These are the Summaries, Findings, Commendations, Recommendations, and Requests for Responses only. All of the full Reports including this one can be found on the Shasta County Grand Jury's website here.
2024 - 2025
Shasta County Grand Jury
Final Reports
-The Shasta County Jail: What's Happening on the Inside? The Legislative Impact on Our Local Jail
-Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility Report: Transforming the Lives of Youth
-Downtown Paid Parking Program: City of Redding
-Quartz Hill Subdivision Development: Redding, California: Transparency: Is it Clear?
The Shasta County Jail: What's Happening on the Inside?
The Legislative Impact on Our Local Jail
SUMMARY
Five in-custody deaths occurred at the Shasta County Jail within a thirteen-month period. Does this sound excessive? It did to the Shasta County Grand Jury, so an investigation was started.
As more information about these deaths was uncovered, more questions arose. Did they have anything to do with AB109 or Prop 36 legislation? Did the inmates receive necessary services for drug, alcohol, and mental health issues? Is there an increased felon population at the county jail? If so, does this cause an increased danger? Are there different ways to manage Shasta County inmates? How does our jail compare to other California counties?
Beginning in September 2024, the Shasta County Grand Jury interviewed Sheriff's Department personnel, reviewed dozens of documents, articles, websites, and legislation to uncover the answers. The answers led the grand jury's investigation in new directions.
FINDINGS
F1. The in-custody deaths at Shasta County Jail between December 2023 and January 2025 were due to lifestyle, not because of jail procedures.
F2. The reason Shasta County Jail has a higher average in-custody death rate, in relation to comparable counties and federal and state averages, could not be determined with the data available to the grand jury during the investigation and requires additional research.
F3. Due to special housing needs, mentally ill inmates or inmates with certain classifications cannot be housed with other inmates; therefore, there is reduced housing for the general inmate population.
F4. Although Prop 36 (2024) requires mandated drug and alcohol treatment for certain felonies, it does not provide resources to meet this requirement.
F5. Prop 36 (2024) is almost certain to increase county jail populations, because of the change in misdemeanor/felony classification.
F6. Since AB109 in 2011, jails are housing felons and releasing inmates with low-level misdemeanors.
F7. The Shasta County Jail population has shifted to a disproportionately high percentage of inmates with felonies compared to misdemeanors due to California corrections legislation.
F8. Changes to the Shasta County Jail population has caused inmate behavior to shift toward more of a prison culture.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. Procure and implement use of body cameras for jail staff by September 2025.
R2. Procure and install additional security cameras in the jail by April 2026.
R3. Expand current Alternative Custody Program based on Sheriff Johnson's proposal.
R4. Pursue applying for part of the $38.9 million California Abatement Accounts Fund (Opioid Settlements Fund) to support ACP program costs.
R5. Pursue applying for part of the $6.4 million from California Proposition 1 (2024), also known as the Behavioral Health Services Act, to increase mental health and/or substance abuse services for people who are currently incarcerated but could be better served in the Alternative Custody Program.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Shasta County Sheriff:
F1 through F8
R1 through R5
Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility Report
Transforming the Lives of Youth
SUMMARY
California Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the grand jury will annually inquire into the conditions and management of all public prisons within the county. Since the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility (JRF) is under the authority of the Probation Department, it is not considered a prison. However, the grand jury opted to include the JRF as an addendum to the jail inquiries.
The Shasta County Grand Jury made three visits to the facility, interviewed staff and management and interacted with the youth. The grand jury reviewed budgets, staffing levels, medical care, education services, and rehabilitation programs offered.
The grand jury reviewed the guidelines in the California Board of State and Community Corrections Handbook (BSCC) Title 15, Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities. During the most recent BSCC biennial inspection in 2024, the JRF was found to be in full compliance with or exceeding California Code of Regulations Title 15 guidelines, which included seven minimum standards for mental health services. A lost of these minimum standards is included in the Discussion section of this report.
The Shasta County Grand Jury would like to commend the Shasta County Office of Education (SCOE) and Shasta Community Health Center for their work in addressing the mental health and educational needs of the juvenile offenders residing at the JRF.
The grand jury found that the JRF is run by a professional, dedicated staff where the youth are well cared for in a state-of-the-art facility.
FINDINGS
F1. The physical facilities at the Shasta County Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility provide a safe, clean, and secure environment for the detained juveniles in compliance with Title 15; however, due to the age of the facility, some infrastructure repairs and upkeep are needed.
F2. The Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility is run by a dedicated and professional team who meets the needs of the juveniles.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors ensures funding is available to make the necessary infrastructure repairs and direct the Chief of Probation to complete noted repairs.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Shasta County Board of Supervisors:
F1, F2
R1
Chief Probation Officer:
F1, F2
R1
Redding's Downtown Paid Parking Program
SUMMARY
The Shasta County Grand Jury investigated the City of Redding's (City) downtown paid parking program. In January 2023, the "Downtown Redding Parking Strategy" was implemented as an integral part of the City's "Downtown Redding Specific Plan Update" dated June 2022. The grand jury's investigation was prompted by questions and concerns raised by Redding residents, downtown business owners, and members of the Redding City Council regarding paid parking in the downtown area.
The grand jury's investigation sought to identify and evaluate the City's responses to these concerns. Specifically, the investigation examined the City's goals and objectives for the parking program and whether these goals are being met.
FINDINGS
The Shasta County Grand Jury has found that:
F1. The City's Transportation Department staff monitors cost and revenue performance, as well as payment methods used, to measure the success or failure of the program's financial objectives. The grand jury found no evidence that monitored results are regularly communicated to the City Council and the general public, so it is unclear if objectives are being met.
