Inclusive Prosperity Initiative Erasmus University Rotterdam
Netherlands
Research Associate, Environmental Health Initiative
University of California, San Francisco
Advisor, Luminous
Editor-in-Chief, Biosemiotics

32.109
1 Danielle Meidan
From: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: FW: Ban plastic cigarette filters
From: Nancy Arbuckle <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 6:48:51 PM
To: Board Of Supervisors <[email protected]> Subject: Ban plastic cigarette filters
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
To the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors,
I was thrilled to learn that your county is considering banning plastic cigarette filters to address the devastation to our health and environment caused by these toxic filthy butts. Yes, cigarette butts are the most littered item on earth. Yes, cigarette butts are the most abundant source of plastic waste. And NO cigarette filters do not provide health benefits to smokers. It’s time to act and your leadership will begin the necessary domino effect to get this legislation done in many neighboring counties.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Nancy Arbuckle
SF CA 94109
650 743 2869

32.110
1 Danielle Meidan
From: The Cigarette Surfboard <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Single-Use Cigarette Filter Ban Follow-up? To: Ramon Gomez <[email protected]>, Felipe Hernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: Celeste Gutierrez <[email protected]>, Tara Leonard <[email protected]>
Dear Supervisor Hernandez,
Thank you for your continued engagement on this issue. I would like to address a few pivotal points regarding the perspectives you may be hearing. As someone who has worked on this issue for eight years and has tirelessly advocated for justice through this policy, I believe that continuing to incentivize businesses reliant on tobacco sales not only undermines our community’s well-being but also directly contributes to the degradation of both our environment and public health. While concerns about the potential economic effects on small businesses are valid, we must not lose sight of the larger, more destructive consequences of allowing this toxic product to persist in our county.

It’s important to recognize that Santa Cruz County’s economy thrives on more than just tobacco sales.

We have a diverse range of businesses that contribute to the vitality of our community, driven largely by people visiting and appreciating the incredible environment we are fortunate to have. The small amount of tax revenue generated from filtered cigarette sales is insignificant when compared to the massive harm these products inflict on public health and the environment. These retailers are merely extensions of the tobacco industry, with their primary goal being to sell more products while facing no consequences for the destruction they leave behind. It is one thing to sell people products in our community that they need, it is another to sell people products they are addicted to. Their interests lie solely in profit, not in the well-being of our community or the preservation of our environment. Yes, they are businesses in our community, but as leaders that Santa Cruz has always been, is this how we want to choose to lead? By siding with big tobacco and its front groups? I know that is not where you stand, but that is unfortunately where this policy issue lands.

Cigarette filters, made from single-use plastic, are the most littered item in the world, contributing massively to microplastic pollution that damages ecosystems, marine life, and our local beaches.

Additionally, they poison our watersheds and fisheries, meaning that these plastics inevitably end up in our bodies. We here in Santa Cruz have a unique responsibility, as part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary to be at the forefront of environmental protection. By continuing to allow filtered cigarettes to be sold here, we are failing this duty. A product designed to harm both people and the planet perpetuates an unnecessary cycle of pollution and health risks.

Businesses reliant on filtered cigarette sales are not contributing to the long-term vitality of our community. These products not only pose a financial burden on public services (costing millions annually in cleanup) but also perpetuate addiction and health disparities, particularly in marginalized communities historically targeted by the tobacco industry. Encouraging businesses to pivot away from

32.111
2 selling harmful products would align with the broader goals of public health and environmental justice, which I believe are values you share as our supervisor.

Regarding concerns about a potential black market: it is important to recognize that every groundbreaking policy faces resistance. Yet, our county has successfully navigated transitions with previous public health initiatives, such as the flavored tobacco ban. Businesses adapted, and consumers found less harmful alternatives. Given time, the same will happen here. Supporting this ban is not about creating new avenues for crime, but about leading with policies that benefit the health and environment of all.

Finally, it is crucial to challenge the notion that this ban would harm vulnerable communities. On the contrary, by reducing the availability of filtered cigarettes, we are taking a stand against the predatory practices of the tobacco industry, which disproportionately targets low-income and marginalized groups. This is a step toward reducing the exploitation of communities and redirecting resources toward their well-being, instead of perpetuating vices that definitively addict people, cause secondhand smoke, health problems, and death.

The decision before you is clear. Given all this information, it’s evident that supporting the continued sale of toxic, deadly products not only prioritizes the short-term backlash you may get for voting in favor of this policy over long-term public health. But it would also fail our responsibility to protect the environment, including the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The choice is whether to stand with Big Tobacco or to stand with the Santa Cruz community. We trust that the right decision will be clear.

I urge you to consider the broader, long-term impacts on our community. We can no longer be complacent in the face of the overwhelming science, health studies, environmental impacts, and moral imperatives surrounding this issue. We hope you will take this opportunity to shift our focus from shortterm economic concerns to sustainable, equitable solutions that prioritize our environment, public health, and the legacy we leave behind. Hopefully, the buck can stop with you at October 8th’s meeting and we can see your leadership in action on this issue.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Taylor Lane
The Cigarette Surfboard
thecigarettesurfboard.com // @thecigarettesurfboard

32.112
Dan Haifley
2635 Fresno Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
(831) 234-8148
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County August 14, 2024 701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products

Dear Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing to encourage you to encourage adoption of a ban on the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County in order to curb the persistent environmental threat posed by cigarette butts.

Between 2013 - 2023, Save Our Shores alone collected 439,358 cigarette butts from beaches, open spaces, and public areas. As a top littered item locally, we know that number is just a snapshot of the total cigarette litter that continues to negatively impact human and ecosystem health as our organization picks them up too and/or encounters them in our public spaces.

According to a 2023 NOAA study that used community science data, 24.5% of all litter collected on the shoreline of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 could be attributed to smoking! Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980.

We have the community support, the decades of litter data, and the regional strategy to justify a strong policy that favors our sanctuary and its people.

Respectfully,
Dan Haifley

32.113
1 Danielle Meidan
From: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: FW: Tobacco Waste
From: Tim Goncharoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 12:40 PM
To: Board Of Supervisors <[email protected]> Subject: Tobacco Waste
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
My friends,
I am delighted to see you considering taking action on the persistent problem of toxic tobacco waste. I strongly encourage you to support the measure prohibiting sales of filtered tobacco.

We know now that decades of marketing convincing smokers that filters reduced the harm from tobacco were just another lie. We know that the filters are not natural, but another form of plastic. We know that the filters accumulate concentrated doses of toxins that threaten the health of wildlife. We also know that despite extensive campaigns urging proper disposal of tobacco waste, that millions are casually discarded every year on our streets, in our parks and on our beaches. This is intolerable.

The Board has a long and noble history of taking action to protect the environment, often supporting bold initiatives that inspire countless others. Your local ordinances have often led to statewide laws, in California and beyond. I urge you to show such leadership now.

Thank you for your courage.

Tim Goncharoff
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer

32.114
1 Danielle Meidan
From: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: FW: Ban all Butts!!!
From: David Mintz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 11:40 AM
To: Justin Cummings <[email protected]>; Board Of Supervisors <[email protected]>
Subject: Ban all Butts!!!
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Yes, yes, yes
Filters should be banned in our county. Thanks for taking up this huge issue.

We live close to a liquor store and a bar - both of which are great, but the number of butts that end up in the bay are must be reduced to zero and these businesses cannot do it without strong bold legislation Plus, we know the filters do no good for humans.

These are some of the more than 300 butts we collected on one 90 minute walk from our house to West Cliff to the Lighthouse. The parking areas on West Cliff are a mess and when butts are caught between the safety cement and the curb they cannot be collected by the wonderful local staff unless they are done by hand
Our bay, our birds, our fish, our humans - we all deserve to be in a Butt Free area.

Thanks so much for doing the GREAT work.

32.115
2 Jan and David Mintz
319 Younglove Ave. Santa Cruz, CA. 95060
714 351 3836
originally inhabited by the Uypi people, yet today the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band have graciously accepted stewardship responsibility of the land that we reside on.

32.116
1 SENATOR BILL MONNING (RET)

CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE

MAJORITY LEADER EMERITUS
Attorney-at-Law/Mediator
Distinguished Professor of Law
P.O. Box 1385
Monterey, Ca 93942
___________________________________
26 August 2024
Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Support for Policy Solutions to Eradicate Tobacco Product Waste Dear Hon. Supervisors Koenig, Friend, Cummings, Hernandez, and McPherson, I am writing to offer my support for the passage of a policy that bans the retail sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County.

This proposed policy represents a critical step to address one of the most littered items in Santa Cruz County and on the planet, toxic cigarette butts.

As a former California State Senator who represented Santa Cruz County as both an assemblymember and state senator, I am keenly aware of the environmental and health challenges facing our communities. I know, from listening to youth in our school and community groups, that young people care passionately about both human and environmental health and want to make a difference. Many youth and adults know that cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. They know that cigarette butts leech dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life.

Through work on tobacco waste cleanups and education events, we know that tobacco waste is a health equity and environmental justice issue, disproportionately found in lower income communities and communities of color. Frankly, we are tired of being targeted by the tobacco industry with their misleading advertising and greenwashing campaigns. We know of the years of criminal deception by Big Tobacco that delayed the eventual ban on tobacco product advertising on television and which resulted in hundreds of thousands of preventable cancer deaths.

I applaud the initiative of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Cruz County and urge you to pass a policy banning the sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products. It’s high time for Big Tobacco to clean up its own corporate pollution and stop relying on children to pick up the toxic waste of a billion-dollar industry! Santa Cruz County stands as a county that has pursued landmark

32.117
2 environmental and public health policies and with this initiative can serve, once again, to be a model for the rest of California and the nation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Toward Health for All and the Protection of Our Communities and Oceans! Sincerely,
Bill Monning
SENATOR BILL MONNING (ret)

32.118
September 21, 2024
To: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Santa Cruz County Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
From: Thomas E. Novotny MD MPH
Re: Filtered Cigarettes—Public Health and the Environment I am a Professor Emeritus of Public Health at San Diego State University, but I write to you as a private citizen and environmental advocate regarding the issue of tobacco product waste and its impact on the environment.

For the past two decades, I have been conducting research and educational activities on tobacco use and more specifically on the interface between tobacco’s well-known adverse health risks and its less recognized impacts on the environment. These impacts are less known until one sets foot onto any urban street or into some of our most sensitive natural environments. Tobacco product waste, specifically the cellulose acetate filter, is discarded in significant quantities wherever people smoke.

Based on self-reported and observed behaviors, between 25% and 65% of smoked commercial cigarette butts are improperly dumped into the environment. More than 99% of cigarettes sold in the US have the plastic (cellulose acetate) filter attached, and the smoking ritual involves tossing down the smoked butt and stepping on it. Even if discarded into waste bins, they are still toxic plastic trash items. If not fully extinguished, they are also a cause of wild fires and deadly house fires.

Expert opinion on any protective value of the filter points to the fact that the risks of smoking have NOT declined over 60 years of predominantly filtered cigarette smoking. We have seen significant declines in smoking-related diseases, but this is because people have quit smoking, not because they smoked filtered cigarettes. The filter is a non-essential plastic additive and a fraudulent marketing tool that sustains tobacco use among people who smoke. It also makes it easier for young people to take their first puffs. There is no such thing as a safer cigarette, not for people and not for the environment.

In California, only 6% of adults report smoking cigarettes, but more than five billion cigarettes are still sold each year here. If half were improperly disposed, that would mean an estimated 425,000 kg of discarded plastic waste each year from filtered cigarettes alone. Cigarette filters are about 20 mm long, making them a macroplastic waste product which when degraded produces microplastics. Microplastics are now found in our waters, our foods, and our bodies. A 2021 study reported by the San Francisco Estuary Institute suggested that cigarette butts are a likely source of cellulose acetate microplastics detected in the storm water runoff from Bay Area cities. It is important to note that the trash amendment to the California Clean Water Act will require, by 2030, any trash larger than 5 mm to be captured or otherwise prevented from entering storm drainage. One way to prevent this plastic

32.119
2 pollution is to reduce pollutant sources upstream from storm drains; in the case of filters, this suggests banning the sale of filtered cigarettes as non-essential, single-use plastic products.

One may wonder what effects removing the filter from the commercial cigarette market may have on people who smoke. Research suggests that they will not enjoy smoking unfiltered cigarettes; the filter keeps tobacco bits out of their mouths and makes it easier to inhale. This would lead to fewer cigarettes being smoked and likely increased quitting attempts. Other studies suggest that smokers’ exposure to carcinogens and nicotine is no different for filtered or unfiltered cigarettes, despite the widespread misinformation that filtered cigarettes are somehow safer. There is evidence that the design changes in cigarettes over the decades has led to an increase in the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma. This is a more aggressive type of cancer found in the periphery of the lung, where deeper inhalation against the filter increases carcinogen delivery. Filtered cigarettes should be considered as hazardous rather than beneficial to people who smoke.

There will be enormous resistance from cigarette producers, distributors, and sellers to the removal of filtered cigarettes from local, state, national, or international markets. Nonetheless, several countries are considering this intervention, the World Health Organization has called for it, and it is under consideration as part of a United Nations Plastics Treaty component. Both environmental advocates and tobacco control advocates have called on our State government and local communities to hold the tobacco industry accountable for the adverse impacts of tobacco product waste on the environment.

Taxpayers, businesses, voluntary groups, and citizens have to bear the financial burden of cleaning up tobacco product waste while the industry continues to profit from cigarette sales. No matter how extensively or frequently these cleanups are conducted, most of the discarded butts will not be collected and will continue to pollute the environment with toxic chemicals and plastic. One city (Baltimore) has filed suit against tobacco companies and distributors to recover the costs of tobacco product waste cleanup.

There are no industry greenwashing efforts, clean up campaigns by voluntary or government agencies, or enforcement actions against littering that will significantly reduce the continuous tobacco trash burden in Santa Cruz County. However, effective action is possible to prevent tobacco waste impacts at the local level, just as was done with clean indoor air legislation in the past. For example, two California cities have banned ALL tobacco product sales (and no one died as a result). California voters sustained a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products (and tobacco use declined as a result). Banning the sale of filtered cigarettes is a bold step for any community to take in order to assert that filtered cigarettes are a fraud, a source of plastic pollution, and a health hazard to people who smoke. Federal law specifically permits state and local tobacco product sales bans.

I would be happy to provide you with additional information and evidence on tobacco product waste.

Please see https://www.undo.org/ and https://merg.sdsu.edu/tpwwp/ for reference material.

Sincerely yours,
Thomas E. Novotny MD MPH, San Diego California

32.120
August 22, 2024
Dear Santa Cruz County Supervisors,
As the California State Assemblymember for the 28th District, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed ordinance to ban the sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, within Santa Cruz County. These products severely impact public health and our environment.

From a health perspective, the dangers of smoking are well documented, and the presence of cigarette filters does nothing to mitigate these risks. Despite what the tobacco industry has claimed, filters do not effectively remove harmful chemicals from tobacco smoke. Instead, they are a deceptive marketing tool that lures individuals into a false sense of security, while contributing to the addiction and eventual death of countless individuals each year. This reality is stark: tobacco use remains a leading cause of preventable death, and the so-called "benefits" of filters are nothing more than a dangerous illusion.

Equally concerning is the environmental toll of these products. Cigarette filters are a significant source of litter in our community, polluting our parks, beaches, and waterways. These filters contain microplastics and harmful chemicals that leach into the environment, posing a direct threat to wildlife, especially those who make our beautiful Monterey Bay their home. The unsightly presence of cigarette butts in our natural spaces is not just an eyesore—it represents an ongoing environmental hazard that is costly to clean up and damaging to our ecosystems.

Given the dual threats posed by filtered tobacco products—to both human health and the environment—I believe it is imperative that we act decisively. Banning the sale of these products in Santa Cruz County is a crucial step in protecting the well-being of our residents and preserving the natural beauty of our surroundings.

I strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to adopt this ordinance. Together, we can make a meaningful difference for the health of our community and the protection of our environment.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Gail Pellerin
Assemblymember, District 28
GP:mm

32.121
1 Danielle Meidan
From: Tobacco Waste Subcommittee
Subject: FW: We support a ban of cigarette filters!
From: Barbara Bella <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:17 PM
To: Board Of Supervisors <[email protected]> Cc: Heidi Sanborn <[email protected]>; Jordan Wells <[email protected]>; Vince Yuen <[email protected]>; Carol Rogers <[email protected]>
Subject: We support a ban of cigarette filters!
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Hello Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors,
As co-chair of Neighborhood Enhancement at Russian Hill Neighbors, I have been working closely with Refuse Refuse SF and National Stewardship Action Council to promote the banning of plastic cigarette filters in the state of California.

