Santa Barbara County Grand Jury

2024-2025

11 reports

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (11)
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: To their detriment, female inmates have fewer work opportunities than male inmates in preparing them for life outside jail.
F2: College classes are not available at the Main Jail to the same extent that they are available at the Northern Branch Jail, depriving women at the Main Jail of equivalent educational opportunities.
F3: Women inmates are receptive to therapy and self-improvement groups. While the Sheriff's Treatment Program is available at both of the County's jails, the activities provided by community organizations—such as yoga, book clubs, and mutual-support recovery groups—vary between the two facilities.
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office provide work detail opportunities to female inmates at both of the County's jails in crews that allow for a more flexible number of women. To be implemented by January 1, 2026.
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff's Office expand current educational and vocational course offerings at the Main Jail in cooperation with local colleges. To be implemented by January 1, 2026.
R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office expand its efforts to make more community-provided self-improvement and therapy programs available to educate and motivate inmates at both jails, including the women.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Since the City of Santa Barbara’s adoption of the new e-bike ordinance, Santa Barbara Police Department officers now have broad discretion in responding to unsafe behavior by e-bike riders, but, as a general principle, behavioral change requires a strategic and consistent approach.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council encourage the Santa Barbara Police Department to establish a plan to strategically and consistently focus enforcement efforts in high-traffic areas so as to achieve high visibility and have the greatest impact on behavior in enforcement operations. To be implemented by December 1, 2025. See Cal. Vehicle Code section 21214.5, subdivision (f), and section 21214.7, subdivision (e).
R1b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council require the Santa Barbara Police Department to give the Council monthly reports on the number and severity of e-bike-involved accidents in the City of Santa Barbara, as well as the number of citations issued. To be implemented by December 1, 2025.
R1c: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council make available to the public these monthly reports on the number and severity of e-bike-involved accidents in the City of Santa Barbara, as well as the number of citations issued. To be implemented by December 1, 2025.
F2: The Santa Barbara City Council has tasked the Police Department and its officers with additional responsibilities related to enforcement of the new e-bike ordinance but has not provided additional funding to support those purposes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council conduct a study to determine how much new funding for this additional police work is needed. To be completed by April 1, 2026.
F3: The City of Santa Barbara has initiated only a limited public information campaign about the new e-bike ordinance now in effect, thus limiting awareness of the ordinance.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council initiate an expanded and long-term public information campaign to inform and educate the public about the City’s new e-bike rules. To be implemented by December 1, 2025.
R3b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council invite the cooperation and participation of secondary schools in the Santa Barbara Unified School District, private organizations that are involved in e-bike education, neighboring cities including Goleta, and local businesses for expanded public outreach on e-bike safety and laws now in effect.
F4: The Santa Barbara Police Department has recently expanded its outreach in Santa Barbara Unified School District to instruct students in e-bike safety and laws, which is a positive development. 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. REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit. Responses to Findings shall be either: - Agree - Disagree with an explanation - Disagree partially with an explanation Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: - Has been implemented, with a summary of the implementation actions taken - Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule - Requires further analysis, with an analysis completion date of fewer than 6 months after the issuance of the report - It will not be implemented with an explanation of why City of Santa Barbara – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R61-70: 8 >70 1 Almost all of the injured were the operators of the e-bike; four were passengers. These figures demonstrate a significant public health problem. A count of 84 patients over a two- year period suggests that nearly one patient per week suffered serious injuries. The age of the patients peaked in the 11-20 age group (40 patients), indicating that the teen-aged population is at greatest risk of injury. The remainder of injuries occurred relatively evenly in older age groups, including in nine individuals over 60 years old. The types of injuries at Cottage Hospital were also serious. While orthopedic injuries were most common (24), 19 patients also suffered head and neck injuries, four had chest injuries, and two had major vascular injuries. Cottage Hospital did not report any deaths over this time-period. The Santa Barbara Police Department also provided statistics to the Jury for recent accidents involving e-bikes. Between the dates of January 25, 2022, and August 24, 2024, there was a total of 163 e-bike related incidents, of which 85 were sent to the hospital. Of these 163 incidents, the e-bike rider was at fault just over 52% of the time. The Department also noted the type of vehicle involved, with passenger cars the most frequent. Regarding end-of-year data, the rapid increase in incidents should be noted:  6 out of 10 e-bike riders involved in collisions were at fault in 2022  32 out of 73 e-bike riders involved in collisions were at fault in 2023  71 out of 107 