Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2020-2021
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (18)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F3:
Starting in 2020, large increases in potential funding and across the board regulatory reform have widened the opportunity for local governments to implement broadband access. X AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):
F4:
An important beneficial outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic has been broadband access and computers for distance learning. Underserved areas, such as the Pajaro Valley where the county's need was the greatest, were significantly improved. __ AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Internet connectivity has improved countywide. All school districts in the county, especially PVUSD, helped reduced the percentage of students without connectivity from 17% to 3%. However, the number of student who have broadband speeds is limited. Most students were provided hotspots that have connectivity at speeds much lower than broadband speeds. Required Response from theSuperintendent, Santa Cruz County Office of Education Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Out Due by August 23, 2021 2020-2021 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 211
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should coordinate with the County Office of Education to determine the costs and logistics for continuing internet access in time for the 2022-2023 school year. (F4) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe X (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: We need more information about this recommendation. The state has earmarked funding for infrastructure for wide array broadband access for the community. We would welcome collaborating with the Board of Supervisors on this effort. We will reach out to members of the Board of Supervisors to discuss our mutual interest to provide broadband access to our community. Required Response from theSuperintendent, Santa Cruz County Office of Education Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Out Due by August 23, 2021 212 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why.
R2:
For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable.
R3:
When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati Syda.Cogliati@santacruzcourt.org and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury grandjury@scgrandjury.org. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to grandjury@scgrandjury.org. Required Response from theSuperintendent, Santa Cruz County Office of Education Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Out Due by August 23, 2021 210 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Broadband Master Plan developed and updated in 2015 is obsolete due to subsequent actions and events.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors needs to update the 2015 Master Plan within the next six months including, but not limited to: 1) the special difficulties and costs posed by rural broadband infrastructure; 2) the challenges and infrastructure achievements in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis; and 3) opportunities for new funding sources and due to regulatory changes from the California State and Federal Government and how they are to be coordinated with the efforts to date to provide distance learning and broadband access. (F1, F2, F3, F6)
F2:
There has been insufficient official and public advocacy for broadband access. Advocacy cannot succeed without communication about what is being done for constituents and their input into the efforts being performed for them.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors needs to update the 2015 Master Plan within the next six months including, but not limited to: 1) the special difficulties and costs posed by rural broadband infrastructure; 2) the challenges and infrastructure achievements in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis; and 3) opportunities for new funding sources and due to regulatory changes from the California State and Federal Government and how they are to be coordinated with the efforts to date to provide distance learning and broadband access. (F1, F2, F3, F6)
R3:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should establish a program to educate the public concerning the need for expanded broadband access, the importance of obtaining outside funding, and the decisions to be made concerning the role of commercial ISPs. (F2, F3)
F3:
Starting in 2020, large increases in potential funding and across the board regulatory reform have widened the opportunity for local governments to implement broadband access.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors needs to update the 2015 Master Plan within the next six months including, but not limited to: 1) the special difficulties and costs posed by rural broadband infrastructure; 2) the challenges and infrastructure achievements in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis; and 3) opportunities for new funding sources and due to regulatory changes from the California State and Federal Government and how they are to be coordinated with the efforts to date to provide distance learning and broadband access. (F1, F2, F3, F6)
R3:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should establish a program to educate the public concerning the need for expanded broadband access, the importance of obtaining outside funding, and the decisions to be made concerning the role of commercial ISPs. (F2, F3)
R4:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should determine whether it is feasible for the county to establish, own, manage, or operate broadband access systems. (F3, F5, F6)
F4:
An important beneficial outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic has been broadband access and computers for distance learning. Underserved areas, such as the Pajaro Valley where the county's need was the greatest, were significantly improved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should coordinate with the County Office of Education to determine the costs and logistics for continuing internet access in time for the 2022-2023 school year. (F4)
F5:
The Board of Supervisors hasn’t done enough to take advantage of the growing opportunities to promote broadband access for the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should determine whether it is feasible for the county to establish, own, manage, or operate broadband access systems. (F3, F5, F6)
F6:
The challenges for the establishment of rural broadband networks are significantly different for residential and business use. Coordination and funding is needed from both government and private entities. Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Out Published June 22, 2021 2020-2021 Consolidated Final Report 109
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors needs to update the 2015 Master Plan within the next six months including, but not limited to: 1) the special difficulties and costs posed by rural broadband infrastructure; 2) the challenges and infrastructure achievements in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis; and 3) opportunities for new funding sources and due to regulatory changes from the California State and Federal Government and how they are to be coordinated with the efforts to date to provide distance learning and broadband access. (F1, F2, F3, F6)
R4:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should determine whether it is feasible for the county to establish, own, manage, or operate broadband access systems. (F3, F5, F6)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should identify and apply for all available broadband access funding. (F3, F5 )
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County’s web page listing COVID-19 testing sites does not adequately help residents find an appropriate testing site to fit their needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should revise its web pages to help people find a testing site suitable to their requirements. Listing sites without characterizations is not sufficient. (F1)
F2:
The Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County’s Save Lives Santa Cruz County webpages do not adequately publicize and inform the public of the critical work that is being done, nor do they reflect the crisis the county has gone through.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should publicize the Save Lives Santa Cruz initiative beyond what is currently on their website. For example, they should publish the Save Lives weekly operational review for the public to see the behind the scenes work that is happening. (F2)
R3:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should prepare weekly highlights from the Save Lives periodic reports for public consumption. (F2, F4)
R4:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should provide a regularly scheduled and recorded video report available to the public on the county website. (F2, F4)
F3:
Establishing the COVID-19 testing laboratory at University of California at Santa Cruz is a great example of cooperation among the university and public agencies in the county. The laboratory has received considerable attention but the cooperative effort among the County Public Health Division, Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County and UCSC has not. Chasing the Pandemic Published June 4, 2021 2020-2021 Consolidated Final Report 23
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Within the next 3 months the Health Service Agency of Santa Cruz County should create a press release detailing the support that was provided for the UCSC Laboratory. (F3)
R8:
In the next six months, the City Council should produce a detailed plan and accounting of how the federal and state homeless funds are used. (F3)
F4:
The Santa Cruz County Public Health Division is staffed by well trained, skilled and knowledgeable professionals who applied that talent to help protect the residents of Santa Cruz County during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should prepare weekly highlights from the Save Lives periodic reports for public consumption. (F2, F4)
R4:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should provide a regularly scheduled and recorded video report available to the public on the county website. (F2, F4)
R6:
In the next three months, the City Manager should establish a procedure for conducting regular quarterly surveys of the number and location of the City’s unhoused population to more effectively manage fire risks in WUI areas. (F4)
F5:
Based on the amount of debate and public concern about fire safety of eucalyptus, the Fire Department has done insufficient outreach on this topic.
F6:
There are still WUI neighborhoods without a Firewise group. Firewise groups decrease the risk of fire in WUI areas through public education about protecting property and vegetation management.
