[San Mateo] County [Grand Jury says county] must make emergency alerts a priority

When San Mateo County identifies an emergency so important it thinks every resident should know, when it attempts to reach out and contact everyone with urgent news, it only reaches 14 percent of us. In a time of growing wildfires, mutating viruses, active shooters, power outages so pervasive they are scheduled, we are still relying on media reports and word of mouth to get out potentially life-saving information.

That is the crux of last week’s San Mateo County civil grand jury report headlined, “Where’s the plan for San Mateo County’s emergency alert system?” Actually, it’s the second time in as many years the grand jury has felt compelled to look into emergency alerts and that isn’t because it thinks the county is doing enough.

I hope readers are familiar with the SMC Alert system. It’s a free service that allows you to sign up for text alerts, emails or landline phone calls in the event the county manager’s office determines an emergency. That responsibility was recently transferred from the Sheriff’s Office, but that hasn’t solved all the problems related to these alerts.

For one thing, the system remains an “opt-in.” To get the alerts, you have to go to the county manager’s office website (just Google “SMC Alert”) and fill out the registration. Incredibly, 86 percent of us haven’t done that. If you haven’t, stop what you are doing and do it now. Recent changes to the law mean that operators can access utilities and other records to sign up more people, but the grand jury found local managers seemed to know little about that.

There are also translation problems. In a county in which 35 percent of residents speak something other than English in their homes, it’s simply not enough for county employees to translate these things into Spanish on the fly. For example, Santa Clara County contracts with a vendor that translates emergency materials into Spanish, Tagalog, Mandarin and Vietnamese.

Then there is the matter of a formal plan for alerts. The California Office of Emergency Services suggested counties sign off on their own emergency alert system plan two years ago but that San Mateo County hasn’t yet formalized one. The grand jury says in-house training has lagged as a result and there is no succession plan for using the alert system. There simply is no concrete plan for who provides alerts and when.

There are government services that make life easier and then there are those that make life possible. A strong emergency alert system is in the latter category and should be a priority. We don’t want to see another civil grand jury plead for one in another two years.

Half Moon Bay Review
By Clay Lambert
August 17, 2021

 

[Santa Cruz County] Grand jury report

During the meeting [the Santa Cruz City] council members also responded to the CZU Fire report from the Santa Cruz Civil County grand jury, saying it was impractical to create fire safety community groups throughout the city.

Mayor Donna Meyers, responding on behalf of the council, also partly disagreed with the report findings regarding how the city has dealt with the fire dangers posed by homeless encampments. Specifically, the city took issue with the idea it has not done enough to clear these areas and has not been as transparent with the public as it could have been.

The report analyzed the effectiveness and response time from city and county leadership, including the city’s response and handling during and after the tragedy. It included nine findings and six recommendations, with the only one not fully or partly implemented being one regarding the establishment of FireWise communities in the wildland-urban interface area.

The decision to reject the recommendation, Meyers said, was the fact it was unrealistic to create such communities — which make up about two-thirds of the city’s area — within a 12-month timeline.

Santa Cruz Lookout
By Neil Strebig
August 25, 2021

Supervisors tell [Solano County] grand jury it is reviewing Family Justice Center operations

FAIRFIELD — Solano County is assessing the operations and services provided by the Family Justice Center.

That is the essence of a letter to be sent to Solano County Superior Court Judge Donna Stashyn in response to a grand jury report that was critical of the center and recommended the operation by moved under the authority of the Department of Health and Social Services.

The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, as part of its consent agenda, will consider approving the letter and its required response to the grand jury report, as well as responses from the District Attorney’s Office and Health and Social Services.

The District Attorney’s Office had already filed its response, and as adamant as the grand jury had been in its findings, equally adamant was District Attorney Krishna Abrams and center Director Angel Aguilar in their disagreements with the findings in the report.