e-bike riders involved in collisions were at fault in 2024 When the data from both local sources is combined, it is clear that e-bike injuries are common and that these injuries are frequently serious and life-threatening. In fact, the City of Santa Barbara experienced its first e-bike-related fatality in May 2025. Along with this increase in related injuries come assorted legal concerns regarding liability. Without helmets or insurance, e-bike accidents on city streets might come at a public cost for medical treatment. Additionally, pedestrians involved in accidents may not have liability insurance. This possibly threatening liability issue has not been publicly discussed by the City Council. Santa Barbara City Council Santa Barbara has long held clean air as one of its priorities. This dedication to the environment has been apparent in the City’s financial support to increase the use of alternative means of transportation and create a master plan for bikes throughout town. E-bikes are considered a more environmentally friendly mode of transportation. Furthermore, at a time when the City is hoping to convert underused buildings downtown to housing without adding more parking lots, no parking structures are required for e-bikes. These factors favor e-bikes in city planning. However, citizen complaints against unruly e-bike traffic redirected City Council discussion from long-range planning to more immediate action for street safety. City Ordinances After State Street closed to vehicle traffic, the close contact between pedestrians, bikes, and e- bikes got to the point that members of the public felt endangered. In reaction, City Council moved to curb unsafe behavior on bikes in Emergency Ordinance 5944 in March 2023. While defining a closed State Street, the City Council pointedly authorized rules for bikes, stating: It is contrary to public safety and thus unlawful to use a bicycle, electric bicycle, or similar device in motion upon the ground or pavement within the State Street Promenade in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property or in a manner which endangers the safety of persons or property. The State Street regulations included yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians, no exhibitions of speed, no passengers other than on an attached separate seat, a helmet if under 18, adequate brakes to counter the higher speed and weight of an e-bike, and a lamp and reflectors for night-time use. These laws were basic safety measures for all bikes. By 2024, just having bike safety rules was not adequate to match the exuberant e-bike activity on State Street and elsewhere, and complaints from citizens put pressure on the City Council to enact an additional ordinance specifically written for e-bikes and certain “bad actors.” In the October 15 Ordinance Committee meeting, the report from the City Attorney’s Office and Santa Barbara Police Department acknowledged that the previous emergency ordinance had not specifically defined e-bikes, nor had it provided ways to address violations of the safety rules. The proposed amendment to Chapter 10.52 of the Municipal Code regulations stated that enforcement would be done through administrative citations and not Traffic Court citations that would permanently stay on the rider’s record. Administrative fines were proposed starting at $100 for the first offense, rising to $200 for the second, and up to $500 for three offenses in one year. The recommended 2024 regulations against unsafe e-bike behavior specifically included:  Do not perform “any acrobatics, tricks, wheelies, or stunts on a public street [or] public right of way”  Use bike lanes or ride close to the correct curb  Ride in a single file Riders were again required to yield to all pedestrians, wear a helmet if under 18, use reflectors, have brakes strong enough to stop the e-bike, and not ride on the sidewalk, as stated in the original Ordinance 5944. For enforcement, the report recommended following the Huntington Beach- inspired initiatives of allowing police officers to impound a juvenile’s bike or e-bike. A parent would have to retrieve it, thus creating a conversation between the family and law enforcement. Importantly, the proposed ordinance was applied to the entire city of Santa Barbara, not just State Street. Public speakers at the October 15 Ordinance Committee meeting voiced various reactions. Some of the strong new rules engendered debate, and the proposals were sent back for further review and revision. At the February 25, 2025, City Council meeting, some revisions to the more punitive elements of the ordinance proposed in October were made. Most notably, attending a Youth Diversion Program with the Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (CADA) for juvenile offenders was offered in place of impounding the bike or e-bike. If a citation was given to the juvenile, attending a two- hour course, ending with a test that would award a certificate, could eliminate the citation and fees. If the class is refused, the youth and the parents would be responsible for the administrative fines. If bad behavior continued, the juvenile would go to Teen Court. But e-bikes still would not be confiscated. (The newer, faster “pocket bikes” are illegal on streets and will be impounded on all occasions.) Adults who contravene the ordinance would continue to receive an administrative citation, not a vehicle code ticket. This way, there are no points on one’s driving record, and for juveniles, application for a driver’s license would not be impeded. Other sections were also modified in the ordinance adopted in February 2025. The definition of unsafe behavior depended on if pedestrians or vehicles were “in close proximity.” Whether to issue a citation or not depended on the peace officer’s discretion, according to at what point the behavior became dangerous. When it came to riding on sidewalks under certain conditions, the City Council felt that this ordinance needed clear boundaries, and e-bikes remained prohibited from sidewalks. After years of delay, the Santa Barbara City Council enacted this e-bike ordinance in response to calls for action. How it is enforced will make a difference in how it will be recognized and obeyed. Law Enforcement (Santa Barbara Police Department) The Santa Barbara Police Department welcomed the ordinance on e-bikes. It gave them