F7:
The City of Santa Cruz doesn’t do enough to show that they are limited in what they can do to remove encampments along highways as this property is owned by Caltrans and under state law.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
In the next three months, the City Manager should notify the public that Caltrans is responsible for the removal of all encampments along state highways. (F7)
R10:
Continually, the City Council should engage state offices to be more involved in encampment situations. This should be with all homeless encampments on Caltrans property and not just for highway widening projects. (F7)
F8:
The 10% across the board budget cuts do not match priorities of the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Before the budget cycle, the City Manager should revisit budget priorities. (F8)
F9:
The holding in Martin v. City of Boise limited the City’s ability to enforce existing ordinances. TOLO was a carefully crafted attempt to manage fire risks from entrenched encampments. Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz Published June 4, 2021 54 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Location information on the Notices of Intent provided by the growers and qualified applicators does not adequately describe the location of the pesticide application in a way that someone not intimately familiar with the farm could understand. This means that timely online posting of the current Notices of Intent, even if possible, would not be helpful to the public. The Department of Pesticide Regulation requires a map useful to the public on the Annual Notification of Pesticides Used Near Schools and Child Day Care Centers form.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Within six months, the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office should initiate a pilot program to train interested growers and applicators to use the CalAgPermits software. Goals of the pilot program should include recommendations enhancing the usefulness of the software program to growers and reducing the workload of the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. (F1, F2, F4)
R3:
Within six months, the Board of Supervisors should lobby the state and the Department of Pesticide Regulation to require that specific location information useful to the public be included on forms such as the Restricted Material Permits and the Notice of Intent forms. (F1–F4)
F2:
The Department of Pesticide Regulation’s policies on application of pesticides near schools and its May 7, 2020 letter to California Agricultural Commissioners show its awareness of the changing need to inform and protect the public living near agricultural pesticide application sites.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Within six months, the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office should initiate a pilot program to train interested growers and applicators to use the CalAgPermits software. Goals of the pilot program should include recommendations enhancing the usefulness of the software program to growers and reducing the workload of the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. (F1, F2, F4)
R3:
Within six months, the Board of Supervisors should lobby the state and the Department of Pesticide Regulation to require that specific location information useful to the public be included on forms such as the Restricted Material Permits and the Notice of Intent forms. (F1–F4)
F3:
Department of Pesticide Regulation policy changes must be influenced by the Board of Supervisors. The Agricultural Commissioner cannot exert such influence. The Board of Supervisors are in the best position to lobby the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Within six months, the Board of Supervisors should assess and initiate online posting, text, or email notification of pesticide applications for nearby neighborhoods. (F3, F4)
R3:
Within six months, the Board of Supervisors should lobby the state and the Department of Pesticide Regulation to require that specific location information useful to the public be included on forms such as the Restricted Material Permits and the Notice of Intent forms. (F1–F4)
F4:
The Agricultural Commissioner has the difficult job of reconciling conflicting interests. The Agricultural Commissioner must consider and protect the interests of the growers, the nearby community members, the county schools, and the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Within six months, the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office should initiate a pilot program to train interested growers and applicators to use the CalAgPermits software. Goals of the pilot program should include recommendations enhancing the usefulness of the software program to growers and reducing the workload of the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. (F1, F2, F4)
R2:
Within six months, the Board of Supervisors should assess and initiate online posting, text, or email notification of pesticide applications for nearby neighborhoods. (F3, F4)
R3:
Within six months, the Board of Supervisors should lobby the state and the Department of Pesticide Regulation to require that specific location information useful to the public be included on forms such as the Restricted Material Permits and the Notice of Intent forms. (F1–F4)
F5:
There is a demonstrated capability for advance public notice of pesticide use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Within six months, the Board of Supervisors should collaborate with other counties to lobby the Department of Pesticide Regulation for funds to implement a statewide program of notification, similar to the now defunded FarmingSafelyNearSchools program. (F5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Broadband Master Plan developed and updated in 2015 is obsolete due to subsequent actions and events.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors needs to update the 2015 Master Plan within the next six months including, but not limited to: 1) the special difficulties and costs posed by rural broadband infrastructure; 2) the challenges and infrastructure achievements in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis; and 3) opportunities for new funding sources and due to regulatory changes from the California State and Federal Government and how they are to be coordinated with the efforts to date to provide distance learning and broadband access. (F1, F2, F3, F6)
F2:
There has been insufficient official and public advocacy for broadband access. Advocacy cannot succeed without communication about what is being done for constituents and their input into the efforts being performed for them.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors needs to update the 2015 Master Plan within the next six months including, but not limited to: 1) the special difficulties and costs posed by rural broadband infrastructure; 2) the challenges and infrastructure achievements in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis; and 3) opportunities for new funding sources and due to regulatory changes from the California State and Federal Government and how they are to be coordinated with the efforts to date to provide distance learning and broadband access. (F1, F2, F3, F6)
R3:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should establish a program to educate the public concerning the need for expanded broadband access, the importance of obtaining outside funding, and the decisions to be made concerning the role of commercial ISPs. (F2, F3)
F3:
Starting in 2020, large increases in potential funding and across the board regulatory reform have widened the opportunity for local governments to implement broadband access.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors needs to update the 2015 Master Plan within the next six months including, but not limited to: 1) the special difficulties and costs posed by rural broadband infrastructure; 2) the challenges and infrastructure achievements in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis; and 3) opportunities for new funding sources and due to regulatory changes from the California State and Federal Government and how they are to be coordinated with the efforts to date to provide distance learning and broadband access. (F1, F2, F3, F6)
R3:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should establish a program to educate the public concerning the need for expanded broadband access, the importance of obtaining outside funding, and the decisions to be made concerning the role of commercial ISPs. (F2, F3)
R4:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should determine whether it is feasible for the county to establish, own, manage, or operate broadband access systems. (F3, F5, F6)
F4:
An important beneficial outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic has been broadband access and computers for distance learning. Underserved areas, such as the Pajaro Valley where the county's need was the greatest, were significantly improved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should coordinate with the County Office of Education to determine the costs and logistics for continuing internet access in time for the 2022-2023 school year. (F4)
F5:
The Board of Supervisors hasn’t done enough to take advantage of the growing opportunities to promote broadband access for the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should determine whether it is feasible for the county to establish, own, manage, or operate broadband access systems. (F3, F5, F6)
F6:
The challenges for the establishment of rural broadband networks are significantly different for residential and business use. Coordination and funding is needed from both government and private entities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors needs to update the 2015 Master Plan within the next six months including, but not limited to: 1) the special difficulties and costs posed by rural broadband infrastructure; 2) the challenges and infrastructure achievements in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis; and 3) opportunities for new funding sources and due to regulatory changes from the California State and Federal Government and how they are to be coordinated with the efforts to date to provide distance learning and broadband access. (F1, F2, F3, F6)
R4:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should determine whether it is feasible for the county to establish, own, manage, or operate broadband access systems. (F3, F5, F6)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Within the next six months the Board of Supervisors should identify and apply for all available broadband access funding. (F3, F5 )
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Since distance learning will continue after schools reopen, students, teachers, families, and administrators will need to continue learning new ways to operate and will require continued support.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Within six months, to prepare for continued distance learning, and possible future situations, PVUSD should survey students, teachers and parents to evaluate what worked and what didn’t work regarding distance learning. (F1, F2, F6)
R3:
PVUSD should continue to keep their website updated with information and resources for teachers, students and families, including social-emotional issues, community support organizations, and educational resources.(F1, F2)
F2:
Students, teachers, and families were well-served by the continuously-updated information provided by the PVUSD Superintendent’s weekly FAQ postings on PVUSD’s website.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Within six months, to prepare for continued distance learning, and possible future situations, PVUSD should survey students, teachers and parents to evaluate what worked and what didn’t work regarding distance learning. (F1, F2, F6)
R3:
PVUSD should continue to keep their website updated with information and resources for teachers, students and families, including social-emotional issues, community support organizations, and educational resources.(F1, F2)
F3:
The administrators, teachers, parents, and students themselves are all understandably concerned about students’ social-emotional issues arising from the pandemic.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Within six months, PVUSD should use forthcoming federal and state money to provide summer and after-school programs to help with learning loss and social-emotional issues. (F3, F6)
F4:
The reasons that approximately 2% of PVUSD students have been “lost” are not well understood. Possible answers might include that they are either not logging on at all, or have left the area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Within six months, “lost” students who are still in the district should be located and their needs addressed. (F4)
F5:
The Safe Spaces program has worked well, supporting online learning as well as providing counseling and food to students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
PVUSD should continue the Safe Spaces program. Evaluate and modify over time as students return to school. (F5)
F6:
Even with all the training provided to teachers, and internet accessibility provided to students, distance learning has not worked well for some students.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Within six months, to prepare for continued distance learning, and possible future situations, PVUSD should survey students, teachers and parents to evaluate what worked and what didn’t work regarding distance learning. (F1, F2, F6)
R4:
Within six months, PVUSD should use forthcoming federal and state money to provide summer and after-school programs to help with learning loss and social-emotional issues. (F3, F6)
F7:
Additional upgrades in school air quality systems and furniture are necessary to comply with COVID-19 safety protocols.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Within nine months, PVUSD should use forthcoming funds to make necessary upgrades in air quality systems and furniture in the schools. (F7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors has failed to assert and exercise proper oversight within their purview of the Main jail.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code § 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county. (F1–F9)
R2:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should agendize and open for public comment issues raised by Government Code § 25303.7. (F1–F9)
R3:
Within six months the Sheriff should propose for the Board of Supervisors’ review and approval an increase in Correction Officer staffing and associated budget to reduce the need for mandatory overtime and to sufficiently staff the Main Jail. (F1, F9)
F2:
Adoption of a Sheriffs Oversight Board or Inspector General under Government Code § 25303.7 will provide necessary public transparency and structure to support the Board of Supervisors’ supervision of the Sheriff’s Office Corrections Bureau.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code § 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county. (F1–F9)
R2:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should agendize and open for public comment issues raised by Government Code § 25303.7. (F1–F9)
F3:
Adoption of a Sheriffs Oversight Board or Inspector General under Government Code § 25303.7 will provide an effective advocate before the Board of Supervisors and the public regarding the Sheriff’s needs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code § 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county. (F1–F9)
R2:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should agendize and open for public comment issues raised by Government Code § 25303.7. (F1–F9)
F4:
The Correction’s Policy Manual must provide timely, comprehensive, applicable, and consistent guidelines for jail operations that serve to assure the safety of inmates and staff.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code § 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county. (F1–F9)
R2:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should agendize and open for public comment issues raised by Government Code § 25303.7. (F1–F9)
R4:
Within six months the Sheriff should amend the Correction’s Policy Manual to remove inapplicable provisions and to add provisions relating to razors that more effectively limit and control the conditions of their use by inmates. (F4, F5)
F5:
The policies in the Correction’s Policy Manual regarding razors do not sufficiently assure that razors cannot be used by inmates to harm themselves or others.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code § 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county. (F1–F9)