F2. Two key goals of the parking program (maintaining an available parking capacity of 15% or greater and improving parking turnover) are not being regularly monitored or reported. Failure to monitor these two metrics leaves open the question of whether the City's objective of achieving the "most efficient use of all public and private parking spaces in downtown Redding" is being met.
F3. Entrances to off-street parking are not always clearly marked, contributing to (a) difficulty locating off-street parking, (b) the perception of a lack of downtown parking, and (c) drivers parking at distances greater than necessary from their destination. These issues contribute to the perception of excessive walking distances when closer parking might have been available.
F4. Parking signage is not always visible. Signs themselves are small or inconspicuous. Additionally, in some cases, a sign is only visible from one direction when there are vehicular approaches from multiple directions. Without proper signage, locating convenient parking contributes to the perception of excessive walking distances.
F5. Pay station kiosks are often not clearly visible because they tend to blend into the surrounding background. As a result, visitors to downtown find it difficult to locate their closest pay station. This is especially problematic for new or occasional visitors to the downtown area.
F6. In many cases, a driver, once in a lot, cannot see the kiosk associated with that lot because it is hidden behind other parked vehicles. This inability to locate the appropriate pay station is a source of frustration and may even lead to the driver not knowing they are in a paid parking lot.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Shasta County Grand Jury recommends that:
R1. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to implement, by December 31, 2025, a process of monitoring and reporting key metrics (including parking occupancy and parking turnover rates) to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis.
R2. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that all entrances to off-street parking lots are clearly identified by December 31, 2025, including signage indicating that those lots are paid parking facilities.
R3. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that conspicuous "You Are Here" type signboards are installed at each off-street parking lot and at various on-street locations throughout the downtown Core by December 31, 2025. These signboards should indicate the location of the nearest pay stating and any other relevant parking information. This would significantly improve visitors' ability to locate the appropriate pay station for each parking zone and clarify any parking restrictions for that zone.
R4. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to ensure the modification of the size, color, and placement of informational and directional parking-related signs by July 1, 2026, to make them more obvious to visitors in the downtown Core.
R5. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to ensure directional and/or informational signage is installed by December 31, 2025, that is clearly visible from the direction of each approach when there are multiple vehicular approaches to a parking area.
R6. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to ensure pay stations are made more visible by December 31, 2025. Suggested visibility-enhancing improvements include:
-
Adding reflective striping to the kiosk to make it more visible.
-
Changing the color of the kiosk to a more visible color.
-
Adding lighting to each kiosk.
-
Installing raised signage at or above each kiosk similar to that found at some of the on-street pay stations.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Redding City Council:
F1 through F6
R1 through R6
Quartz Hill Subdivision Development
Transparency, Is it Clear?
SUMMARY
The Shasta County Grand Jury launched an investigation into an allegation of a lack of transparency by the City of Redding, prompted by a citizen complaint. The complainant alleged that the City of Redding failed to provide adequate public land notice and information regarding the City's planned development of a parcel of undeveloped land in Northwest Redding. The approximately 113-acre property identified as 850 Quartz Hill Road falls within the city limits devastated by the 2018 Carr Fire. The neighboring residents raised concerns primarily focused on fire evacuation and traffic flow safety if the city were to pursue residential development on that property. Residents felt these concerns were not adequately addressed.
The development process for the City of Redding is complex and lengthy; including preparation and submission of a detailed grant application, pre-development planning, and the process required to obtain subdivision approval. Requirements to notify impacted neighbors of a development are clearly mandated as part of the "California Subdivision Map Act and California Environmental Quality Act". The investigation found the proposed subdivision, planned for approximately 120 single-family homes, is currently in the initial pre-development stage. Although public input is not required at this stage, the City of Redding has provided opportunities for public engagement. The grand jury concludes that there is room for improvement by the City to address concerns of nearby impacted neighbors, and concerned citizens, as well as their ability to access public engagement opportunities.
FINDINGS
F1. Nearby area residents expressed concerns about The Peaks. Although there is no requirement for public notice in the initial pre-development stage, the City responded by providing opportunities for input and engagement.
F2. There is currently a demand and need for Workforce Housing. Using available CDBG-DR funding, The Peaks development is the City of Redding's approach to mitigating the Workforce Housing shortage in the City while maintaining control of development in line with City priorities.
F3. Since profit-oriented objectives of private developers may deviate from community-oriented goals envisioned by the City for The Peaks development, the City has chose to retain control of the development.
F4. Due to an ongoing perceived lack of transparency by the City, residents near the Property remain concerned about fire safety and evacuation routes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to schedule an additional public presentation, explaining the City’s vision for The Peak’s development. This should be held by August 31, 2025, and include: the approval process, future public engagement opportunities, alternatives to The Peaks, and potential consequences of those alternatives. Notification of the presentation should be provided, via direct mailing, to residents within 800 feet of The Peaks and to those who have requested project information. The City should issue a Press Release and notify the community of the planned presentation via all the City's social media platforms.
R2. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to integrate additional feasible alternatives into The Peaks development plan prior to final submission, including ingress and egress options, fire mitigation measures, and a defensible space requirement, which may enhance public safety and exceed planning requirements.
R3. On or before September 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager ensure the development of programs, such as a Citizen Academy or podcast, by December 31, 2025, to encourage and educate citizens on how they can have their voices heard in the City, regarding land use and property development, along with how constructive participation can help shape the community.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Redding City Council:
F1 through F4
R1 through R3