The 2020-21 Solano County civil grand jury concluded that the Solano Family Justice Center “is not meeting” its mission, and stated the center “is not performing as a (one-stop shop) for victims, adding stress to an already stressful situation.”

The supervisors, during the budget hearing June 24, moved the center’s budget under the purview of the County Administrator’s Office while an assessment of “the center and the services it provides” is completed.

“A consultant with appropriate expertise will perform this comprehensive assessment to measure overall organizational effectiveness, service delivery efficiency, day-to-day operations success, and operational sustainability,” the proposed letter to the grand jury states.

“It is expected the consultants’ findings and recommendations would be presented to the Board of Supervisors by the end of . . . 2021,” the letter states.

The letter also addresses each of the specific findings in the grand jury report and mostly mirrors those filed by the District Attorney’s Office.

The Family Justice Center “has always worked to ensure the essential services are rendered, such as domestic violence advocacy, court accompaniment, restraining orders, crisis intervention, safety planning and basic needs assistance,” the response from Abrams and Aguilar states.

The Department of Health and Social Services is on record opposing the shift of the center under its authority.

Gerald Huber, director of Health and Social Services, indicated in his letter to the grand jury that the department is in a position to help the center with “areas of respective staff on such areas as trauma-informed care and related training which would benefit families seeking various aspects of assistance.”

The grand jury report stated the current environment “is not consistent with trauma-informed care, affecting the quality of services provided to victims.”

Solano County Daily Republic
By Todd R. Hansen
August 22, 2021

[San Joaquin] Grand jury finds Stockton Unified trustees failed as district leaders in scathing report

A San Joaquin County civil grand jury has found the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees have failed as district leaders and will likely continue to do so. 

A scathing 33-page report released by the 2020-21 grand jury says Stockton Unified trustees are the direct reason for what's been called the district's "revolving door" of superintendents.

Stockton Unified has had 14 interim and permanent superintendents in just over 30 years, several of which in recent years have left before fulfilling their contracts.

The report shows that nearly all assumed the superintendent role from 2005 to 2021, with only six having been permanent and average tenure lasting about 19 months. The district has changed leadership three times in the past year alone.

"The grand jury found that there is widespread concern about the short tenure of SUSD superintendents, especially in the last 15 years," the report says. "This turnover rate, which is as high as anywhere in California, is a foremost indication that the trustees have failed, and will continue to fail, to effectively lead the district."

Trustee behavior and actions have negatively impacted SUSD and made it "difficult, if not impossible," for any lasting, positive changes to take hold, the report says. Trustees have also been found to have contributed to declining trust and morale of employees and the community.

The grand jury found other issues of serious concern, including a "disregard of policies and procedures, especially regarding hiring; trustee behavior, especially during meetings; trustee disregard of their appropriate roles, inappropriate complaints, especially by trustees against other trustees; and deficient transparency, making it difficult for the public to understand what is taking place."

Stockton Unified officials confirmed Wednesday afternoon that the district had received the grand jury's report. In a statement provided by district spokeswoman Melinda Meza, Board President Cecilia Mendez was quoted on behalf of the trustees, saying the board is "carefully reviewing" the report and the district is "working diligently" on a formal response to be publicly released at its meeting next week.

Mendez said in the statement she is confident the district "will make great strides" under the leadership of Superintendent John Ramirez Jr., who was hired by the board earlier this year.

"Mr. Ramirez Jr. is bilingual, bicultural, Harvard educated and has a proven track record for student achievement. He led a former district out of state receivership to becoming one of the highest Title 1 performing districts in the state," Mendez said. "We have a goal to graduate every student college, career and community ready."

Ramirez said students are the district's top priority and he is committed to serving those in SUSD.

"For decades SUSD has been underachieving, therefore SUSD needs to make significant improvement so our students can be college, career, and community ready," Ramirez said in a statement. "I am committed to making SUSD one of the top performing districts in the state." 