R2:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should agendize and open for public comment issues raised by Government Code § 25303.7. (F1–F9)
R4:
Within six months the Sheriff should amend the Correction’s Policy Manual to remove inapplicable provisions and to add provisions relating to razors that more effectively limit and control the conditions of their use by inmates. (F4, F5)
F6:
Events of violence and death in the Main Jail contrast negatively with the Sheriff's Office mission, visions, and goals.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code § 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county. (F1–F9)
R2:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should agendize and open for public comment issues raised by Government Code § 25303.7. (F1–F9)
F7:
Old and outdated equipment and systems in the Main Jail are detrimental to safe, efficient, and effective management of the facility.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code § 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county. (F1–F9)
R2:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should agendize and open for public comment issues raised by Government Code § 25303.7. (F1–F9)
R5:
Within three months the Sheriff’s Office and the General Services Department should establish formal protocols for regular monthly meetings to review the status of all correctional facilities, including providing estimates of completion for any repairs and/or replacements that are outstanding, and prioritizing items that directly affect the health and safety of inmates and/or staff. Such meetings should be documented and open to inspection by the County Administrative Officer and the Board of Supervisors. (F7, F8)
R6:
Within 60 days the Sheriff’s Office and the General Services Department should provide a written report to the Board of Supervisors and the Chief Administrative Officer providing both the specifications for, and a timeline for completion of each stage of the project to replace and/or repair the backup emergency power system, and thereafter update such report every thirty days until such project is completed. (F7, F8)
F8:
Long delays in replacing the backup power generators put staff and inmates at risk in the event of a power failure.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code § 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county. (F1–F9)
R2:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should agendize and open for public comment issues raised by Government Code § 25303.7. (F1–F9)
R5:
Within three months the Sheriff’s Office and the General Services Department should establish formal protocols for regular monthly meetings to review the status of all correctional facilities, including providing estimates of completion for any repairs and/or replacements that are outstanding, and prioritizing items that directly affect the health and safety of inmates and/or staff. Such meetings should be documented and open to inspection by the County Administrative Officer and the Board of Supervisors. (F7, F8)
R6:
Within 60 days the Sheriff’s Office and the General Services Department should provide a written report to the Board of Supervisors and the Chief Administrative Officer providing both the specifications for, and a timeline for completion of each stage of the project to replace and/or repair the backup emergency power system, and thereafter update such report every thirty days until such project is completed. (F7, F8)
F9:
Limited staffing and requiring mandatory overtime of Correction Officers at the Main Jail are detrimental to performance, staff morale, and contribute to human error which can threaten the health and safety of staff and inmates.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code § 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county. (F1–F9)
R2:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should agendize and open for public comment issues raised by Government Code § 25303.7. (F1–F9)
R3:
Within six months the Sheriff should propose for the Board of Supervisors’ review and approval an increase in Correction Officer staffing and associated budget to reduce the need for mandatory overtime and to sufficiently staff the Main Jail. (F1, F9)
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County’s web page listing COVID-19 testing sites does not adequately help residents find an appropriate testing site to fit their needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should revise its web pages to help people find a testing site suitable to their requirements. Listing sites without characterizations is not sufficient. (F1)
F2:
The Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County’s Save Lives Santa Cruz County webpages do not adequately publicize and inform the public of the critical work that is being done, nor do they reflect the crisis the county has gone through.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should publicize the Save Lives Santa Cruz initiative beyond what is currently on their website. For example, they should publish the Save Lives weekly operational review for the public to see the behind the scenes work that is happening. (F2)
R3:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should prepare weekly highlights from the Save Lives periodic reports for public consumption. (F2, F4)
R4:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should provide a regularly scheduled and recorded video report available to the public on the county website. (F2, F4)
F3:
Establishing the COVID-19 testing laboratory at University of California at Santa Cruz is a great example of cooperation among the university and public agencies in the county. The laboratory has received considerable attention but the cooperative effort among the County Public Health Division, Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County and UCSC has not.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Within the next 3 months the Health Service Agency of Santa Cruz County should create a press release detailing the support that was provided for the UCSC Laboratory. (F3)
F4:
The Santa Cruz County Public Health Division is staffed by well trained, skilled and knowledgeable professionals who applied that talent to help protect the residents of Santa Cruz County during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should prepare weekly highlights from the Save Lives periodic reports for public consumption. (F2, F4)
R4:
Within the next 3 months the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should provide a regularly scheduled and recorded video report available to the public on the county website. (F2, F4)
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Despite recognizing that the most important factor to reduce fire risk in the WUI area is the removal of entrenched encampments, the City has only done this in reaction to extreme emergency situations, instead of on a proactive basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Before the height of fire season, the City Council should agendize and recognize the fire risk from encampments and craft an ordinance to address these issues. (F1, F2)
F2:
The Temporary Outdoor Living Ordinance was a significant step toward proactive management and mitigating the risks associated with entrenched encampments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Before the height of fire season, the City Council should agendize and recognize the fire risk from encampments and craft an ordinance to address these issues. (F1, F2)
F3:
The coordination between the City and the County on homeless issues is insufficient and not transparent to the public.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
In the next three months, the City Council needs to have more transparent and formal coordination with the county on management of homeless resources. (F3)
R8:
In the next six months, the City Council should produce a detailed plan and accounting of how the federal and state homeless funds are used. (F3)
F4:
Accurate data, including a count of the unhoused living in Santa Cruz, is necessary to assess and manage the fire risks from encampments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
In the next three months, the City Manager should establish a procedure for conducting regular quarterly surveys of the number and location of the City’s unhoused population to more effectively manage fire risks in WUI areas. (F4)
F5:
Based on the amount of debate and public concern about fire safety of eucalyptus, the Fire Department has done insufficient outreach on this topic.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In the next 12 months, the Santa Cruz Fire Department should educate the public on risk of fires caused by eucalyptus versus other vegetation. This would help all communities with eucalyptus trees realize the importance of vegetation management and not just in Firewise neighborhoods. (F5)
F6:
There are still WUI neighborhoods without a Firewise group. Firewise groups decrease the risk of fire in WUI areas through public education about protecting property and vegetation management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
In the next 12 months, the Santa Cruz Fire Department should work to establish a Firewise community in every WUI area of the City. (F6)
F7:
The City of Santa Cruz doesn’t do enough to show that they are limited in what they can do to remove encampments along highways as this property is owned by Caltrans and under state law.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
In the next three months, the City Manager should notify the public that Caltrans is responsible for the removal of all encampments along state highways. (F7)
R10:
Continually, the City Council should engage state offices to be more involved in encampment situations. This should be with all homeless encampments on Caltrans property and not just for highway widening projects. (F7)
F8:
The 10% across the board budget cuts do not match priorities of the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Before the budget cycle, the City Manager should revisit budget priorities. (F8)
F9:
The holding in Martin v. City of Boise limited the City’s ability to enforce existing ordinances. TOLO was a carefully crafted attempt to manage fire risks from entrenched encampments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City Council should continue efforts to revise ordinances to comply with recent case law so they will allow more effective management of encampments to reduce fire risks. (F9)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Residents are still concerned about response, evacuation, and future preparation in the aftermath of the CZU Lightning Complex Fire. They are understandably irate. The supervisors, elected to their positions by our community, fail to recognize that they are responsible to adequately address these concerns.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
In the next 30 days the Board of Supervisors should conduct an investigation to challenge Cal Fire on their preparation for future fire events, Cal Fire’s response to the CZU Complex Fire, and give satisfactory answers to all residents’ questions and concerns as documented in this report. (F1, F2, F3)
R2:
In the next six months the Board of Supervisors should adopt a formal policy for handling and logging resident complaints and requests for information. (F1, F3)
R3:
Within the next six months, the Board of Supervisors should require that Cal Fire produce timely after-action reports for all major incidents. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
R4:
In the next 90 days the Board of Supervisors should direct staff to produce a lessons-learned document for the public summarizing their investigation of Cal Fire and an action plan detailing how preparation for future fire events and response will be improved. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F2:
There was a marked difference in content and depth of analysis between Cal Fire’s Virtual Community Meeting presentation given to San Mateo County and the two given to Santa Cruz County. The discrepancy is disappointing and not acceptable.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
In the next 30 days the Board of Supervisors should conduct an investigation to challenge Cal Fire on their preparation for future fire events, Cal Fire’s response to the CZU Complex Fire, and give satisfactory answers to all residents’ questions and concerns as documented in this report. (F1, F2, F3)
R3:
Within the next six months, the Board of Supervisors should require that Cal Fire produce timely after-action reports for all major incidents. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
R4:
In the next 90 days the Board of Supervisors should direct staff to produce a lessons-learned document for the public summarizing their investigation of Cal Fire and an action plan detailing how preparation for future fire events and response will be improved. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F3:
The Board of Supervisors did not adequately respond to their constituents' concerns and questions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
In the next 30 days the Board of Supervisors should conduct an investigation to challenge Cal Fire on their preparation for future fire events, Cal Fire’s response to the CZU Complex Fire, and give satisfactory answers to all residents’ questions and concerns as documented in this report. (F1, F2, F3)
R2:
In the next six months the Board of Supervisors should adopt a formal policy for handling and logging resident complaints and requests for information. (F1, F3)
F4:
The Board of Supervisors has not held Cal Fire accountable for their lack of analysis of their performance in the CZU Lightning Complex fire.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Within the next six months, the Board of Supervisors should require that Cal Fire produce timely after-action reports for all major incidents. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
R4:
In the next 90 days the Board of Supervisors should direct staff to produce a lessons-learned document for the public summarizing their investigation of Cal Fire and an action plan detailing how preparation for future fire events and response will be improved. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F5:
No provision exists in the current contract between the county and Cal Fire to develop after-action reports during the non-fire season.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Within the next six months, the Board of Supervisors should require that Cal Fire produce timely after-action reports for all major incidents. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
R4:
In the next 90 days the Board of Supervisors should direct staff to produce a lessons-learned document for the public summarizing their investigation of Cal Fire and an action plan detailing how preparation for future fire events and response will be improved. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F6:
The Board of Supervisors’ responses to the Findings and Recommendations of the 2020 Ready? Aim? Fire! report show a lack of engagement with the material and a lack of understanding of their role as advocates for the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should revisit its responses to the Grand Jury’s 2020 Ready? Aim? Fire! Report, and rewrite their responses by December 31, 2021 in a document posted on their website to demonstrate hands-on engagement and better preparation for the next fire season. (F6)
F7:
The adequacy of resources for firefighting in the future is questioned due to uncertainty of mutual aid assistance, deployment and management of volunteer companies, and availability of funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Within six months the Board of Supervisors should direct staff to advocate for additional funding for fire preparation and prevention resources from the state of California. (F7)
F24:
The annual report to the County BoS X DISAGREE – The County Fire/CAL and the County Administrative Office by FIRE Chief gave a State of the State County Fire/CAL FIRE does not provide presentation to the Board during Budget data or analysis of resources, response Hearings, which provided both data and times, code enforcement, inspection, or analysis of resources, response times, education. This information is necessary code enforcement, inspection, and to show what gaps exist between current education. This is aligned with the budget performance and community needs in process. This presentation is also given to order for informed budget decisions to be the Fire Dept Advisory commission made. Without adequate background (FDAC), holds {sic} responsibility to information, the BoS is unable to hold provide oversite {sic} of these. CAL FIRE accountable for the specific responsibilities specified in their contract.
