Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
2019-2020
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (12)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The impact of cannabis production on the health and welfare of Santa Barbara County residents was inadequately weighed and considered by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Develop a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry to ensure production and availability of high quality cannabis products to help meet local demands and, as a public benefit, improve the County’s tax base;
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director to prepare Environmental Impact Reports addressing each region of Santa Barbara County after holding public hearings to evaluate public concerns.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director to develop Project Objectives for the Environmental Impact Reports that reflect a balance between cannabis, traditional agriculture, and the residents of Santa Barbara County.
F2:
The creation of a non-Brown Act Ad Hoc Sub Committee that was not open to the public led to a lack of transparency and distrust by Santa Barbara County residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors require all future Ad Hoc Sub Committees be open to the public and subject to the Brown Act.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors granted nearly unfettered access to cannabis growers and industry lobbyists that was undisclosed to the public during the creation of the cannabis ordinances.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors develop standards that require Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors members to publicly disclose all access granted to lobbying individuals or groups, especially while a matter involving these individuals or groups is before the Board of Supervisors.
F4:
The conflict between cannabis production and traditional agriculture is a major concern for the continued existence of certain segments of traditional agriculture in Santa Barbara County.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
Encourage commercial cannabis businesses to operate legally and secure a license to operate in full compliance with County and state regulations, maximizing the proportion of licensed activities and minimizing unlicensed activities;
R4a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors amend the Land Use and Development Code and Article II, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance to require all pending cannabis land use permit applications be subject to a Conditional Use Permit review.
R4b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors amend the County’s Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves and Farmland Security Zones to declare that cannabis cultivation and related facilities are compatible uses on contracted land instead of as an agricultural use.
F5:
The amount of cannabis production allowed under the current cannabis ordinances is excessive and has led to overconcentration in some portions of Santa Barbara County.
Related Recommendations (4)
R5:
Provide an efficient, clear, and streamlined commercial cannabis licensing and permit process and attainable regulations and standards to facilitate participation by commercial cannabis business in the unincorporated areas of the County;
R5a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors require all applicants with cannabis use and development permit applications and licenses pending, who claim legal non-conforming status, to prove their claimed status before the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission.
R5b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, to eradicate all cannabis grown on acreage claimed under Legal Non-Conforming status when the cannabis operator fails to demonstrate to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19, 2016.
R5c:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director to deny permits for the growth of cannabis on acreage claimed under Legal Non-Conforming status when the cannabis operator fails to demonstrate to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19, 2016.
F6:
The approval by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors of an unverified affidavit system does not require proof of prior cannabis operations to establish eligibility to continue to grow cannabis as a legal non-conforming use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors require all applicants with cannabis use and development permit applications and licenses pending, who claim legal non-conforming status, to prove their claimed status before the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission.
F7:
The affidavit system does not require proof of prior scope of the cannabis acreage.
Related Recommendations (3)
R7:
Promote energy and resource efficiency in all cannabis activities, consistent with existing agricultural and any other industry practices, standards, and regulations;
R7a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, to eradicate all cannabis grown on acreage claimed under Legal Non-Conforming status when the cannabis operator fails to demonstrate to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19, 2016.
R7b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director to deny permits for the growth of cannabis on acreage claimed under Legal Non-Conforming status when the cannabis operator fails to demonstrate to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19, 2016.
F8:
The option taken by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to tax cannabis cultivation using a Gross Receipts method was less reliable than the Square Footage method used by the vast majority of California counties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors amend Ordinance 5026 to tax cannabis cultivation using the Square Footage method.
F9:
The Santa Barbara County Treasurer-Tax Collector was not included in the creation of the tax portions of the cannabis ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors require that all future ordinances that involve taxation require the Santa Barbara County Treasurer-Tax Collector be involved in the creation of the ordinance.
F10:
Members of the Santa Barbara County Chief Executive Officer’s office and Santa Barbara County Planning and Development staffs unduly and without apparent Board knowledge successfully sought changes to the April 26, 2019 Cannabis Advisory from the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, an independent agency, eliminating a one mile buffer recommendation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Limit potential for adverse impacts on children and sensitive populations by ensuring compatibility of commercial cannabis activities with surrounding existing land uses, including residential neighborhoods, agricultural operations, youth facilities, recreational amenities, and educational institutions.
F11:
There has not been effective odor control at the boundary of cannabis cultivation and related activities, resulting in significant public outcry about odor, quality of life and health concerns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors suspend all County unpermitted cannabis operations until proof of odor control at the boundary of their operation is accepted by the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission.
F12:
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors does not have a written Code of Ethics to formalize its ethical standards and guide its decision making processes.
Related Recommendations (4)
R12a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors establish, staff and empower an independent Ethics Commission with oversight over the Board and its staff members.