We are thrilled to learn that your county is considering taking this crucial action to finally address the devastation to our health and environment caused by these toxic filthy butts. Yes, cigarette butts are the most littered item on earth. Yes, cigarette butts are the most abundant source of plastic waste. And NO cigarette filters do not provide health benefits to smokers. It’s time to act and we believe your leadership will begin the necessary domino effect to get this legislation done in many neighboring counties.

We support this action. Please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Barbara Bella
415 640-2060

32.122
Valley Women’s Club of San Lorenzo Valley
Environmental Committee
PO Box 574, Ben Lomond, CA 95005
www.valleywomensclub.org
831/338-6578
September 20, 2024
Board of Supervisors
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Support for Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Dear Chair Cummings and Members McPherson, Koenig, Friend and Hernandez, We are wriƟng in support of the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz County. It is time that the severe environmental damage caused by tobacco products’ filters is recognized by the community-at-large.

Despite major efforts by the Valley Women’s Club Environmental Committee (VWC EC) and by Save Our Shores and many other local environmental organizations, the problem has not gone away. Even the significant drop in tobacco product sales in the past few years hasn’t helped.

The 2023 NOAA study proved how severe the problem is for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, with almost 25% of the litter collected on the shoreline from 2017 to 2021 was attributable to smoking. That collection was but once a year… so the impacts on marine wildlife, of toxins and ingested plastic, are disturbing.

The VWC EC’s involvement included The Butt Stops Here campaign, where thousands of butts were collected in receptacles located in each San Lorenzo Valley town – and packaged and sent to a recycling facility; contests were held to make people aware of the problem; personal butt containers distributed to dozens of smokers; teenagers painted huge crawdads over the grates that allowed water (and butts) to wash into the River to remind people that debris gets washed into the River, including the filters. The website caught national attention (https://valleywomensclub.org/the-butt-stops-here/). A few years ago the VWC EC helped the Boulder Creek Business Association replace the large, aging butt receptacles of our original campaign with more compact ones hanging on posts. Thousands of “cartoon” cards were designed, printed and distributed-- to make all ages aware of the problem. And, every year

32.123
during the Annual River & Road Cleanup (now in its 38th year), special attention is given to picking up cigarette butts from along the roads.

Obviously, these efforts were/are worthwhile, but only temporary. So this policy is a part of the solution that will be measurable and significant. It’s the right thing to do, and Big Tobacco needs to take notice.

This community – and our local government – can set the standard, set the example, that will eventually have State-wide impacts. So please support this ban.

With respect and gratitude,
Nancy B. Macy, Chair
Valley Women’s Club Environmental Committee

32.124
Brittany Inclan
From: Sean Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 11:24 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Santa Cruz County Cigarette Filter Ban
Dear Honorable Members of the Santa Cruz City Council,
I am writing to respectfully urge the City of Santa Cruz to consider enacting a ban on the sale of filtered cigarettes within city limits. As a resident who deeply values our community’s commitment to environmental stewardship and ocean conservation, I am increasingly concerned about the environmental damage caused by cigarette filters—the most commonly littered item in the world.

Cigarette filters, typically made of cellulose acetate (a type of plastic), are non-biodegradable and persist in the environment for years. Despite common misconceptions, these filters do not make smoking safer; instead, they serve largely as a marketing tool. When discarded—most often onto sidewalks, parks, and beaches—they leach toxic chemicals such as nicotine, heavy metals, and carcinogens into the soil and water. This is especially concerning in coastal communities like ours, where storm drains funnel litter directly into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Each year, tens of thousands of cigarette butts are collected during local beach cleanups. These cleanups, while helpful, are not a sustainable or scalable solution to the problem. By targeting the source—filtered cigarettes—we can dramatically reduce the single-use plastic waste that pollutes our natural environment and endangers marine life.

Cities such as San Francisco and Manhattan Beach have already taken steps toward banning filtered cigarettes, recognizing the environmental threat they pose. Santa Cruz, with its strong environmental values and history of progressive policy, has an opportunity to lead California—and the nation—by becoming one of the first communities to eliminate filtered cigarettes altogether.

I respectfully ask the Council to study the issue and consider introducing legislation to ban the sale of filtered cigarettes in Santa Cruz. Such a move would demonstrate our city's ongoing commitment to protecting our coastline, our wildlife, and future generations.

Thank you for your time and your continued dedication to our community.

Sincerely,
Sean Anderson
Sent from my iPhone

32.125
Brittany Inclan
From: Vanessa Silverstein <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 11:42 AM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I am writing both as a public health professional, and as a Santa Cruz resident born and raised in Santa Cruz County, to express support for a policy that would ban the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars in the city of Santa Cruz.

This is an important step in limiting the harms of deadly, addictive nicotine products in our community, and supporting our precious environment. The amazing people and the wonderful nature of Santa Cruz are what make this city so special. Banning the sale of cigarette “filters” will protect Santa Cruz residents and the local nature that we all love.

Recent studies have concluded that cigarette filters have no benefit in preventing the adverse health effects of smoking, including the death of half a million people in the United States each year. They are just a marketing tool designed to decrease the perception of smoking’s harm. So, it is particularly galling that millions of butts end up tossed on the ground, leaching their toxins into our parks, beaches and riverways.

I strongly urge the Santa Cruz City Council to do your part in protecting the residents of Santa Cruz.

Please ban the sale of cigarette “filters” that do no such thing! Sincerely,
Vanessa Silverstein, MPH

32.126
Brittany Inclan
From: Katie Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 12:11 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Laurie Egan; Katie Thompson
Subject: We support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products.

Attachments: SC City Council_Filtered tobacco ban_JUNE 2025.pdf Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I hope this message finds you well. On behalf of Save Our Shores and Coastal Watershed Council, we are writing to express strong support for a policy that would ban the sale of filtered tobacco products in the City of Santa Cruz. Please find the attached letter outlining the environmental and public health reasons why this policy is urgent.

Thank you for your continued leadership in protecting our community and environment.

Sincerely,
Katie Thompson
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic download of this picture from
the Internet. Katie Thompson, M.M.A. (she/her)
Executive Director, Save Our Shores
Office: 1.831.462.5660 x8
Website: www.saveourshores.org
Address: 345 Lake Ave, Suite A. Santa Cruz, CA 95062
We are located on the unceded territory of the Awaswas-speaking Uypi Tribe, represented by the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band

32.127
June 2, 2025
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
We, as local representatives of environmental organizations and community members, support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in the Santa Cruz City. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz and across the globe: cigarette butts.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz’s riverways and beaches and have been for decades. Between 2013 - 2024, Save Our Shores alone collected 463,779 cigarette butts from beaches, open spaces, and public areas in the Monterey Bay region, and 40% of those butts (189,154) were picked up from within the jurisdiction of Santa Cruz City. Cigarette butts are the number one item we pick up on cleanups within the city, surpassing plastic pieces, food wrappers, paper pieces, and plastic food containers. As a top littered item locally, we know that number is just a snapshot of the total cigarette litter that continues to negatively impact human and ecosystem. According to a 2023 NOAA study that used community science data, an astounding 24.5% of all litter collected on the shoreline of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 could be attributed to smoking.

Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, and wildlife. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980.

Local jurisdictions and conservation nonprofits have borne the brunt of the cleanup work and associated costs to protect the sanctuary and its human and nonhuman inhabitants from toxic tobacco pollution while the tobacco industry maintains exorbitant profits. It is time for an upstream solution that holds Big Tobacco responsible for its own corporate pollution. A ban on filtered tobacco products would support the City of Santa Cruz’s commitment to Health in All Policies by reducing environmental toxins and promoting healthier public spaces for all residents.

Respectfully,
Katie Thompson, Executive Director, Save Our Shores
Laurie Egan, Executive Director, Coastal Watershed Council

32.128
Brittany Inclan
From: Talia Vinograd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:00 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste

June 2, 2025
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro
I’ve been a resident of Santa Cruz since 2020, and have noticed significant tobacco waste product all over Santa Cruz. As a dog owner and fosterer, it’s been worrisome to see my dog (and the ones I’m taking care of) ingest tobacco waste product. These products, waste in general, and needles all have to be carefully avoided. What’s more, banning the sale of filtered tobacco products would be an important step to reduce toxicity on our coasts and protect our marine sanctuary. It’s the most littered waste in Santa Cruz and has such negative implication for our environment, and contrary to popular belief cigarette filters do nothing to protect smokers.

I’ve had many unfortunate incidents in which my Golden Retriever - who can’t help himself - has picked up cigarette butts and while I worry about my dog the most, I also worry about our children and marine life. I’ll likely have a baby within the next 1-2 years and the thought of him/her crawling around on the beach and putting a poisonous cigarette butt in their mouth really scares me.

Please consider the ban of the sale of filtered tobacco products, especially because it’s been shown that filters do not make cigarettes any safer! The safety of our pets, children, and marine life depends on you.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Talia Vinograd

32.129
Brittany Inclan
From: Polly Vinograd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:19 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste

June 2, 2025
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro
I’ve been a resident of Santa Cruz since 2021 and have noticed significant tobacco waste product all over Santa Cruz. As a dog owner and fosterer, it’s been worrisome to see my dog (and the ones I’m taking care of) ingest tobacco waste product. These products, waste in general, and needles all have to be carefully avoided. What’s more, banning the sale of filtered tobacco products would be an important step to reduce toxicity on our coasts and protect our marine sanctuary. It’s the most littered waste in Santa Cruz and has such negative implication for our environment, and contrary to popular belief cigarette filters do nothing to protect smokers.

I’ve had many unfortunate incidents in which my Golden Retriever - who can’t help himself - has picked up cigarette butts and while I worry about my dog the most, I also worry about our children and marine life. I’ll likely will have a grandchild within the next 1-2 years and the thought of him/her crawling around on the beach and putting a poisonous cigarette butt in their mouth really scares me.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Polly Vinograd
Sent from my iPhone

32.130
Brittany Inclan
From: Yossi Vinograd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:35 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: I support a ban on sale of filtered tobacco products Re: Policy Solutions to Tobacco Product Waste
June 2, 2025
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro
I’ve been a resident of Santa Cruz since 2021 and have noticed significant tobacco waste product all over Santa Cruz. As a dog owner and fosterer, it’s been worrisome to see my dog (and the ones I’m taking care of) ingest tobacco waste product. These products, waste in general, and needles all have to be carefully avoided. What’s more, banning the sale of filtered tobacco products would be an important step to reduce toxicity on our coasts and protect our marine sanctuary. It’s the most littered waste in Santa Cruz and has such negative implication for our environment, and contrary to popular belief cigarette filters do nothing to protect smokers.

I’ve had many unfortunate incidents in which my Golden Retriever - who can’t help himself - has picked up cigarette butts and while I worry about my dog the most, I also worry about our children and marine life. I’ll likely will have a grandchild within the next 1-2 years and the thought of him/her crawling around on the beach and putting a poisonous cigarette butt in their mouth really scares me.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Yossi Vinograd
Mobile: 847 840 1109
Email: [email protected]
415 Manor Avenue South
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

32.131
Brittany Inclan
From: Jacquelyn Griffith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 5:32 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Ban the butt! Filter or no
Dear Mayor and CITY Santa Cruz City Council members. Please protect our Monterey Bay and our beaches.

Please pass the most stringent anti-cigarette butts with or without filters. Smokers have had plenty of time to show they care and to stop dropping cigarette butts with or without filters onto our beaches, sidewalks gutters, streams, and ocean!!
Thank you for considering my input,
Jacquy Griffith

32.132
Brittany Inclan
From: Lila Seldin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 5:50 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Susan Pierszalowski
Subject: I support the ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I support the adoption of an ordinance banning the sale of filtered tobacco products in the city of Santa Cruz. This ordinance would not only address this toxic litter in your city but also would help protect your neighbors and communities that surround our National Marine Sanctuary. It will safeguard our shared environment and wildlife from the harmful health consequences of tobacco filters and the microplastics from them.

My team and I have been picking up litter, with a focus on cigarette filters,on a weekly basis for over 10 years along our shoreline between Asilomar State Beach to Monterey. With the help of statistics professor Dr. Steven Kim and his students from California State University Of Monterey Bay, we had a yearly count of cigarette filters exceeding 31,000 over a 4 mile radius, in 2019. Our 2025 data also shows similar pollution numbers.

With this very important and impactful ordinance, we are hopeful that our beloved Monterey Bay will be free from this harmful waste. We will follow your lead in this ban by advocating similar bans in our Monterey County and our shoreline cities of Pacific Grove, Monterey, Seaside, Marina and Carmel.

Thank you for your time, consideration of this important ordinance and continued leadership.

Sincerely,
Lila Seldin
Resident and Volunteer of Pacific Grove
Speech and Language Pathologist, M.A. CCC

32.133
Brittany Inclan
From: Monterey Chair <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:21 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Supporting the Ban of Filtered Tobacco Products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
The Surfrider Foundation is dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of our world's ocean, waves, and beach, for all people, through a powerful activist network.

Surfrider's Monterey County Chapter supports our neighbors to the North in the adoption of an ordinance banning the sale of filtered tobacco products in the city of Santa Cruz.

This ordinance would not only address this toxic litter in your city but also would help protect your neighbors and communities that surround our National Marine Sanctuary. It will safeguard our shared environment and wildlife from the harmful health consequences of tobacco filters and the microplastics from them.

We host a monthly beach cleanup and cigarettes are the top form of pollution collected on our beaches. 2024 beach cleanup data is available here: Results – Surfrider Foundation US With this very important and impactful ordinance, we are hopeful that our beloved Monterey Bay will be free from this harmful waste. We will follow your lead in this ban by advocating similar bans in our Monterey County and our shoreline cities of Pacific Grove, Monterey, Seaside, Marina and Carmel.

Thank you for your time, consideration of this important ordinance and continued leadership.

Sincerely,
Peter Adame | Chair & Ocean Friendly Restaurants Lead
Surfrider Foundation Monterey County
408-489-1806 | [email protected] | monterey.surfrider.org

32.134
Brittany Inclan
From: Ashley Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:32 AM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products.

Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
June 2, 2025
Re: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I am writing on behalf of the University of California, Santa Cruz’s The Faculty & Staff Wellness Program to support the passage of a policy that bans the retail sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in the City of Santa Cruz. This policy is a critical step to address one of the most littered items in our city and on the planet, cigarette butts.

The program strives to create a healthy campus community and work environment by offering integrated programs and services that provide tools and skills for leading healthy lifestyles and preventing injury and illness, including a 100% smoke free campus environment and tobacco cessation resources. The Faculty & Staff Wellness Program offers programming to address emotional wellbeing, nutritional wellbeing, and physical wellbeing, and partners with occupational medical providers, external resources, and health insurance providers to help improve the overall wellbeing of UCSC faculty and staff.

Through our work on tobacco cessation education events, we also recognize that tobacco waste is a health equity and environmental justice issue, disproportionately found in lower income communities and communities of color. Frankly, we are tired of all campus communities being targeted by the tobacco industry with their misleading advertising and greenwashing campaigns.

Please pass a policy banning the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products. It’s time for Big Tobacco to clean up its corporate pollution and stop relying on children to pick up the toxic waste of a billion-dollar industry.

Best,
Ashley Parker
_______________
Ashley Parker, MS
Health and Well-being Specialist

32.135
Risk Services
100 Enterprise Way, E100
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
831-459-2291
To stay up to date on wellness programming, please sign up for the UCSC Faculty & Staff Health and Well-being Newsletter here.

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

32.136
Brittany Inclan
From: Anja Brandon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 12:35 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; Caitlin Hart
Subject: Support for ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Attachments: OC_Cigarette_Butt_City of Santa Cruz_Support_Letter_250603.pdf Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
On behalf of Ocean Conservancy, I am writing to express my support for a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products. Please find our full support letter attached.

