Sanchez, Krey and Oberhelman: [Santa Clara County] Crisis intervention training for law enforcement

Blog note: This Op Ed article is by members of the Santa Clara County Grand Jurors Association and refers to a Santa Clara County grand jury report .

SJPD's Mobile Crisis Response Team responds to calls for those experiencing a mental crisis. Photo by Lorraine Gabbert.

Recently, several law enforcement agencies in Santa Clara County have unveiled specialized units designed to de-escalate interactions with citizens who may be in mental health crisis. San Jose PD launched a one-year pilot program in October 2020 that links specially trained officers with clinicians from the County’s Behavioral Health Services (BHS).  BHS has been active with its Mobile Crisis Response Teams (MCRT) since January 2018.

Our government officials are to be applauded for these efforts to improve outcomes between police and citizens in mental health crisis.

But more should be done at a time when this issue has the public’s attention like seldom before, in large part because of the Black Lives Matter and defund-the-police movements.

The 2018 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) focused on this issue in its report, “Police and the Mentally Ill – Improving Outcomes.” The report states 31 individuals were killed in interactions with police agencies in our county from 2013-2017, nine of which were citizens undergoing a mental health crisis.

Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) exposes officers to the varied mental conditions that could be encountered and how to deescalate such encounters. The grand jury discovered that law enforcement agencies were providing CIT beyond the training received in the police academy. The CGJ report recommends that each law enforcement agency continue in their efforts to provide the additional CIT training to every officer. The CGJ report also recommends agencies activate MCRT teams and expand the use of these teams. Nearly every agency responded to the report by stating it intended to give additional CIT training to every officer.

Now, two years after that grand jury report, law enforcement has taken some positive steps, but concerns remain.

Positive developments include the BHS MCRT deployment. Currently there are six available MCRT teams to respond both to calls from a community help line and at the request of law enforcement. Calls for assistance can result in service referrals or field visits.

MCRT delivered 310 field visits in 2019, but the number of responses soared to 675 in the first nine months of 2020, based on a November 2020 status report to a Board of Supervisors subcommittee. Law enforcement made 386 referrals to MCRT in 2019 and 487 between January to September 2020. Nearly every police agency in the county utilized MCRT.

Not so positive is the number of deaths in police encounters. From June 2018 to October 2020, 11 citizens died at the hands of law enforcement in Santa Clara County, five of which involved factors of mental illness based on the website FatalEncounters.

Clearly, this must improve. Our association’s recent survey of selected law enforcement agencies showed incremental progress (Milpitas) and great progress (Gilroy, San Jose, Mountain View and the Sheriff) in exposing every officer to additional CIT training.

But troubling is the county’s decision more than a year ago to reduce Sheriff’s Office CIT training to a 24-hour course from 40 hours. The other major local CIT provider, San Jose PD, continues with a 40-hour course. It is our understanding that the class discussing the various kinds of mental conditions, previously presented by the professional organization NAMI, has been eliminated.

We, the Santa Clara County Grand Jury Association, fear this is the wrong direction for the times.

The Black Lives Matter movement catalyzed a re-examination of the role police should play when confronting persons in mental health crisis. An April study from a Stanford Law School policy practicum, Safety Beyond Policing: Promoting Care Over Criminalization, supports the use of mental health counselors rather than officers in many situations involving the homeless and mentally ill.

Police interactions with people in mental crisis will always be fraught with danger. But the numbers of persons in mental health crisis who die in incidents with law enforcement are still too high. The six MCRT teams are a great achievement, but having CIT trained officers can only increase good outcomes.

County law enforcement agencies must ensure all of their officers receive additional CIT training, while the county boosts funding and deployment for its MRCT teams.

San José Spotlight
Luis Sanchez, Michael Krey and Harry Oberhelman are members of the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jurors Association.
MAY 17, 2021

Q&A with Assemblyman Marc Berman Over Legislation to Change [Santa Clara County] VTA

 Blog note: This blog interview refers to Santa Clara County grand  jury reports

Note: GJEL Accident Attorneys regularly sponsors coverage on Streetsblog San Francisco and Streetsblog California. Unless noted in the story, GJEL Accident Attorneys is not consulted for the content or editorial direction of the sponsored content.

Following the recommendations of a 2019 Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report, Assemblymember Marc Berman introduced legislation earlier this year that would dramatically remake the Board of Directors for the Valley Transit Authority (VTA).

Streetsblogs California and San Francisco have been covering the legislation, but to provide a complete picture we offered the Assemblymember a chance to respond to a Q&A on VTA and the legislation. For more on the bill and the response to it, you can follow the rest of our coverage:

• State Legislation Would Reshape VTA Board, Streetsblog SF, March 2
• Legislative Update, Streetsblog CAL, March 5
• VTA Leaders Express Doubt About Legislation That Would Reshape Board, Streetsblog SF, March 11

Streetsblog: First, could you briefly describe AB 1091, what its goals are and how this legislation will help us get to those goals?