R12b:
That the independent Ethics Commission develop a Code of Ethics, review Board activities on a periodic and as needed basis for compliance, and share its findings with the public.
R12c:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors require all its members to publicly disclose receipt of campaign contributions from donors who have matters pending a decision by the Board.
R12d:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors require those members receiving campaign contributions from donors with matters pending a decision, to recuse themselves from those matters or return the campaign contributions. This report was issued by the Grand Jury with the exception of a grand juror who wanted to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest. That grand juror was excluded from all parts of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, and the writing and approval of this report.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
No comprehensive database exists to identify gangs and gang membership.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, the Probation Department, the District Attorney and the police departments of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Guadalupe and Lompoc pool their resources to establish a comprehensive data base that includes a gang roster across jurisdictions.
F2:
The number of programs available to at-risk youth, including those through the Santa Barbara County Probation Department, is declining.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to reestablish youth programs including the after-school programs.
F3:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department disbanded its gang unit in 2017.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff organize and fund a gang unit within the next budget cycle to address gang activity in Santa Barbara County and its contract cities.
F4:
Students in middle schools and elementary schools are increasingly recruited into gangs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Superintendent of Education assist elementary and middle schools in instituting and renewing programs that dissuade students from gang membership and provide alternatives.
F5:
A wide variety of vocational, educational and counseling programs are offered at Los Prietos Boys Camp for at-risk youth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors support the Santa Barbara County Probation Department in continuing the programs at Los Prietos Boys Camp and extending them into the community.
F6:
Gang activities cross jurisdictional boundaries of local law enforcement agencies.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6a:
That the Santa Barbara County District Attorney form a consortium including the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, the Santa Barbara County Probation Department and the Police Departments of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Lompoc and Guadalupe to hire a full-time crime analyst and share data to reduce gang crime.
R6b:
That the Santa Barbara County District Attorney form a consortium including the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, the Santa Barbara County Probation Department and the Police Departments of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Lompoc and Guadalupe and hire staff that would apply for grants to fund anti-gang programs.
F7:
The Lompoc Police Department’s radio system is not secure and gang members are able to listen to police communications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Lompoc City Council fund a new and secure radio system for the Lompoc Police Department.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1a:
Residents who do not comprehend either English or Spanish are at risk of not understanding PSPS warnings.
F1b:
Residents whose electricity accounts are held by landlords or property managers are at risk of not receiving the PSPS warnings sent by their power company.
F2:
Residents who depend on electricity for vital medical devices or to keep medications refrigerated may not receive the PSPS or emergency notifications intended for them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct and fund the Office of Emergency Management and the Department of Public Health to identify individuals dependent on electricity for essential medical needs.
F3:
Residents who depend on electricity for essential medical devices, keeping medications refrigerated, or other vital needs may not be able to carry out the PSPS or emergency recommendations intended for them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct and fund the Office of Emergency Management and the Department of Public Health to ensure the access of individuals dependent on electricity for survival to the supplies and locations recommended for them on County websites.
F4:
Santa Barbara County's emergency information and advice for the public is scattered over several websites, which are not coordinated, infrequently updated, sometimes confusing, and may not link to each other.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct and fund the Office of Emergency Management to ensure that all County websites providing emergency information are coordinated, easy to understand and navigate, regularly updated, and use clear links to each other to make all information readily accessible.
F5:
PSPS decisions are made entirely by the power companies without input from public agencies and elected officials until after the shutdown ends, via the California Public Utilities Commission.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors publicly urge the State of California legislature to require local governmental input into PSPS decisions before they are announced and carried out.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There has often been criticism by those that interact with the Community Development Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to develop and present a series of public workshops to explain its processes and procedures and address questions and concerns from the public. Americans with Disabilities Act
F2:
The length of time to get a permit issued by the Community Development Department can be discouragingly long.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to establish and adhere to reasonable definitive timelines for issuing permits.
F3:
There is a perception by many who interact with the Community Development Department that some staff do not favor growth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department leadership team to collaborate with staff to help shift its culture from a perceived slow growth approach to a dynamic growth approach.
F4:
There is a lack of coordination and communication and an inefficient work flow between the Planning and Building and Safety Divisions within the Community Development Department.
Related Recommendations (5)
R4a:
That the City of Santa Barbara share the results of the “Land Development and Construction Permitting Workflow and Organizational Study” with the Community Development Department staff and direct that the Department implement appropriate recommendations for reorganization and streamlining in a timely manner.
R4b:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to consider consolidating all Building and Zoning ministerial approval processes under one staff team, with one manager and budget.
R4c:
That, if Recommendation 4b cannot be implemented, the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to do building and zoning review and approval before a building permit application is accepted.
