Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
2020-2021
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.
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
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.
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.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct and fund the Office of Emergency Management to update and improve its contact lists and communication methods to maximize the likelihood that all residents will receive the PSPS warnings or advice they need.
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.
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. 69
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.
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.
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.
F2:
There is one autopsy room, no toxicology lab and no isolation room dedicated to handle high risk cases.
F3:
Discharged air from the autopsy room ventilation system is not monitored, resulting in air-borne pathogens being discharged to the atmosphere.
F4:
The bodies are placed in the refrigeration room in body bags and stored on racks.
F5:
An industrial scale is located outside the Sheriff-Coroner’s building.
F6:
There is no stainless steel dissecting table with wash down equipment in the autopsy room.
F7:
The residue from autopsies drains into a sink, which is discharged into the public sewer system.
F8:
All instruments are manually cleaned with soap and water. This is a safety hazard and cross- contamination between autopsies cannot be avoided.
F9:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner’s Bureau is not accredited by the National Association of Medical Examiners. 45
F10:
In Santa Barbara County, the Sheriff is also the Coroner.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
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.
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. 44
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner monitor discharged air and ensure that no air- borne pathogens are discharged into the atmosphere.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner provide a more modern method of body storage such as refrigerated drawers.
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.
R6:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner install a stainless steel dissecting table with dedicated drainage in the autopsy room.
R7:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner handle residue from autopsies as biological hazardous waste.
R8:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner install an autoclave to ensure all instruments are sterilized after cleaning.
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.
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.
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.
F2:
Permanent Supportive Housing for the most vulnerable homeless is lacking.
F3:
State and federal funding that is granted to Santa Barbara County does not sufficiently support the mandate 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.
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.
F6:
There are no elected leaders serving as voting members of the Santa Barbara County 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.
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. 103
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.
F10:
Currently, in some California cities, large health care insurers are utilizing their tax credits to fund housing facilities for the chronically homeless.
F11:
Housing First’s wraparound services concept necessitates an increased staff-to-client ratio.
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
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.
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.
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. 102
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 104
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.
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.
F3:
Some public entities within Santa Barbara County do not have a written cyber security plan.
F4:
Nationally, cyber-attacks on governmental organizations have been successful for many years and are occurring with more frequency and sophistication.
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.
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.
F7:
Some public entities within Santa Barbara County do not have any, or adequate, cyber insurance.
F8:
A cost-effective method to address cyber risks and concerns is to form an information sharing and learning consortium.
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County designate an individual to be accountable and responsible to oversee cyber security.
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.
R3:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County establish a written cyber security plan.
R4:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County take substantial steps to protect data from internal and external attacks or threats.
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.
R5a:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County install and maintain current antivirus software to detect malware and other threats. 16
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.
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, 2016.16 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.”17 16 Kitchell – Construction Management and Commissioning, Northern Branch Jail Project - Bid Package 1, April 7, 2016 17 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Agenda, March 17, 2020, D1) Hearing - Consider recommendations regarding Northern Branch Jail (NBJ) Construction Costs, 25 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. 26
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.
R7:
That each public entity within Santa Barbara County secure adequate cyber insurance.
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. 17
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There is a shortage of low and middle-income housing units in the City of Santa Barbara.
F2:
The Santa Barbara City Council has not identified permanent 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.
F4:
The Santa Barbara City Council delayed development of Accessory Dwelling Units despite the directives set by the State of California.
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.
F6:
The City of Santa Barbara does not utilize 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.
F8:
The City of Santa Barbara does not maximize the use of 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.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara City Council develop and implement a plan for the creation of low and middle-income housing units.
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.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara City Council identify and obtain publicly owned properties that would be appropriate for low and middle-income housing units.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara City Council fully implement the State of California directives related to Accessory Dwelling Units.
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. 83
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.
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.
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.
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.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
B1 was accepted into the Main Jail despite his potentially life-threatening condition and inability to walk.
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.
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.
F4:
When Wellpath personnel responded to a man down emergency, they did not bring an emergency kit to the scene.
F5:
An inmate suicide threat was not reported to a supervisor.
F6:
C1’s mental illness was not reevaluated for the ten months prior to his suicide.
F7:
The radio call of Code 33 did not identify the nature of the emergency.
F8:
The required Responder Defibrillator (AED) Report was not found in the files provided to the Jury.