Marc Berman: AB 1091 makes a number of changes to the structure of the VTA Board of Directors. First, it reduces the overall size of the Board from 18 members (12 of whom are voting members) to nine voting members with no alternates. Second, the bill changes who serves on the board. Right now the VTA Board is a rotating group of elected officials: 10 city councilmembers and two members of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. AB 1091 would replace the elected officials on the board with qualified members of the public who have relevant expertise. These members would be appointed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and city councilmembers. Lastly, AB 1091 would lengthen board members’ terms from two to four years.

Three Civil Grand Jury Reports over the last 17 years have concluded that VTA’s governance structure is a root cause of the agency’s poor performance and is in need of structural reform. The goal of AB 1091 is to create a board with an improved level of expertise and continuity, but additionally to reorient the board towards a regional focus—with board members thinking about the regional transportation network rather than the political interests of the cities or districts they represent. Taxpayers, transit riders, and VTA staff deserve a Board of Directors that has the time and expertise necessary to provide appropriate oversight and meet our region’s complex transportation needs.

SB: Why is now the best time to be considering this legislation?

MB: This legislation is long overdue. A Civil Grand Jury first recommended restructuring the VTA Board in 2004. The 2019 Civil Grand Jury concluded that many of the problems identified in 2004 remain and have only grown deeper. We cannot continue to ignore the structural problems with the VTA Board that have been identified by three Civil Grand Juries over 17 years. I understand that this is a difficult conversation to have, but it’s not serving transit riders, taxpayers, or VTA to keep putting the conversation off.

SB: Is there a plan to overcome the formal opposition from the VTA Board and cities such as San Jose and Cupertino?

MB: Ironically, San Jose opposes the bill because they fear it takes away their power, and some of the non-San Jose cities or local elected officials oppose the bill because they fear it gives San Jose too much power.

Although AB 1091 creates a VTA board that is smaller overall, it does not change the existing balance between how many members are appointed by San Jose and how many are appointed by the non-San Jose cities in the county. Currently, San Jose appoints five voting members to the Board and all other cities appoint five voting members. Under AB 1091, the City of San Jose would appoint two members and the other cities would appoint two members. The other five seats would be appointed by each member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, all of whom represent at least a portion of San Jose. Each Supervisor could appoint a member who lives in San Jose, leading to a VTA Board that could have seven members from San Jose and two members from the non-San Jose cities. I don’t think that will happen, but it’s possible under AB 1091. Regardless of where the Supervisorial appointments live, my hope is that the Supervisors who appoint them will vet them to make sure they see things through a less parochial and more regional approach.

I am open to amending the bill as I continue to hear feedback from stakeholders about how best to improve VTA governance, and I hope that those who oppose it will propose suggested amendments to the bill. That is, unless they believe the current governance structure is working well and they want to defend the performance of VTA, which has consistently ranked at or near the bottom of rankings against peer agencies in a host of performance metrics.

I understand that changing the governance structure will not solve all of the complex issues that VTA faces. But as I’ve said before, we all share the common goal of improving public transportation in Santa Clara County. I would hope that this is something that everyone—even current VTA board members who might have to give up a little personal political power in exchange for better governance—could agree with.

SB: The 2018-2019 Grand Jury report that helped lead to this legislation suggested a number of different options for reforming the membership, one of which was board elections similar to the BART Board model. Why did you choose a different possible reshaping (which was also an option in the report) to a direct election?

MB: I looked at a number of options for reforming VTA based on the recommendations of the most recent Grand Jury report, and I considered a directly elected model like BART. The directly elected model is very rare for transit boards in the United States, and I worry that a directly-elected board would perpetuate the type of parochial and political thinking that has been detrimental to VTA’s regional mission. With an appointed board, we can ensure that transportation-related expertise is represented on the board, and that folks who may be great board members but lack the means to run a political campaign are not excluded from serving.

Streetsblog
By Damien Newton
April 26, 2021

 

[Monterey County] Civil grand jury targets Monterey bike-path project

MONTEREY — An award-winning project along North Fremont Street in Monterey has come under fire by the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, which has dubbed the project “a bike path to nowhere” in the report’s title.

The report’s key complaint is that the city failed to adequately inform the public of design changes relating to a bicycle path incorporated into the overall upgrades of North Fremont Street between Casa Verde Way and Canyon Del Rey, as well as not finishing the project’s vision when funding became scarce.

“The report by the Monterey Civil Grand Jury has been received by the city and we are preparing the required responses,” said Monterey City Manager Hans Uslar in an email Tuesday. “This award-winning project was completed below budget and followed a thorough public process, which kept stakeholders such as businesses and neighborhoods well informed. We are grateful that the report highlights these facts.