R4d:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Planning and Building and Safety Division leaders to brief their employees on each other’s functions, so there is a better understanding of where and why they need to coordinate.
R4e:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department leadership team to make promotion of teamwork as a part of every Community Development Department annual employee performance review.
F5:
A morale problem exists in the Community Development Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to hire an outside consultant to identify causes for low morale, and recommend solutions for improving working conditions, teamwork and employee-management relations.
F6:
The current City of Santa Barbara’s permitting fee structure discourages development.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6a:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department leadership to review and analyze its permit fee structure to determine if there are acceptable ways to lower fees, create additional incentives or both to offset costs.
R6b:
That the City of Santa Barbara fund some costs of the Community Development Department and eliminate the need for the department to be self-sustaining.
F7:
There is ineffective oversight and leadership from upper management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to hire an outside consultant to work with upper management to improve management and oversight skills.
F8:
There is inadequate staff training in the Community Development Department.
Related Recommendations (3)
R8a:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to review and update the training requirements, including customer service, for each position within the department.
R8b:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to develop comprehensive training programs for all staff positions with target dates to complete new, refresher and cross training.
R8c:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to develop a strong mentoring program within the Department.
F9:
There is inconsistent application of building codes in the Community Development Department.
Related Recommendations (3)
R9a:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to develop, conduct and update building code training sessions for all Department employees that have occasion to use or apply codes, with refreshers when there are code changes.
R9b:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department upper management to identify a building code expert from within the Department who can answer employee technical questions and settle in a timely manner any internal application issues that might arise.
R9c:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department upper management to ensure that all building codes are interpreted consistently.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The current building, constructed in 1987 and adapted to be the Sheriff-Coroner’s Bureau in 1988, does not meet National Association of Medical Examiners standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors allocate funding for a facility specifically designed as a Coroner’s Bureau, built to meet the current recommended standards of the National Association of Medical Examiners.
F2:
There is one autopsy room, no toxicology lab and no isolation room dedicated to handle high risk cases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors specify that the Coroner’s facility be designed with two autopsy rooms, a toxicology lab, an isolation room, and a refrigeration room.
F3:
Discharged air from the autopsy room ventilation system is not monitored, resulting in air-borne pathogens being discharged to the atmosphere.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner monitor discharged air and ensure that no air- borne pathogens are discharged into the atmosphere.
F4:
The bodies are placed in the refrigeration room in body bags and stored on racks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner provide a more modern method of body storage such as refrigerated drawers.
F5:
An industrial scale is located outside the Sheriff-Coroner’s building.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner install a body scale within the Sheriff-Coroner’s building to determine accurate weight, without consideration of the weight of the body bag or the gurney.
F6:
There is no stainless steel dissecting table with wash down equipment in the autopsy room.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner install a stainless steel dissecting table with dedicated drainage in the autopsy room.
F7:
The residue from autopsies drains into a sink, which is discharged into the public sewer system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner handle residue from autopsies as biological hazardous waste.
F8:
All instruments are manually cleaned with soap and water. This is a safety hazard and cross- contamination between autopsies cannot be avoided.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner install an autoclave to ensure all instruments are sterilized after cleaning.
F9:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner’s Bureau is not accredited by the National Association of Medical Examiners.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors require that the Sheriff-Coroner’s Bureau meet the standards for accreditation set by the National Association of Medical Examiners and the National Academy of Sciences, as recommended by the U.S. Department of Justice.
F10:
In Santa Barbara County, the Sheriff is also the Coroner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors separate the Santa Barbara County Coroner position and make it independent from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff when the current Sheriff-Coroner’s term expires.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Main Jail is outdated and in need of seismic and ADA compliance.
F2:
The Main Jail is overcrowded. This overcrowding situation may be partially alleviated by the opening of the Northern Branch Jail.
F3:
The Main Jail is understaffed.
F4:
There are no body scanners to detect dangerous contraband.
F5:
Surveillance camera positions do not provide complete coverage of inmate cell activity.
F6:
The inmate transportation fleet is old and unreliable.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department add an external security camera monitoring system.
R2:
That the Sheriff consider making space available for face-to-face personal visits at the Northern Branch Jail.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors allocate sufficient funding to the Sheriff’s office specifically for the purpose of hiring additional custody deputies.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department purchase and install a body scanning system immediately to intercept contraband at the Main Jail.
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department review camera coverage to make sure that each camera is providing the custody deputies full views of the cells.