Grand jury:San Joaquin County’s COVID response was not effective

The grand jury opened its investigation into Stockton Unified last year following numerous complaints regarding the "dysfunction" of the district's Board of Trustees. It involved 37 interviews that included complainants, the San Joaquin County Office of Education and current and former district staff, the grand jury said. The report also cites media reports describing conflicts within the district, especially those among trustees.

Neither the district nor members of the board addressed the grand jury's findings directly.

Findings

The issue of high superintendent turnover was consistently cited as a major problem for the district. It was often described by employees as having to start a whole new job every few months, as new visions and priorities began with each new superintendent.

Among the other findings of the grand jury:

• Trustees ignored norms of civil behavior, including stifling input from members in the minority; disregard of the district’s governance norms; the absence of a student representative on the board; and censuring other board members on the basis of personal disagreements;
• Trustees were found to be directing staff, bypassing the superintendent, causing confusion and contributing to low morale; trustees were found to be directing superintendents and other administrators to terminate specific administrative employees, which could violate normal employment law and procedures; and a misunderstanding or disregard of the Brown Act led to violations of the statute and reduced governance transparency;
• More than 17 complaints from trustees against each other were incorrectly filed with the Constituent Services Department, wasting district time and money; and the frivolous complaints make it difficult for there to be cohesiveness among the board; and
• Board meetings lack transparency and accessibility; board minutes are incomplete or unpublished; disbanding board subcommittees reduced public engagement and transparency and public comments are not easily accessible. 

Recommendations include additional training for trustees

The grand jury listed seven recommendations for the Board of Trustees, including abiding by governance norms adopted by the board and publicly agreeing to adhere to the California School Board Association Professional Governance Standards.

"In addition, the grand jury recommends that the district no longer accept or investigate complaints initiated by trustees against other trustees because the district is not the appropriate, nor the legal venue for these complaints," the report said.

The grand jury also recommends the district live stream all board meetings (even after returning in person), improve the timeliness of their documentation of board meetings and address the entire grand jury report during a public board meeting.

Jurors recommended that the board: 

• complete additional governance training by a qualified external organization, 
• affirm its commitment to agreed-upon processes for hiring future superintendents and future legal services, 
• complete additional and intensive Brown Act training provided by a qualified, external organization,   
• publicly review and commit to the California School Board Association Professional Governance Standard, 
• seat a student representative, 
• agree to abide by their adopted governance norms,  
• stop censuring trustees, unless there is a violation of law or policy, and stop limiting discussion for any trustee speaking on agenda items,  
• evaluate reinstating former subcommittees, and
• discuss the grand jury report at a public meeting. 

Stockton Record.net
By Cassie Dickman/Cameryn Oakes
July 1, 2021
 

 

[Marin County] NOT SATISFIED AT ALL’

Marin wildfire agency says compliance poor on defensible space

Blog note: This article refers to  Marin County award-winning report that lead to the formation of Marin Wildlife Prevention Authority.

Despite historic wildfire risk, too many Marin residents are still failing to create defensible space around their homes by clearing away combustible materials, Marin County fire officials said.

“To date for this fire season, we’ve done about 25,000 evaluations, and our compliance rate is between 30% and 50%,” which is below the state average, said Mark Brown, executive officer of the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority.

“We’re not satisfied at all,” he said. “We need to get the number up. There is no doubt.”

Marin County fire Chief Jason Weber said, “We know that noncompliance number is very high, and we’re working for those folks to become compliant.”

The authority is not issuing citations or fining people who fail to comply with defensible space requirements established by the state, despite a 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury report recommending it do so.

“We really haven’t been going the citation route,” Brown said. “We’ve been going the education route. It seems we get better compliance through that route rather than citing people.”

Brown said one reason fewer homeowners in Marin are passing inspections than in other parts of the state is that Marin’s inspectors “are looking at properties with a much more critical eye than some other jurisdictions.”

Weber said, “Some of these

“We’re going to become more stringent over the next few years.”