Thank you for your consideration and we urge your support for this important step to protect our communities and our ocean.
~Dr. Brandon
Anja Brandon, Ph.D.
she/her/hers
Director, Plastics Policy
O: 503.505.6574
[email protected]
Web | Facebook | Twitter

32.137
June 3, 2025
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Delivered via email: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Re: SUPPORT – Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro:

As the oldest marine conservation organization in the United States, Ocean Conservancy is proud to support the adoption of a policy to ban the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products in the City of Santa Cruz, where our California office and staff are located. This policy is a critical component of the companion policy already approved by the County Board of Supervisors last October, and we commend the leadership of the Board of Supervisors and the City Council in addressing the ongoing problem of tobacco waste throughout the Santa Cruz region, including on its beaches, in its rivers and waterways, and throughout the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). The MBNMS is the crown jewel of the Central Coast, hosting 36 species of marine mammals, nearly 200 species of seabirds and shorebirds, over 500 species of fish, and countless species of invertebrates and seaweeds. A clean Sanctuary, free of harmful tobacco pollution, is vital to the health of the coastal community of Santa Cruz and all its inhabitants, human and otherwise.

For 40 years, Ocean Conservancy has organized the International Coastal Cleanup, the largest volunteer effort on behalf of the ocean. Over 18 million volunteers have removed nearly 380 million pounds of trash and plastics from over 150 countries around the world, including across all 50 U.S. states. These volunteers have catalogued every piece of trash collected and year after year, cigarette butts have been the number one item collected, by count. The numbers are staggering: 63 million butts collected worldwide; 35 million butts removed across the U.S, with 8.5 million collected in the state of California. From 2013- 2023, our local partner Save Our Shores alone collected over 400,000 cigarette butts from the beaches, open spaces, and public areas in the Santa Cruz region.

32.138
2 The consequences of this tobacco waste to human health and the environment are welldocumented and severe; cigarette filters are bad for the marine environment, bad for marine wildlife, and bad for people. Filters are toxic waste, leaching lead, arsenic, nicotine, and a host of other chemicals into the marine environment. Butts are plastic and like other plastics they don’t degrade but rather break apart into thousands of microplastics; plastic fibers from cigarettes and other sources have been found throughout the marine food web, from the smallest zooplankton to the largest whales, including the fish and shellfish that are vital to a healthy and sustainable seafood supply. To make matters worse, cigarette filters do not make smoking safer; 60 years ago, the U. S. Surgeon General confirmed that filters were ineffective at protecting smokers from diseases caused by smoking and later research provided evidence that filters can actually increase the risk of certain types of cancer in smokers.

Given this host of concerns, Ocean Conservancy strongly urges you to adopt the proposed policy to ban the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos and little cigars in the City of Santa Cruz. If approved, this policy would be a first-of-its-kind anywhere in the United States. The policy itself and the leadership taken to pass it would serve as inspiration for other jurisdictions throughout the state and across the nation.

Thank you for your continued vision and action on behalf of the ocean.

Sincerely,
Anja Brandon, Ph.D.

Director, Plastics Policy
Ocean Conservancy

32.139
Brittany Inclan
From: Santa Cruz Chair <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 1:13 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Policy Coordinator Santa Cruz; Morganna Johnson; Bill Hickman; Darcie C Subject: Support for Tobacco Filter Ban – Santa Cruz Surfrider Chapter Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
On behalf of the Surfrider Foundation Santa Cruz Chapter, I am writing in strong support of the proposed ordinance to ban the sale of filtered tobacco products in the City of Santa Cruz.

Surfrider is a grassroots nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world’s ocean, waves, and beaches—for all people—through a powerful activist network. Locally, we engage the Santa Cruz community through regular beach cleanups, volunteer programs, and advocacy campaigns to reduce pollution and protect coastal ecosystems.

Cigarette butts—especially those with plastic filters—are consistently the top item we collect at our cleanups. These filters are made of non-biodegradable plastic and leach toxic chemicals into our environment. Once discarded, they quickly find their way into storm drains, rivers, and ultimately our ocean and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

This ordinance presents a meaningful opportunity to prevent harmful plastic and chemical pollution at the source. It reflects a commitment to public health, environmental stewardship, and the preservation of the beautiful coastline that defines Santa Cruz.

We applaud the city’s leadership for considering this important step, and we look forward to supporting similar policies in neighboring coastal communities.

Thank you for your time, dedication, and vision.

Sincerely,
Darcie Connell (she/her)
Interim Chair & Volunteer Coordinator, Surfrider Foundation Santa Cruz 345 Lake Ave., Suite F, Santa Cruz, CA 95062
[email protected] | 408.685.3004

32.140
Brittany Inclan
From: Katie Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 4:59 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Community support for ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Attachments: SOS Community Support - Ban the Butt.pdf
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
On behalf of Save Our Shores and 113 community members, I am writing to express our support for a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products. Please find the support letter attached.

Thank you for your ongoing dedication to our community.

32.141
1 Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
We have signed onto this Save Our Shores letter as community members (113 individuals) to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in the Santa Cruz City. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz and across the globe: cigarette butts.

Respectfully,

32.142
2 Jaynie Loeb-Prieto, City of Capitola, Federal Government Employee at National Organic Program Charles Smith, City of Santa Cruz, Executive Director
Dylan Manning, City of Santa Cruz, Project Manager
Elise Scheuermann, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Educator Julie Shattuck, City of Santa Cruz, Social Scientist
Pauline Seales, City of Santa Cruz, Retired, Science teacher Greg Guevara, City of Santa Cruz, Produce Clerk
Jack Knorpp, City of Capitola, Work
Ali Boutros, City of Capitola, Environmental Scientist
Peter Lollo, City of Santa Cruz, Business Owner
Paul Lehmann , Aptos, Welder
Robin Elias, City of Santa Cruz, Volunteer
Hannah Eugster, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Marketing Clay Young, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Reporting Manager Lauren Tomlinson, City of Santa Cruz, Community member
Kathryn Kirsch, City of Santa Cruz, Physical Therapist
Claire Mann, City of Santa Cruz, Student
Kaitlin Keller, City of Santa Cruz, Community Member
Rich Popchak, City of Santa Cruz, Writer
Amelia Eichel, City of Santa Cruz, Business owner
Asher Warila, Los Altos, Student
Pauline Seales, City of Santa Cruz, Retired
Sara McLellan, City of Santa Cruz, Homemaker
Samantha Rupel, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Volunteer and Outreach Coordinator Kendall Sooter, City of Scott's Valley, College Instructor Connor Chesus, Ben Lomond
Mary Falk, City of Capitola, Disabled senior/student/caregiver Dina El Dessouky, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, College Professor Diego Jimenez, City of Santa Cruz, Student
Christine Morgan, Aptos, Retired
Alexis Gaspara, City of Santa Cruz, Retired
Erin Loury, City of Santa Cruz, Coastal Watershed Council Communications Manager Christine Morgan, Aptos, Retired Hospice Chaplain
Lisa Sheeper, City of Watsonville, Community Member
Ava Bobby, City of Santa Cruz, Engineer
Lucy Kain, Aptos
Linda Civitello Other Sebastopol retired
Jonathan Jungeblut, Sunnyvale, Student
Judy Gonzalez, City of Santa Cruz, Retired
Brett Gravlin, City of Santa Cruz, Sales
Devdutt Sheth, City of Santa Cruz, Engineer
Matt Poutsiaka, City of Santa Cruz, Retail
Lisa Uttal, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Marine Biologist Andrew Hall, City of Santa Cruz, Environmental Professional

32.143
3 Sonora Ward, City of Santa Cruz, Student
Krista Rogers, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Nonprofit Program Manager Jack McCourt, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Student Julian Rios,Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, IBEW 332 member Allie Wright, City of Santa Cruz, Consultant
Mia Reback, City of Santa Cruz
Brooke Ramirez, City of Monterey, College Student
Taylor Bryson, Livermore, Engineer
Mary Curtiss, Los Gatos in SC County, Sales Manager
Lucas Lehman, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Business Coach Lisa Colombo City of Santa Cruz
Erica Donnelly-Greenan, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Programs Director and Marine Ecologistd Ava Bobby, City of Santa Cruz, Civil Engineer working for the City of Santa Cruz Jeff Rensel, Marina Higher Education Administration
Alejandro Garcia, City of Watsonville
Michael Jones Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Retired Leora Baumgarten, City of Santa Cruz, Director of Finance and Operations Tyler Fox, City of Capitola, Marketing Director at Sandbar Solar Bri Mishin, City of Scott's Valley, Community member
Maxwell Shimizu-Jones, Los Angeles, Marketing/Events Manager Sam, Shimizu-Jones Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Filmmaker Eric, Lombardo, City of Santa Cruz, Director of External Affairs, Land Trust of Santa Cruz County (but signing this in my individual capacity)
Joyce Shimizu, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Retired Mary Scheller, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Retired Steve Belmont, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Business Owner Katelyn Muir, City of Santa Cruz, RN
Lauren Tomlinson, City of Santa Cruz, Cashier
Mary Doyle, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County
Alexa DeSanctis, Santa Clara County, Community Engagement Manager Olivia Wickett, City of Scott's Valley, Educator
Anne Moonie, Aptos
Ann Gobei-Bacaylan, City of Santa Cruz, Biologist
Juan Ojeda, City of Santa Cruz, Program Manager, Delivery Dana Crompton, City of Santa Cruz, Non-Profit
Alisha Slaughter, City of Santa Cruz, Business Owner
Kat Fanni, City of Santa Cruz, Student
James Alfieri, Community Member
Brian Upton, City of Capitola, Owner
Tracey Weiss, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Environmental Executive Director Masumi Diaz, City of Capitola, Business Owner
Gale Daikoku-Bommelaere, Santa Clara County, Consultant Michael Hohl, City of Santa Cruz, Community Member
Jane Silberstein, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Professor

32.144
4 Stephanie Ruhl, City of Santa Cruz, Community Member
Buzz Gray, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Retired Veteran Katie Thompson, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Nonprofit Leader Erin Loury, City of Santa Cruz, Coastal Watershed Council, Communications Manager Richard Castillo, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Community Member Chloe Prior, City of Santa Cruz, Business Owner
Corinne Doss, City of Santa Cruz, Business Owner
Keifer Doss, City of Santa Cruz
Brennan Ladd, City of Soquel , Healthcare Worker
Chase Beedie, City of Santa Cruz, Self Employed
Chloe Tsudama, City of Santa Cruz, Admin
Shelly Logan, City of Santa Cruz, Organic farming
Kelsey Owens, City of Santa Cruz, Stay at home mom
Maria Chantal Kirkpatrick-Waite, City of Capitola, Admin assistant Alejandro Marti Minguez, City of Santa Cruz, Security
Caroline Smith, City of Santa Cruz, Therapist
Jadyn-Kathleen Polk, City of Santa Cruz, Student
Johnali Westmoreland City of Monterey, Student, Business Owner Morgan Romero, City of Monterey, Barista
Kathryn Tsudama, City of Watsonville, Semi-Retired
Anna Riggio, City of Capitola, Business Owner
Joshua Moore, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Community Member Madeline Fisher, City of Monterey, Barista
Rebecca Bruemmer, City of Monterey, Barista
Daniel Thiel, City of Monterey, Barista
Meredith Keet, Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Business Owner

32.145
Brittany Inclan
From: Randy Uang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 6:57 AM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Support for Policy on Tobacco Plastic Waste
Attachments: Support for Policy on Tobacco Plastic Waste - Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition.pdf
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro:

On behalf of the Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition (TEC), I would like to submit the following letter in support of a policy in the city of Santa Cruz that puts an end to the sale of single-use plastic endpieces in tobacco products.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask any of the members of the coalition. Thank you! Sincerely,
Randy Uang
Member, Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition

32.146
Coali&on
Co-‐Chairs
Ka#e
Thompson
Luz
Areli
Sotelo
Member
Organiza-ons
Breathe California
Capitola Police Department
Community Preven.on Partners
Dominican Hospital
Downtown Streets Team
Pajaro Valley Community
Health Trust
Pajaro Valley Preven-on and
Student Assistance, Inc.

Salud Para La Gente
Salud y Cariño
Santa Cruz Police Department
County of Santa Cruz
Department of Public Works
County of Santa Cruz
Friday Night Live
County of Santa Cruz
Health Services Agency
Santa Cruz County
Office of Educa,on
Santa Cruz County Sheriffs
Save Our Shores
Sco$s Valley Police Department
TUPE
Watsonville Department of
Public Works
Watsonville Police Department
Watsonville Wetlands Watch
and Community Members
Contact
Informa,on
P.O. Box 962
1070 Emeline Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
PH: (831) 454-‐4141
FAX: (831) 454-‐5048
June 5, 2025
City Council and Mayor of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Support for City of Santa Cruz Policy on Tobacco Product Plastic Endpiece Waste Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro:

I am writing on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition (TEC) to encourage your support for a policy in the city of Santa Cruz that puts an end to the sale of single-use plastic endpiece “filters” in tobacco products.

The Tobacco Education Coalition is a nonprofit partnership of Santa Cruz residents and organizations committed to advocating for a tobacco-free lifestyle and environment. Since 1985, Tobacco Education Coalition members have worked to promote health across the county – and for good reason, since tobacco remains the largest preventable cause of death, killing half a million Americans per year. One in four cancer deaths in California are due to smoking. Tobacco butt waste is the most littered item in the Santa Cruz area’s streets, parks, and beaches.

For the last eight years, Tobacco Education Coalition members have been educating the public and local policymakers about issues with tobacco waste. We have conducted public opinion polls and key informant interviews, given presentations, and provided informational trainings. We have educated youth and engaged media throughout the Santa Cruz area. We’ve held a tobacco waste photo contest, and even hosted a “Tobacco Butt Night” at the Museum of Art and History. Tobacco Education Coalition members and community partners have picked up tens of thousands of cigarette butts throughout the area.

The tobacco industry incorporates single-use plasticized endpieces in tobacco products as a deceptive tool: calling them “filters” to decrease the public's perception of how harmful tobacco products are, while not actually providing any meaningful change to how damaging tobacco products are. Tobacco industry marketing efforts have attempted to create the illusion that cigarette “filters” have some impact on the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke. Yet, according to the World Health Organization, “There is no evidence that filters have any proven health benefits.” As early as 1958, Philip Morris scientists recognized that selective filtration of the harmful compounds in cigarette smoke was “a thermodynamic impossibility.”
In addition to the waste from several other existing nicotine products, cigarette butts are toxic plastic remnants—littering our streets, parks, and beaches, degrading residents' quality of life, making public spaces less attractive to both locals and visitors, and forcing local governments and conservation nonprofits to bear the costly burden of cleanup.

Fortunately, the City of Santa Cruz has already passed resolutions recognizing tobacco waste as a public health and environmental threat, as have the county Board of Supervisors and the three other cities within the county.

Tobacco Education Coalition members have frequently worked to support local leaders in addressing concerns related to passing tobacco prevention policies. Our work will continue even after a tobacco “filters” policy were to pass: tobacco retailers will need guidance in transitioning away from the sale of “filtered” products, and will be provided information on items that are acceptable to sell. People who smoke “filtered” tobacco products will need quit-smoking services and support. Tobacco Education Coalition members will continue to work towards meeting the needs of all local constituents as we advocate for a health-promoting, tobacco-free lifestyle and environment for the community.

Tobacco Education Coalition members believe that the Santa Cruz City Council has the community support, research-based evidence on the science and history of tobacco filters, as well as extensive data on health issues and plastic pollution locally, to justify a policy on tobacco “filters” that is pro-health, pro-family, and pro-environment. Please put an end to the sale of health-deceiving, environmentdamaging, single-use plastic endpiece waste in tobacco products.

Sincerely,
Randy Uang
Member, Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition

32.147
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
May 14, 2025
Re: Support for a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I am writing on behalf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in the City of Santa Cruz. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in the city and across the globe, cigarette butts.

ASH is the nation’s oldest anti-tobacco organization. We take a human rights-based approach to ending the tobacco epidemic. ASH is a public health advocacy group, and recognizes the importance of a healthy environment in overall health. In addition to the obvious environmental benefits of a ban on filters, such as Santa Cruz County has already passed, will have a substantial health impact by decreasing youth uptake and helping adults quit.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz’s riverways and beaches. According to a 2023 NOAA study, 24.5% of all litter collected on the shoreline of the Monterey Bay National Martine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 could be attributed to smoking. Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms. Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life.