R6:
That the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff consider funding for upgrade and replacement of the inmate transportation fleet within two years. 1.2 Santa Barbara County Northern Branch Jail The Northern Branch Jail in Santa Maria is being built to alleviate the overcrowding of the Main Jail as well as improving transportation efficiency. The Northern Branch Jail is an improvement in the County’s detention space, and the extra 376 beds should reduce the County’s current inmate overcrowding. A staff of 90 custody deputies will monitor the inmates. It will provide an environment that addresses safety, promotes ADA compliance, and also provides enhanced medical and mental health facilities. Construction of the new Jail was approved by the Board of Supervisors in June 2016. The Jail was originally scheduled to open in September 2018. At the time of this report the construction completion date was estimated to be May 2020, a 20-month delay. This significant delay was due to a combination of factors including a delay in the signing of the earth-moving contract, unusually wet weather, design and regulatory changes, the bankruptcy of the lead architectural firm, delays in contractor work execution, and quality deficiencies. Inmate occupancy must take place within 90 days of the facility opening. The facility is currently planned to accommodate 376 rated beds with a staff of 90 custody deputies. Once occupied, this additional inmate capacity should ease the Main Jail overcrowding problem. The construction costs for the Northern Branch Jail were originally budgeted at $67 million on March 31, 2016. Amoroso Construction was awarded the winning bid of $77,720,000 on April 7, 2016.1 In June 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved the current budget of $110,857,243, to be offset with $80.0 million from the State of California. Due to project delays, unanticipated change orders, and other issues, “the final total costs of the project are now estimated to increase from the original amount of $110.8 million to a total ranging between $119.0 million and $121.0 million, which is an increase of $8.2 million to $10.2 million or 7% to 9% increase in overall project costs.”2 1 Kitchell – Construction Management and Commissioning, Northern Branch Jail Project - Bid Package 1, April 7, 2016 2 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Agenda, March 17, 2020, D1) Hearing - Consider recommendations regarding Northern Branch Jail (NBJ) Construction Costs, In May 2013, Rosser International, Inc. (Rosser) entered into a Professional Services Agreement with the County to provide architectural, engineering and related professional design services for the Northern Branch Jail Project. In June 2019, Rosser informed the County that it was going out of business, stopped working on the project, and ceased all performance of its contracted duties for the Northern Branch Jail Project. In July 2019, the County filed cost recovery litigation against Rosser to recover or mitigate the related added project costs. Overall, the Grand Jury found the facility to be impressive, with a modern architectural plan taking advantage of current technologies. The Northern Branch Jail is designed with thermal and recycled water efficiencies. While the new Jail has adequate backup plans in the event of power failures, the facility does not have a solar system that could provide longer-term coverage and cost savings. The building is designed to help normalize social relations by direct supervision. A custody deputy will be in the housing unit with the inmates. The deputy can model positive behavior and intervene quickly and effectively if there is trouble. The Jury noted that the exercise facilities for cell modules were limited in size. Considering the potentially long sentences for some inmates, these small enclosures are inadequate. The inmate entrance to the facility will have a body scanner system capability planned to reduce contraband. Personal visitations will be performed exclusively via video screens from booths. There will be larger rooms available for a family unification process planned to prepare inmates for reentry into society once sentences are completed. When inmate sentences are completed and they are released, there is no transportation available to a Santa Maria city center location, which is more than ten miles away. This is important considering the 24-hour release schedule and the distance from the Northern Branch Jail to the Santa Maria city center. The Sheriff’s Office liaison, County General Services managers, and escort custody deputies were enthusiastic, well-informed, courteous, professional and optimistic about the positive impact this new state-of-the-art facility will make for the County.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There is a shortage of low and middle-income housing units in the City of Santa Barbara.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara City Council develop and implement a plan for the creation of low and middle-income housing units.
F2:
The Santa Barbara City Council has not identified permanent sources of funding to facilitate the development of low and middle-income housing units.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara City Council obtain or create continuous reliable sources of funding to facilitate the development of low and middle-income housing units.
F3:
The Santa Barbara City Council has not identified publicly owned properties that would be appropriate for low and middle-income housing units.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara City Council identify and obtain publicly owned properties that would be appropriate for low and middle-income housing units.
F4:
The Santa Barbara City Council delayed development of Accessory Dwelling Units despite the directives set by the State of California.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara City Council fully implement the State of California directives related to Accessory Dwelling Units.
F5:
The Santa Barbara City Council has failed in recent years to require inclusionary or low and middle-income housing units when approving housing developments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara City Council require inclusionary or low and middle-income housing units when approving housing projects with ten units or more.
F6:
The City of Santa Barbara does not utilize form-based zoning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Santa Barbara City Council instruct the Community Development Department to bring to the City Council recommendations for adoption of an ordinance for form-based zoning.
F7:
The City of Santa Barbara’s zoning ordinance does not adequately allow for consideration of cost effective alternative building types, such as modular housing, small homes, and 3-D printed housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Santa Barbara City Council instruct the Community Development Department to revise the zoning ordinance to allow for cost effective alternative building types, such as modular housing, small homes, and 3-D printed housing.