F9:
The Santa Barbara County Treasurer-Tax Collector was not included in the creation of the tax portions of the cannabis 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
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.
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.
Additional Recommendations
26
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff enforce the policy regarding not admitting inmates to the Main Jail with life threatening medical conditions.
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.
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.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff ensure that medical staff follow policy and procedures when the on-call physician does not respond. 112
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.
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. 161
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff ensure that all detention facility personnel inform their supervisor of any threats of suicide. 114
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.
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.
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.
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. 116
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 162 the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19, 2016.
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.
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.
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. 165
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.
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. 163
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.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There has often been criticism by those that interact with the Community Development Department.
F2:
The length of time to get a permit issued by the Community Development Department can be discouragingly long.
F3:
There is a perception by many who interact with the Community Development Department that some staff do not favor growth.
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.
F5:
A morale problem exists in the Community Development Department.
F6:
The current City of Santa Barbara’s permitting fee structure discourages development.
F7:
There is ineffective oversight and leadership from upper management.
F8:
There is inadequate staff training in the Community Development Department.
F9:
There is inconsistent application of building codes in the Community Development Department.
Additional Recommendations
18
Not linked to specific findings.
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 51
R2:
That the City of Santa Barbara direct the Community Development Department to establish and adhere to reasonable definitive timelines for issuing permits.
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.
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. 52
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.
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.
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.
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. 53
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.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
A video arraignment program would expedite the processing of inmates through the court system and reduce holding cell overcrowding.
F2:
The Santa Barbara Court Holding Facility is often overcrowded and uses “cages” that are inhumane.
F3:
Inmates are walked across a public street between the holding facility on Figueroa Street and the historic Courthouse.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That Santa Barbara County District Attorney in partnership with the Public Defender develop and implement a video arraignment program. 4.2 Santa Barbara County Courthouse The Santa Barbara County Court Building located on Figueroa Street was constructed in 1953 and originally served as a separate municipal court. The building has been remodeled several times over the years, but the entire building still does not meet minimum safety standards. The aging building does not comply with seismic standards, nor is it ADA compliant. The building does not contain a comprehensive fire suppression system which presents a safety risk for the administrative staff, custody staff, inmates and the public The holding facility is located in the basement of the Figueroa Court Building. Detainees are regularly walked across a busy downtown Santa Barbara street from the holding facility to the main courthouse, through civilian pedestrians and traffic. The holding facility consists of eight holding cells that hold six detainees each and eight overflow “cages” that can house one prisoner each, for an official total of 56 detainees; however, the facility has held as many as 80 detainees at a time. The facility is often overcrowded, exceeding the rated capacity by a significant margin; the court dockets can request a number of detainees that almost doubles that rated capacity. The overcrowding can be compounded by the need to isolate certain inmates into their own cells for safety reasons. The eight individual holding “cages” are extremely small (approximately 3’ x 3’ x 6’), would not accommodate a medium or larger person, are inhumane, and are being used regularly to deal with the overcrowding situation. A video arraignment program could reduce bus transportation issues, holding cell overcrowding, court appearance scheduling, and eliminate the use of “cages.” There is a lack of air-conditioning and sufficient ventilation in the holding area. Also, a small staff video room is cramped and the only air movement is from two fans that circulate air. The holding facility meets acceptable standards of cleanliness and routine maintenance. The custody staff is well trained and professional. They demonstrated a positive attitude and concern for the inmates.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department develop and implement a video arraignment program to reduce overcrowding and the use of “cages.”
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriffs’ Department transfer inmates in vehicles to the historic Courthouse for greater safety. 4.3 Lompoc This facility was built in 1999 and is conveniently located adjacent to the Lompoc Courthouse and Lompoc Police Department. There are five cells, three of which are used to separate inmates who cannot be housed with others due to gender, medical or other reasons, for a total rated capacity of 30. Additionally, there are three holding “cages” for inmates that require separation or for overflow. The three holding “cages” are extremely small and inhumane. The facility is routinely overcrowded when court is in session. There is video monitoring of the cells, but no recording capability. Although the holding facility meets acceptable standards of cleanliness, the facility shows signs of needed maintenance. For example, there is graffiti etched in doors, painted surfaces and interview room windows, and cement benches in the cells are cracked. There are three staffing deputies, two full-time and one part-time. Staff are well trained and maintain a positive attitude, including professional concern for inmates.