We believe there is community and local government support, decades of litter data, and the regional strategy to justify a strong policy that holds Big Tobacco responsible for its corporate pollution. Please ban filtered cigarettes.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Chris Bostic
Policy Director

32.148
Dan Haifley
2635 Fresno Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
(831) 234-8148
Mayor Fred Keeley and Members of the City Council
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street, Room 10,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products

Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro -
I am writing to encourage you to encourage adoption of a ban on the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in the City of Santa Cruz in order to curb the persistent environmental threat posed by cigarette butts.

We have the community support, the decades of litter data, and the regional strategy to justify a strong policy that favors our sanctuary and its people.

Respectfully,
Dan Haifley

32.149
From: Katie Thompson
To: Tara Leonard
Subject: Fwd: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 2:48:56 PM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Beth Magyar <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:00 AM
Subject: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products To: <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I am writing on behalf of the Global and Community Health Department at UC Santa Cruz, to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in the City of Santa Cruz. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in the city and across the globe, cigarette butts.

Global and Community Health at UC Santa Cruz aims at improving health and reducing health inequalities both locally and globally. Banning the sale of filtered tobacco products aligns with our vision as well as our community partners for building a cleaner healthier future for our students and residents.

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz’s riverways and beaches.

According to a 2023 NOAA study, 24.5% of all litter collected on the shoreline of the Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 could be attributed to smoking.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,

32.150
--
Beth Magyar (she/her)
Health Sciences Internship Coordinator
Global and Community Health
Social Sciences 1 Building - 117B
University of California, Santa Cruz
**Are you or a friend experiencing food insecurity? Check out UCSC's Basic Needs program**
Global & Community Health B.S.

Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology Internship FAQ's

32.151
May 19, 2025
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products (Support) Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
Breathe California of the Bay Area, Golden Gate and Central Coast urgently requests your support for the adoption of a city-wide policy prohibiting the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, within Santa Cruz. This decisive action is vital to directly address the pervasive issue of cigarette butt litter, a persistent pollutant not only on our land in Santa Cruz County and globally, but also with devastating consequences for the delicate ecosystems of Santa Cruz County's precious coastal and ocean environments.

For over a century, Breathe California has steadfastly championed healthy lungs across California, striving to make our state a leader in respiratory health. Since our founding in 1911, we have been a strong voice for lung health in all its dimensions, including environmental health. We have witnessed and actively countered decades of manipulative strategies employed by the tobacco industry, which has profited from the addiction of young people. While public understanding of the health dangers of Big Tobacco's products has increased, the significant yet often overlooked problem of toxic environmental pollution, especially its insidious impact on our marine life, remains a critical concern.

The term "filters" on cigarettes deceptively suggests a safer smoking experience.

However, the World Health Organization clearly states that filters offer “no benefit in preventing the adverse health effects of smoking.” Instead, they serve as another marketing tactic employed by an industry with a long history of public deception, resulting in devastating consequences for human health and our shared environment.

Beyond their harm to individuals, these filtered products become a significant source of pollution, leaching toxins, carcinogens, and microplastics into our soils and, critically, into our waterways and the ocean. These discarded filters are frequently mistaken for food by marine animals, leading to ingestion, starvation, and even death.

The chemicals they release further contaminate the marine food chain, posing a threat to biodiversity and potentially impacting human health through seafood consumption.

Local governments and environmental nonprofits have disproportionately shouldered the burden and expense of cleaning up this toxic tobacco waste from our beaches and coastal areas, while the tobacco industry continues to generate excessive profits.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairperson
Amresh Prasad
Secretary
Joann Blessing-Moore, MD
Treasurer
Astha Sharma, PMP
Directors
Frank DeBiaso
Richard Stedman, APCO
Roslyn Bienenstock,RRT, MPH
Sulochina Lulla, MD
Terry Trumbull
Thomas M. Dailey, MD, FCCP
Tracy Richmond McKnight, Ph.D.

Chief Executive Officer
Tanya Payyappilly, MD, MPH
Deputy Executive Director
Margo Sidener, MS, CHES
A member of the
Breathe America ™
Alliance

32.152
It is time for a proactive, upstream solution that holds Big Tobacco accountable for its corporate pollution and protects our invaluable marine resources.

Our community possesses decades of litter data and a well-established regional strategy. Working together, with your crucial support, we can enact a robust policy that prioritizes the well-being of our residents over the exploitative profits of the cigarette industry. A ban on filtered cigarettes is essential to protect our vulnerable environment. We strongly urge you to join the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors in passing this vital policy to safeguard our community.

Sincerely,
Tanya Payyappilly,
CEO

32.153
From: Katie Thompson
To: Tara Leonard
Subject: Fwd: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 2:49:13 PM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dale Hillard <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, May 22, 2025 at 7:39 PM
Subject: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products.

Cigarette filters have been referred to as the “deadliest fraud in the history of human civilization”.5
https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/cigarette-filters/#:~:text=Cigarette filters have been referred,that smoking caused lung cancer.

As I have picked up discarded cigarette filters in Santa Cruz City & County, I have only encountered one smoker that stopped to tell me, that after he smoke a filtered cigarette, when finished, he puts the filter back into the cigarette package. Unfortunately, the custom has been to flick it to the curb.

Because habits are hard to change and filters are a deadly fraud, it’s time to ban the sale of filtered tobacco products.

Thank you,
Dale Hillard

32.154
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
May 24, 2025
Re: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I am writing on behalf of the University of California, Santa Cruz, to uplift the voices of college students and to support the adoption of a policy that bans the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in the City of Santa Cruz. This policy is critical to address one of the most persistent litter items in the city and across the globe, cigarette butts.

I am a student myself, and am currently enrolled in a UCSC Climate Resilience, Health and Wellbeing course. The main goals of this class include cultivating inner resilience skills, learning about global perspectives on climate change issues, as well as engaging in climate advocacy by taking action.

Before taking this course, I was involved in another class called “Theories and Practices for a Purposeful Life”, in which students learn about nine intelligences: cognitive, emotional, social, cultural, ethical, creative, perceptional, somatic, and ecological. I took on a leadership role for nearly 1 and a half years, leading weekly discussions and reviewing journal reflections of students. Both classes have a common mission: to help students cultivate inner resilience skills and cope with challenging emotions, particularly surrounding the state of the natural world. Each quarter in this position, I noticed common threads of grief, numbness, anxiety, and problems with addiction shared by many students, including myself at times. I feel that these threads not only directly intertwine with tobacco waste- as the words climate, ecological, etc. imply. I also believe the human health problem of addiction plays a key role. When paired with pre-existing (and perhaps intensifying) negative emotions and concerns for our planet’s trajectory, the chemical addiction which tobacco products facilitate may be creating a cycle of damage to both our inner and outer climates. This pattern is one I’ve read about in many reflections, and its consequences scatter the forest floors of UCSC’s campus - an acclaimed “Tobacco Free Environment”.

Tobacco waste overlaps into three critical E’s: the economy, the environment, and our emotions~ inhibiting and draining yet another E, energy, from them all. You may have heard the quote, “Where you place your attention is where you place your energy”, from Dr. Joe Dispenza. I ask you, policymakers, where do you want to place your energy?

32.155
With the above in consideration, decades of research suggest that:

Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz’s riverways and beaches.

According to a 2023 NOAA study, 24.5% of all litter collected on the shoreline of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary between 2017 and 2021 could be attributed to smoking.

Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, which breaks into microplastics and bioaccumulates in marine organisms.

Cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life.

In 2022, an estimated 3.2 million adults reported current tobacco use in California, which was over 10% of the state’s population of adults (21+) at the time.

I strongly believe, with empowered attention and intention, we can truly heal the adverse effects which tobacco products have enabled on personal, societal, economic, and environmental levels.

Additionally, similar efforts can hold Big Tobacco responsible for its corporate pollution. However, the support of community and local government is beyond necessary in order for these possibilities to become our reality.

Please ban filtered cigarettes.

Thank you for your empathy, compassion, and leadership.

Warmly,
Ellie Grubb

32.156
From: Laura Perkins
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products.

Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 1:41:00 PM
****CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.****
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro:

I am writing to say that banning the sale of filtered tobacco products would have a huge positive impact on the health of our environment and community. This policy is a critical step to address one of the most littered items on the planet: toxic cigarette butts.

I have lived in Felton for the past 17 years and I love our redwood forests, our wetlands, and our seashore. I am so grateful that our County Board of Supervisors has already passed this policy.

My daughter is a senior at Santa Cruz City High School, my partner teaches at UCSC, and our family spends a great deal of time in Santa Cruz.

Santa Cruz is too smart to accept the tobacco industry’s disinformation about filters.

These filters are designed to fool people into thinking they make cigarettes safer to smoke.

Before 1950, less than 1% of commercial cigarettes were filtered. But the increasing press coverage of the potential dangers of smoking led to an explosion of filter development and marketing. By 1960, filtered cigarettes represented 51% of the market. By 2005, they represented 99% of the market. (See the NLM’s How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease.)
This National Library of Medicine report cites studies that show filters do not make cigarettes safer to smoke. They actually increase the risk of harm.

As unhealthy as they are for the people who use filtered tobacco products, they also pollute our environment with toxins, carcinogens, and microplastics.

Please pass a policy banning the sale of filtered tobacco products. Santa Cruz residents, animals, and marine life deserve an environment free of toxic tobacco waste.

Sincerely,
Laura Perkins

32.157
May 16, 2025
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Delivered via email: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Re: SUPPORT – Ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro:

As a 25-year resident of Santa Cruz, I support the adoption of the policy before the Council to ban the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products in the city of Santa Cruz. This policy is a critical component of the companion policy already approved by the County of Santa Cruz last October.

I commend the leadership of the Board of Supervisors in addressing the ongoing problem of tobacco waste throughout the Santa Cruz region, including on its beaches, in its rivers and waterways, and throughout the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). I am a marine biologist who has studied, worked on, and dove in Monterey Bay since my time as a student at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in the 1990’s. The MBNMS is the crown jewel of the Central Coast, hosting 36 species of marine mammals, nearly 200 species of seabirds and shorebirds, over 500 species of fish, and countless species of invertebrates and seaweed. A clean Sanctuary, free of harmful tobacco pollution, is vital to the health of the coastal community of Santa Cruz and all its inhabitants, humans and otherwise.

Numerous NGOs have documented the problem of tobacco waste. For nearly 40 years, Ocean Conservancy has organized the International Coastal Cleanup, the largest volunteer effort on behalf of the ocean. Over 18 million of their volunteers have removed nearly 380 million pounds of trash and plastics from over 150 countries around the world, including across all 50 U.S. states. These volunteers have catalogued every piece of trash collected and year after year, cigarette butts have been the number one item collected by count. The numbers are staggering: 63 million butts collected worldwide; 35 million butts removed across the U.S, with

8.5 million collected in the state of California. From 2013-2023, Save Our Shores alone collected over 400,000 cigarette butts from the beaches, open spaces, and public areas in the Santa Cruz region.

The consequences of this tobacco waste to human health and the environment are welldocumented and severe. In short, cigarette filters are bad for the marine environment, bad for marine wildlife, and bad for people. Filters are toxic waste, leaching lead, arsenic, nicotine, and

32.158
2 a host of other chemicals into the marine environment. Butts are plastic and like other plastics they don’t degrade but rather break apart into thousands of microplastics; plastic fibers from cigarettes and other sources have been found throughout the marine food web, from the smallest zooplankton to the largest whales, including the fish and shellfish that are vital to a healthy and sustainable seafood supply. To make matters worse, cigarette filters do not make smoking safer; 60 years ago, the U. S. Surgeon General confirmed that filters were ineffective at protecting smokers from diseases caused by smoking and later research provided evidence that filters can increase the risk of certain types of cancer in smokers.

The tobacco industry takes zero responsibility for their toxic waste, forcing the physical and financial burden of its cleanup onto local volunteer organizations, government agencies, and local residents like me and my friends and neighbors.

Given this host of concerns, I strongly urge you to adopt the proposed policy to ban the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos and little cigars in the City of Santa Cruz.

As the Trump Administration continues to gut environmental protections, independent science, and NOAA and the national marine sanctuaries, Santa Cruz and the Monterey Bay must remain a leader in science-based public policy. Now is not the time to back down. It is the time to lead.

The vision shown by you, your fellow city councils and the Board of Supervisors will serve as inspiration for other jurisdictions throughout the state and across the nation.

Thank you for your continued leadership and action on behalf of the ocean and all residents of the City of Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
George H. Leonard, Ph.D.
129 Ladera Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]

32.159
1441 Schilling Place South-1st Floor · Salinas, California 93901· 831-796-1268 Mission Statement
To support, educate, and empower youth and families to create safe and healthy environments. _____________________________________________________________________________ June 10, 2025
Support for a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
We write on behalf of Monterey County Collaborates to support the adoption of an ordinance banning the sale of filtered tobacco products in the city of Santa Cruz. This policy is critical to addressing one of the most persistent litter items in Santa Cruz County, which pollutes our local environment and damages our community’s health.

We are an organization dedicated to advocating for a safe and healthy Monterey County, which includes working to reduce the toxic tobacco product waste that puts our environment and health at risk. We believe that the recent ordinance adopted by Santa Cruz County serves as a progressive policy that will lead to positive change across the state in a firm rebuttal to Big Tobacco’s continued attack on the health and safety of our communities.

We are also working to end harmful tobacco product waste by reducing access to these deadly products. We hope to follow your leadership example as we pursue a filtered product ban in our County. We look towards a bright future in which the entirety of Monterey Bay is free from this persistent and harmful waste.

As your neighbors and the community that shares the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary with you and others, we encourage you to continue protecting the health of our shared environment and neighboring communities. We affirm our support for this ordinance that will ban the sale of filtered tobacco products and assure you that we are working towards the same goal of reducing tobacco product waste.

Thank you for your time and continued leadership.

Sincerely,

Kendra Howell Jorge Rubio

Members
Blue Zones Project
Monterey County
Breathe California of
the Bay Area, Golden
Gate, and Central
Coast
Monterey County
Health Department
Monterey County
Office of Education
Monterey County
Prescribe Safe
Initiative
Sun Street Centers
Transportation
Agency for Monterey
County
Co-chairs
Kendra Howell
Jorge Rubio

32.160
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Support for a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products 5/12/25 Dear Council Members Keeley, Kalantari-Johnson, Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
Oral Health Access (OHA) Santa Cruz County is writing to express support for a policy that would ban the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars in the City of Santa Cruz. This is an important step in limiting the harms of deadly, addictive nicotine products in our community.

OHA supports a ban on the sale of filtered cigarettes due to the negative health implications that smoking cigarettes can have on oral health and overall health. Smoking can lead to not only staining or yellowing of the teeth, but also tooth loss, gum disease, and even mouth cancer.

People who smoke are more likely to produce bacterial plaque which leads to gum disease, still the most common cause of tooth loss for adults. Every year, thousands of people die from mouth cancer caused by smoking.

So-called “filters” do not actually filter out harmful chemicals from cigarette smoke. In fact, recent studies have concluded that cigarette filters have no benefit in preventing the adverse health impacts of smoking, including the death of half a million people in the United States each year. They are just a marketing tool designed to decrease the perception of smoking’s harm.

OHA urges the City Council to ban the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products.

Sincerely,
Sheree Storm
Chief Strategy Officer, Dientes
OHA Co-Chair
David Brody
Executive Director, First 5 Santa Cruz County
OHA Co-Chair
Docusign Envelope ID: BF0BB239-D391-4A7E-B4FD-CA71B4DADC32 5/13/2025
5/12/2025

32.161
PO Box 1458
4450 Capitola Road Suite 106
Capitola, CA 95010
831-465-2205
www.unitedwaysc.org I https://211santacruzcounty.org/
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
On behalf of United Way of Santa Cruz County, we are writing to express our strong support for a local ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products.

As a community-focused organization committed to improving health, education, and financial stability for all residents, we are deeply concerned about the widespread health risks and environmental damage caused by filtered tobacco products. Despite common misconceptions, cigarette filters do not reduce health risks; rather, they perpetuate smoking by making it easier to inhale toxins and by falsely suggesting reduced harm. This has a particularly dangerous impact on young people, who are more likely to start smoking under the belief that filtered cigarettes are a safer choice.