— Chief Jason Weber, Marin County Fire Department

Marin Independent  Journal
By Richard Halstead, rhalstead@marinij.com
August 17, 2021

[San Mateo Grand Jury] Report: More people and property at risk in San Mateo County from sea level rise

A San Mateo County civil grand jury report released this week found that projects to address sea level rise in the county face funding challenges and delays.

The grand jury, an independent group of 19 citizens who investigate county issues, released the report Wednesday along with a news release highlighting main takeaways from the 43-page report.

According to the report, titled “San Mateo County: California’s Ground Zero for Sea Level Rise,” more people and property are at risk from rising seas in San Mateo County than any other California county.

The report estimates that homes, businesses, wastewater facilities and transportation infrastructure like highways, Caltrain and San Francisco International Airport are all at risk of damage from flooding, which could cost more than $1 billion.

Coastside communities are also vulnerable to flooding and erosion.

“Sea level rise is a complex problem with an uncertain timetable that demands ongoing long-term solutions. It requires people to think differently and to truly collaborate,” the report reads.

The county’s Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District, known as OneShoreline, coordinates countywide projects to address flooding, sea level rise and coastal erosion.

But these projects take five to 10 years to plan and construct, require multiple approvals from various counties and agencies, and need state and federal funding sources. Securing funding can be “a complicated, slow, and somewhat costly process,” according to the report.

“Currently, OneShoreline’s operational funding comes primarily from contributions by the County and its twenty cities and towns. It needs a stable source of funding, one that will not be vulnerable to competing concerns of the communities it serves,” the report reads.

The grand jury report recommends that OneShoreline create a revolving low-interest loan fund to support projects.

It also recommends that OneShoreline and the county lobby the federal and state government to make it easier for sea level rise projects to proceed.

Public engagement is also important to address sea level rise, the report says, as some residents might object to the expense of projects or will want to delay action until flooding nears. But delaying projects only makes them more expensive.

The report recommends that OneShoreline earn the confidence of residents through public awareness campaigns.

Bay City News Foundation
By Astrid Casimire Bay City News Foundation
August 13, 2021

 

[Sutter County] Grand Jury raises development concerns

Report: Officials could be jeopardizing future south Sutter County projects

The Sutter County Grand Jury is raising concerns that officials could be unknowingly jeopardizing development of the Sutter Pointe project and other future development opportunities in south Sutter County due to oversight involving an important conservancy board.

Sutter County and Sacramento each appoint five board members to serve on the nonprofit Natomas Basin Conservancy, which was established to oversee a conservancy plan focused on providing a balance between new development and habitat for 22 plants and wildlife species in a large area of land on the south Sutter County border – an area where plans are in place to develop an eventual city called Sutter Pointe.

The grand jury stated a lack of representation and poor communication by the county in recent years has allowed Sacramento to develop beyond the agreed borders within the conservation plan, and large tracts of land in Sutter County that could’ve been used for county development have now been acquired by the conservancy and other developers as mitigation lands for Sacramento development. Because of that, the grand jury stated it has concerns that there is not enough mitigation land available now for the development of the Sutter Pointe project, which is expected to be a major source of jobs and housing for Sutter County.

“The grand jury recommends that the Sutter County Board of Supervisors be kept fully informed about the Natomas Basin Conservancy plans concerning development impacting Sutter County and ensure full representation at each meeting,” the grand jury stated in the latest investigation’s summary released last week. “The board needs to challenge entities that impact Sutter County’s interest in the Natomas Basin area and should additionally renegotiate the conservation plan to keep the benefits laid out in the current plan for Sutter County.” 

Investigation

The grand jury received a complaint regarding the conservancy and the Sutter County Board of Supervisors’ lack of a response to complaints about the management of conservancy lands, which prompted the investigation that saw members review documents and meetings, and interview county staff and conservancy personnel.