F26:
Reporting data, statistics, and X AGREE formats utilized by fire agencies throughout the County are highly inconsistent, uncoordinated, and therefore not readily evaluated and compared. The standard Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating system would be useful to adopt. Response time data are not well described or consistently reported by the jurisdictions, making accurate assessment difficult, especially by other agencies or by the public. Report Recommendations BoS Responses
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
Each year, during the budget X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – presentation, the County BoS should There is currently no funding for a require County Fire to provide a vegetation management plan for the vegetation management plan, including a County Fire Department. We currently priority list of projects and a timeframe for coordinate with CAL FIRE on a priority list their completion. of projects that have timeline {sic} related to available funding. In order to implement such and {sic} process will require additional analysis and potential funding.
R17:
The County Office of Emergency X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – Services should evaluate, quantify, and An after-action review is conducted after report to the County BoS on the specifics every major incident and disaster of the public state of preparedness for a response. Due to the CZU Lightning large-scale emergency such as wildfire by Complex Fire, these areas will also be June, 2021. addressed during the after-action review, identifying operational effectiveness as well as areas for improvement.
Findings & Recommendations
30 findings
F1:
Vegetation/fuel management and abatement are not receiving the attention nor funding needed from the County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors, and therefore are not adhering to California Government Executive Order 1.8.19-EO-N-05-19.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
Each year, during the budget presentation, the County Board of Supervisors should require County Fire to provide a vegetation management plan, including a priority list of projects and a timeframe for their completion. (F1, F10, F16, F29)
R10:
Santa Cruz County and Cities should create and/or update Hazard Mitigation Plans by July 1, 2021. Any new or existing plans should be updated a minimum of every three years. All plans should address wildfire risk, evacuation and shelter in place plans, emergency alerts, vegetation management, and confirm compliance with California SB 821. (F1, F2, F10, F11, F14–F16, F29)
F2:
Santa Cruz County residents are at increased risk of fire danger due to the lack of risk management for wildfire. Specific risks are not formally identified, tracked, assessed for impact, nor is progress reported by fire departments in the County. Therefore, leaders responsible for budgets and accountability are left unprepared to manage risk, impact, or performance.
Related Recommendations (6)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require CAL FIRE and County Fire to provide quarterly and annual reports to the County General Services Department with specified data and success metrics for each of the contract requirements, beginning with the current fiscal year. (F2, F24, F26, F29)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require CAL FIRE, in conjunction with the General Services Department, to provide annual operations reviews with performance metrics and annual improvement objectives, beginning with the current fiscal year. (F2, F24, F26, F29)
R4:
The fire districts of Santa Cruz County should establish a plan by January 2021, to develop actionable Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) that follow the framework established by the 2018 Santa Cruz County - San Mateo County CWPP. (F2, F5, F22)
R10:
Santa Cruz County and Cities should create and/or update Hazard Mitigation Plans by July 1, 2021. Any new or existing plans should be updated a minimum of every three years. All plans should address wildfire risk, evacuation and shelter in place plans, emergency alerts, vegetation management, and confirm compliance with California SB 821. (F1, F2, F10, F11, F14–F16, F29)
R13:
LAFCO review of County fire districts should include the review of fire risk reduction plans and achievements, and LAFCO should perform this specific and focused review for all districts by June 2021. (F2, F28)
R19:
The Board of Supervisors should require the CAO to appoint a county Risk Manager, by December 31, 2020. The Risk Manager should report to the CAO, who will be responsible for ongoing identification, analysis, quantification, and remediation planning of all fire risks across the County. This role should be considered as a service to all four cities in the County as well. (F2, F3, F24)
F3:
City and County officials have not collaborated with PG&E to identify the location of high risk PG&E electrical equipment, and so are left uninformed as to how to manage their responsibilities or how to instruct residents about potential danger due to proximity to this equipment.
Related Recommendations (2)
R19:
The Board of Supervisors should require the CAO to appoint a county Risk Manager, by December 31, 2020. The Risk Manager should report to the CAO, who will be responsible for ongoing identification, analysis, quantification, and remediation planning of all fire risks across the County. This role should be considered as a service to all four cities in the County as well. (F2, F3, F24)
R22:
The Santa Cruz County Administrative Office should develop and sign a Memorandum of Understanding between the County and PG&E, to require that PG&E share and update quarterly the location of their aging and high risk equipment. This should include coverage of the four cities in the County and should be done by December 31, 2020. (F3)
F4:
Most of Santa Cruz County in addition to the City of Santa Cruz with its large eucalyptus groves are not being monitored by the ALERTWildfire Imaging Surveillance system and would be well served by the installation of cameras capable of monitoring coastal areas occupied by eucalyptus groves in areas harboring potential sources of ignition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
Santa Cruz County and Cities should invest in an ALERTWildfire Imaging Surveillance system. Cameras should be purchased, installed, and tested to achieve full coverage of the County by the beginning of the 2021 fire season. (F4)
F5:
Santa Cruz County would greatly benefit if steps were taken to implement the CAL FIRE, San Mateo - Santa Cruz Unit 2018 recommendation of developing detailed, site specific Community Wildfire Protection Plans for communities throughout the County. Emergency Response
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The fire districts of Santa Cruz County should establish a plan by January 2021, to develop actionable Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) that follow the framework established by the 2018 Santa Cruz County - San Mateo County CWPP. (F2, F5, F22)
F6:
Response time data for fire departments in Santa Cruz County is challenging to obtain. Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 previously reported response time data in their annual reports, but did not do so in the 2018 or 2019 annual reports.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should include response time data, for each fire department in their annual reports, starting with the 2020 annual report. (F6, F26)
R25:
The County Board of Supervisors should explain to the public why the Proposition 218 information on response times is inconsistent with the response time data available from County Fire by December 31, 2020. (F6, F8, F30)
F7:
Residents living in the CSA-48 receive a lower level of emergency medical support than those living in more urban areas where ALS is provided.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County Board of Supervisors should request that the County Fire Chief submit an analysis and a recommended plan to assess whether to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) year round to the County Fire service area by the 2021-2022 budget. (F7)
F8:
Santa Cruz County Fire, through its contract with CAL FIRE, has not been meeting the “two in, two out" requirement, reducing their ability to respond effectively and quickly to individuals or structures needing attention in a fire emergency. Proposition 218 was proposed and passed to be able to satisfy the “two in, two out” requirement, without a clear commitment by County Fire that that standard will be consistently met in all CSA-48 locations. In addition, no analysis was presented to quantify the effect on response time.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
County Fire should provide a plan to the County Board of Supervisors by September 30, 2020 identifying how and when the new CSA 48 tax revenue will result in the addition of six more firefighters to the response team, enabling the required “two in, two out” in a fire emergency. (F8)
R25:
The County Board of Supervisors should explain to the public why the Proposition 218 information on response times is inconsistent with the response time data available from County Fire by December 31, 2020. (F6, F8, F30)
F9:
The number of County Fire volunteer firefighters has decreased from 110 to 60 since 2004. There has been no analysis done on the impact this reduction in staffing has had on the level of service provided to residents. Reductions in available numbers of prison firefighters likewise should be acknowledged.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The County Board of Supervisors should set an objective for County Fire to increase the number of volunteer firefighters by July 1, 2022, as well as a plan for use of the prison workforce or an alternative.This needs to be done in concert with a comprehensive resource plan for County Fire. (F9)
F10:
Roadside vegetation in rural areas of the County is not being cleared consistently which could potentially increase emergency response time, putting life and property in unnecessary danger. Furthermore, evacuations could be restricted as there is no rule or program that mandates that roads, even critical evacuation routes, be kept cleared meeting defensible space requirements. Alerts & Evacuation
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
Each year, during the budget presentation, the County Board of Supervisors should require County Fire to provide a vegetation management plan, including a priority list of projects and a timeframe for their completion. (F1, F10, F16, F29)
R10:
Santa Cruz County and Cities should create and/or update Hazard Mitigation Plans by July 1, 2021. Any new or existing plans should be updated a minimum of every three years. All plans should address wildfire risk, evacuation and shelter in place plans, emergency alerts, vegetation management, and confirm compliance with California SB 821. (F1, F2, F10, F11, F14–F16, F29)
F11:
There are only approximately 17,000 accounts for the Santa Cruz County opt-in CodeRED™ emergency system, which implies that a significant portion of the County may not receive emergency alert messages, which potentially reduces residents’ opportunity to take action in a timely, life-saving manner.