The environmental toll is also significant. Cigarette filters are among the most littered items globally and right here in Santa Cruz. These non-biodegradable plastic filters leach harmful chemicals into our land, waterways, and marine ecosystems, directly undermining our community’s environmental values and sustainability goals.

A ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products would align with public health best practices and environmental protection strategies. It would demonstrate Santa Cruz’s leadership in prioritizing the well-being of its residents and natural resources.

United Way of Santa Cruz County urges the City Council to move forward with this ban and set an example for other communities across the state and nation.

Thank you for your consideration and ongoing commitment to public health and environmental justice.

Sincerely,
Yvette Brooks
Executive Director
United Way Santa Cruz County
[email protected]

32.162
1 Julia Wood
From: Marilyn Rigler <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 10:54 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Cigarette Bots
I am concerned about the cigarette bots and urge the Santa Cruz Council to vote for this bill. 622 Western Drive

32.163
2 Julia Wood
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 7:17 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Cigarette butts are gross.

Good day City Council members,
I'm writing in support of the ban on the sale of filtered cigarettes in the city if Santa Cruz... I would also be in support of a hefty tax of over 1000% on all tobacco products to fund cleanup efforts.

As a resident of the Central Park neighborhood, I regularly pick up trash while walking my dog. The most common item I pick up is the dreaded, disgusting cigarette butt- by far. On the beach, boardwalk, river path, Branciforte Creek path, parks, streets, gutters and sidewalks. They're everywhere.

Smokers can't be trusted to dispose of them properly, and even if they are disposed of properly, they still find their way into sensitive habitats and waterways. My opinion is plastic cigarette filters should cease to exist.

I do realize that this will encourage illicit sales, but it's a start and perhaps will encourage other areas to adopt similar bans.

Your consideration is appreciated.

Dave Mitchell
Central Park neighborhood.

Cheers!
Dave Mitchell
530.448.1460

32.164
3 Julia Wood
From: sofie <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 8:06 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Please Ban the Butt
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,

PLEASE BAN THE BUTT

PLEASE BAN SELLING SINGLE USE CIGARETTE FILTERS
Let’s make history! Let’s protect our beloved Monterey Bay! Let’s protect our favorite species from algae, to nudibranchs, to crabs, to fish, to sea otters, to sea lions, to blue whales! Plastic pollution is EVERYWHERE even in OUR BRAINS and the most remote places of the Earth. Let’s do our part and lead in this amazing initiative, when we start, others follow suite, WHICH IS HUGE!!!!!! I cannot make it to the in person meeting, but I sincerely hope you ban the butt for your sake, future generations sake, past generations sake, our sea friends, and mother earth! Thank you,
Sofie Scanlon
Admin Assistant
Elkhorn Slough Foundation and the Western Flyer Foundation

32.165
4 Julia Wood
From: Faris Sabbah <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 10:59 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Ban on Filtered Tobacco Products
Attachments: Support for Filtered Tobacco Ban - Santa Cruz COE - 6-5-25.pdf Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Councilmembers Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
Attached is a letter of support urging the City Council to adopt the proposed ordinance banning the retail sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products within the City of Santa Cruz. This ordinance represents a critical next step in protecting public health, reducing toxic waste, and advancing environmental justice.

As outlined in the letter, the Santa Cruz County Office of Education remains committed to supporting students and families through tobacco prevention education and advocacy. We strongly encourage the Council to continue leading in this area by voting to enact the proposed ban.

Thank you for your continued dedication to the health and well-being of our community. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or would like additional information.

Sincerely,
Faris
Santa Cruz County Office of Education
www.santacruzcoe.org To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

32.166

BOARD OF EDUCATION
Mr. Ed Acosta
Mr. Edward Estrada
Mr. Greg Larson
Ms. Sue Roth
Mr. Abel Sanchez
Mr. Bruce Van Allen
Ms. Rachel Williams
400 Encinal Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 ⬩ Tel (831) 466-5600 ⬩ Fax (831) 466-5607 ⬩ www.santacruzcoe.org June 5, 2025
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Support for Banning Filtered Tobacco Products
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Councilmembers Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro:

As Santa Cruz County Superintendent of Schools, I write today to urge your Council to adopt the proposed ordinance banning the retail sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products such as cigarettes and cigarillos within the City of Santa Cruz. This critical policy will help address one of the most pervasive and harmful forms of litter within Santa Cruz as well as our wider community, state, and world: toxic cigarette butts.

As your Council is aware, in October, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a groundbreaking ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products in the unincorporated area of the County.

However, the ordinance includes an amendment delaying enforcement until at least two other local jurisdictions enact a similar policy. The City of Santa Cruz now has an opportunity to lead as the first incorporated city to take this meaningful step.

The Santa Cruz County Office of Education (Santa Cruz COE) has long been committed to tobacco use prevention and education. Through our Tobacco Use Prevention and Education (TUPE) program, we provide support, training, and technical assistance to school districts to help them implement tobacco-free policies and practices. We also offer direct education to students and families on the dangers of tobacco addiction, strategies to resist peer pressure, and resources to support quitting tobacco use.

Our students recognize that tobacco waste is not just a litter problem; it is a matter of environmental justice and health equity. Filtered cigarette butts are disproportionately found in lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Composed of cellulose acetate, a non-biodegradable plastic, these filters break down into microplastics that bioaccumulate in marine life and leach hazardous chemicals like lead, arsenic, and nicotine into our soil and waterways. They pose a serious threat to children, pets, wildlife, and marine ecosystems. In fact, the World Health Organization has found that cigarette filters offer no proven health benefit over unfiltered cigarettes.

The City of Santa Cruz has already taken a vital step by adopting a resolution in 2021 declaring tobacco waste a public health and environmental threat. That resolution recognized the serious impacts of cigarette litter on our riverways, beaches, sidewalks, and public spaces and called for stronger policies to eliminate this toxic waste. The proposed ordinance is the next logical and necessary action.

32.167
On behalf of our school community, and in solidarity with students who have worked to clean up tobacco waste and educate others, I urge you to continue leading on this issue. Please vote to ban the sale of filtered, rolled tobacco products within the City of Santa Cruz.

Thank you for your leadership, and for your continued commitment to public health and environmental stewardship.

Sincerely,
Dr. Faris Sabbah
Santa Cruz County Superintendent of Schools

32.168
5 Julia Wood
From: Wendy King <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 1:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Ban tobacco filtered cigarettes
Dear City Council,
Yes - we can do it!! Remember when everyone assumed you could never Ban smoking in bars, airplanes, restaurants, etc etc!!!! It is one of the greatest public health successes ! Now let’s ban Þltered cigarettes from our beaches. Santa Cruz has always been a pioneer for ocean health:
look at all the beach clean ups, SOS, banning oil transport in our county to effectively stop open water drilling off the Central Coast!!!
- let’s lead the way for stopping the cigarette butts on our beaches! Thank you for supporting ocean health, people’s health, global health, Wendy King Santa Cruz resident

32.169
1 Julia Wood
From: Tara Leonard <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 12:31 PM
To: Emeline Nguyen; Bonnie Bush; Julia Wood
Cc: Katie Thompson
Subject: FW: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products ****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.****
Here’s another email that was sent on May 28th but isn’t in the packet.

Tara
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Martin Kirch CA-SANTA CRUZ <[email protected]> Date: Wed, May 28, 2025 at 5:33 PM
Subject: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products To: <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I've resided in Santa Cruz County for over 20 years and I commend the council's work in establishing antitobacco policies and smoking ordinances for the Santa Cruz community. Your work serves as an exceptional model promoting the health of the citizens, community and environment over the interests of our big tobacco companies. Let's continue this trend in establishing a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products within the city limits.

Sincerely,
--
Martin Kirch, MBA, RRT-NPS
Director, Imaging Services
Respiratory Care/EEG & Patient Transport
Dignity Health

32.170
2 Dominican Hospital
1555 Soquel Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95065
831-462-7203 (O)
831-462-7558 (F)
[email protected]
Caution: This email is both proprietary and confidential, and not intended for transmission to (or receipt by) any unauthorized person(s). If you believe that you have received this email in error, do not read any attachments. Instead, kindly reply to the sender stating that you have received the message in error.

Then destroy it and any attachments. Thank you.

32.171
Brittany Inclan
From: Thomas Novotny <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:46 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Filter ban
Dear Santa Cruz City Council:

I write to provide information about the proposed ban on the sale of cigarette filters in Santa Cruz County, passed by the board of supervisors last October. This is a bold, singular accomplishment that demonstrates how local communities can influence the rest of the world. This is not hyperbole; the World Health Organization, the California Department of Public Health, several countries that are party to an international tobacco treaty, and more that are participating in a United Nations sponsored plastics treaty negotiation are paying close attention. I have been involved for more than 20 years in the research that demonstrates the importance of cigarette filters as environmental pollutants as well as fraudulent marketing gimmicks. They are designed to fool young people into thinking they are protected against the harms of smoking. Instead, they just make it easier to smoke, sell cigarettes. and pollute the beaches with toxic plastic waste.

California communities lead global efforts to overcome the enormous harms of cigarette smoking. We public health advocates have come very far in this fight, but now we can join with environmental advocates to take on the tobacco industry while protecting the health of our citizens and the integrity of our treasured coastal environment.

Santa Cruz can lead the way with this important intervention. Businesses will adapt; other communities will follow; beaches will be cleaner; and no one will die or leave the county with a ban on the sale of filtered cigarettes. Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach banned all tobacco product sales, and they seem to be doing just great.

I look forward to providing any information about filters, tobacco use, environmental harms, or economic concerns.

Respectfully,
--
Thomas E. Novotny MD MPH
Professor Emeritus
San Diego State University
School of Public Health

32.172
Brittany Inclan
From: Lisa L. Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 4:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Filtered cigarettes
I am not sure what you people are thinking about the ban on filtered cigarettes. Unfiltered cigarettes are more harmful to the smoker than filtered cigarettes-very much so. Locals do not leave buts at the beach, so to stop selling filtered cigarettes locally will not cut down the butts found on the beach. As a smoker I donot want to resort to moving my business to out of the city or county. You are increasing the health risk by removing filters of cigarettes. It will also kill local business that sell cigarettes.

Please use your brains for more constructive ideas.

Thank you
LIsa Lewis
Santa Cruz Local

32.173
Brittany Inclan
From: Steve Lustgarden <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 4:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please ban the sale of cigarettes with polluting plastic filters Thank you!
Steve Lustgarden
Susan Kauffman
Santa Cruz

32.174
Brittany Inclan
From: Lisa Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 9:52 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: I support a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products.

Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I have lived in the City of Santa Cruz for over 20 years, having relocated from the east coast for my husband’s job as a Professor of Computer Science at UC Santa Cruz.

We raised our three children here and I work for the City of Santa Cruz Schools as a behavioral support tech in an elementary school.

I am happy to see the City’s commitment to taking tobacco waste seriously. There is nothing worse then taking your kids to the park or beach and seeing the waste and debris from smoking within reach of children playing or gathering.

I want to see a better and healthier future for our children and future generations of children and our environment.

I fully support the Santa Cruz City Council doing whatever they can to reduce the amount of cigarette butts that litter our beaches and parks.

Thank you for your consideration.

Lisa Miller
Resident

32.175
Brittany Inclan
From: David J. Terrazas <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 2:28 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; Monica Terrazas
Subject: We Support a Ban on the Sale of Filtered Tobacco Products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members O’Hara, Brunner, Golder, Newsome, and Trigueiro:

This correspondence is to express our support for the City of Santa Cruz to adopt a policy which bans the sale of all filtered, rolled tobacco products including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, in Santa Cruz. This policy will address one of the most persistent beach litter items in our community and across the globe, cigarette butts. Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items on Santa Cruz County’s riverways and beaches and have been for decades. As you may know, between 2013 - 2023, Save Our Shores alone collected 439,358 cigarette butts from beaches, open spaces, and public areas. As a top littered item locally, we know that number is just a snapshot of the total cigarette litter that continues to negatively impact human and ecosystem health as our organization picks them up too and/or encounters them in our public spaces. As a former Save Our Shores board member I have seen first-hand the amount of time and effort countless numbers of volunteers and local officials have taken to keep our beaches clean.

This action will go a long way to addressing this matter and reduce the amount of economic and community resources to address this persistent problem. Additionally, local jurisdictions and conservation nonprofits have also borne the brunt of the cleanup work and associated costs to protect the sanctuary and its human and nonhuman inhabitants from toxic tobacco pollution. It is time for local policy to counteract the significant impact filtered cigarette products have on our community. As parents, we are also deeply concerned about the public health impacts of filtered cigarette products. Scientific research has indicated that cigarette butts are toxic waste and leach dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine into the environment where they can poison small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life. They are also a fire hazard, responsible for burning 88,898 acres in California since 1980. We believe that we have the community and local government support, the decades of litter data, and the regional strategy to justify a strong policy that favors our sanctuary and its people.

Please take action to support a ban on the sale of filtered cigarette products which will protect our environment and the public health of our community.

Thank you for your service and for your time considering this action.

Sincerely,
David & Monica Terrazas
Santa Cruz, California

32.176
Brittany Inclan
From: carol wilhelmy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 8:03 AM
To: City Council
Subject: TPW -- Agenda Item #32 June 10, 2025
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
I support an ordinance banning the sale of filtered tobacco products.

Please start enforcement on January 1, 2026.

Sincerely,
Carol Wilhelmy
resident of District 6

32.177
From: Sonja Brunner
To: Emeline Nguyen; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Gabriela Trigueiro; Tiffany Wise-West Subject: Fwd: Oppose Filtered Tobacco Products Ban
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2025 11:34:27 AM
FYI
Sonja Brunner
she/her
Councilmember, District 2 | City Council
809 Center Street Room 10, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5027
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
Begin forwarded message:

From: Reilly Musser <[email protected]>
Date: April 24, 2025 at 10:46:57 AM PDT
To: Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Filtered Tobacco Products Ban
Reply-To: [email protected]
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.**** I am concerned about the proposed ban on filtered cigarettes in the city of Santa Cruz, particularly regarding its potential impact on litter and the environment.

Simply banning them will not resolve the issue as intended, as illicit sources will find a way to sell the products to consumers.

Smokers might turn to other tobacco products that are equally or more harmful to the environment, like unfiltered cigarettes and cigars that could also be discarded.

A more effective approach would involve broader anti-littering campaigns and improved waste management solutions. Raising awareness against littering will provide better results for the county and its local businesses rather than enacting a local law in the county.

Addressing litter and environmental impact requires a holistic approach rather than forcing businesses to adjust to the difficulties that state and local laws

32.178
continuously place on people like me.

Thank you.

Reilly Musser
[email protected]
4084556362

32.179
From: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
To: Emeline Nguyen; Michelle Templeton; Michelle McKinney Subject: Fw: Oppose Filtered Tobacco Products Ban
Date: Thursday, May 1, 2025 10:31:00 AM
Attachments: Outlook-efhngpez.png
Outlook-t5fchwk1.png
Hi
do we have a standard response we can send people?
Thank you
Shebreh
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson (she/her)
Vice Mayor, Santa Cruz City Council
District 3 Council Representative
809 Center Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5022
Email: [email protected]
cityofsantacruz.com

32.180
From: Hector Lambropoulos <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 10:06 AM
To: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose Filtered Tobacco Products Ban
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.**** I am concerned about the proposed ban on filtered cigarettes in the city of Santa Cruz, particularly regarding its potential impact on litter and the environment.

Simply banning them will not resolve the issue as intended, as illicit sources will find a way to sell the products to consumers.

Smokers might turn to other tobacco products that are equally or more harmful to the environment, like unfiltered cigarettes and cigars that could also be discarded.

Addressing litter and environmental impact requires a holistic approach rather than forcing businesses to adjust to the difficulties that state and local laws continuously place on people like me.

Thank you.

Hector Lambropoulos
[email protected]

32.181
From: Todd Fraser - Bayside Marine
To: Emeline Nguyen
Subject: RE: INFO: Tobacco Product Waste Community Meetings Date: Monday, May 19, 2025 2:16:20 PM
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.**** wonder if the dirty needles will be included in the ban instead of free for all and all over the beaches that cause hep c and aids
From: "Emeline Nguyen" <[email protected]>
Sent: 5/19/25 12:58 PM
To: undefined
Subject: RE: INFO: Tobacco Product Waste Community Meetings Good afternoon,
The City of Santa Cruz is hosting an informational webinar on Thursday, May 29th at 11:00 AM to provide an update on the City’s efforts to address tobacco product waste (TPW). This session is an opportunity for the community to learn about the current initiatives being explored and share feedback.