the tools to do their job by giving them laws by which to administratively cite offenders. The ordinance came into effect on April 4, 2025. In the past, the Santa Barbara Police Department had written few citations, especially with juveniles. There were several reasons suggested for this:  The Police Department is understaffed  Peace Officers would be working overtime if they added e-bike surveillance to their main duty of fighting crime  Peace officers and City officials alike do not want a youth’s first encounter with the law be a citation  Peace officers do not recommend chasing after youths on bikes as it could be dangerous In the month following May 4, enforcement of the new ordinance was moderate and multi-faceted. Ten officers over the course of several days came into contact with bike riders. While the officers spoke with 70 people, a total of 13 juveniles were issued citations related to the new ordinance. Two juveniles on illegal, high-speed electric dirt bikes had their bikes impounded. Peace officers also contacted several parents. The Department also initiated education through some social and news media posts during these days of direct patrols. When officers incorporate bike and e-bike watches into their patrols on a regular basis, the new e- bike ordinance will have an impact on the Police Department. Officers may have to work overtime, but there will be no additional funding for overtime, nor for new hires for the additional duties. The Santa Barbara Police Department will instead need to move resources around: people, shifts, and money. This includes having officers strategically placed around schools early in the morning and mid-afternoon, as well as around popular riding areas downtown or on the beach pathways. People often do not see the officers and do not know they are there. Higher visibility of officers will be critical to taming unsafe behavior on e-bikes. The Santa Barbara Police Department, like many law enforcement agencies in the nation, has had to deal with shortages of police officers in keeping the law. Priorities will always first be for hard crimes, not bike-riding violations. Santa Barbara does have a bike patrol. Ironically, they have not been and will not be assigned to catching e-bike riders who ignore stop signs, ride on sidewalks, speed, or endanger pedestrians, especially if the offenders are young juveniles. Bike Patrol officers do give warnings, but they have not issued and do not currently plan to issue citations. This maintains the community-friendly image of the Bike Patrol. In the past, there have been few consequences for those e-bike riders creating dangerous conditions on local roads and sidewalks. In addition, the Jury heard from several branches of local government that when the financial burden imposed by an administrative fine is modest, it can fail to make a significant impact. The main goal of the Police Department is to change behavior, not collect fees. Further, the new arrangement for a youth diversion program also minimizes the weight of a citation, as it can easily be erased by a class. In contrast, police officers in the City of Huntington Beach dedicate two hours of their shift to keep an eye on e-bikes and make sure the riders follow the rules. They have the discretion to issue a civil citation or an infraction with a ticket. For juveniles, the Huntington Beach police officers can impound the e-bike. It is not known at this point if this added police work is making a difference in e-bike safety in that city, but additional cities in Orange County are now in agreement and enacting similar laws. Moreover, because of a sharp increase in e-bike-related injuries and emergency room visits since 2020, the Orange County government enacted laws that came into effect in April 2025 governing speeding and unsafe behavior on e-bikes in unincorporated areas, hoping to additionally encourage consistent e-bike rules among all cities in the county. The underlying force of all safety rules is accountability. If riders of bikes or e-bikes face no consequences for their reckless or too relaxed behavior, there will no doubt be limited adherence to rules of the road, old or new. And this could only increase cases of injuries or even fatalities. The 2018 Santa Barbara Vision Zero Plan addressed this issue straight on: Without enforcement, traffic laws…cannot be expected to reduce traffic fatalities or serious injuries. If traffic laws are not enforced, or are perceived as not being enforced, compliance is less likely. Effective enforcement includes establishing, regular updating, and enforcing laws that address collision risk factors. Locations where repeated collisions occur can indicate where robust enforcement is needed. (Emphasis added.) Schools in Santa Barbara School districts in the Santa Barbara County area have seen an increase in usage of e-bikes to get to school by students in junior high and high school. Outside each of the three public high schools in the Santa Barbara Unified School District, the Jury observed over 100 e-bikes parked, and almost as many outside junior high schools. E-bikes have allowed parents a break from the daily school commute. It has been estimated that about 10% of students ride their e-bikes to school. The Santa Barbara Unified School District is concerned about student safety—once they arrive at school. At some of these schools, bike racks have been purposely placed at the periphery of school grounds in attempts to minimize the use of e-bikes in more central parts of campus. How students are getting to school has not been a major concern for school administration. Programs to provide information on e- bike safety have not been required. School-wide presentations—mainly at elementary and junior high schools—take place, but these are initiated by the Police Department; they are not a District promotion. No District funding is currently being specifically allocated for e-bike education. In the past, there has been no consistent approach to e-bike instruction in the Santa Barbara Unified School District. In contrast, the Huntington Beach Union High School District has a 20-minute e- bike safety video on its website, and students must apply for a school permit before they are allowed to ride their e-bikes to school. Under California law, rules of the road for e-bikes exist as they do for cars: ride with the flow