Related Recommendations (3)
R10:
Santa Cruz County and Cities should create and/or update Hazard Mitigation Plans by July 1, 2021. Any new or existing plans should be updated a minimum of every three years. All plans should address wildfire risk, evacuation and shelter in place plans, emergency alerts, vegetation management, and confirm compliance with California SB 821. (F1, F2, F10, F11, F14–F16, F29)
R17:
The County Office of Emergency Services should evaluate, quantify, and report to the County Board of Supervisors on the specifics of the public state of preparedness for a large-scale emergency such as wildfire by June, 2021. (F11, F23)
R21:
County emergency planners at all levels should provide notification of evacuation routes and/or shelter-in-place options by March 31, 2021. Notification plans should be provided for when power is out and dissemination of information by wireless or internet is difficult or impossible. (F11, F14, F15, F17, F18, F27)
F12:
Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs), have been deployed in other areas of the state and have proven effective tools in alerting residents in urban and rural areas to a wildfire. However, Santa Cruz County has no such devices, increasing the risk to County residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
County Fire and the fire districts within the County should evaluate whether purchase of Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) would be beneficial in helping notify residents to evacuate in an emergency by December 31, 2020. (F12, F15, F17, F18)
F13:
High risk communities in the County are left unnecessarily vulnerable due to the lack of easily accessible, published information of refuge/assembly areas and structures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
The County Office of Emergency Services should inventory, designate, and publish locations by December 31, 2020 for assembly and refuge in high risk communities, designating shelter in place locations in case of threatening wildfire when evacuation from the area might not be possible. (F13–F15, F27)
F14:
Because the County does not publish a “shelter in place” plan, when a fire expands rapidly, residents cannot make informed decisions about whether to shelter in place or evacuate.
Related Recommendations (4)
R10:
Santa Cruz County and Cities should create and/or update Hazard Mitigation Plans by July 1, 2021. Any new or existing plans should be updated a minimum of every three years. All plans should address wildfire risk, evacuation and shelter in place plans, emergency alerts, vegetation management, and confirm compliance with California SB 821. (F1, F2, F10, F11, F14–F16, F29)
R12:
The Santa Cruz County Office of Emergency Services should create and publish shelter in place plans, with the cooperation of all county fire protection districts and cities, and should inform citizens of safe building locations, and on what to expect and what to do in case of wildfire, by March 31, 2021. (F14)
R20:
The County Office of Emergency Services should inventory, designate, and publish locations by December 31, 2020 for assembly and refuge in high risk communities, designating shelter in place locations in case of threatening wildfire when evacuation from the area might not be possible. (F13–F15, F27)
R21:
County emergency planners at all levels should provide notification of evacuation routes and/or shelter-in-place options by March 31, 2021. Notification plans should be provided for when power is out and dissemination of information by wireless or internet is difficult or impossible. (F11, F14, F15, F17, F18, F27)
F15:
Unlike the City of Santa Cruz, the County does not publish emergency evacuation routes, purportedly to avoid having old or untimely information being followed in an emergency. The County therefore withholds revealing evacuation routes until an emergency is in progress, likely creating unnecessary risk and potential for chaos.
Related Recommendations (5)
R10:
Santa Cruz County and Cities should create and/or update Hazard Mitigation Plans by July 1, 2021. Any new or existing plans should be updated a minimum of every three years. All plans should address wildfire risk, evacuation and shelter in place plans, emergency alerts, vegetation management, and confirm compliance with California SB 821. (F1, F2, F10, F11, F14–F16, F29)
R18:
County Fire and the fire districts within the County should evaluate whether purchase of Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) would be beneficial in helping notify residents to evacuate in an emergency by December 31, 2020. (F12, F15, F17, F18)
R20:
The County Office of Emergency Services should inventory, designate, and publish locations by December 31, 2020 for assembly and refuge in high risk communities, designating shelter in place locations in case of threatening wildfire when evacuation from the area might not be possible. (F13–F15, F27)
R21:
County emergency planners at all levels should provide notification of evacuation routes and/or shelter-in-place options by March 31, 2021. Notification plans should be provided for when power is out and dissemination of information by wireless or internet is difficult or impossible. (F11, F14, F15, F17, F18, F27)
R24:
The County Board of Supervisors should update regulations to require evacuation routes be kept clear for fire prevention, not just for line of sight, but also for access by fire engines and other emergency equipment by the beginning of the 2021 fire season. (F15–F18, F27)
F16:
In the Wildland Urban Interface zone, and in many town centers, traffic choke points exist, and in some instances have roadway obstacles to traffic flow such as overgrown vegetation, concrete medians, curbs, and lane reductions resulting in roads that are inadequate for mass evacuations.
Related Recommendations (3)
R9:
Each year, during the budget presentation, the County Board of Supervisors should require County Fire to provide a vegetation management plan, including a priority list of projects and a timeframe for their completion. (F1, F10, F16, F29)
R10:
Santa Cruz County and Cities should create and/or update Hazard Mitigation Plans by July 1, 2021. Any new or existing plans should be updated a minimum of every three years. All plans should address wildfire risk, evacuation and shelter in place plans, emergency alerts, vegetation management, and confirm compliance with California SB 821. (F1, F2, F10, F11, F14–F16, F29)
R24:
The County Board of Supervisors should update regulations to require evacuation routes be kept clear for fire prevention, not just for line of sight, but also for access by fire engines and other emergency equipment by the beginning of the 2021 fire season. (F15–F18, F27)
F17:
Santa Cruz County residents, and especially those living in District 5, would benefit if the 2019 San Lorenzo Evacuation Study performed by KLD Engineering was made available on a County agency web site and publicized.
Related Recommendations (3)
R18:
County Fire and the fire districts within the County should evaluate whether purchase of Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) would be beneficial in helping notify residents to evacuate in an emergency by December 31, 2020. (F12, F15, F17, F18)
R21:
County emergency planners at all levels should provide notification of evacuation routes and/or shelter-in-place options by March 31, 2021. Notification plans should be provided for when power is out and dissemination of information by wireless or internet is difficult or impossible. (F11, F14, F15, F17, F18, F27)
R24:
The County Board of Supervisors should update regulations to require evacuation routes be kept clear for fire prevention, not just for line of sight, but also for access by fire engines and other emergency equipment by the beginning of the 2021 fire season. (F15–F18, F27)
F18:
Santa Cruz County has not sufficiently implemented lessons learned from Butte County's Paradise Fire on the importance of traffic management during an evacuation. It is imperative the County Office of Emergency Services ensures coordination between neighboring communities to manage traffic light sequencing and conversion of two-way roads into one-way evacuation routes, enabling mass evacuation during a wildfire. Education
Related Recommendations (3)
R18:
County Fire and the fire districts within the County should evaluate whether purchase of Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) would be beneficial in helping notify residents to evacuate in an emergency by December 31, 2020. (F12, F15, F17, F18)
R21:
County emergency planners at all levels should provide notification of evacuation routes and/or shelter-in-place options by March 31, 2021. Notification plans should be provided for when power is out and dissemination of information by wireless or internet is difficult or impossible. (F11, F14, F15, F17, F18, F27)
R24:
The County Board of Supervisors should update regulations to require evacuation routes be kept clear for fire prevention, not just for line of sight, but also for access by fire engines and other emergency equipment by the beginning of the 2021 fire season. (F15–F18, F27)
F19:
Wildfire preparedness informational materials are well done and public education is attempted by fire departments in the County, but fails to sufficiently reach and motivate residents to act.