Our goal is to ensure that both residents and businesses are informed about the policy that will be presented to the City Council next month and have access to relevant resources and information.

Webinar Details
Date: Thursday, May 29th
Time: 11:00 AM
Location: Zoom
Register Here: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88938564769
Following the meeting, we plan to release a finalized FAQ sheet within the next two and a half weeks, ensuring that the information is up-to-date and addresses the feedback gathered from the meetings with both the public and businesses.

For more information and background materials, visit: www.bit.ly/TPWcityofsantacruz.

32.182
Best,
Emeline
From: Emeline Nguyen
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2025 4:03 PM
Cc: Michelle McKinney <[email protected]>
Subject: INFO: Tobacco Product Waste Community Meetings Good afternoon,
We hope this message finds you well! If you missed the latest update in the Santa Cruz Sentinel earlier this month, in the Citywide or Economic Development newsletters, or on the City website, here are two upcoming opportunities to learn more about the proposed Tobacco Product Waste (TPW) policy and to provide feedback.

In-Person Open House
Tuesday, April 29th
Anytime between 5:00-6:30 PM
London Nelson Community Center
Virtual Meeting (Zoom)
Tuesday, May 6th
11:00 AM
Register Here: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88938564769
For more details about the project, visit our information page: www.bit.ly/TPWcityofsantacruz A detailed FAQ sheet will be developed and updated based on the feedback gathered during the community meetings. The finalized version is expected to be released in the next two and a half weeks to ensure the information remains current and addresses public and business concerns.

32.183
We value your feedback and welcome any questions, concerns, or ideas you may have.

Best,
Emeline

32.184
From: Sonja Brunner
To: Emeline Nguyen
Subject: Fwd: Oppose Filtered Tobacco Products Ban
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 5:41:47 PM
Em,
I’m receiving a bunch of these template email forms.

Do we already have data that addresses “A more effective approach would involve broader anti-littering campaigns and improved waste management solutions. Raising awareness against littering will provide better results for the county and its local businesses rather than enacting a local law in the county.”, or a list of all the cleanup efforts/anti litter efforts already in place to-date? I remember seeing something along those lines at the county? For Council meeting presentation It might be helpful to have data that shows the efforts and how litter has been addressed from city clean up, Seaside Company cleanup, Cowell Beach, Pitch In, Save Our Shores, etc. and any costs associated with it all on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or annual basis etc
For the 2025 TPW FAQ Sheet, maybe we can add a little more data emphasis on the solutions in place already addressing Litter and environmental impact under #5 (or a stand alone #?) Thank you!
Sonja Brunner
she/her
Councilmember, District 2 | City Council
809 Center Street Room 10, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5027
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
Begin forwarded message:

From: Dave Lane <[email protected]>
Date: June 3, 2025 at 2:40:47 PM PDT
To: Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Filtered Tobacco Products Ban
Reply-To: [email protected]
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.****

32.185
I am concerned about the proposed ban on filtered cigarettes in the city of Santa Cruz, particularly regarding its potential impact on litter and the environment.

Simply banning them will not resolve the issue as intended, as illicit sources will find a way to sell the products to consumers.

Smokers might turn to other tobacco products that are equally or more harmful to the environment, like unfiltered cigarettes and cigars that could also be discarded.

Addressing litter and environmental impact requires a holistic approach rather than forcing businesses to adjust to the difficulties that state and local laws continuously place on people like me.

Thank you.

Dave Lane
[email protected]
8314239296

32.186
From: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
To: Emeline Nguyen; Michelle Templeton; Matt Huffaker
Subject: Fw: Oppose Filtered Tobacco Products Ban
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 2:46:09 PM
Attachments: Outlook-lffxizom.png
Outlook-c5fyznkl.png
FYI
We are getting a lot of these (not sure if you guys are cc'ed on them).

Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson (she/her)
Vice Mayor, Santa Cruz City Council
District 3 Council Representative
809 Center Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5022
Email: [email protected]
cityofsantacruz.com

32.187
From: Jayme Moreno <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 2:13 PM
To: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose Filtered Tobacco Products Ban
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.**** I am concerned about the proposed ban on filtered cigarettes in the city of Santa Cruz, particularly regarding its potential impact on litter and the environment.

Simply banning them will not resolve the issue as intended, as illicit sources will find a way to sell the products to consumers.

Smokers might turn to other tobacco products that are equally or more harmful to the environment, like unfiltered cigarettes and cigars that could also be discarded.

Addressing litter and environmental impact requires a holistic approach rather than forcing businesses to adjust to the difficulties that state and local laws continuously place on people like me.

Thank you.

Jayme Moreno
[email protected]

32.188
Brittany Inclan
From: Katelyn Sprofera <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 1:02 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; Robert Mazurek
Subject: California Marine Sanctuary Foundation supports a ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products.

Attachments: CMSF Letter of Support Tobacco Ban.pdf
Hello,
Please accept our letter of support for the ban on the sale of filtered tobacco products. We apologize for the late submission, and hope this will still be accepted.

Kind Regards,
Katelyn Sprofera
--
Katelyn Sprofera
Program Manager and Evaluation Specialist
California Marine Sanctuary Foundation
CaliforniaMSF.org
CaliforniaMPAs.org

32.189
June 9, 2025
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: CMSF supports a Ban on the Sale of Filtered Tobacco Products Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Council Members Brunner, Golder, Newsome, O’Hara, and Trigueiro,
I am writing on behalf of the California Marine Sanctuary Foundation to express our strong support for the proposed ban on the sale of filtered, pre-rolled tobacco products in the City of Santa Cruz. This policy represents a critical step toward addressing the persistent and pervasive issue of tobacco waste, particularly cigarette butts, which are a significant environmental hazard in our community.

As an organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of marine and coastal environments, we are acutely aware of the detrimental impact cigarette butts have on our local ecosystems. Tobacco filters are the most littered item on California streets, parks, and beaches. They contain toxic chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and nicotine, which leach into our soil and water, posing a poisoning risk to small children, pets, wildlife, and marine life.

A 2023 study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) highlights the severity of this issue, attributing 25% of the debris found on the shores of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary to smoking. It is alarming to note that, on a global scale, an estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are littered on the planet at any given time. Moreover, the 2024 Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee Report indicates that discarded cigarette filters may release nearly a half million tons of microfibers into the aquatic environment annually.

Furthermore, research indicates that cigarette filters provide no health benefits to smokers. According to the World Health Organization, there is no evidence that filters reduce the harmful effects of cigarette smoke. In essence, these filters serve no purpose other than to contribute to the global problem of plastic pollution.

CALIFORNIA MARINE SANCTUARY FOUNDATION
99 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940
californiamsf.org

32.190
The policy under consideration by the Santa Cruz City Council is a straightforward solution to this widespread problem. By banning the sale of filtered tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarillos, and little cigars, the City of Santa Cruz can take a decisive step in protecting both public health and the environment. This ban would reduce the toxic waste entering our ecosystem, protect wildlife and marine life, and alleviate the economic burden on local communities.

The California Marine Sanctuary Foundation stands in full support of this groundbreaking local policy.

The health of our ocean, marine life, and coastal communities depends on proactive measures like this one. We urge you to adopt this policy and help the City of Santa Cruz lead the way in addressing the environmental and health impacts of tobacco waste.

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to environmental stewardship. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or require further information.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
Katelyn Sprofera
Program Manager & Evaluation Specialist
California Marine Sanctuary Foundation

CALIFORNIA MARINE SANCTUARY FOUNDATION
99 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940
californiamsf.org

32.191
Brittany Inclan
From: Ben Judkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 1:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Letter of Support from The Cigarette Surfboard Filmmaker Attachments: Letter of Support from The Cigarette Surfboard Filmmaker.pdf To the Santa Cruz City Council,
My name is Ben Judkins and I am the co-founder of The Cigarette Surfboard Project, and Director/Co-Producer of the 90min documentary, The Cigarette Surfboard. I’ve spent the past 8 years documenting the issue of single-use cigarette filters, both in Santa Cruz and around the world. I’ve learned all about their environmental, economic, and human health impacts. After screening the documentary around the world this past year, with over 80 screenings at film festivals, high schools, and universities, I’ve witnessed firsthand how deeply this issue resonates with communities and the thousands of folks who have seen the film. More than 600 people came out to our two screenings in Santa Cruz, and people were truly moved by this issue and the political work in Santa Cruz to push forward such a policy.

I strongly support the Santa Cruz City Council passing an ordinance banning the sale of single-use filters. Thank you for taking action and leading the way for other jurisdictions to follow.

All the best,
Ben Judkins (he/him)
Filmmaker, The Cigarette Surfboard
thecigarettesurfboard.com
@thecigarettesurfboard

32.192
To the Santa Cruz City Council,
My name is Ben Judkins and I am the co-founder of The Cigarette Surfboard Project, and Director/Co-Producer of the 90min documentary, The Cigarette Surfboard. I’ve spent the past 8 years documenting the issue of single-use cigarette filters, both in Santa Cruz and around the world. I’ve learned all about their environmental, economic, and human health impacts. After screening the documentary around the world this past year, with over 80 screenings at film festivals, high schools, and universities, I’ve witnessed firsthand how deeply this issue resonates with communities and the thousands of folks who have seen the film. More than 600 people came out to our two screenings in Santa Cruz, and people were truly moved by this issue and the political work in Santa Cruz to push forward such a policy.

I strongly support the Santa Cruz City Council passing an ordinance banning the sale of single-use filters. Thank you for taking action and leading the way for other jurisdictions to follow.

All the best,
Ben Judkins (he/him)
Filmmaker, The Cigarette Surfboard
thecigarettesurfboard.com
@thecigarettesurfboard

32.193

TOBACCO PRODUCT WASTE
PUBLIC HEARING 2025
This presentation provides an update on the City of
Santa Cruz’s efforts to address Tobacco Product
Waste (TPW). It outlines the background and key
milestones leading up to the proposed ordinance,
summarizes community engagement efforts, and next
steps.

32.194

CIGARETTE SURFBOARD
Taylor Lane & Ben Judkins, Co-Founders

SAVE OUR SHORES
Katie Thompson, Executive Director

SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Thomas Novotny, Professor Emeritus of
Public Health

KEY PARTNERS
TPW | Page 2 of 26

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Justin Cummings & Martine Watkins, Former
Councilmembers
Health in All Policies

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
Tara Leonard, Senior Health Educator
Danielle Meidan, Health Educator
Trina Barton, District 3 Special Assistant

32.195

BACKGROUND & TIMELINE

YOUTH DATA

LOCAL IMPACT DATA

ORDINANCE REVIEW
Q&A
AGENDA
TPW | Page 3 of 26

32.196

TIMELINE
TPW | Page 4 of 26

32.197

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Oct 2022-Apr 2023 & Mar-May 2025
• 5 Public Meetings
• 297 Survey Responses
• UNDO Street Banners
• UNDO Window Decals
• Santa Cruz Sentinel
• Citywide, ED & Library Newsletters
• Social Media
• Email Blasts
• Flyers
• FAQ Sheets
• Event Partnerships
TPW | Page 5 of 26

32.198

DATA FINDINGS

32.199

YOUTH DATA

KEY FINDINGS
• 86.2% of youth have seen a noticeable amount of TPW on sidewalks & streets. • 51.7% have observed TPW at the beach.
• 75.9% believe TPW significantly harms the environment. • 46.6% think TPW has a notable impact on the community. • Only 24.1% believe it's normal to throw cigarettes on the ground or out of car windows, while 53.4% are unsure.
• 96.6% identify vapes as the most commonly used tobacco product among their peers, suggesting they are less familiar with cigarette culture than adults.

IN SUMMARY
• Youth agreed that TPW is an issue in the city.

TPW | Page 7 of 26

32.200

TPW DATA

THE MOST LITTERED ITEM ON THE PLANET
• About 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are discarded
worldwide ~4,500,000,000,000.

LOCAL BEACHES & RIVERWAYS
• In the last 10 years, almost 500,000 cigarette
butts were collected at local cleanup events.

FOUND THROUGHOUT THE WATER COLUMN
• Microplastics are found in all layers of the
Monterey Bay water column.

TPW | Page 8 of 26

32.201

HEALTH IMPACTS

FILTERS ARE A MYTH
• According to WHO, filters do not prevent the adverse health effects of smoking. • By deceptively reducing smokers' health concerns, they likely delayed quit attempts, contributing to an overall increase in smoking-related mortality.

GLOBAL IMPACTS
• The WHO identifies tobacco companies as major global plastic polluters; contributors to climate change and deforestation.

TPW | Page 9 of 26

32.202
X
189,154 Cigarette Butts
170,408 Plastic Pieces
70,444 Food Wrappers
70,427 Paper Pieces
29,263 Plastic Food Containers

SANTA CRUZ BEACH CLEANUP DATA
Top 5 Items Removed by Save Our Shores
From 2013-2024 in the City of Santa Cruz
981 cleanups
Cost of > $1,000,000
16,833 volunteers
TPW | Page 10 of 26

32.203
ANTI-LITTER EFFORTS SINCE THE 1990s
• Pollution Prevention Outreach
• Presentations for Schools & Communities
• Countywide Coalitions
• Speaker Events, Bilingual Radio Ads & Public Art
• Storm Drain Markings
• Save Our Shores invests ≥$27,000 annually in
city cleanup efforts.

DOWNSTREAM "SOLUTIONS"
• Garbage Cans & No Smoking Signs
• Education Campaigns
• Litter Enforcement

EFFORTS-TO-DATE
TPW | Page 11 of 26

32.204

32.205

IMPACT ON COUNTY SALES TAX REVENUE
• According to the County Administrative Office, the flavored tobacco sales ban implemented in 2019 resulted in a 3.1% decline in sales tax revenue during the first six months. However, this was followed by double-digit increases as consumer behavior adapted (County Administrator’s Office). • The County has 76 tobacco retailers, while the City of Santa Cruz has 48 retailers.

TPW | Page 13 of 26

32.206
CIGARETTE USE IS DECLINING • According to the 2022 California Health Interview Survey, 6% of adults smoke
cigarettes.
• According to the 2024 California Youth
Tobacco Survey, 1.3% of high school
students reported using cigarettes in the last
30 days.

COST OF LITTER MITIGATION FALLS TO LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS • The tobacco industry does not bear the cost of tobacco litter cleanup, burdening
government agencies & volunteers to
address the issue.

TOBACCO USE
TPW | Page 14 of 26

32.207

FINANCIAL IMPACT
SDSU FINDINGS • The Center for Tobacco and the Environment at San Diego State University developed an
economic model that communities can utilize
with local data to estimate the costs of
tobacco waste in their areas.
• The estimated cost is for government cleanup
of waste from discarded tobacco products,
with additional costs for voluntary groups and
businesses, as well as potential ecosystem
damage costs.
• Alternative modeling of cleanup costs using
demographic variables, smoking prevalence,
and actual cleanup data shows similar results
to the proportional method in other California
cities.

TPW | Page 15 of 26

32.208

ORDINANCE REVIEW &

POLICY EVALUATION

32.209

PROPOSED CHANGES
SECTION 1. CHAPTER 6.07 “TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSES” OF SCMC A. Section 6.07.010 “Definitions” is hereby amended to read as follows:
a) “Chief of police” shall refer to the city of Santa Cruz chief of police or the person designated by the chief of police.
b) “Cigarette” means:
1) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; and 2) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described herein. c) “Cigar” means any roll of tobacco wrapped entirely or in part in leaf tobacco or any substance containing tobacco.
d) “Drug paraphernalia” shall have the definitions set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section Code Section 11014.5, as that section may be amended time to time. e) “E-cigarette” means any electronically or battery-operated device, often shaped like a cigarette, containing a nicotine-based liquid, sometimes flavored, that is vaporized and inhaled, and which is used to simulate the experience of smoking tobacco or other combustible substances. TPW | Page 17 of 26

32.210

PROPOSED CHANGES
f) “Partially Inconsumable Cigarette” means any Cigarette containing an embedded component or part commonly referred to or marketed as a filter that is not intended to be consumed, whether it is made of any material including, but not limited to, plastic, cellulose acetate, other fibrous plastic material, or any other inorganic, organic, or biodegradable material. g) “Partially Inconsumable Cigar” means any Cigar containing an embedded component or part commonly referred to or marketed as a filter that is not intended to be consumed, whether it is made of any material, including, but not limited to, plastic, cellulose acetate, other fibrous plastic material, or any other inorganic, organic, or biodegradable material. h) “Person” shall mean any natural person, partnership, cooperative association, corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity. i) “Proprietor” shall mean a person with an ownership or managerial interest in a business. An ownership interest shall be deemed to exist when a person has a ten percent or greater interest in the stock, assets, or income of a business other than the sole interest of security for debt. A managerial interest shall be deemed to exist when a person can or does have or share ultimate control over the day-to-day operations of a business.