of traffic; stop at stop signs; obey speed limits; etc. For young riders who have not yet taken a driving test, these rules are not ingrained and sometimes not even known. The Jury learned that not all parents know them either, or they are not aware that these rules apply to young e-bike riders. A local cycling advocacy group that provides bike education has expanded its focus of attention from bike riding training in elementary schools to include e-bike safety training in junior high and high schools. Not only do they emphasize traffic rules, but they now also address behavioral issues. It was suggested that such courses include videos of e-bike accidents, much like the crumpled cars that are shown to high school students prior to proms and graduation. This would highlight the danger of reckless riding. The Santa Barbara Police Department has recently begun to coordinate with bike advocacy groups to educate students on topics of e-bike safety. Most complaints about e-bikes on social media and in public meetings focus on juveniles, including youths utilizing e-bikes for unlawful activities after school such as harassing and intimidating local residents or car drivers. Frequent complaints have been posted on local social media by residents who report damage to property and threats to their person. However, the Santa Barbara Police Department has recently expanded its efforts to more regularly educate students at local elementary and junior high schools, which the Jury believes will have positive and lasting effects. Public Education The City of Goleta organized an E-Bike Week in January 2025 and cooperated with two nearby high schools and one junior high for presentations. Working with the California Highway Patrol, the Goleta Police Department, Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital, and a bike advocacy group, the City of Goleta gave safety presentations and distributed helmets and protective equipment at the schools. This came one year after the Santa Barbara Association of Governments (SBCAG) held a similar e-bike safety awareness day in downtown Santa Barbara. These entities and organizations saw the need to educate students and the public of all ages about e-bikes. The City of Santa Barbara has considered a significant e-bike awareness campaign. Although limited media outreach began, a comprehensive public awareness campaign has not been implemented. After enacting the new ordinance, the entire community will need to be informed about the revised expectations for e-bike riders. With collaboration among City officials, law enforcement agencies, and school administrators, the City of Santa Barbara could stage a powerful education campaign. Bike shops would willingly participate, according to officials and shop owners. But as one bike advocate said, someone has to say, “Make this happen.” In 2018, the City of Santa Barbara adopted a Vision Zero Strategy to eliminate severe and fatal traffic accidents. The prologue to the Vision Zero program compared the current need for a different approach to traffic safety to the introduction of seat belt requirement laws in the 1980s. People were slow to adapt to the new laws that were more constraining, even if it meant saving lives. The Vision Zero statement credits stronger laws, enforcement, and automobile design changes in addition to education for increases in public acceptance of seat belts. It took years to see meaningful changes in behavior. With increases in public awareness, people accepted wearing a seat belt as part of driving safely. Seat belts have saved lives. Santa Barbara could benefit from the same all-around approach in order to prevent inevitable crashes and injuries for e-bike riders in the future. The two California counties that instituted stricter laws for young people on e-bikes, Marin County and San Diego County, were mandated by the state to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 days prior to the enactment of their ordinances or resolutions, including “public announcements in major media outlets and press releases.”6 The City of Santa Barbara should do no less. CONCLUSION Riding e-bikes has resulted in many serious injuries in Santa Barbara, particularly among riders 20 years and younger. Santa Barbara experienced its first e-bike-related fatality in May 2025. In February 2025, the City Council enacted a new e-bike ordinance to cut down on certain unsafe riding behaviors, and the Santa Barbara Police Department is rolling out enforcement. It remains to be seen if more robust actions need to be taken to assure compliance with the new laws and more publicity to make an impact on public awareness. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1: Since the City of Santa Barbara’s adoption of the new e-bike ordinance, Santa Barbara Police Department officers now have broad discretion in responding to unsafe behavior by e-bike riders, but, as a general principle, behavioral change requires a strategic and consistent approach. Recommendation 1a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council encourage the Santa Barbara Police Department to establish a plan to strategically and consistently focus enforcement efforts in high-traffic areas so as to achieve high visibility and have the greatest impact on behavior in enforcement operations. To be implemented by December 1, 2025. See Cal. Vehicle Code section 21214.5, subdivision (f), and section 21214.7, subdivision (e). Recommendation 1b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council require the Santa Barbara Police Department to give the Council monthly reports on the number and severity of e-bike-involved accidents in the City of Santa Barbara, as well as the number of citations issued. To be implemented by December 1, 2025. Recommendation 1c: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council make available to the public these monthly reports on the number and severity of e-bike-involved accidents in the City of Santa Barbara, as well as the number of citations issued. To be implemented by December 1, 2025. Finding 2: The Santa Barbara City Council has tasked the Police Department and its officers with additional responsibilities related to enforcement of the new e-bike ordinance but has not provided additional funding to support those purposes. Recommendation 2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council