“We are looking forward to responding to the findings in order to help the civil grand jury to gain further insights into the success of this project,” Uslar said.

Indeed, Caltrans awarded the city with its “Excellence in Transportation” award last year for “providing safe, sustainable, integrated and sustainable transportation,” the state agency said in a statement.

The project, called the North Fremont Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project, was launched in 2014 with the idea of connecting the North Fremont bike path with the $31 million Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway, a 30-mile loop for walkers and bicyclists that is funded by a combination of state and local funding through the Transportation Agency for Monterey County.

As the North Fremont project design moved along, at some point the city of Monterey changed the bike path design from one where bicyclists share the street with traffic to one where bicyclists are physically protected from traffic. The grand jury believes the city should have better communicated that change with the public.

But as far back as 2017 and then again in 2018, the Monterey Herald reported on these design changes as well as the fact that budget overruns, which happen frequently in public works projects, resulted in the bike path not connecting to Canyon del Rey and instead stopped at Casanova Avenue.

The city is just waiting on a funding source to finish the connection, the grand jury report stated.

There are four types of bike paths recognized by Caltrans. The original design called for a Class 2 bike lane, which is the one where a  line is painted on the side of a street. But as the project moved forward the city decided to construct barriers between bicyclists and cars and run the lane between the traffic lanes.

That change drew criticism from some members of the public as voiced through letters to the editor in the Herald. Letters to the editor would indicate the public was aware of and involved in the process. The city held several meetings with neighborhood groups and others updating them on the design, including changes. The report even acknowledged that fact.

“The City of Monterey is to be commended for a comprehensive effort to communicate with local stakeholders, including the business community, neighborhood associations, and nearby residents domiciled near North Fremont throughout the planning and construction project,” the report reads.

The Herald reached out to the Monterey County Council’s Office requesting comment but a call was not immediately returned Tuesday.

The report also aimed at a May 2018 resolution to start construction, “but its language did not include anything stating the fact of that the City had changed the plan for construction of Class 4 bike lanes,” according to the report.

However, even as far back as September 2017, the Herald reported that “the plan itself includes the implementation of Class 4 bike lanes in the median of North Fremont Street and is intended to make the intersections between Casa Verde Way and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard both pedestrian-friendly and Americans with Disabilities Act compliant.”

Then again on May 3, 2018, the same month the report said the city failed to notify the broader population of the design change, the Herald reported that the “project, which will include the implementation of Class IV bike lanes in the median of North Fremont Street …”

The report, however, maintained that for there to be adequate communication with the public, designs should go before the city’s Architectural Review Committee so the public would have an opportunity to observe the process before coming before the City Council.

Finally, the report criticized the bike path portion of the project for only being “the tip of the iceberg,” because the project also included other badly needed infrastructure improvements, such as replacing storm drains, pedestrian crosswalks and improved stoplights.

Those improvements were also reported in the Herald in 2018.

At the end of the report, the findings included both compliments and criticisms of the way the project was communicated to the public and recommends:

• For all city projects that contain design elements, the city should hold public hearings before the Architectural Review Committee. This process should begin by Aug. 1,
• On future city projects, the governing body of record should approve revised resolutions to document changes to a project. This process should begin by Aug. 1.
• The city should begin holding public hearings before the Architectural Review Committee for their input on the Gap Project design. This should begin by Aug. 1,
• The city should create a maintenance plan addressing routine and long-term maintenance, as recommended by Caltrans.

Monterey Herald
Dennis L. Taylor | Reporter
May 5, 2021

Orange County had gaps in planning for pandemic, OC grand jury says

Although it has long had emergency plans in case of a pandemic, Orange County was not ready for COVID-19 and was slow to react in a number of ways that hampered its public heath response, the OC grand jury said in a report made public Wednesday, May 12.

The report criticized how the county responded to the pandemic on several fronts, including not having enough resources in place to carry out some of its existing plans.

County spokeswoman Molly Nichelson said the OC Health Care Agency and county leaders are aware of the report and will respond within the time frame laid out under the rules.

Orange County Supervisors Board Chairman Andrew Do said while an official answer will come later from the full board, he personally is proud of the county’s response to the pandemic, though he acknowledged some aspects could be improved.

In Orange County, grand jurors are volunteers who handle oversight of public agencies; they also consider indictments sought by prosecutors against suspects in major criminal investigations.

The grand jury reviewed various county emergency plans and state and national standards for such plans, as well as county budgets, stockpiles of masks and other protective equipment and contracts with community partners for COVID-19 outreach and services.

