Chair Hernandez opened a lengthy public hearing on a proposed ordinance to add chapter 7.17 to the Santa Cruz County Code that would prohibit sale and distribution of kratom in unincorporated areas. Second District Supervisor Kimberly DeSerpa introduced the ordinance citing public health concerns, recent local deaths, and lack of federal regulation.

Dr. Lisa Hernandez, the county public health officer, told the board that kratom’s active alkaloids act on opioid receptors and can cause dependence, liver injury, seizures and, in some cases, death. The sheriffofficeLieutenant Dee Baldwin said 11 local deaths in 2024-2025 had mitragynine present in toxicology reports and that one of those cases showed no other substances. The county public health officer and the sheriffrecommended the board take steps to reduce availability while staff and counsel develop enforcement pathways.

More than two dozen callers and dozens of in-person commenters addressed the board. Many patients and long-term users described life changes they attribute to whole-leaf kratom and urged regulation rather than a blanket ban. Users and advocates repeatedly distinguished between traditional whole-leaf kratom and synthetic concentrated products (commonly referenced as 7-OH variants), saying the harms are driven by adulterated or laboratory-modified preparations.

Medical providers who testified said hospitals and emergency departments have treated people with severe kratom-related toxicity and dependency. Dr. Casey Grover, an addiction clinician who treats patients from the region, said he sees people dependent on kratom who say they would not have started the substance if they had known the risks. He and the public health officer told the board that some concentrated derivatives have far higher potency and that testing and labeling are inconsistent.

Supervisors asked detailed questions about the legality and enforceability of a county ban, the difference between natural and synthetic products, and potential unintended consequences such as driving supply underground. Several supervisors urged a more targeted approach: age limits, labeling and testing requirements, and an explicit ban on synthetic concentrated 7‑OH products rather than a broad prohibition on plant leaf products.

Motion and result: A first-motion to adopt the proposed ordinance as presented failed. The board then voted unanimously to send the draft back to County Counsel to produce a revised ordinance that distinguishes naturally occurring kratom from concentrated/synthetic 7‑OH products, and to include options for age restrictions, consumer-protection testing standards, and an implementation/enforcement timeline for retailers. The board direction requires Counsel and Public Health to return with a revised draft and recommended enforcement plan for a future hearing.

What happens next: County Counsel will draft redlined options (consumer-protection vs prohibition) and coordinate with Public Health, the SheriffOffice and community stakeholders. The board asked staff to include an enforcement timeline, vendor-notification period and a plan for treatment referrals for people who may be dependent. The item will return for further consideration; no county-wide sale ban is in effect as of this meeting.

Sources: Board hearing and public comments, Oct. 21, 2025; remarks from Dr. Lisa Hernandez, Public Health Officer; SheriffOffice comments; public commenters including health professionals and consumers.

Ending: The board directed staff and County Counsel to return with a revised ordinance that narrows the scope to address synthetic concentrated products and to propose regulatory tools (age limits, testing, retail compliance and an enforcement/transition schedule) for board consideration.