F8:
The City of Santa Barbara does not maximize the use of multi-use zoning in all parts of the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That the Santa Barbara City Council instruct the Community Development Department to bring to the City Council recommendations for adoption of an ordinance that amends the zoning code to allow for multi-use zoning in all parts of the City.
F9:
The City of Santa Barbara has not maximized the use of subsidies, lower fees or incentives to encourage builders to construct low and middle-income housing units.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That the Santa Barbara City Council develop and implement a plan to lower costs for development of inclusionary or low or middle-income housing units through the use of subsidies, lower fees or incentives.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
There is a need for greater transparency, understanding and accountability of homeless related expenditures and the results.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department to publish an annual report of homeless related expenditures and outcomes.
R1b:
That the City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, Solvang, Buellton, Lompoc, Guadalupe, and Carpinteria publish an annual report of their homeless related expenditures and outcomes.
F2:
Permanent Supportive Housing for the most vulnerable homeless is lacking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, Solvang, Buellton, Lompoc, Guadalupe, and Carpinteria develop plans and devise mechanisms for providing ways to build permanent supportive housing for our most vulnerable homeless populations.
F3:
State and federal funding that is granted to Santa Barbara County does not sufficiently support the mandate for housing the homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, Solvang, Buellton, Lompoc, Guadalupe, and Carpinteria identify funding mechanisms, including, but not limited to, bond issues, dedicated taxing, a designated budgetary line item and strong philanthropic partnerships, for housing the homeless.
F4:
Elected City and County leaders have not exhibited aggressive leadership in determining the availability of sites in their jurisdictions for housing the homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, Solvang, Buellton, Lompoc, Guadalupe, and Carpinteria designate and facilitate building of housing for the homeless on sites within their jurisdictions.
F5:
A greater effort is needed to inform and include the public regarding the needs of the homeless for housing and services and how it can appropriately fit into neighborhoods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, Solvang, Buellton, Lompoc, Guadalupe, and Carpinteria be more proactive in informing the public of the needs of the homeless for housing and services and how it can appropriately fit into neighborhoods by holding forums and conducting tours of existing facilities to educate the residents whose neighborhoods are proposed for the development of projects for the homeless.
F6:
There are no elected leaders serving as voting members of the Santa Barbara County Continuum of Care Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Community Services Department to work with the Continuum of Care Board to develop a procedure for including elected leaders as voting members of the Continuum of Care Board.
F7:
A conflict of interest exists within the membership of the Continuum of Care Board as the member organizations who seek funding for their projects are permitted to vote and grant funding for their own projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Community Services Department and the Santa Barbara County Counsel to work with the Continuum of Care Board to change the procedures for the voting process on the Continuum of Care Board to eliminate the perceived conflict of interest.
F8:
All overnight emergency shelters are at capacity year-round, there are not enough day centers, and there are currently no Navigation Centers in Santa Barbara County.
Related Recommendations (3)
R8a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, Solvang, Buellton, Lompoc, Guadalupe, and Carpinteria work together to create overnight emergency shelters commensurate with their homeless populations.
R8b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, Solvang, Buellton, Lompoc, Guadalupe, and Carpinteria work together to create day centers commensurate with their homeless populations.
R8c:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, Solvang, Buellton, Lompoc, Guadalupe, and Carpinteria fund and expedite the development and opening of more shelters incorporating the Navigation Center concept.
F9:
Currently, several California cities are providing temporary homeless facilities by utilizing alternative cost-effective forms of housing such as high-performance tension fabric structures, tiny houses, and modular housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, Solvang, Buellton, Lompoc, Guadalupe, and Carpinteria undertake feasibility studies and develop plans for using alternate types of cost-effective forms of housing.
F10:
Currently, in some California cities, large health care insurers are utilizing their tax credits to fund housing facilities for the chronically homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, Solvang, Buellton, Lompoc, Guadalupe, and Carpinteria contact major health care insurers in their jurisdictions and encourage them to seek partnerships to support the construction of housing for the chronically homeless of Santa Barbara County.
F11:
Housing First’s wraparound services concept necessitates an increased staff-to-client ratio.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors provide the Behavioral Wellness Department with additional continuous funding to ensure the needed staff-to-client ratios in the County supportive housing facilities.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Ensuring critical cyber security tasks and activities are properly executed on a timely basis requires a designated individual to be accountable and responsible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County designate an individual to be accountable and responsible to oversee cyber security.
F2:
Most public entities within Santa Barbara County have an inadequate understanding of what communication and electronic systems they use and what data they maintain, and do not fully understand the risks, security issues and costs associated with the destruction of systems or loss of data.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County complete a full inventory of their data, electronic and communication systems and determine the related security risks.