In the report, the grand jury made nine findings and six recommendations. Among key issues were:

• Some emergency plans were incomplete or not up to date when the pandemic struck, in some cases because planning efforts had been underfunded over time or the OC Health Care Agency’s financial and staff resources had been redirected to other parts of its mission.
• The county was slow to establish partnerships in the community to better serve some harder-to-reach or under-served populations, and creation of a vaccination task force and vaccine distribution plan could have happened earlier than it did, in September 2020.
• Although up to 45% of Orange County residents aren’t  proficient in English, until recently the county fell short at putting out information in other languages, and it didn’t provide enough resources in general to communicate effectively with the media or the community.

 

Recommendations included reviewing and updating preparedness plans within the next year; creating a committee within three months that would get a wider spectrum of the community involved in pandemic planning; and setting up a process to ensure vital information gets translated into key languages and that media resources are adequate.

“Although the Orange County Board of Supervisors declared a ‘pandemic’ in March 2020, the OCHCA has been unable to effectively implement and execute plans to respond to the current pandemic,” the report said, adding that if the problems aren’t addressed, “future pandemics will pose significant challenges for the residents of Orange County.”

The county has 90 days to respond to the report.

Do said the county was among the first public health agencies to reach out specifically to Latino communities when COVID-19 hot spots began to appear, and it also launched an initiative to reach Asian American and Pacific Islander residents fairly early on.

 While non-English options weren’t available when the vaccination app Othena rolled out, Supervisor Don Wagner said, “We were in the community” directly helping people get information and sign up for appointments.

 Wagner said it “could be a very fair complaint” that it was sometimes hard for media to get information and interviews with health agency officials in the initial months of the pandemic.

Some of the local deficiencies stemmed from the confusion, chaos and lack of resources that were seen far beyond Orange County, Do said.

News reports have pointed to shrinking funding and disappearing jobs in the public health field across the country, with an August 2020 article from the Associated Press and Kaiser Health News saying the system has been “starved for decades and lacks the resources to confront the worst health crisis in a century.

As of Wednesday, 5,023 Orange County residents have died from COVID-19 and more than 250,000 cases have been recorded among the county’s 3.2 million residents. Fewer than 100 people are currently hospitalized with the disease, but a spike in severe cases in late December and early January stretched OC hospitals so thin several set up outdoor field tents to hold extra beds.

Vaccination efforts struggled earlier this year because of lack of supply and logistical issues, but as of Sunday nearly 1.3 million residents were fully vaccinated and another 445,000 had gotten a first dose. As of Wednesday, state officials reported Orange County has surpassed having 50% of its residents at least partially vaccinated, and it reached that milestone head of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“Were our efforts flawless? Clearly, clearly no,” Wagner said. “We’lI use this (grand jury report), I suspect, as a vehicle to hone our performance for the next crisis.”

Orange County Register
By Alicia Robinson
May 12, 2021

Do [Santa Clara] Grand Jury Reports Influence Change In Silicon Valley?

 

The Civil Grand Jury investigates complaints made by county residents, but not all complaints are investigated.

Santa Clara County's Civil Grand Jury for decades has attempted to improve government and investigate corruption, but whether it's meeting those goals isn't so clear.

The Civil Grand Jury investigates complaints made by county residents, but not all complaints are investigated—in fact, few are. Any resident can submit a complaint in person or on the county's website.

Once investigations are complete, 19 jurors present their findings to government agencies and come up with recommendations for improving issues. But those agencies aren't required to act on the recommendations. In fact, they can do nothing at all.

Between 2019-2020, the grand jury received 52 complaints and produced five investigative reports on topics such as conservatorships and gender gaps in local fire departments. Jurors also produced a continuity report, documenting the responses of the 2018-2019 reports and the progress on several reports from previous terms.

According to the report released in December, 11 recommendations from 2018-19 jury reports have been implemented and 23 are in the process of being carried out. Twenty three recommendations from the reports released that year will not be implemented, according to the report.

A summary of civil grand jury reports released in 2018-19 with responses and implemented changes listed, as well as recommendations that will not be implemented or need further analysis. Courtesy of Santa Clara County.

The most recent report focused on the lack of women firefighters in the county, citing hostile work environments and a conscious lack of recruitment. The report found that only 4% of local firefighters are women—far below the 17% target recommended by Women in Fire, an advocacy group.

Local cities pushed back on the jury's findings, and the jury has no legal authority to force change.

"Fire Stations 1, 2, and 5 have multiple dormitory rooms that can be assigned by gender," reads a letter from Mountain View officials, adding that other stations could not be retrofitted and therefore the recommendations would not happen.

So far, San Jose, Mountain View, Palo Alto and the county's central fire protection district are the only entities with listed responses to the reports. Each accepted some recommendations and disagreed or denied others.

Matt Tuttle, president of San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230 union, said systemic change will take time—and funding.

Five women are enrolled in this year's fire academy.

"That is the most we have seen in several years and the five new recruits are both paramedics and EMTs," Tuttle said.

The biggest challenge, he said, which will take the longest, is having a dedicated, well-funded recruitment budget.