TPW | Page 18 of 26

32.211

PROPOSED CHANGES
j) “Tobacco paraphernalia” shall mean cigarette papers or wrappers, pipes, holders of smoking materials of all types, cigarette rolling machines, and any other item designed for the smoking, preparation, storing, or consumption of tobacco products. k) “Tobacco product” shall mean as set forth in Section 6.06.020. l) “Tobacco retailer” shall mean any person or business which sells, offers for sale, or does or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes, or who distributes free or low-cost samples of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes.
m) “Tobacco retailing” shall mean the doing of any of these things. This definition is without regard to the quantity of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes sold, offered for sale, exchanged, or offered for exchange.”
B. Section 6.07.020 “Tobacco retailer license – Violations” is hereby amended to read as follows:
a) It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a tobacco retailer, or to display or advertise the sale of tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes, without obtaining and maintaining a valid tobacco retailer’s license pursuant to this chapter for each location at which that activity is to occur.

TPW | Page 19 of 26

32.212

PROPOSED CHANGES
B. Section 6.07.020 “Tobacco retailer license – Violations” is hereby amended to read as follows:
a) It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a tobacco retailer, or to display or advertise the sale of tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or e-cigarettes, without obtaining and maintaining a valid tobacco retailer’s license pursuant to this chapter for each location at which that activity is to occur.
b) It shall be a violation of this chapter for any tobacco retailer or any of the tobacco retailer’s agents or employees to sell or offer for sale, or to possess with intent to sell or offer to sale, Partially Inconsumable Cigarettes or Partially Inconsumable Cigars. 1) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco retailer in possession of four or more packages containing any Partially Inconsumable Cigarettes or Partially Inconsumable Cigars possesses such packages of Partially Inconsumable Cigarettes or Partially Inconsumable Cigars is with the intent to sell or offer for sale. 2) Enforcement of subsection (b) of SCMC 6.07.020 will begin January 1, 2027, or on a date that two other jurisdictions within the County, aside from the City, have approved a similar ordinance, whichever date is later.
c) Tobacco retailing by persons on foot or from vehicles is prohibited.

TPW | Page 20 of 26

32.213

NEXT STEPS
2025-2026: CONTINUE BUSINESS OUTREACH & SUPPORT
JANUARY 1, 2027: ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption. Enforcement of subsection (b) of SCMC 6.07.020 will begin January 1, 2027, or on a date that two other jurisdictions, aside from the City, within the County have approved a similar ordinance, whichever date is later, as set out in SCMC 6.07.020(b)(2).

JUNE 24, 2025: 2ND READING
TPW Webinar 2025 | Page 21 of 29

32.214

RECOMMENDATION

1. Introduce for publication an ordinance amending Chapter 6.07 “Tobacco Retailer Licenses” of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code to prohibit the sale of filtered tobacco products;

2. Direct staff to collaborate with the County of Santa Cruz and local stakeholders to develop and implement educational outreach for affected retailers, assisting them in the transition away from selling filtered tobacco products;

3. Affirm the City’s commitment to support staff efforts in collaborating with the County of Santa Cruz and local stakeholders to enhance public education efforts; and

4. Approve the CEQA determination contained in this agenda report and direct staff to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption. This action is not a “project” under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections: 15378(b)(2) (“general policy and procedure making”) and 15378(b)(5) (“organizational and administrative activities” that do not result in physical changes to the environment). And, even if it were considered a CEQA “project”, this action is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section: 15307 (action “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource”); 15308 (action “to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment”); and 16061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

TPW | Page 22 of 26

32.215
Q&A

32.216
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/22/2025
AGENDA OF: 06/10/2025
DEPARTMENT: Fire
SUBJECT: Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the City of Santa Cruz’s Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs) as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE) pursuant to Government Code Section 51178 (FD)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
(1) Introduce for publication an ordinance adding Chapter 19.20 to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code to designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the City of Santa Cruz’s Local Responsibility Area (LRA) as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE) pursuant to Government Code Section 51178; and (2) Approve the CEQA determination contained in this agenda report, including the application of the following exemptions, to the extent that the Council action is deemed a CEQA “project”:

CEQA Guidelines § 15387(b)(2) and § 15387(b)(5) – (“general policy and procedure making” and/or “organizational or administrative activities”); CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) (commons sense exemption); and CEQA Guidelines § 15306 (data collection).

BACKGROUND: In accordance with recent updates to state law, the California State Fire Marshal has released revised Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) designations for Local Responsibility Areas (LRA), which include all incorporated cities such as Santa Cruz. These updated maps, developed using improved fire behavior models and localized climate data, classify areas as moderate, high, or very high hazard zones based on factors such as fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and the role of wind in wildfire spread. Pursuant to Government Code Section 51179, local jurisdictions are required to adopt these new designations by ordinance within 120 days of receiving the State Fire Marshal’s recommendations. Although the FHSZ mapping does not reflect risk to individual structures or account for mitigation measures already in place, it does provide a long-term assessment of hazard potential. Adoption of these updated zones by the City of Santa Cruz ensures alignment with state law and supports wildfire preparedness efforts.

DISCUSSION: The FHSZ maps show only about 0.08 square miles (of 12.7 total), or 0.6% of the City is designated High FHSZ. No City residences are impacted in the high FHSZ. This

33.1 designation is based on consistent statewide criteria describing the severity of the fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. The fire hazard severity model for wildland fire has two key elements: probability of an area burning and expected fire behavior under extreme fuel and weather conditions. Adopting the updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) designations supports broader wildfire preparedness and community resilience initiatives. These designations form the foundation for enforcing defensible space requirements, applying Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) building codes, and guiding land use planning efforts aimed at reducing wildfire risk. By integrating these designations into the City's policies, Santa Cruz strengthens its ability to implement local hazard mitigation plans and comply with state directives, such as those outlined in CalFIRE’s Community Wildfire Preparedness and Mitigation Division strategies.

This action emphasizes the coordinated nature of wildfire preparedness.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: This action is not a “project” under CEQA because it does not meet all of the requirements set out in Pub. Resources Code § 21605. In the alternative, if the Council action is considered a CEQA “project”, it is exempt from further CEQA review under the following exceptions:
 CEQA Guidelines § 15387(b)(2) and § 15387(b)(5) – the Council action falls under “general policy and procedure making” and/or “organizational or administrative activities” that do not result in physical changes to the environment.  CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) – The commons sense exemption, because it can be shown with certainty that the proposed Council action will have no effect of a positive effect on the environment.
 CEQA Guidelines § 15306 – data collection and information gathering.

Note that the adoption of FHSZ maps is a state-mandated activity intended to implement fire safety standards and enhance public safety, and FHSZ designations themselves do not authorize or approve physical development. They inform land use and building decisions that may be subject to CEQA in the future. Incorporating these hazard designations into local ordinances ensures that future planning and development projects within the City of Santa Cruz are evaluated with an understanding of fire hazard context, supporting CEQA’s purpose of informed decision-making.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The adoption of Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) designations for Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) supports the HiAP framework. It addresses the pillars of public health and equity by providing a more accurate understanding of wildfire exposure across neighborhoods, enabling targeted outreach and risk reduction efforts in socially vulnerable communities. By strengthening the foundation for defensible space enforcement, home hardening standards, and fire-safe planning, the updated designations help reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire events and associated health impacts which disproportionately affect sensitive populations. In terms of the sustainability pillar, this action contributes to climate adaptation by aligning local policy with evolving wildfire science and state guidance, reinforcing long-term community resilience through coordinated hazard mitigation strategies.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No

33.2 FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: There is no direct fiscal impact to the general fund.

Prepared By:

Meredith Albert
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Rob Oatey
Fire Chief
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES.DOCX

2. LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES.PDF

3. LRA AND SRA FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE DESIGNATION
REQUIREMENTS.DOCX

33.3 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ADDING CHAPTER 19.20 TO THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE TO DESIGNATE FIRE

HAZARD SAFETY ZONES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51178
BE IT ORDAINED By the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Section 1. Chapter 19.20 is hereby added to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code to read as follows:
“Chapter 19.20

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES
Sections:

19.20.010 Designation of Fire Hazard Severity Zones

19.20.010 DESIGNATION OF FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES.

The City of Santa Cruz designates the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire pursuant to Government Code Section 51178.

The map, attached as an exhibit, is hereby incorporated by reference and entitled “City of Santa Cruz Fire Hazard Severity Zones.”
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 10th day of June, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED:

Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

33.4 PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this __th day of June 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED:

Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2025-XX and
that it has been published or posted
in accordance with the Charter of
the City of Santa Cruz.

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

33.5 City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1)
CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources:

Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds
have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire
Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody
Federal Responsibility
Area (FRA)
Unzoned LRA
Incorporated City
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:61,000 at 11" x 17"
Km 0 1 2 3 4
Mi 0 1 2 3
High Moderate
High Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal
Santa Cruz
17 1
9 UNINCORPORATED
SANTA CRUZ CO.

SCOTTS VALLEY
C

S A N T A
R U Z C O .

February 24, 2025
As Identified by the
State Fire Marshal
Local Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ – SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility
Area (SRA), Effective April 1, 2024

33.6 Local Responsibility Area & State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designation Requirements

33.7 FIRE HAZARD

SEVERITY ZONES
Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the City of Santa Cruz’s Local Responsibility Areas

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10th 2025

33.8 What are the Zones?
• The maps are required by
Government Code 51178 & 51179
• Identify levels of fire hazard
• • 3 levels (Moderate, High, & Very High)
Fire Hazard Severity Zone Remap Fire Hazard Severity Zones

33.9 How are the Zones determined?
• CAL FIRE used the best available science and data to
develop, and field test a model that served as the basis of zone assignments. The model evaluated the probability of the area burning and potential fire behavior in the area. • Factors: fire history, vegetation, flame length, blowing embers, proximity to wildland, terrain, and weather
Fire Hazard Severity Zone Remap Fire Hazard Severity Zones

33.10 New Updates
• Updated burn probabilities for wildland areas
(inclusive of 2020 fires)
• Updated fire environment footprints (urban/developed) • Updated Vegetation density for urban areas
• Inclusion of slope in the urban zoning model
• Localized fire weather used in both wildland and urban models
• New firebrand production and transport model using
discrete local wind vector distributions
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
New Updates

33.11 LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
• Maps updated in March 2025
• CA SFM identify areas as Moderate, High and
Very High
• Maps evaluate “Hazard” not “Risk”
• Insurance Companies use “risk models”, not
“hazard models”
• Consider susceptibility of a structure to
damage
• Fire Hazard Severity Model
• Probability of an area burning
• Expected fire behavior under extreme fuel
and weather conditions

33.12 What is the map for?
• Building standards for new construction in the
Wildland-Urban Interface (California Building Code
Chapter 7A)
• Property development standards such as road
widths, water supply and signage (Fire Safe
Regulations)
• Defensible Space Requirements (Government
Code 51182)
• Natural hazard real estate disclosure
Fire Hazard Severity Zone Remap Fire Hazard Severity Zones

33.13 Fire Hazard Severity Zones New Updates
What’s Impacted…

33.14 Questions?

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10th 2025

33.15 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/22/2025
AGENDA OF: 06/10/2025
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development and Housing
SUBJECT: Economic Development Strategy Update and Recommendations: Vibrancy Ordinance, Permit Streamlining, and Fee Updates (EDH/PL) LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution to a) remove specified Planning and Building fees for the first twenty (20) qualifying new commercial businesses citywide, b) establish fees and charges associated with the Council’s May 13, 2025 Municipal Code Chapter 5.84 “Vibrancy Ordinance,” and c) direct staff to update the Master Fee Schedule and the Planning and Community Development Fee Schedule and take related implementing actions;
2) Direct staff to proceed with amendments to the Municipal Code Chapter 24.04.160 to extend the life of active commercial permits from calendar year 2019 through January 1, 2030; 3) Direct staff to proceed with amendments to the Downtown Plan and the Zoning Code to lower the permitting thresholds and remove use permit requirements for certain desired ground floor uses to streamline the permit process and reduce permit costs for new businesses citywide; 4) Adopt a resolution amending the FY 25 budget to appropriate funds in the amount of $50,000 from the Economic Development Trust Fund for implementation of Downtown activation events over the next 12 months; and
5) Approve the CEQA determination in this agenda report, including application of the following exemptions if the Council action is deemed a CEQA “project”: CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (existing facility), 15306 (data collection), and Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

BACKGROUND: At the April 22, 2025 City Council meeting, Economic Development & Housing (EDH) staff presented an update on the City’s progress toward specific goals of the Economic Development Strategy focused on activating vacant ground floor commercial spaces.

The update included the creation of several incentive programs to encourage activation of vacant ground floor spaces and included the first reading of the Vibrancy Ordinance, which creates specific maintenance standards for empty storefronts and establishes an empty storefront registry program. The Vibrancy Ordinance was adopted at the May 13, 2025 City Council meeting and

34.1 will take effect in mid-June, after which time property owners who are required to register their long-term vacant ground floor commercial tenant spaces on Pacific Avenue must complete a registration application and pay an annual fee.

At the April 22, 2025 meeting, City Council directed staff to return to City Council by June 10, 2025 with options to streamline the permitting process for the first twenty (20) business applicants in ground floor vacant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas, including presubmittal inter-departmental meetings for applicants prior to plan check submittal, extension of the validity of use permits, and exploring not imposing plan check and permit fees, with the goal of saving new business applicants time and money in the permitting process. City Council also directed staff to come back to Council with an agenda item to appropriate $50,000 from the Economic Development Trust Fund for implementation of downtown activation events over the next 6—12 months.

DISCUSSION: EDH and Planning and Community Development Department (Planning) staff reviewed the opportunities to further streamline the permitting process for new businesses to activate ground floor commercial spaces citywide and developed the following recommended actions to reduce the permitting timeline and associated costs:

1. Adopt a Resolution to a) remove specified Planning and Building fees for the first twenty (20) qualifying commercial businesses citywide in an amount up to $14,000 per business and b) establish fees and charges associated with the Council’s May 13, 2025 Municipal Code Chapter

5.84 “Vibrancy Ordinance.” and c) update the Master Fee Schedule and the Planning and Community Development Fee Schedule and take related implementing actions. a) Staff prepared a resolution to remove certain planning and building plan check and building permit (inspection) fees for the first twenty (20) qualifying businesses citywide which, combined with the extension of the life of active commercial permits, will significantly reduce the timeline for permitting and startup costs for new businesses and facilitate quicker occupancy of vacant commercial spaces. Qualifying businesses include any new business applying for a commercial building permit for tenant improvements.

Under this Resolution, the City expressly declares that it has no legal entitlement or right to collect the first fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) in specified Planning and Building Plan Check and Permit fees from each of the first twenty (20) qualifying businesses. The fees include building plan check and building permit issuance (inspection) fees for both the Planning Division and the Building and Safety Division, as well as the General Plan Maintenance Fee. Accordingly, these amounts shall not be assessed, and no fee obligation for these specific charges shall accrue for the specified amount. b) The Vibrancy Ordinance anticipates a registration fee for tenant spaces that have been vacant for two or more years (that do not meet specified exemptions), but it does not specify or establish the fee. The proposed resolution would establish the annual registration fee. The proposed fee has been calculated based on costs associated with expected estimates of staff time for answering questions about the ordinance requirements, processing and maintaining the registration, monitoring the site conditions through inspections, and meeting with the empty storefront owner at least once. Based on this analysis, staff recommend that the City Council set the annual fee at $1,621.90, which would cover the costs of staff time associated with implementing the ordinance. A breakdown of the anticipated hours and fully burdened hourly rates used to calculate the

34.2 annual fee is attached to this report. The Vibrancy Ordinance fee analysis was posted to the City’s website on May 30, 2025, along with the draft resolution establishing that fee and changing the plan check and inspection fees, and an email was sent on the same date to those who have requested notification of fee changes. c) These fee changes will be effective immediately upon adoption and staff will update the Master Fee Schedule and the Planning and Community Development Fee Schedule to implement the changes.