Related Recommendations (3)
R11:
The CAL FIRE Ready for Wildfire website should be actively promoted and shared within the community via all available means, including printed descriptive materials inserted into utility and property tax bills, by December 31, 2020. (F19–F21)
R15:
All fire districts in Santa Cruz County should coordinate with utility companies to provide information to residents, via information inserted in utility bill mailings, describing how to sign up for emergency notifications by December 31, 2020. (F19)
R16:
Fire departments throughout the County should take an active role in encouraging communities and neighborhoods to sign up for FireWise, and be measured on their success by their respective governing boards on an annual basis. (F19–F22)
F20:
The FireWise institution provides a valuable fire prevention program and, as of March 2020, there were eight FireWise communities registered in the County. Marin County, by contrast, with a similar population, has sixty registered communities, highlighting the need for more FireWise promotion and participation in Santa Cruz County.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
The CAL FIRE Ready for Wildfire website should be actively promoted and shared within the community via all available means, including printed descriptive materials inserted into utility and property tax bills, by December 31, 2020. (F19–F21)
R16:
Fire departments throughout the County should take an active role in encouraging communities and neighborhoods to sign up for FireWise, and be measured on their success by their respective governing boards on an annual basis. (F19–F22)
F21:
The County Office of Emergency Services and fire agencies in the County encourage residents to be prepared for an emergency, however the passive mechanisms such as web sites used to encourage preparedness are not proving to be sufficient.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
The CAL FIRE Ready for Wildfire website should be actively promoted and shared within the community via all available means, including printed descriptive materials inserted into utility and property tax bills, by December 31, 2020. (F19–F21)
R16:
Fire departments throughout the County should take an active role in encouraging communities and neighborhoods to sign up for FireWise, and be measured on their success by their respective governing boards on an annual basis. (F19–F22)
F22:
Property owners in the County are responsible for their own vegetation management, yet they are often not sufficiently educated about vegetation management practices, or do not have the capability, financial resources, or desire to create defensible space. Governance & Transparency
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The fire districts of Santa Cruz County should establish a plan by January 2021, to develop actionable Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) that follow the framework established by the 2018 Santa Cruz County - San Mateo County CWPP. (F2, F5, F22)
R16:
Fire departments throughout the County should take an active role in encouraging communities and neighborhoods to sign up for FireWise, and be measured on their success by their respective governing boards on an annual basis. (F19–F22)
F23:
No single organization in the County is assuming a leadership role in Fire Hazard Mitigation. It is not clear whose responsibility it is to minimize this County wide risk.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Santa Cruz County, under the auspices of the Emergency Management Council (EMC) with LAFCO support, should study a governing structure that would tie all fire agencies in the County together with common leadership, objectives, sharing of data, and maximized use of resources. (F23, F25)
R14:
LAFCO should increase its comprehensive review of County fire district services from once every 10 years to once every five years. (F23, F25)
R17:
The County Office of Emergency Services should evaluate, quantify, and report to the County Board of Supervisors on the specifics of the public state of preparedness for a large-scale emergency such as wildfire by June, 2021. (F11, F23)
F24:
The annual report to the County Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office by County Fire/CAL FIRE does not provide data or analysis of resources, response times, code enforcement, inspection, or education. This information is necessary to show what gaps exist between current performance and community needs in order for informed budget decisions to be made. Without adequate background information, the Board of Supervisors is unable to hold CAL FIRE accountable for the specific responsibilities specified in their contract.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require CAL FIRE and County Fire to provide quarterly and annual reports to the County General Services Department with specified data and success metrics for each of the contract requirements, beginning with the current fiscal year. (F2, F24, F26, F29)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require CAL FIRE, in conjunction with the General Services Department, to provide annual operations reviews with performance metrics and annual improvement objectives, beginning with the current fiscal year. (F2, F24, F26, F29)
R19:
The Board of Supervisors should require the CAO to appoint a county Risk Manager, by December 31, 2020. The Risk Manager should report to the CAO, who will be responsible for ongoing identification, analysis, quantification, and remediation planning of all fire risks across the County. This role should be considered as a service to all four cities in the County as well. (F2, F3, F24)
F25:
The four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley would benefit by further aligning their policies and procedures in anticipation of future consolidation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Santa Cruz County, under the auspices of the Emergency Management Council (EMC) with LAFCO support, should study a governing structure that would tie all fire agencies in the County together with common leadership, objectives, sharing of data, and maximized use of resources. (F23, F25)
R14:
LAFCO should increase its comprehensive review of County fire district services from once every 10 years to once every five years. (F23, F25)
F26:
Reporting data, statistics, and formats utilized by fire agencies throughout the County are highly inconsistent, uncoordinated, and therefore not readily evaluated and compared. The standard Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating system would be useful to adopt. Response time data are not well described or consistently reported by the jurisdictions, making accurate assessment difficult, especially by other agencies or by the public.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require CAL FIRE and County Fire to provide quarterly and annual reports to the County General Services Department with specified data and success metrics for each of the contract requirements, beginning with the current fiscal year. (F2, F24, F26, F29)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require CAL FIRE, in conjunction with the General Services Department, to provide annual operations reviews with performance metrics and annual improvement objectives, beginning with the current fiscal year. (F2, F24, F26, F29)
R5:
Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should include response time data, for each fire department in their annual reports, starting with the 2020 annual report. (F6, F26)
F27:
The 2015 County of Santa Cruz Emergency Operations Management plan does not adequately address evacuation, and references data too outdated to be useful, such as a population density map from the 2000 census.
Related Recommendations (3)
R20:
The County Office of Emergency Services should inventory, designate, and publish locations by December 31, 2020 for assembly and refuge in high risk communities, designating shelter in place locations in case of threatening wildfire when evacuation from the area might not be possible. (F13–F15, F27)
R21:
County emergency planners at all levels should provide notification of evacuation routes and/or shelter-in-place options by March 31, 2021. Notification plans should be provided for when power is out and dissemination of information by wireless or internet is difficult or impossible. (F11, F14, F15, F17, F18, F27)
R24:
The County Board of Supervisors should update regulations to require evacuation routes be kept clear for fire prevention, not just for line of sight, but also for access by fire engines and other emergency equipment by the beginning of the 2021 fire season. (F15–F18, F27)
F28:
The 2016 LAFCO Municipal Service Review of Fire Districts report and its 2006 predecessor do not adequately address district performance in the areas of Fire Risk Reduction (specifically: inspections, vegetation management, and education).
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
LAFCO review of County fire districts should include the review of fire risk reduction plans and achievements, and LAFCO should perform this specific and focused review for all districts by June 2021. (F2, F28)
F29:
The Grand Jury finds that formally specified baseline and target performance statements, in alignment with the Center for Public Safety Excellence Assessment Process, neither currently exist nor are they reported by fire departments in the County as required by best practice standards. There are no goals set or measures made of progress for review by the Board of Supervisors regarding County Fire/CAL FIRE performance. Other fire districts in the County are similarly remiss in reporting to their governing bodies. Appropriate goals would include progress on response times, vegetation management, and code inspection progress, all of which are necessary to properly quantify the budget and resources required for full-time, volunteer, and prison inmate workforces, in appropriate, affordable proportions.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require CAL FIRE and County Fire to provide quarterly and annual reports to the County General Services Department with specified data and success metrics for each of the contract requirements, beginning with the current fiscal year. (F2, F24, F26, F29)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require CAL FIRE, in conjunction with the General Services Department, to provide annual operations reviews with performance metrics and annual improvement objectives, beginning with the current fiscal year. (F2, F24, F26, F29)
R9:
Each year, during the budget presentation, the County Board of Supervisors should require County Fire to provide a vegetation management plan, including a priority list of projects and a timeframe for their completion. (F1, F10, F16, F29)
R10:
Santa Cruz County and Cities should create and/or update Hazard Mitigation Plans by July 1, 2021. Any new or existing plans should be updated a minimum of every three years. All plans should address wildfire risk, evacuation and shelter in place plans, emergency alerts, vegetation management, and confirm compliance with California SB 821. (F1, F2, F10, F11, F14–F16, F29)
F30:
Due to the inconsistent reporting of response times provided by CAL FIRE in Proposition 218, conflict with information supplied by document request to the Grand Jury, and due to lack of performance standards for response times, voters may have been ill-informed when voting on the proposition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R25:
The County Board of Supervisors should explain to the public why the Proposition 218 information on response times is inconsistent with the response time data available from County Fire by December 31, 2020. (F6, F8, F30)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Santa Cruz City Schools Comprehensive School Safety Plans provide a best practice and is a useful resource for parents and the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Continue to be proactive in evaluating voting systems that are safe, efficient, and available. The County Clerk responded to R1 with a pledge of future implementation: As new systems become available, we will participate in evaluating them. After 2018 and the implementation of the Vote Center model in a few counties in California, Santa Cruz will need to determine if we want to pursue a Vote Center model or the current polling place model. The type of voting model will impact our voting system needs. We anticipate putting together a voter advisory group in 2018 to assist us as we evaluate our options.