Whether a report results in change is a mixed bag. In a 2017-2018 report on the business activities of the Alum Rock Union School District, the report called for the resignation of three of its board members.

The grand jury called out those trustees for allegedly pushing through a deal with construction company Del Terra and creating a conflict of interest by assigning the firm to both program manager and construction manager roles.

Jurors also alleged that the board violated the Brown Act, the state's open meeting law.

After the report was released, nothing happened. Three years later, the trustees named in the report either didn't run for office when up for re-election or were beaten by challengers.

"The public reacted but it took time," said a former grand jury member, who spoke to San José Spotlight on condition of anonymity.

Another 2020 grand jury report alleged that the San Jose Unified School District obscured lobbying activities carried out on its behalf and violated government ethics laws. The district opposed the majority of the jury's findings and refused to implement most suggested changes.

In a written response, district officials asked whether "the empaneled Grand Jury that prepared the report was behaving in the public's interest or was it searching for nonexistent evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion from a group of 'not-in-my-backyard' individuals who knew Grand Jury members."

Lack of diversity

Every year, the presiding judge from the superior court swears in 19 jurors and explains their duties.

Applicants must be 18 years old, citizens of the United States and cannot concurrently be serving as a trial juror. Applications for the next Civil Grand Jury will open this summer.

Last year, more than 100 applications were received for the 19 spots on the jury, with eight "hold over" applicants from 2019.

But despite Silicon Valley's rich diversity, the people lining up to serve on the jury are mostly older, white men.

Santa Clara County officials told San José Spotlight that racial data for the current jury is not available. Only data about applicants for this year's pool are documented and released, they said. Those numbers show applicants are nearly 70% white, 10% Asian, about 2% Black, and 5.5% Hispanic/Latino. The majority—60%—were also men.

According to the United States Census Bureau, only 30% of Santa Clara County residents are white alone. A quarter of the county's residents are Hispanic or Latino, 39% are of Asian descent and about 3% are Black.

Image courtesy of Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The most common age group to apply were residents ages 65 to 74 with 42 applications, followed by ages 55 to 64 with 33 applications.

The former jury member said it's "peculiar" that Santa Clara County claims it doesn't have race and gender information for its current members.

"It would seem to me that the court would have the info for any juror who chose to give out their racial background," the former member said.

In about two years on the Civil Grand Jury, the former member said there were only two African American jurors and one Latino juror.

The reason for the lack of racial diversity, the member believes, is economical.

 

Jurors are required to serve about 25 hours a week, according to the county's website, and only get paid $20 a day. That's why they aren't reaching communities of color and traditionally economically disadvantaged communities to get more representation on the jury, the member said.

"If you're asking someone to clear their calendar for two to three days a week and you're paying them $20 as a per diem, you really have to ask why is one of the wealthiest counties in the state paying an abysmal amount," the member said.

Civil Grand Jury Deputy Manager Britney Huelbig said the court tries to recruit grand juries that reflect a "representative cross-section of the community they serve."

"Those methods include obtaining recommendations for grand jurors who encompass a cross-section of the county's population base," Huelbig said, "solicited from a broad representation of community-based organizations, civic leaders and superior court judges, referees and commissioners, and having the court consider carry-over grand jury selections."

No particular background is necessary to be a grand juror, Huelbig said, and diversity of members "is one of the grand jury's greatest strengths."

But the former jury member said the low pay and time commitment tends to favor older, retired people.

"It's not something random or arbitrary," said William Armaline, director of the Human Rights Collaborative at San Jose State University. "It's supposed to be a jury of one's peers, that's the theoretical principle."

Equitable recruitment is especially difficult during the pandemic, Armaline said.

"Working class people are trying to find time to eat, maybe deal with their family and kids for more than five minutes at a time, pay their bills," Armaline said. He added that officials in the justice system are aware of it, but this is a "genuinely difficult problem."

Patch.com Campbell, CA
San Jose Spotlight, News Partner
By Madelyn Reese
May 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 jabbott@appealdemocrat.com
May 11, 2021

Grand Jury Urges ‘Fast Track’ to Legalizing Cannabis Operations in Nevada County

 Greater Sheriff’s Role; Lower Fees, Higher Fines Highlight Recommendations

Nevada City, CA May 11, 2021 – The 2020-2021 Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) today released its report of an investigation into the County’s success at converting an estimated 3,500 – 4,000 illegal cannabis growers into permitted operators. The Jury found that the current conversion rate of 2 to 3% per year requires a substantial shift in county operations to accelerate conversion, recommending a combination of higher fines, lower fees, greater Sheriff’s enforcement, and heightened surveillance techniques as opportunities to explore.

Prompted by a citizen complaint, the Jury interviewed county and state officials, local citizens, searched online records, and reviewed other California counties’ ‘best practices.’ The Jury concluded that the Board of Supervisors is unlikely to achieve its stated 2020 priority to: “Maintain and continue to improve the cannabis permitting and enforcement program to promote permitted cannabis activities (emphasis added) while investigating options for additional supply chain license types and a compassionate use program.”