conduct a study to determine how much new funding for this additional police work is needed. To be completed by April 1, 2026. Finding 3: The City of Santa Barbara has initiated only a limited public information campaign about the new e-bike ordinance now in effect, thus limiting awareness of the ordinance. Recommendation 3a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council initiate an expanded and long-term public information campaign to inform and educate the public about the City’s new e-bike rules. To be implemented by December 1, 2025. Recommendation 3b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council invite the cooperation and participation of secondary schools in the Santa Barbara Unified School District, private organizations that are involved in e-bike education, neighboring cities including Goleta, and local businesses for expanded public outreach on e-bike safety and laws now in effect. Finding 4: The Santa Barbara Police Department has recently expanded its outreach in Santa Barbara Unified School District to instruct students in e-bike safety and laws, which is a positive development. 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. REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit. Responses to Findings shall be either: - Agree - Disagree with an explanation - Disagree partially with an explanation Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: - Has been implemented, with a summary of the implementation actions taken - Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule - Requires further analysis, with an analysis completion date of fewer than 6 months after the issuance of the report - It will not be implemented with an explanation of why City of Santa Barbara – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4 Recommendations 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3a, 3b
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Despite community concerns about water scarcity, all of the public entities the Jury investigated that provide and manage water in Santa Barbara County have made proactive plans to fortify against future droughts and provide sufficient water necessary to support future housing growth and commerce.
F2: Despite a 2016-17 Grand Jury finding that limitations existed in coordinating water management, the Jury finds that coordination among different water management entities in the County has improved significantly.
F3: The City of Santa Barbara has gone beyond the basic management of water resources for its residents by utilizing desalination to innovatively expand local water availability. REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit. Responses to Findings shall be either: - Agree - Disagree with an explanation - Disagree partially with an explanation Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: - Has been implemented, with a summary of the implementation actions taken - Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule - Requires further analysis, with an analysis completion date of fewer than 6 months after the issuance of the report - It will not be implemented with an explanation of why City of Santa Barbara – 90 Days Findings 1, 2, 3 Board of Directors, Santa Barbara County Water Agency – 90 Days Findings 1, 2 Goleta Water District – 90 Days Findings 1, 2 Carpinteria Valley Water District – 90 Days Findings 1, 2 Carpinteria Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency – 90 Days
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: Cannabis tax revenues have been declining due to market oversupply and price collapse, stressing the County’s operating expenditures for the Cannabis Program.
F2: The County’s allocation for deferred maintenance and capital project expenses from cannabis tax revenue has not been adjusted to reflect the decline in tax revenue over the past five years.
F3: Current County budget projections indicate that Cannabis Program ongoing expenditures will exceed expected cannabis tax revenues by $1.1 million in fiscal year 2025-26, posing a burden on County taxpayers.
F4: Currently Santa Barbara County’s budgeting, tracking, and reporting of cannabis- related revenue, expenses, and compliance violations are decentralized, making it difficult to provide comprehensive and detailed information on demand.
F5: Despite declining illicit cannabis cultivation activity in the County, a significant portion of the County’s cannabis tax revenues continue to be allocated to combat this activity each fiscal year.
Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors ensure that the Cannabis Program’s annual operating expenditures do not exceed annual cannabis tax revenues.
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors revisit its capital projects allocation to be funded by cannabis tax revenues, ensuring that such allocations do not exceed available funds.
R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors prioritize covering the direct operating costs of the Cannabis Program so as to achieve more balanced budgets in the future.
R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Executive Officer to develop an automated and centralized information database to track and report the budget, revenues, expenses, and administrative activities related to licensing and compliance specific to the Cannabis Program.
R5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors annually re- evaluate the allocation of cannabis tax revenue for combating illicit cannabis cultivation activity in the County.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: The lack of County-wide childhood vaccination data for homeschooled children means that County Health knowledge of community immunity levels is incomplete.
F2: The lack of County-wide childhood vaccination data for adults means that County Health knowledge of community immunity levels is incomplete.
F3: The Sheriff’s Office has not determined childhood vaccination rates of inmates in County jails, potentially placing the inmates and staff at risk.
F4: There is no program in place at the County’s jails to provide childhood vaccinations to unvaccinated inmates, increasing risk for the inmates and staff.
F5: There is no procedure in place at the County’s jails on when or how to isolate unvaccinated inmates, increasing potential risk of a disease outbreak in the jails.
Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors require County Health to study and estimate childhood vaccination levels of homeschooled children in the County. To be implemented by December 1, 2025.
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors require County Health to study and estimate childhood vaccination levels of adults in the County. To be implemented by December 1, 2025.
R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office collect data during health intake screenings at the County’s jails to determine childhood vaccination rates. To be implemented by December 1, 2025.
R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office implement a program to administer required childhood vaccinations to unvaccinated inmates. To be implemented by December 1, 2025.
R5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office develop and enforce a procedure on when and how to isolate unvaccinated inmates. To be implemented by December 1, 2025.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Santa Barbara County and the cities of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria own land that is surplus to their operational requirements, some of which could be used for affordable housing.
F2: The process for issuance of a permit for affordable housing development projects in the County and the cities of Santa Barbara, Goleta and Carpinteria is costly, time consuming, and complicated.
F3: There are insufficient funds available to develop needed affordable housing.
Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria identify publicly owned properties within their jurisdiction that could be utilized for affordable housing.
R1b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria invite public and private developers to work with them to build affordable housing on the publicly owned land identified as available.
R2a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria each create a position to be staffed by a qualified person who can coordinate and facilitate the application and approval processes for affordable housing projects, with the authority to bring together all interested parties to arrive at an expeditious resolution of any issue.
R2b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria review their processes for development approvals to prioritize affordable housing projects.
R2c: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria apply the ministerial approval process to all development projects comprising seventy five percent or more of low- income housing.
R2d: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria conduct a review of all development and impact fees and find ways to waive, reduce or amortize fees for affordable housing projects.
R3a: The Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of Goleta and Carpinteria establish dedicated housing trust funds, certified as Community Development Financial Institutions, to facilitate the building of affordable housing.
R3b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors increase funding to the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Barbara County to facilitate the building of affordable housing.
R3c: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council further increase funding to the City of Santa Barbara Local Housing Trust Fund to facilitate the building of affordable housing.
R3d: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta and Carpinteria promote contributions to their housing trust funds by other non-governmental organizations, the philanthropic community, and the public.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: CF repeatedly complained of abdominal pain for at least two days prior to her death, but these complaints were not assessed by medical staff in accordance with jail medical policy, procedure, and protocol.
F2: Nursing staff at the Northern Branch Jail did not follow an evidence-based process to evaluate or treat CF for her abdominal pain, though such pain assessment forms were available and their use expected.
F3: Inmate CF’s death might have been prevented if she had received appropriate medical assessment in jail.
Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office require that qualified medical professionals assess and treat pain according to accepted medical standards and in accordance with existing policy, procedure, and protocol when inmates in the County’s jails complain of pain.
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office instruct all medical staff at the County’s jails to utilize available evidence-based pain assessment forms to evaluate and document inmates’ pain complaints.
R3a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Health to thoroughly assess the medical care provided to CF by Wellpath. To be implemented by January 1, 2026.
R3b: Based on the investigation of the care provided to CF, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Health make public a report identifying opportunities for systemic improvements in the quality of medical care in the County’s jails. To be implemented by January 1, 2026. 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 6 findings
F1: The Santa Barbara County Public Health Department has not developed proactive pathogen- specific risk assessments based upon evidence-based risk analysis.
F2: The Santa Barbara County Public Health Department has not developed proactive pathogen- specific disaster plans based upon evidence-based risk analysis.
F3: The Santa Barbara County Public Health Department has not employed current, more comprehensive software for the early detection of potential epidemic risks.
F4: The Santa Barbara County Public Health Department has the obligation to ensure wastewater testing is carried out throughout Santa Barbara County but is not currently fulfilling its responsibility.
F5: Even though bioterrorism is a growing threat, Santa Barbara County has not established effective channels of communication with federal, regional, and other stakeholders to learn of and apply threat assessment at the local level.
F6: The Santa Barbara County Public Health Department has not established a process to assure effective communication between regional healthcare providers regarding local epidemic risks. The 2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury recommends that:
Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Board of Supervisors require the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to perform ongoing evidence-based assessments to determine the potential pathogens that pose the highest risk in Santa Barbara County. Risk assessments should be updated every three months, or more frequently if new threats are identified. To be implemented by September 1, 2025.
R2: The Board of Supervisors require the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to develop disaster plans specific to each of the pathogens identified by risk assessment to be at highest risk of causing an epidemic. Disaster plans should be updated every three months, or more frequently if new threats are identified. To be implemented by September 1, 2025.
R3: The Board of Supervisors require the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to identify, acquire, and implement current, more comprehensive software for the early detection of potential epidemic risks. To be implemented by December 1, 2025.