Between August and October 2019, four conservancy board members who were local representatives resigned – some cited differences with management, another cited issues with the conservancy’s policy regarding land rents. The grand jury said proper attention to the resignations should have alerted the board to a potential issue at that time. Grand jury members also reviewed board agendas and couldn’t find evidence that supervisors reacted to the resignations at a meeting, or were even aware of the need to expedite selection of new members. Those interviewed cited a variety of reasons for the delay, one of which was that the process of selecting someone for the conservancy board was different from other board seats.

Sutter County staff that were interviewed were also unaware of who the county-appointed liaison was to the conservancy. The grand jury found little in-depth communication existed between the conservancy and the Sutter County Board of Supervisors in an official capacity.

The investigation also uncovered that Sacramento started development in an incorporated section of the Natomas Basin not shown as permitted development in the conservancy maps and therefore not approved under the conservation plan. With the city circumventing the conservation plan by starting a new development, the grand jury stated there is a need to reevaluate the conservancy plan, as the Sacramento project is using mitigation lands in Sutter County, which further reduces the development and mitigation land available for Sutter County.

With a finite amount of land available in the Natomas Basin for development and mitigation, Sacramento County is further complicating the matter as it has plans to develop two new areas in the basin that will require mitigation land. The original Natomas Basin agreement between the city, Sutter County, and the federal and state agencies concerned was for development of 17,500 acres – if one party exceeds its allotment then the other party’s allotment may be reduced to keep the overall development to 17,500 acres.

“If Sacramento County and the city are allowed to develop at their current rate then Sutter County will not have enough mitigation land to develop their allotment of 7,467 acres,” the grand jury stated. “...One thing is clear: Sacramento is growing faster than south Sutter County. Further development will cause the conservation plan to be reevaluated and Sutter County will inevitably lose current acreage for mitigation lands, as there is only a finite amount of land within these borders. Sutter County must act immediately to lessen the city of Sacramento’s control over mitigation in the basin or lose out on the opportunity to develop in that area.”

Findings/recommendations

The grand jury found that there was a serious communication breakdown between the conservancy, Sutter County officials and the county-appointed liaison, both in the time consuming and unclear method of selecting new board members and ensuring the local liaison representative was actively involved. Jury members found no evidence that the board was informed of the resignations, resulting in a lack of corrective measures being taken to ease concerns about the conservancy’s management and the county’s development interests. Also, past board of directors at the conservancy approved risky investments of Sutter County mitigation funds, which are still in place and could lead to financial problems in the future.

The grand jury also found that commissions representing the city of Sacramento (LAFCO) ignored objections from Sutter County on developing outside conservation plan borders and proceeded with development, which jeopardizes the plan requiring renegotiation and impacting development in south Sutter County. Also, current plans for development in Sacramento County, which is not a member of the conservancy, could disrupt plans for development in the Natomas Basin.

They recommended Sutter County supervisors immediately create a procedure to receive briefings of any letters of resignation sent to the board and have the information relayed during public meetings for full transparency. They asked that the board direct the county administrative officer to create a board and commission appointment procedure that is consistent for all boards and commissions to be completed within a set timeframe. Procedures should also be set up by the board to receive regular annual updates from the conservancy on the impacts of all development in the area within the next 90 days.

The grand jury also recommended the board immediately direct its members to the conservancy board of directors to investigate management of the conservancy endowment fund investments and change procedures to minimize financial impact on Sutter County, as well as immediately start proceedings to renegotiate the plan with Sacramento and other permittees to remediate the encroachment done by the city and its impact on wildlife in the new plan – they stated Sacramento County should be included in its negotiations for a comprehensive conservation plan for the Natomas Basin. Lastly, they recommended supervisors direct county staff to prepare a letter for signatures clarifying their position to both Sacramento County and Sacramento objecting to development not meeting the conservation plan.