F3:
Some public entities within Santa Barbara County do not have a written cyber security plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County establish a written cyber security plan. Wany Zhao and Gregory White, “A collaborative information sharing framework for community cyber security,” published in Homeland Security (HST), 2012 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST), November 13-15, 2012
F4:
Nationally, cyber-attacks on governmental organizations have been successful for many years and are occurring with more frequency and sophistication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County take substantial steps to protect data from internal and external attacks or threats.
F5:
Cyber-attackers use a number of methods to install malicious software on systems including access through backdoors, staff or employee carelessness, and known bugs in software.
Related Recommendations (4)
R5a:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County install and maintain current antivirus software to detect malware and other threats.
R5b:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County install and update all operating software regularly.
R5c:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County periodically train employees and then test their cyber security awareness.
R5d:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County periodically ensure electronic system-related contractors have been trained for cyber security awareness.
F6:
If data is lost or compromised for any reason, including cyber-attack, mechanical failure or error, the most cost effective and expedient way to recover is to have current data backups and a plan to reinstall it.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6a:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County create and implement a full backup and recovery plan.
R6b:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County regularly update and test their backup and recovery plan.
F7:
Some public entities within Santa Barbara County do not have any, or adequate, cyber insurance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County secure adequate cyber insurance.
F8:
A cost-effective method to address cyber risks and concerns is to form an information sharing and learning consortium.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County that is unable to allocate adequate funds for cyber security develop a cybersecurity working group to establish best practices and share costs for education, expertise, and insurance.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Eighty-five percent of railroad-related deaths occurring in Santa Barbara County were pedestrian trespasser incidents that occurred in the High Fatality Zone One from Ortega Hill in Summerland to Milpas Street in Santa Barbara and High Fatality Zone Two from Patterson Avenue to Glen Annie Road in Goleta.
F2:
A sealed corridor has been used effectively to enhance railroad safety.
F3:
There is a need for increased security presence to reduce trespassing within the High Fatality Zones, and in other communities this has been achieved through Memoranda of Understanding between Union Pacific Railroad and local law enforcement.
F4:
Fencing along the railroad right-of-way in the High Fatality Zones is inadequate or nonexistent.
F5:
Overgrown foliage and trees provide a natural shelter for homeless encampments.
F6:
Video surveillance cameras provide increased observation of activity by pedestrian trespassers and homeless encampments within the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta, the County of Santa Barbara and Santa Barbara County Association of Governments meet regularly with Union Pacific Railroad to create a safety plan to reduce trespasser deaths in High Fatality Zones.
R2:
That the Cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta, the County of Santa Barbara, and Santa Barbara County Association of Governments collaborate with Union Pacific Railroad to develop a sealed corridor from Ortega Hill in Summerland to Glen Annie Road in Goleta.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff and City of Santa Barbara Police Department negotiate Memoranda of Understanding with Union Pacific Railroad to provide enhanced security within their respective High Fatality Zones.
R4:
That the Cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta, the County of Santa Barbara, and Santa Barbara County Association of Governments collaborate with Union Pacific Railroad to repair and install fencing, to prevent easy access to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way in the High Fatality Zones.
R5:
That the County of Santa Barbara and the Cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta encourage Union Pacific Railroad to cut back or remove overgrown trees and foliage within the Union Pacific Railroad right-of- way in the High Fatality Zones.
R6a:
That the Cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta, the County of Santa Barbara, and Santa Barbara County Association of Governments encourage Union Pacific Railroad to install and monitor video surveillance cameras on poles every mile within the High Fatality Zone.
R6b:
That County of Santa Barbara and the Cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta, together with Union Pacific Railroad, establish a schedule to monitor the video surveillance cameras between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There are no Crisis Stabilization Units for children and youth in Santa Barbara County as an alternative to out-of-county hospitalizations.
F2:
There are no licensed Temporary Shelter Care Facilities for children and youth in Santa Barbara County as an alternative to out-of-county hospitalizations.
F3:
The crisis call-in phone service and mobile crisis staff of both the contracted provider SAFTY and the Department of Behavioral Wellness’ ACCESS 24/7 Mobile Crisis teams often do not respond to the scene of a crisis or return phone calls in a timely manner.
F4:
The SAFTY mobile crisis workers do not write 5585 holds in a timely manner because they lack authority to do so without first consulting a supervisor.
F5:
The Department of Behavioral Wellness does not keep readily accessible data on the numbers of children on 5585 holds hospitalized out of County, where they are sent, their length of stay in each facility, and the cost of their treatment.
F6:
The Children’s Triage Program staff interacts with children and youth in crisis and their families in the Emergency Rooms and works to ensure community re-integration and linkage to behavioral health services upon discharge from the ER or psychiatric hospitals.