Chief among the Jury’s findings was to suggest a stronger role in cannabis enforcement by the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office (NCSO). Cannabis Cultivation Ordinance Sec. L-II 3.30 specified a lead role for the County’s Cannabis Compliance Division (CCD) in permitting operations for illegal cannabis growers.  The Jury concluded that the current small team of unarmed CCD employees, relying on citizen complaints to prioritize enforcement activities, has since 2019 made little progress legalizing the County’s estimated 3,500-4,000 illegal growers.  

The Jury calls for greater ‘carrot and stick’ engagement by the NCSO, such as streamlined permitting fees combined with increased fines for illegal growers.  The Jury also encouraged the NCSO and Board of Supervisors to investigate and consider funding additional law enforcement tools, such as drones and/or enhanced satellite surveillance of suspected illegal operations.

Download the full Grand Jury report:  http://nccourt.net/divisions/gj-reports.shtml

About the Nevada County Grand Jury

The Nevada County Grand Jury is made up of 19 citizens selected by the Nevada County Superior Court. Jurors serve one-year terms that conclude each year on June 30. The Jury serves as the county’s ‘watchdog,’ assuring best government practices, and also fields citizen complaints.  

YubaNet
by Nevada County Civil Grand Jury
May 11, 2021

 

[Sonoma County]Town’s new tack in mayor sex case

Grand jury could push Windsor’s Foppoli to quit

Rachel Wilcock and Vanessa Petersen protest in Windsor last month to demand the recall of Mayor Dominic Foppoli after several women accused him of sexual assault.

Faced with a defiant mayor who has refused to heed mounting calls for his resignation, Windsor officials requested Thursday that the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office authorize a grand jury investigation into Dominic Foppoli’s “willful or corrupt misconduct in office.”

The obscure and quasicriminal process is yet another route to potentially unseat Foppoli, who was a rising Wine Country politician and winery owner until several women accused him of sexual assault in Chronicle investigations last month.

“I have been asked by our Town Council to request that your office consider commencing grand jury proceedings against Mayor Foppoli,” Windsor Town Manager Ken MacNab wrote in a letter to District Attorney Jill Ravitch.

MacNab cited the “magnitude” of the allegations and that they involved “conduct both outside his official duties as Mayor and conduct alleged to have occurred while the Mayor was acting in his official capacity, and may indicate a dangerous pattern of behavior and troubling character flaws that render him unfit to hold public office.”

In a a statement, Windsor Town Council members said the action was “provided for in California State law and is a method for removing local elected and appointed officials from office.”

Brian Staebell, the chief deputy district attorney for Sonoma County, said Thursday that Ravitch had forwarded MacNab’s letter to the California Attorney General’s Office.

One of Foppoli’s accusers is Esther Lemus, who is not only his colleague on the Town Council but also a deputy district attorney for Sonoma County. The office had already referred a criminal investigation into Foppoli to the state attorney general because its prosecutor was among the accusers.

Foppoli, who has repeatedly and emphatically denied assaulting any women, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Earlier Thursday, he sent a statement to the town blasting Windsor residents leading an effort to recall him from office.

“They do not have Windsor’s best interests in mind,” Foppoli said. “They seek to advance their own leadership by any means necessary including tearing me down with false allegations.”

In addition to Lemus, six women have told The Chronicle that Foppoli, elected to Windsor Town Council in 2014 and first appointed mayor in 2018, groped, raped or otherwise sexually assaulted them in incidents that allegedly took place between 2002 and 2019. Foppoli went on to become Windsor’s first elected mayor in November 2020.

Foppoli announced last month that he would “step back” from his mayoral duties, but defied a near-universal chorus of calls for his resignation.

More than two dozen elected officials, including his Town Council colleagues, all eight other Sonoma County mayors, and both U.S. representatives from the North Bay, have urged Foppoli to step down. Foppoli’s older brother, Joe Foppoli, said the mayor had agreed to relinquish his title as chief executive officer of Christopher Creek, the winery north of Windsor that they co-own.

As an elected official, Foppoli can be removed from office by a felony conviction or a recall vote. The civil grand jury process, which is rare and often proceeds in conjunction with a criminal investigation, is another possible path.

Although the grand jury can’t remove Foppoli from office itself, it can make that recommendation to a judge depending on its findings, according to Robert Weisberg, a professor of criminal law at Stanford University.

“There are a lot of levers of power here,” Weisberg said. “A civil grand jury, although it can’t kick the guy out of office all on its own, can play a very significant role in making the case for it.”

Robert Pittman, counsel for the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, said the Sonoma County civil grand jury is empowered to investigate allegations of misconduct against elected officials in the county and recommend their removal through what is known as an “accusation.”