To view the latest investigation released by the Sutter County Grand Jury, visit https://bit.ly/2QZZ1of. The report regarding development in south Sutter County is the second report released by the 2020/21 Sutter County Grand Jury. A final report is expected to be released in late June or early July.

Appeal-Democrat
By Jake Abbott
August 12, 2021

 

 

 

 

Lack of Affordable Housing - Mendocino County Grand Jury

MENDOCINO Co., 8/8/21 — A “critical lack of affordable and available housing” in Mendocino County drives the cost of existing housing beyond what many families who live and work here can afford — but residential construction is risky for developers here because of low income levels relative to the cost of real estate. That assessment comes from a Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury report examining how current housing policy, water infrastructure and wildfire are likely to dictate where new construction can break ground in the future.
“Vast areas of the county do not have water and sewer systems or other infrastructure that are required by Federal and State funding sources,” the jury writes. “These areas are prone to wildfire and are currently struggling with water insecurity.”
That makes the areas around Ukiah, Willits and Fort Bragg among the most feasible locations to build additional housing units at scale — assuming that water supplies in those communities can support additional residential consumption in the future. Currently undeveloped properties that can’t be reached by water and sewer lines generally have to be supplied by wells, surface water or bulk water delivery by truck.
That’s expected to limit how many housing units can be added to Mendocino County’s inventory. Meanwhile, out of at least 375 units burned down during fire seasons from 2017 to 2020, only one-third of those have been rebuilt.
Costly regulatory burdens associated with low-income housing also contribute to the slow rate at which additional housing is being developed. According to the grand jury, this is a point of complaint with developers, who say the county’s requirement that 25% of units be designated for low-income residents is higher than other parts of California where 15% is enough.
"When a market-rate housing development is planned, builders are required to designate 25% of the units to be low-income which shifts the project cost onto the developer making the project less profitable,” the jury wrote.
The grand jury cited “several market-rate projects” that the City of Ukiah facilitated by allowing the developer to satisfy affordable housing requirements by providing “in lieu” funds (which are commonly set aside to fund affordable and low-income housing at other locations) as examples of recent success.
The Community Development Corporation of Mendocino County gets $6 million per year from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to subsidize rent for 177 units of low or very low income individuals and families — but they get 600-700 applications during their twice-yearly outreach efforts, according to the report. Housing Choice Vouchers, formerly known as Section 8, are difficult to use for individuals here due to the shortage of 1-bedroom units.
The Ukiah area has at least three large housing projects currently in the pipeline: including the 80-unit senior housing complex known as the Orr Creek Commons which is slated for move-in later this year, the 121-unit Vineyard Crossing subdivision, which is currently under environmental review as is the 171-unit Bella Vista development formerly known as Gardens Gate. The county purchased a hotel on Orchard Avenue last year using state funds from Project Homekey and has since converted it into 56 units of interim and permanent housing for the homeless operated by the Redwood Community Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) — which also maintains more than 450 other units in affordable housing communities county-wide. Project Homekey, however, was facilitated by state funds allocated through a program created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The grand jury’s report dealt mostly with identifying problems, but they did recommend some solutions as well. Increased collaboration among stakeholder agencies, like regular meetings with housing development entities and city governments hosted by Planning and Building Services, could make it easier to monitor progress towards state goals for new housing construction to keep up with projected population growth. They also suggested expanding the scope of Planning and Building Services operations beyond ensuring that projects meet state building standards to include an active effort to modify state standards to help meet local housing needs.
The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors is required by state law to respond to the grand jury’s report by Oct. 14, 90 days after it’s initial publication July 16. The grand jury has also requested responses from Craig Schlatter, Ukiah’s Director of Community Development, as well as the director of Planning and Building Services.
You can find our previous reporting on the grand jury here, as well as the complete report here. https://www.mendocinocounty.org/home/showpublisheddocument/44459/637622856639330000 https://mendovoice.com/2021/08/civil-grand-jury-finds-critical-lack-of-affordable-and-available-housing-in-mendocino-county/