F7:
On-line, comprehensive information on mental health services, community supports and resources for children and youth who are experiencing a crisis in Santa Barbara County is not readily available on a central website.
F8:
Wellpath medical staff and Sheriff custody staff responding to the “man down” announcement was unaware of the location of life-saving resuscitation equipment and that it was not functional.
F9:
The Jail is operating without National Commission on Correctional Heath Care (NCCHC) accreditation, contrary to the contract requirement.
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Behavioral Wellness to pursue the establishment of a licensed Crisis Stabilization Unit that can accommodate adults, children and youth in Santa Maria.
R2:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Behavioral Wellness to explore partnerships with community agencies to sponsor and maintain licensed Temporary Shelter Care Facilities for children and youth in Santa Barbara County.
R3:
That the Sheriff require the current contract health care provider, Wellpath, to assure that its staff adhere to all policies, procedures, and contractual obligations regarding the assessment of the medical/mental health status of arrestees upon their arrival at the Jail.
R3a:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Behavioral Wellness to establish and implement measurable response times, and to track and evaluate the efficacy of their crisis response services.
R3b:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Behavioral Wellness to require its contracted partner SAFTY to respond in the field for face-to-face evaluations more quickly and frequently.
R4:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Behavioral Wellness to require the crisis response staff of their contracted partner, SAFTY, to receive more training to acquire the authority to write 5585 holds independently and in a timely manner.
R5:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Behavioral Wellness to design and implement a computerized record of the 5585 holds that are written, where the children are hospitalized out of County, their length of stay in each facility, and the cost of their treatment.
R6:
That the Sheriff require custody staff to receive continued training regarding policies and procedures to be followed in a “man down” situation, particularly to assure proper management and control of the scene and to release personnel no longer needed there.
R6a:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Behavioral Wellness to evaluate the efficacy of the new Crisis Triage Program by keeping statistics on the number of children served and process outcomes.
R6b:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Behavioral Wellness to continue to pursue the full implementation of the Children’s Triage Program in South County.
R6c:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Behavioral Wellness to integrate the funding of the Children’s Triage Program into the Department of Behavioral Wellness budget on an ongoing basis.
R7:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Behavioral Wellness to design, post and keep current an on-line dashboard that provides comprehensive contact information on mental health services and community resources for children and youth in all geographic areas of Santa Barbara County, and publicize this resource to the community at large.
R8:
That the Sheriff require Wellpath to inspect, repair and replace emergency life-saving equipment on a regular schedule; maintain a service log; and train custody staff regarding the location of life-saving equipment.
R9:
That the Board of Supervisors closely examine the provisions of the existing medical provider contract and enforce all of the current provider’s obligations, especially with regard to the continuing failure to obtain National Commission on Correctional Heath Care (NCCHC) accreditation for the Jail.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
B1 was accepted into the Main Jail despite his potentially life-threatening condition and inability to walk.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff enforce the policy regarding not admitting inmates to the Main Jail with life threatening medical conditions.
F2:
When the on-call physician was unable to be reached on April 12, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., the inmate was not transferred to the local hospital emergency room.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff require all medical staff be instructed to transfer inmates to the local hospital emergency room when there is an emergency that is a life threatening or serious injury or illness and the on-call physician does not respond.
F3:
When the blood sugar level was determined to be 587mg/dl at 5:00 p.m., and the on-call physician did not respond, the inmate was not sent to the emergency room.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff ensure that medical staff follow policy and procedures when the on-call physician does not respond.