The current grand jury, comprising 19 county residents, concludes its term on June 30. The next grand jury’s term will begin July 1.

Each of California’s 58 counties has a civil grand jury, normally volunteer residents selected annually under the supervision of the presiding judge of the Superior Court. Although they have subpoena powers, civil grand juries generally investigate matters related to local governments and produce reports and recommendations that identify specific inefficiencies or mismanagement. They are distinct from criminal grand juries that prosecutors convene to consider criminal charges.

Under state law, however, civil grand juries also have the unique power to investigate allegations of misconduct against elected officials and, if they decide the allegations are credible, file an accusation in Superior Court with the assistance of a prosecutorial agency.

“Accusations are rarely brought — less frequently than once a year in the state,” said Karen Jahr, a retired attorney and a current trainer and past president of the California Grand Jurors’ Association, which provides training and other support to the California grand jury system.

For accusation proceedings, Jahr said, all testimony is taken under oath in front of a court reporter. There is no definitive list of the types of misconduct that will support an accusation; however, past upheld accusations have involved the alleged commission of crimes connected to the official’s duties.

In addition, the alleged misconduct must have occurred while the official was in office, and within the past six years. For an accusation to proceed, the official must still be in office, and 12 of the 19 jurors need to sign on. The accusation can also be rolled into charges that have been brought in a concurrent criminal case.

“In the case where there is a criminal investigation going on, the grand jury can hold back to allow the criminal investigation to go forward first,” Jahr said. “There can be concerns that concurring investigations might butt up against each other.”

If the defendant either doesn’t answer, pleads guilty or is convicted by a separate trial jury of the allegations laid out in the accusation, the punishment is immediate removal from office per a judge’s order.

Grand juries ordinarily spend about six months conducting a civil investigation and writing their report, Jahr said. Weisberg estimated that a process like that of Windsor’s could take less than a year.

Although relatively rare, the civil grand jury process has played out twice in recent years in Contra Costa County.

In 2017, the Contra Costa civil grand jury found that the county’s district attorney had engaged in misconduct when he routinely used campaign funds for personal spending. Mark Peterson resigned and pleaded no contest to a felony perjury charge as part of a concurrent criminal case.

Most recently, however, Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer faced a civil grand jury accusation that he had made sexual and racist comments to employees in his office. The misconduct case ended in 2020 in a mistrial, and Kramer has now filed a legal claim asking the county to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills.

San Francisco Chronicle
Alexandria Bordas and Cynthia Dizikes
May 7, 2021

[Monterey County] Civil grand jury targets Monterey bike-path project

MONTEREY — An award-winning project along North Fremont Street in Monterey has come under fire by the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, which has dubbed the project “a bike path to nowhere” in the report’s title.

The report’s key complaint is that the city failed to adequately inform the public of design changes relating to a bicycle path incorporated into the overall upgrades of North Fremont Street between Casa Verde Way and Canyon Del Rey, as well as not finishing the project’s vision when funding became scarce.

“The report by the Monterey Civil Grand Jury has been received by the city and we are preparing the required responses,” said Monterey City Manager Hans Uslar in an email Tuesday. “This award-winning project was completed below budget and followed a thorough public process, which kept stakeholders such as businesses and neighborhoods well informed. We are grateful that the report highlights these facts.

“We are looking forward to responding to the findings in order to help the civil grand jury to gain further insights into the success of this project,” Uslar said.

Indeed, Caltrans awarded the city with its “Excellence in Transportation” award last year for “providing safe, sustainable, integrated and sustainable transportation,” the state agency said in a statement.

The project, called the North Fremont Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project, was launched in 2014 with the idea of connecting the North Fremont bike path with the $31 million Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway, a 30-mile loop for walkers and bicyclists that is funded by a combination of state and local funding through the Transportation Agency for Monterey County.

As the North Fremont project design moved along, at some point the city of Monterey changed the bike path design from one where bicyclists share the street with traffic to one where bicyclists are physically protected from traffic. The grand jury believes the city should have better communicated that change with the public.

But as far back as 2017 and then again in 2018, the Monterey Herald reported on these design changes as well as the fact that budget overruns, which happen frequently in public works projects, resulted in the bike path not connecting to Canyon del Rey and instead stopped at Casanova Avenue.

The city is just waiting on a funding source to finish the connection, the grand jury report stated.

There are four types of bike paths recognized by Caltrans. The original design called for a Class 2 bike lane, which is the one where a  line is painted on the side of a street. But as the project moved forward the city decided to construct barriers between bicyclists and cars and run the lane between the traffic lanes.

That change drew criticism from some members of the public as voiced through letters to the editor in the Herald. Letters to the editor would indicate the public was aware of and involved in the process. The city held several meetings with neighborhood groups and others updating them on the design, including changes. The report even acknowledged that fact.