F2:
The Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security provides an excellent resource for school administration with its K-12 school shooting database.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Once USB drives or other equipment have been connected to the County network, do not reattach to the offline vote counting systems. The County Clerk’s response affirmed that this recommendation already was implemented for future use: We have purchased additional USB drives and now have procedures in place to use a USB drive only once when taking data from our vote counting system and loading it onto the county network. Recommendation made to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors:
F3:
The Pajaro Valley Unified School District can improve its oversight and communications by following the The California League of Bond Oversight Committees (CaLBOC) Best Practices document on School Bond Oversight Committee Operations Standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Identify and budget requisite funds for replacement of outdated election equipment once it has been certified (state certified, federally qualified). The Board of Supervisors responded to R3 with a pledge of future implementation, adding “The Board understands the need for election equipment upgrades.” 2020 Status Update: Were commitments fulfilled? In October 2019, the County Clerk’s Office visited the Grand Jury to explain the new voting system operation and discuss various aspects of the election cycle - a presentation similar to several offered to the public at large to acquaint them with the new system. More recently, answering the Grand Jury’s request for a 2020 status update, Respondents provided the following additional information on improvements to Santa Cruz County election equipment and procedures: ● Two federally qualified and state certified systems were offered to the County by the California Secretary of State.[23] [24] ● A Decision Group was formed, consisting of members from County Counsel, General Services, and Voter Accessibility Advisory Committee.[25] ● Formation of the Voter Advisory Group (originally planned for 2018) was delayed; the Elections Department plans to assemble the promised Citizen Advisory Group in 2021.[26] ● Of the two systems approved by the Secretary of State, Dominion Voting Systems was chosen, based largely on the long-established relationship of trust with the vendor.[27] ● A Staff Memo written by the County Clerk, and with approval recommended by County Administrative Officer, was presented to the Board of Supervisors at a regular public meeting on June 25, 2019.[28] ● June 25, 2019 Minutes indicate that the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the voting system lease agreement.[29] [30] ● Deciding to opt out of the Vote Center model, the Elections Department instead developed a hybrid model of traditional polling sites plus ten Voter Service centers - the hybrid system functioned smoothly and efficiently in the March primary election.[31] ● Some modifications and refinements to this hybrid model are anticipated to further improve efficiency and accessibility for voters.[32] In its update, the County Administrative Office (responding on behalf of the Board of Supervisors) simply confirmed that “New election equipment has been certified, leased, and deployed for use during the March 2020 Presidential Primary Election”,[33] providing a link to the Elections Department website “votescount.com” for more information.[34] In conclusion, we find that three recommendations were made, and three responsive commitments were fulfilled. Based on the Decision Group evaluation of voting system options, the memo and presentation by the County Clerk, and the County Administrator’s recommendation, the Board of Supervisors approved the new contract and service agreement for the new voting system. The County Clerk completed all actions promised by immediately correcting a USB drive security vulnerability, and by evaluating available voting systems and efficiently transitioning to the updated system, successfully implementing its use in the Countywide primary election of March 2020. Report Title: Assessing the Threat of Violence in our Public Schools The 2016-17 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury investigated the readiness of our 10 public school districts, the County’s alternative education sites, and their respective law enforcement agencies to respond effectively to threats of targeted school violence. State law requires all public school districts and county offices of education to develop a comprehensive school safety plan. 2020 Status Update: Were Commitments Fulfilled? The Grand Jury reports and responses of 2016-2017 has been the primary source of information used to examine whether or not the respective agencies fulfilled their commitments to implement recommended actions.[35] In addition, a Santa Cruz County Grand Jury report was issued in 2018[36] to review and confirm the first step: the development and documentation of a comprehensive Countywide threat plan (‘The Plan’).[37] In that report, additional information about the Plan and the training was provided by the County Office of Education (COE). The 2018 investigation only looked at the COE and the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office (CSO)’s compliance with their responses and the development of the threat assessment plan. It did not analyze or evaluate the agencies’ plans or preparations for physically securing school sites in a threat situation. This report takes that step. We reviewed the Offices of Education websites for publicly available information and documentation, and requested documentation from the boards and law enforcement agencies to confirm actions taken as outlined in the plans. Training materials were reviewed as well as training roster attendance. As one benchmark with which to compare, the similar report made by the San Diego County Grand Jury was reviewed for best practices and opportunities to further improve. In reviewing the 2019 report of the San Diego County Grand Jury ”School Safety in San Diego County - How Prepared Are We for Another Active School Shooting?”[38] we extract these key
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The BoS should allocate funds for a permanent budget for the SSP to function as mandated per SSP Policy and Procedures. 2016-17 response: BoS: Requires further analysis 2019-20 updated response: BoS: Has been implemented[61] Notes: The BoS felt it was necessary to evaluate funding opportunities before committing in 2017. By February 2019, SSP was re-organized under the Communicable Diseases Unit of the Public Health Division (PHD) which allowed a new staffing structure for SSP.[62] It continues to explore ways to access and utilize state funds allocated to address the opioid crisis.
R5:
The HSA should devote more time and resources to community outreach to promote rehabilitation and counselling of SSP clients. 2016-17 response: HSA and BoS: Has been implemented 2019-20 updated response: none provided. However, in the 2019 biennial report HSA recommended that SSP be incorporated into the Homeless Persons Health Project clinical field services.[63]
R6:
The HSA should implement a mobile needle exchange unit to increase access to SSP services. 2016-17 responses: HSA and BoS: Requires further analysis 2019-20 updated responses: BoS: Requires further analysis[64] HSA: On 6/11/2019 presented their biennial report to BoS and presented recommended actions for Board direction in response to the Grand Jury report. In addition to the recommendation that SSP be incorporated into the Homeless Persons Health Project, HSA recommended a mobile exchange unit program to reach out to clients in the field.[65] SSP will return to BoS at a later date with a plan for review.
R7:
The HSA should post hazardous waste signs with a single contact number for advice or reporting, available 24/7, in areas where syringes are commonly found. 2016-17 responses: BoS and HSA: Requires further analysis 2019-20 updated responses: BoS: Requires further analysis[66] HSA: On 6/11/19, the BoS directed that the HSA collaborate with the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to complete a study of syringe litter. HSA to return with a proposed plan for a possible pilot program that could include using the County’s Citizen Connect mobile app to provide information about and reporting syringes. Further, HSA’s PHD is working with the CDPH office of AIDS to evaluate syringe disposal practices in the community, including where syringes are most commonly found. HSA will continue to explore ways to educate and inform the community.[67]
R8:
The HSA should install and maintain Sharps containers in bathrooms in high needle-use public areas. 2016-17 responses: HSA and BoS: Requires further analysis 2019-20 updated responses: BoS: Will not be implemented[68] HSA: As Sharps containers in public bathrooms have been vandalized, HSA is focusing on placement of public kiosks in county & city jurisdictions. On 6/11/19, BoS directed the Board Chair to write a letter to local jurisdictions to work with them to install kiosks at HSA expense. HSA reached out to all local jurisdictions in the County to offer the installation and maintenance of public Sharps Containers and continues to work with partner jurisdictions to identify safe disposal sites. Also, the City of Santa Cruz formally offered willingness to coordinate with the County for placement of four additional disposal kiosks in the city.[69]
R9:
The SSP should coordinate specific clean-up events throughout the county on a regular basis and report such efforts in their biennial and annual reports. 2016-17 responses: HSA and BoS: Requires further analysis 2019-20 updated responses: BoS: Will not be implemented[70] HSA: The HSA is using models that include more frequent clean-up; partnering with the County Department of Public Works, HSA provides $40,000 annually to Save Our Shores, Downtown Streets Team, and a private vendor for needle disposal as a part of these groups’ existing work. Also, HSA has a $10,000 contract with a private vendor for enhanced syringe clean-up focusing on the Emeline neighborhood. Once the results of the syringe litter study are analyzed (as described in R7), HSA will focus syringe disposal resources to the areas which data shows are most impacted by discarded needles. Disposal collection data will be included in future biennial reports.[71] The HSA has continued to include the Grand Jury's "Sharper Solutions" recommendations in its monthly progress reports to the BoS , including as recently as December 10, 2019 (as of this writing). SSP has been directed to return to the BoS in June of 2020 with recommendations to improve syringe litter reporting and response.[72] Report Title: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District - The Bus Stops Here The 2016-2017 Grand Jury investigation led to 15 findings resulting in 16 separate recommendations. Responses were required from both the METRO Board of Directors (Board) and the METRO Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Overall, answers provided by the Board matched those given by its CEO. Explanations were required for partial or full disagreement with any finding, and for all responses to the recommendations. Of the 16 recommendations, METRO had stated that four “required further analysis”, while one recommendation “has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future”. 2020 Status Update - Were Commitments Fulfilled? In November 2019, the METRO CEO provided updates[73] to the 2017 report responses.
R10:
Metro should improve cleanliness at transit facilities.