R4: The Board of Supervisors require the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to ensure that sufficient wastewater testing sites are operational in Santa Barbara County, to include at least the major population centers. To be implemented by September 1, 2025.
R5: The Board of Supervisors require the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to seek to institute regular communication with relevant federal agencies, including Vandenberg Space Force Base, regarding the current threat of bioterrorism, and incorporate this information into risk analysis and disaster planning. To be implemented by September 1, 2025.
R6a: The Board of Supervisors require the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to establish a community task force for epidemic preparedness by instituting regular meetings and inviting participation by health care providers within Santa Barbara County, as well as public health representatives from surrounding counties, the county jails, Vandenberg Space Force Base, and the Federal Correctional Complex, Lompoc. To be implemented by September 1, 2025.
R6b: The Board of Supervisors require the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to ensure that the recommendations of the community task force be documented, shared, and acted upon by responsible entities within Santa Barbara County. To be implemented by September 1, 2025.
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: CC should not have been transferred to an observation cell with a telephone cord.
F2: Wellpath staff failed to comply with existing policy requiring a psychiatric assessment while housed in a safety cell.
F3: A Jail psychiatrist failed to evaluate, diagnose, or treat CC’s severe psychiatric illnesses, which were serious shortcomings.
F4: During CC’s first approximately 23-hour stay in Safey Cell 3, the Sheriff’s Office failed to ensure that Wellpath staff comply with policy requiring that the Mobile Crisis Unit be called after 12 hours in a safety cell.
F5: There was poor communication regarding CC’s mental health history between Jail mental health staff, Mobile Crisis Teams, and outside healthcare providers who treated her.
F6: Wellpath staff did not obtain critical health-related documentation from Cottage Hospital or Behavioral Wellness and therefore CC did not receive proper treatment in jail.
F7: The Sheriff’s Office did not comply with the Remedial Plan outlined in Murray v. Santa Barbara County because it did not provide enough beds at all necessary levels of clinical care and security to meet the needs of inmates with serious mental illnesses, as in CC’s case.
Additional Recommendations 15

Not linked to specific findings.

R1a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office will not place an inmate deemed by mental health staff to have been recently suicidal in an observation cell that contains a telephone cord. To be implemented no later than January 1, 2026.
R1b: The Grand Jury recommends to the Sheriff’s Office that if no cordless mental health observation cells are available when stepping down a potentially suicidal inmate from a safety cell, a Jail mental health provider should seek to transfer that inmate to the closest facility that can offer adequate protection. To be implemented no later than January 1, 2026.
R1c: The Grand Jury recommends to the Sheriff’s Office that if no cordless mental health observation cells are available when stepping down a potentially suicidal inmate from a safety cell in the Main Jail, a Jail mental health provider must contact the County's psychiatric holding facility, the Crisis Stabilization Unit, a local hospital, and the Northern Branch Jail to determine if a bed offering an appropriate level of care is available. To be implemented no later than January 1, 2026.
R1d: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors negotiate a memorandum of understanding with San Luis Obispo County, Ventura County, Los Angeles County, and other neighboring counties in California setting procedures for transferring and accepting inmates with severe mental health disease when no other safe housing options are available. To be implemented no later than January 1, 2026.
Page 15
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that while an inmate is housed in a safety cell, the Sheriff’s Office require a Wellpath psychiatrist conduct an evaluation of that inmate. Given that the recommendation is to follow existing policy, to be implemented immediately.
R2c: Recommendation 1d: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors negotiate a memorandum of understanding with San Luis Obispo County, Ventura County, Los Angeles County, and other neighboring counties in California setting procedures for transferring and accepting inmates with severe mental health disease when no other safe housing options are available. To be implemented no later than January 1, 2026.
R3a: The Grand Jury recommends that if the on-duty psychiatrist is not available to conduct what Jail medical and mental health staff deem to be an urgent evaluation of an inmate, the Sheriff’s Office require Wellpath to designate another backup on-call psychiatrist to conduct such an evaluation. To be implemented no later than January 1, 2026.
R3b: The Grand Jury recommends to the Sheriff’s Office that if a stepdown inmate refuses to participate in a psychiatric evaluation, the on-duty Jail psychiatrist be required to obtain and review the inmate’s mental health history. To be implemented no later than January 1, 2026.
R4: The Grand Jury recommends that after an inmate spends more than 12 hours in a safety cell, the Sheriff’s Office require that Wellpath staff always call the Mobile Crisis Unit to conduct an evaluation and document the call and its outcome in the Jail electronic health record. Given that the recommendation is to follow existing policy, to be implemented immediately.