2. Amend Municipal Code Chapter 24.04.160 to extend the life of active commercial permits from calendar year 2019 through January 1, 2030.

The City currently has limits on the life of a permit under Municipal Code section 24.04.160.

This code section states that approved permits have expiration dates of 36 months if a permit is not acted upon and 6 months after a use has ceased, whether or not the intent is to abandon the use. This means a business that intends to operate the same use that was previously permitted at that location would be required to go through the permit process again if they exceed these timelines. The City has previously approved extensions for these permit expiration dates to accommodate shifts in the economy that resulted in the need for greater flexibility and to ease the permit process for businesses. This was done through a code amendment to Municipal Code section 24.04.160 in 2009, around the time of the “Great Recession” and also by Resolution in 2022 during the COVID-19 Emergency Declaration in response to the business restrictions imposed by the State's COVID-19 related guidance and the County's Health Orders.

Staff proposes to introduce an ordinance to amend Municipal Code section 24.04.160 to remove the prior language from 2009 and replace it with new language stating that all commercial use permits that were valid between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2026 shall have the life of the permit automatically extended to January 1, 2030, unless otherwise extended by City Council. Staff will prepare this amendment for review by the Planning Commission in June or July and, if recommended by the Planning Commission, the ordinance would be considered by City Council in August. The proposed changes will also require an amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Plan and approval by Coastal Commission for implementation in the Coastal Zone.

3. Prepare Amendments to the Downtown Plan and the Zoning Code to lower the permitting thresholds and remove use permit requirements for certain desired ground floor uses to streamline the permit process and reduce permit costs for new businesses citywide.

Following City Council direction, EDH and Planning staff are currently reviewing all permitted uses that apply citywide in the Zoning Code (Municipal Code Title 24) and in Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan (Development Standards and Design Guidelines) to identify opportunities to reduce use permit thresholds and develop standards that can be built into the code directly to allow for more principally permitted uses.

The recently adopted Downtown Plan Expansion amendments included some modifications to the permitting requirements for commercial ground floor uses to provide more flexibility and reduce permit thresholds. The following changes were adopted through those amendments:
• Added Artist Studio as an approved use with an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) in all districts except South of Laurel where it is principally permitted;

34.3 • Revised the use category of “Theaters/Commercial Entertainment, Arcade, Billiard Hall and other Indoor Recreation Uses” to “Theaters and Recreational, Experiential, or Commercial Interactive Venues and other Indoor Recreation Uses” to provide more flexibility to the definition of these active uses;
• Added “Bakery, microbrewery, handicrafts or similar light manufacturing and assembly use associated with retail sales/services” to the ground floor uses as principally permitted in all districts; and
• Reduced the permit threshold from Special Use Permit to AUP for “Large NonResidential Ground-Level Uses” that exceed 16,000 square feet and specified that this does not apply to the Arena facility in the South of Laurel Area.

Staff is reviewing further revisions to the use tables for the Downtown Plan to reduce the permitting requirements for common uses on the ground floor, such as artist studios, museums, galleries, cultural institutions, health/fitness studios, and potentially bona fide restaurants with alcohol service, tasting rooms, and personal services with standards for approval, to ease the permit review process. Staff is also considering potential elimination of the discretionary review for large ground floor commercial spaces over 16,000 square feet.

In addition to reviewing the permitted uses in the various land use districts in Chapter 24.10 of the Zoning Code, staff will review permit requirements for sidewalk dining in the Zoning Code section 24.12.192 “Outdoor Extension Areas” to potentially reduce the permit requirements from an AUP to a simple over the counter approval process. Staff will also coordinate review with the Police Department for potential streamlining of alcohol sales requirements included in Chapter

24.12 Community Design part 12 and Live Entertainment Policies in 24.12.195 to streamline some of these permit requirements where appropriate.

Staff will compile these proposed changes for review by the Planning Commission and the City Council as well as Coastal Commission for properties inside the Coastal Zone before they can take effect.

4. Administrative Process Improvements.

In addition to the proposed policy changes underway, staff is working on internal process improvements to streamline permit review for businesses. Staff successfully piloted preapplication inter-departmental consultations for building permits prior to submittal. This new resource helps businesses and their design team address questions early before full submittal to reduce permit review times at the back end. Wider promotion of this new service to businesses and the broker community will commence in the coming weeks to spread awareness of the availability of these meetings. Earlier this year, Planning also began implementation of over-thecounter sign permits to speed up review times for new signage. Planning also continues to finalize the transition of the legacy permitting system to a modern platform that will streamline the permit submittal and issuance processes, provide more visibility into where permits are in the process of review, and improve the efficiency of review processes for all permits.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed recommendations and resolution are not a “project” under CEQA because no direct or indirect physical change to the environment is anticipated by changing the fee schedule, nor does the resolution represent the type of activity described in Public Resources Code section 21065. In the alternative, if the Council actions, including the proposed resolution, are considered a “project” under CEQA, the following exemptions apply:

34.4 • 14 CCR 15301 – Class 1 Categorical Exemption because the Council resolution applies to existing buildings for which tenant improvements are proposed, which are expected to involve negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.) Should the tenant improvement trigger a discretionary permit due to an associated change in use, the City will conduct applicable CEQA analysis and procedures at that time.
• 14 CCR 15061(b)(3) – The “common sense” exemption applies because the action resulting from the resolution only involves eliminating specified fees for twenty (20) tenant improvement projects, so “there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).) • 14 CCR 15306 – Class 6 Categorical exemption for the direction to analyze and return with ordinance and Downtown Plan changes because the action involved data collection and evaluation for an action which the Council has not formally approved or adopted.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The three HiAP pillars include equity, public health, and sustainability. By promoting the establishment of businesses, the City will offer local jobs for residents, which can promote equity and enhance the quality of life for residents. Local jobs offer greater opportunities for the City’s residents to use active transportation for commuting, contributing to both health and sustainability goals. Local businesses contribute to the fiscal strength of the City, and the City then uses those revenues to promote a wide range of HiAP goals.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: Yes

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: Yes

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: Staff reviewed fees charged to over 160 commercial and industrial tenant improvements over the past five years. Those fees varied substantially, ranging from under $1,000 for very minor work (like demolishing interior walls) to approximately $90,000 for a substantial build-out of a big-box store. While a small number of larger tenant improvements raised the average cost of such fees to approximately $8,000, most projects were smaller in nature, with the median cost being approximately $5,000. While not authorizing collection of up to $14,000 in fees for the first twenty (20) tenant improvements could create a general fund loss of up to $280,000, using the mean and median as more likely scenarios, the fee change could be expected to result in a general fund loss of approximately $100,000 to $160,000.

Empty storefront registration under the Vibrancy Ordinance currently applies only to Pacific Avenue in the Downtown, and only applies to storefronts that have been vacant for two or more years. As such, the revenue expected from the registrations is insignificant, and will go towards covering staff time related to implementation and enforcement of the Ordinance.

The Downtown activation event funding is an appropriation of $50,000 from the Economic Development Trust Fund.

34.5 Prepared By:

Rebecca Unitt
Economic Development
Manager
Submitted By:

Bonnie Lipscomb
Deputy City Manager
Lee Butler
Planning and Community
Development Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. ANALYSIS OF VIBRANCY ORDINANCE ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE.DOCX

34.6 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ TO REMOVE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION FEES FOR THE FIRST TWENTY (20) QUALIFYING

BUSINESSES CITYWIDE, ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL FEE FOR THE VIBRANCY

ORDINANCE REGISTRATION, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO UPDATE THE PLANNING

AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE AND TAKE RELATED

IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025 City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2025-08 ("Vibrancy Ordinance") adding Chapter 5.84 to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, to address the issue of blighted and empty storefronts within commercial areas of Santa Cruz, particularly downtown, by encouraging occupancy and maintaining the vibrancy of commercial spaces; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the introduction of the Vibrancy Ordinance, City Council adopted a motion directing City staff to return to City Council by June 10, 2025, with options to streamline permitting processes for new businesses, including not imposing certain fees on business applicants; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2025, City Council adopted the Vibrancy Ordinance, adding Chapter 5.84 to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Vibrancy Ordinance requires that owners of certain vacant storefronts register their vacant storefront with the City; and
WHEREAS, as part of the vacant storefront registration and associated processes in the Vibrancy Ordinance, staff time will be spent to implement said ordinance, and the City Council seeks to achieve cost recovery for that staff time; and WHEREAS, an analysis of the staff time expected to be spent annually implementing the Vibrancy Ordinance was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of staff time and costs to implement the Vibrancy Ordinance was posted to the City’s website on May 30, 2025, along with this draft resolution establishing that annual fee and changing the plan check and inspection fees, and an email was sent on the same date to those who have requested notification of fee changes; and WHEREAS, in addition to the annual fee related to the Vibrancy Ordinance implementation, other fees may also apply to vacant storefronts or registered properties, such as standard code compliance charges or hourly rates, for items not included in the standard Vibrancy Ordinance implementation requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that not imposing certain fees related to plan checks and permits will significantly reduce startup costs for qualifying new businesses and facilitate quicker occupancy of vacant commercial spaces; and

34.7 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to reflect this policy preference clearly by modifying the City’s adopted Planning and Community Development Fee Schedule, to indicate the nonimposition of specified fees for qualifying applicants conducting tenant improvements to open a new business in a vacant space; and
WHEREAS, the City Council clearly states through this resolution that the non-imposition of these specific fees is a prospective policy decision reflecting the City's preference and does not constitute a waiver or subsidy of fees otherwise owed; and WHEREAS, as articulated in the staff report associated with this item, the actions contained herein are not considered a project under CEQA; however, if they were considered a project, the following exemptions apply: CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (existing facility), 15306 (data collection), and Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
1) The City Council hereby adopts that Planning and Building Plan Check and Permit fees, as identified in the fee schedule under categories relevant to commercial occupancy permits, shall not be assessed or imposed for the first twenty (20) qualifying businesses applying to occupy vacant ground-floor commercial or mixed-use storefronts citywide, up to a maximum amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) per qualifying business.

Any applicable fees exceeding fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) per qualifying business shall remain due and payable according to the City's adopted fee schedule. Fees changed with this resolution include building plan check and building permit issuance (inspection) fees for both the Planning Division and the Building and Safety Division, as well as the General Plan Maintenance Fee.
2) The City expressly declares that it has no legal entitlement or right to collect the first fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) in applicable Planning and Building Plan Check and Permit fees from each of the first twenty (20) qualifying businesses. Accordingly, these amounts shall not be assessed, and no fee obligation for these specific charges shall accrue for the specified amount.
3) The City Council hereby adopts a new, annual Vibrancy Ordinance registration fee in the amount of one thousand six hundred twenty-one dollars and ninety cents ($1,621.90).

The fee shall be adjusted annually on January 1 each year to reflect the latest fully burdened rates for staff associated with implementing the ordinance, using the positions and time spent as shown in the Analysis of Vibrancy Ordinance Cost Recovery. 4) Staff is directed to take related implementing actions, including but not limited to updating and publishing the Master Fee Schedule and Planning and Community Development Fee Schedule to reflect the contents of this Resolution. 5) This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption, and staff is directed to promptly update and publish the revised fee schedule accordingly.

34.8 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED:

Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

34.9 City of Santa Cruz

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO
)LVFDO<HDU

ACCOUNT 352-(&71$0(
LIDSSOLFDEOH
255(9(18($&&28177,7/(
ACCOUNT 352-(&71$0(
LIDSSOLFDEOH
25EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT TITLE
NET: $

REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD

APPROVAL

BUDGET/ACCOUNTING
5(9,(:('

FINANCE DIRECTOR

APPROVAL

CITYMANAGER

APPROVAL
5HVR

352-(&7
352-(&7
$02817
$02817
&RXQFLO$SSURYDO

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

TOTALREVENUE
'DWH

1VSQPTF
3FWJTFE/PWFNCFS
Clear Form
2025
06/10/2025
Appropriate $50,000 from the Economic Development Trust Fund (EDTF) for the implementation of downtown activation events over the next 6-12 months spanning fiscal years 2025 and 2026. If City Council approves this item, funds from the EDTF will be budgeted into a project and any funds not spent in FY 2025 will be carried forward into FY 2026. 0 136-51-80-5590-52151 p5125xx-100-2020-0 Program services: Downtown Activation Events 50,000 50,000
-50,000
Jennifer
Shelton
Digitally signed by
Jennifer Shelton
Date: 2025.05.29
16:19:51 -07'00'
Bonnie
Lipscomb
Digitally signed by
Bonnie Lipscomb
Date: 2025.05.30
08:59:33 -07'00'
Emily
Burton
Digitally signed
by Emily Burton
Date: 2025.05.30
11:14:23 -07'00'
Elizabet
h Cabell
Digitally signed by
Elizabeth Cabell
Date: 2025.05.31
02:52:09 -07'00' 34.10
Analysis of Vibrancy Ordinance Annual Registration Fee
Position & Tasks Annual
Hours
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Annual Cost
Administrative Assistant II
Answering owner questions, receiving registration
application and payment, inputting information for
tracking

0.35 $104.33 $36.52
Code Compliance Specialist
Conducting inspections to confirm required standards
are met, documenting inspections for tracking,
answering owner questions

2.5 $199.35 $498.38
Economic Development Manager
Attending annual meeting
1 $286.71 $286.71
Business Liaison
Scheduling and attending annual meeting, monitoring
vacancies for registry requirements, and answering
owner questions
2 $267 $534.00
Senior Planner
Attending annual meeting
1 $266.29 $266.29
Total $1,621.90

34.11 Economic Development
Strategy Update and
Recommendations:

Vibrancy Ordinance, Permit
Streamlining, and Fee
Updates (EDH/PL)
June 10, 2025
Presented by:

Rebecca Unitt, Economic Development Manager

34.12 ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGY

ACTION ITEMS
On April 22, 2025, City Council directed staff
to return by June 10, 2025 with options for
additional actions to streamline permitting
and promote business activity citywide.

1. Present options to save business applicants time and money in the permitting process:

2. Appropriate $50,000 from the Economic Development
Trust Fund for implementation of downtown activation
events over the next 6—12 months.
• Streamline the permitting process for the first
twenty (20) business applicants in ground floor
vacant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas
• Pre-submittal inter-departmental meetings for
applicants prior to plan check submittal,
• Extension of the validity of use permits
• Exploring not imposing plan check and permit fees

34.13 • Under Municipal Code section 24.04.160 Use Permits currently expire after 36 months if not acted upon and 6 months after a use ceases • Proposed Amendment:
⚬ “Commercial use permits that were valid between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2026 shall have the life of the permit automatically extended to January 1, 2030, unless otherwise extended by City Council or extended consistent with other municipal code provisions”
• Saves businesses time and money by re-activating a prior use permit with a simple Zoning Clearance

EXTENSION OF VALIDITY OF USE PERMITS

34.14 Review of Downtown Plan, Zoning Code, and other code sections for opportunities to reduce use permit requirements where appropriate and codify standard conditions of approval:

PERMIT STREAMLINING
Uses currently under review:
• artist studios
• museums, galleries, cultural institutions
• health/fitness studios
• bona fide restaurants with alcohol service and tasting rooms • personal services
• non-residential ground-level uses over 16,000 SF
• café extension areas (sidewalk dining)
• entertainment permits

34.15 PERMIT STREAMLINING
Goals of Permit Streamlining:
• Remove Use Permit Requirements for desired and common business types ⚬ reduces time and permit costs for businesses
⚬ reduces staff time to review applications
• Evaluate Alcohol Sales Requirements to clarify low-risk vs. high-risk permit requirements and on-site food preparation requirements
• Improvements to entertainment permit process for SCPD and Planning ⚬ Clarifying activities that require entertainment permits for alcohol serving uses
⚬ Review definitions of incidental entertainment uses vs. primary entertainment uses
⚬ Review of outdoor entertainment permit requirements

Santa Cruz City CouncilJune 10, 2025

Santa Cruz City Council
June 10, 2025