R11:
Metro should improve maintenance at transit facilities. 2017 response: CEO: requires further analysis. 2019 updated response: Metro has made three significant accomplishments relative to these recommendations: ● In FY17, the METRO Board authorized one additional Custodial Service Worker. ● In compliance with the Federal Transit Administration’s requirement that all agencies receiving federal funds develop a Transit Asset Management Plan, METRO met the federal deadline and now has a plan in place that recognizes ● all assets valued at $50,000 or greater and establishes a remaining life for the asset and a Preventative Maintenance Program for the proper maintenance of the assets. Such a program now helps METRO regularly maintain the assets, facilitating the asset replacement program set forth in the Capital Improvement Plan. ● Over the past year METRO invested over $35,000 at Pacific Station remediating water damage and attempting to make the facility water-tight.
R12:
Metro should establish overnight parking at the Scotts Valley Cavallero Transit Center for riders. 2017 response: CEO: Requires further analysis 2019 updated response: METRO has posted the Cavallero Transit Center with signs reflecting overnight parking by permit only. Paper permits can be obtained at the Pacific Station customer service booth at a cost of $5 per day. METRO is also investigating a smartphone application that could eventually replace the paper permits.
R14:
METRO should use easily cleanable materials for bus seats. 2017 response: CEO: Has not been implemented; will be implemented in future. 2019 updated response: Upon further investigation, METRO discovered that the problem has nothing to do with padded seats. Since the 2017 Grand Jury report, METRO has received five new Gillig buses and will receive four new zero emissions Porterra electric buses next year. All of these buses have been specified with a different seat insert which has an impermeable vinyl cover. The current Grand Jury commends the METRO CEO, staff, and Board for ongoing efforts to improve and modernize service delivery. Based on our review, METRO has been consistent in fulfilling the commitments made in response to the Grand Jury report. The CEO’s 2020 Spring Message[74] affirms METRO’s ongoing commitment to improving services. Further, the Grand Jury commends METRO for the implementation of smartphone apps for more efficient ticketing and the anticipated Summer 2020 rollout of Automatic Vehicle Location, which will dramatically improve rider experience.[75] Kudos also for METRO’s excellent and comprehensive “Headways Bus Rider’s Guide,”[76] available in English, Spanish, Large Print, also online and via CRS (California Relay Service) for hearing/speech assist.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Contract personnel responsible for power operations at the County jail were unaware of Sheriff’s Policy 403, which compromises the ability to reach a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the County’s General Services Department and the Sheriff’s Department for operational roles and responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department, in conjunction with the County General Services Department, should analyze and document plans to comply with stated policies by December 31, 2020. (F1, F3)
F2:
Some personnel with power infrastructure responsibility at the County jail had never read or reviewed the After-Action Report, so they were unaware of the actions they needed to take.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Department leadership and the County Administrative Officer and General Services Director should work together to provide regular communications as soon as possible with all personnel (detention, general services, leadership) who have a need to know, to provide status, project planning, and goal completion. (F2, F4)
F3:
While an emergency generator has been procured, adequate testing of methods of connection and operation has not been done yet.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department, in conjunction with the County General Services Department, should analyze and document plans to comply with stated policies by December 31, 2020. (F1, F3)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Department and the County General Services Department should have a documented Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) by December 31, 2020 for roles and responsibilities, particularly and specifically in the event of emergencies. (F3)
F4:
Ongoing communications of status and progress before, during and after an emergency are not in evidence between Jail personnel and County General Services personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Department leadership and the County Administrative Officer and General Services Director should work together to provide regular communications as soon as possible with all personnel (detention, general services, leadership) who have a need to know, to provide status, project planning, and goal completion. (F2, F4)
F5:
The County was non-compliant with policy regarding emergency backup at the jail and remained non-compliant for months, including fueling, maintenance, testing, and emergency backup power generation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department and the County General Services Department should develop a document, updated quarterly, which shows compliance with Policy 403. The signed confirmation should be delivered to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. (F5, F6)
F6:
No policies and procedures were identified depicting response timeframes and what to do when a response is required during an emergency; no policies or procedures are documented depicting the response or monitoring responsibility of on-call staff at the County’s correctional facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department and the County General Services Department should develop a document, updated quarterly, which shows compliance with Policy 403. The signed confirmation should be delivered to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. (F5, F6)
F7:
The failure to escalate critical issues by key County General Services and Sheriff’s department personnel is very concerning. Procedures for escalation are lacking and this creates unwanted risk.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Sheriff’s Department, in conjunction with the County General Services Department, should develop and document policies and procedures for escalation of critical issues by December 31, 2020. (F7)
F8:
Robust risk management and mitigation is lacking in the County and correctional facility organizations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrative Officer to immediately define a risk management position, hire a qualified individual, and review all risk areas, mitigation plans and capabilities with the Board of Supervisors by June 30, 2021. (F8)
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The City of Santa Cruz Fire Department has not adequately inspected all schools, hotels, apartments, and licensed residential care facilities for fire and safety per California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13146.3, 13146.4, and 171921(b).
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should comply, as soon as possible, with state health codes for fire and safety inspections and reporting. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13146.3, 13146.4, and 171921(b). (F1–F4, F8)
R2:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should, as soon as possible, ensure inspection plans reflect all facilities that fall under California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13156.3, and 171921(b). (F1–F5,F8)
R6:
The County of Santa Cruz County Office of Education should by January 2021 begin reviewing fire inspection reports for the schools in their jurisdiction annually at a minimum and ensure that School District leadership do the same. (F1–F5, F8)
F2:
The City of Watsonville Fire Department has not adequately inspected all schools, hotels, apartments, and licensed residential care facilities for fire and safety per California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13146.3, 13146.4, and 171921(b)
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should comply, as soon as possible, with state health codes for fire and safety inspections and reporting. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13146.3, 13146.4, and 171921(b). (F1–F4, F8)
R2:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should, as soon as possible, ensure inspection plans reflect all facilities that fall under California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13156.3, and 171921(b). (F1–F5,F8)
R6:
The County of Santa Cruz County Office of Education should by January 2021 begin reviewing fire inspection reports for the schools in their jurisdiction annually at a minimum and ensure that School District leadership do the same. (F1–F5, F8)
F3:
The Felton Fire District has not adequately accounted for the inspection of all schools, hotels, apartments, and licensed residential care facilities for fire and safety per California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13146.3, 13146.4, and 171921(b).
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should comply, as soon as possible, with state health codes for fire and safety inspections and reporting. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13146.3, 13146.4, and 171921(b). (F1–F4, F8)
R2:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should, as soon as possible, ensure inspection plans reflect all facilities that fall under California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13156.3, and 171921(b). (F1–F5,F8)
R3:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should, by January 2021, publish a summary of annual inspection
R6:
The County of Santa Cruz County Office of Education should by January 2021 begin reviewing fire inspection reports for the schools in their jurisdiction annually at a minimum and ensure that School District leadership do the same. (F1–F5, F8)
F4:
Santa Cruz County Fire has not adequately inspected all schools, hotels, and apartments for fire and safety per California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.3, 13146.4, and 171921(b).
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should comply, as soon as possible, with state health codes for fire and safety inspections and reporting. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13146.3, 13146.4, and 171921(b). (F1–F4, F8)
R2:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should, as soon as possible, ensure inspection plans reflect all facilities that fall under California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13156.3, and 171921(b). (F1–F5,F8)
R6:
The County of Santa Cruz County Office of Education should by January 2021 begin reviewing fire inspection reports for the schools in their jurisdiction annually at a minimum and ensure that School District leadership do the same. (F1–F5, F8)
F5:
Fire Agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County have not adequately reported inspection performance and the inherent risk associated with a performance gap to residents and leadership external to the governing body.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should, as soon as possible, ensure inspection plans reflect all facilities that fall under California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13156.3, and 171921(b). (F1–F5,F8)
R6:
The County of Santa Cruz County Office of Education should by January 2021 begin reviewing fire inspection reports for the schools in their jurisdiction annually at a minimum and ensure that School District leadership do the same. (F1–F5, F8)
F6:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County would benefit by sharing technology and processes and at times personnel, in fulfilling fire inspection requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County and City fire agencies should amend their mutual aid agreements to provide for sharing of technology and inspection resources by June 30, 2021. (F6)
F7:
Reporting gaps in fire inspection performance to a governing body annually at a time when that governing body is completing its budgeting process makes making budget adjustments prior to budget adoption unnecessarily challenging and may result in delay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County of Santa Cruz and the City Fire Departments in the County should notify appropriate County or City leadership of the resources necessary to be compliant with inspection requirements early enough to be addressed during the agency’s annual budgeting process. (F7)
F8:
Scotts Valley Fire District resolution 2020-2 is at risk of being non-compliant based on a survey of businesses and organizations consistent with California annual inspection code requirements.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should comply, as soon as possible, with state health codes for fire and safety inspections and reporting. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13146.3, 13146.4, and 171921(b). (F1–F4, F8)
R2:
Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should, as soon as possible, ensure inspection plans reflect all facilities that fall under California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13156.3, and 171921(b). (F1–F5,F8)
R6:
The County of Santa Cruz County Office of Education should by January 2021 begin reviewing fire inspection reports for the schools in their jurisdiction annually at a minimum and ensure that School District leadership do the same. (F1–F5, F8)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.