R5a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office require additional training for Wellpath mental health providers regarding HIPAA regulations concerning inmates, including defining under what circumstances a mental health provider may legally contact outside mental health providers about an inmate’s mental health history. To be implemented no later than January 1, 2026.
R5b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office require the on-duty registered nurses at the County’s jails to request every newly arriving inmate at the time of intake to sign a written authorization to release their medical and mental health records and information. To be implemented no later than January 1, 2026.
R6a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office require Wellpath staff to contact outside healthcare providers, such as hospitals, physicians, and clinics, to obtain inmates’ health records in a timely manner following intake. To be implemented by January 1, 2026.
R6b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office upgrade its electronic health record system to allow it to receive patient health information from outside providers via an industry-standard means of internet transmission. To be implemented by March 31, 2027.
R7a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office provide and maintain safety and observation cells sufficient in number to meet ongoing demands.
R7b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff Office require custody staff to consider mental health staff’s clinical input when determining placement upon discharge from a safety cell and document the reasons when clinical input is not followed. 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 3 findings
F1: Because of the lack of an accurate and comprehensive master problem list in AAO’s electronic health record, Wellpath medical staff did not make fully informed decisions regarding AAO’s health needs and risks when he came to the Northern Branch Jail on August 29, 2024.
F2: AAO’s known medical history at the jail provided clear indicators for serious alcohol withdrawal risk, but no such identification occurred.
F3: Custody staff were not aware that AAO had an alcohol withdrawal alert or history because it was not communicated to them by medical staff or by means of an alert in the Jail Management System, though such communication would have been valuable.
Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the County of Santa Barbara Health Department to conduct systematic audits of inmates’ charts in the electronic health record to determine the extent to which master problem lists maintained by Wellpath accurately and comprehensively reflect inmates’ known health problems. To be completed by July 1, 2026.
R1b: The Grand Jury recommends that if non-compliance is discovered in the form of incomplete or inaccurate master problem lists so as not to meet performance measures established by the Wellpath contract, the County exact monetary penalties pursuant to the Service Level Agreement (Area 5. Incarcerated Person Problem List) in the new contract.
R2a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the County of Santa Barbara Health Department to conduct audits to determine if Wellpath staff are appropriately identifying, monitoring, and treating at-risk inmates consistent with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Guidelines for Managing Substance Withdrawal in Jails. To be completed by July 1, 2026.
R2b: The Grand Jury recommends that if non-compliance is discovered in the form of missed cases of withdrawal monitoring or treatment, or performance of monitoring or treatment duties inconsistent with the U.S. Department of Justice guidelines so as not to meet performance measures established by the Wellpath contract, the County exact monetary penalties pursuant to the Service Level Agreement (Area 1. Withdrawal Management).
R3a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office require a standardized verbal communication process upon inmate handover from the registered nurse performing the health receiving screening to the relevant on-duty classification deputy, specifically requiring the sharing of health-related findings or history insofar as necessary to provide for the health and safety of the inmate or others. To be implemented by January 1, 2026.
R3b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office develop a comprehensive and automatic system of shared health alerts between the healthcare contractor’s electronic health record and the Jail Management System so that critical health-related alerts appear automatically in the Jail Management System. To be implemented by January 1, 2026. 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 4 findings
F1: County Health’s ability to inspect mobile food vendors and enforce food safety regulations has been limited by the small number of inspection personnel currently employed in its Environmental Health Services Division.
F2: There is no established process by which the public can report unpermitted mobile food vendors to County Health, thus making enforcement of food safety requirements more difficult.
F3: County Health efforts to conduct inspections of mobile food vendors have been negatively impacted by safety concerns for inspection personnel.
F4: Food trucks and carts are often not located in proximity to restroom or handwashing facilities for staff and customers as legally required, which poses a significant public health risk.
Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors provide County Health with sufficient funding to hire additional inspectors to facilitate more frequent inspections of mobile food vendors and to enforce compliance with existing food safety laws if violations are discovered. To be implemented by July 1, 2026.
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Health to establish a tip line for the public to report information about mobile food vendors who are not permitted. To be implemented by January 1, 2026.
R3a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office delegate deputies to accompany County Health inspectors so that the inspectors, with the support of law enforcement, can safely enforce permitting and inspecting in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County and in incorporated areas where the Sheriff’s Office is contracted to provide services. To be implemented by January 1, 2026.
R3b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Health to partner with municipal law enforcement agencies so that health inspectors, with the support of law enforcement, can safely enforce permitting and inspecting within incorporated municipalities. To be implemented by January 1, 2026.
R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Health to focus inspection and enforcement efforts on mobile food vendors who operate without proximity to appropriate restroom or handwashing facilities. To be implemented by January 1, 2026.