F4:
When Wellpath personnel responded to a man down emergency, they did not bring an emergency kit to the scene.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff ensure that Wellpath personnel bring an emergency kit whenever they respond to a man down notification. 3.0 C1 Death in Custody June 25, 2019 C1 was arrested and booked at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail on April 10, 2018. C1 remained in custody and unsentenced while his court date was continued 25 times. The Jury questioned why C1 was held 14 months awaiting trial. The 6th amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees a speedy trial and California Penal Code Section 1382 dictates that unless waived a person charged with a felony be brought to trial within 60 days. The date of arrest on both the Sheriff’s letter to the Jury and the Coroner’s report incorrectly state 2019, giving the false impression that his incarceration was two months rather than fourteen months. C1 had a decades-long history of prior arrests, detention, and mental health issues with suicidal ideations. C1 was evaluated by a Wellpath psychiatrist in August of 2018, diagnosed with schizophrenia, and prescribed antipsychotic medications. Within five days, C1 was noncompliant and stopped taking prescribed medications, and there was no follow-up. A January 2019 assault at the Main Jail resulted in orbital and nasal fractures. It was reported to the custody deputies on June 25, 2019, that C1 was accused by fellow inmates of being a child molester, which he denied. On the same day at approximately 1:00 p.m., C1 was removed from his cell by a custody deputy after arguments among inmates. He was handcuffed, removed from his housing unit and displayed combative behavior toward a neighboring inmate. He was placed in the temporary cell Front Central C-14 at 1:11 p.m. The handcuffs were removed. The video provided to the Jury shows C1 began pacing in the cell. C1 requested to be assigned to a cell alone for permanent placement. C1 was advised Wellpath mental health (MH) would be contacted to meet with him prior to rehousing. The Custody Deputy stated he contacted MH and informed the clinician of his conversation with C1. Later that day at 1:34 p.m., C1 asked a MH clinician walking by his cell for help with housing and stated he would kill himself if he did not get a cell alone. At the end of their conversation, C1 denied any suicidal or homicidal intention. The same MH clinician determined C1 was not a danger to himself. This MH clinician, the last person to speak with C1 minutes prior to his hanging, stated in an interview that they are not required to inform a supervisor or custody personnel upon hearing a patient make a suicidal statement. Shortly thereafter, at 1:51 p.m., C1 took off his T-shirt and is shown on video experimenting by tying it at varying heights on the bars of his cell. At 1:59 p.m. C1 was standing normally in his cell, with the T-shirt tied to the bar, as a Custody Deputy walked by. At 2:01 p.m., C1 secured the T-shirt, tied at chest height, around his neck. At 2:13 p.m., C1 was discovered hanging by a Custody Deputy. He was cut down and life-saving measures were initiated. No carotid pulse or vital signs were detected. CPR was administered and the AED indicated no shock was needed, as a pulse was detected. AMR and Fire Department personnel arrived at approximately 2:23 p.m., and C1 was removed at 2:30 p.m. on a backboard and taken to Cottage Hospital. On June 30, 2019, C1 was removed from life-support equipment at Cottage Hospital with his family at his bedside. In its investigation the Jury discovered that 28 of 48 interviews regarding C1’s hanging in his cell omitted the date and time the witness was interviewed. Some interviews occurred in September, more than two months after the event.
F5:
An inmate suicide threat was not reported to a supervisor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff ensure that all detention facility personnel inform their supervisor of any threats of suicide.
F6:
C1’s mental illness was not reevaluated for the ten months prior to his suicide.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors provide psychiatric services to better serve mentally ill inmates in detention. 4.0 D1 Death in Custody October 31, 2019 D1 was arrested on October 19, 2019 by the Lompoc Police Department on a violation of felony probation charge. On October 20, 2019 D1 was booked into the Main Jail and the medical intake screening was completed. D1 claimed to be suffering from mood disorders, anxiety and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), but claimed no drug or alcohol use. The records provided to the Jury did not show whether his previous booking records were reviewed. A thorough review of prior booking assessments would have revealed a history of drug use and suicidal ideations. An initial mental health assessment was attempted, but D1 refused services and no referral to a psychiatrist was made. D1 complained of withdrawal symptoms to the custody staff on October 23, 2019. The Jury learned custody staff later referred him to the medical staff where he was assessed and placed on a Benzodiazepine protocol. Later, he refused monitoring and appropriate medications. On October 23, 2019, D1 attempted to exit the facility by attempting multiple times to walk past Custody Deputies as they were serving meals. He was medically evaluated and cleared. He was then rehoused to cell IRC100-113 which contained a wall phone that had a long cord to the receiver. D1 was referred to Mental Health for evaluation because of demonstrated bizarre behavior. He was not seen that day and placed on “welfare check” for the next day by Mental Health. On October 31, 2019 at approximately 11:15 a.m., D1 committed suicide in his cell by wrapping a phone cord around his neck and dropping his feet out from under his body. When D1 was discovered, a custody deputy placed the pads from an AED device on D1’s chest. An RN arrived and checked for breathing and pulse and found none. CPR was then administered by several deputies, pausing only to allow the AED to check the patient. The deputies reported that the AED never gave the order to administer a shock. At 11:28 a.m., medics from the Santa Barbara County Fire Department arrived and took over CPR. At 11:50 a.m., D1 was pronounced dead. The required Responder Defibrillator Report was not found in the files provided to the Jury. In addition, during the incident one of the medical staff heard a Code 33 on the radio, thus knowing that this was an emergency but not knowing what type of emergency.
F7:
The radio call of Code 33 did not identify the nature of the emergency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff direct all radio calls for medical emergencies be in plain language, including details of the symptoms encountered such as suicide by hanging, bleeding wounds, suspected overdose, etc.
F8:
The required Responder Defibrillator (AED) Report was not found in the files provided to the Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff ensure that Wellpath test all AEDs monthly and after each use and keep logs of the dates of these checks.