“The City of Monterey is to be commended for a comprehensive effort to communicate with local stakeholders, including the business community, neighborhood associations, and nearby residents domiciled near North Fremont throughout the planning and construction project,” the report reads.

The Herald reached out to the Monterey County Council’s Office requesting comment but a call was not immediately returned Tuesday.

The report also aimed at a May 2018 resolution to start construction, “but its language did not include anything stating the fact of that the City had changed the plan for construction of Class 4 bike lanes,” according to the report.

However, even as far back as September 2017, the Herald reported that “the plan itself includes the implementation of Class 4 bike lanes in the median of North Fremont Street and is intended to make the intersections between Casa Verde Way and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard both pedestrian-friendly and Americans with Disabilities Act compliant.”

Then again on May 3, 2018, the same month the report said the city failed to notify the broader population of the design change, the Herald reported that the “project, which will include the implementation of Class IV bike lanes in the median of North Fremont Street …”

The report, however, maintained that for there to be adequate communication with the public, designs should go before the city’s Architectural Review Committee so the public would have an opportunity to observe the process before coming before the City Council.

Finally, the report criticized the bike path portion of the project for only being “the tip of the iceberg,” because the project also included other badly needed infrastructure improvements, such as replacing storm drains, pedestrian crosswalks and improved stoplights.

Those improvements were also reported in the Herald in 2018.

At the end of the report, the findings included both compliments and criticisms of the way the project was communicated to the public and recommends:

For all city projects that contain design elements, the city should hold public hearings before the Architectural Review Committee. This process should begin by Aug. 1,

On future city projects, the governing body of record should approve revised resolutions to document changes to a project. This process should begin by Aug. 1.

The city should begin holding public hearings before the Architectural Review Committee for their input on the Gap Project design. This should begin by Aug. 1,

The city should create a maintenance plan addressing routine and long-term maintenance, as recommended by Caltrans.

Monterey Herald
By DENNIS L. TAYLOR
May 4, 2021

San Jose [Santa Clara County] RV Dwellers Fear Displacement

 As county leaders push plans to revitalize the barren Santa Clara County Fairgrounds, dozens of RV dwellers could soon be pushed out.

Blog note: this article refers to a Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury  report.

Tenant Pam Eisenbarth said staff from the nonprofit running the RV park, Fairgrounds Management Corporation, told her and husband Joe Rodriguez in December 2019 that the park would soon close. The corporation was preparing for its devitalization of the fairgrounds, a multi-year plan that didn't include the RV park.

Eisenbarth said about 32 RVs took up the two-lot park as the pandemic began, but now about 20 remain.

"They've been trying to redo this place for what? Ten years, even more," Rodriguez said. "It looks like they might actually do it this time. But a lot of us aren't going to have anywhere to go, except for the streets with the other RVs."

RVs parked on the side of the road have drawn ire from nearby businesses and neighborhoods who describe them as blight.

A Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury reported the RV park earned about half a million dollars in revenue in 2018, as opposed to the annual fair which reported making just over $13,000 the same year. Despite being more profitable than the annual fair, an email obtained by San José Spotlight revealed Fairgrounds Management Corporation CEO Abe Andrade spoke with at least three management staff about closing the park.

County leaders for years have struggled to figure out the future of the underutilized Santa Clara County fairgrounds. Lawmakers approved a plan in 2019 to explore new uses including a venue for USA Cricket, a county park and a San Jose Earthquakes Soccer Academy. Homeless housing was not on the list, despite a petition from advocates, because officials believe the area is already densely housed.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the mostly vacant 158-acre site on Tully Road was used for a temporary medical facility then a shelter for homeless residents at risk of getting sick. Most recently, it served as a mass COVID-19 vaccination site.

Talk of shutting down the two-acre RV park comes as no surprise to longtime renters of the fairground parking spaces. They say Andrade continues trying to push them out.

"He'll drop off notices on the doorstep, they blow away, then he gets mad when people don't see them," said resident Teresa Estrella. "People who don't know their rights, (Andrade) can bully them into leaving."

Some fear those who speak little English could be more easily coerced or intimidated into leaving.

Tenants Steve and June, who withheld their last names for fear of retribution, said management closed the nearby public waste site over a year ago to create an untenable environment so some tenants have no choice but to leave.

Andrade confirmed plans to close the RV park dating back to before the pandemic.

"What is getting lost here is that the RV park, as a short term stay facility with a 30-day limit, has never been intended for people to stay long periods," Andrade said. "I have no idea when it will close now given the variables of the development proposals and the pandemic."

The uncertainty leaves families like Rodriguez and Eisenbarth anxious about the future — especially as a statewide rent moratorium expires on June 30.

Sitting at their table on Sunday—the kitchen, living room and bedroom all just a few steps away—the couple looked out the windshield to see fencing surrounding them.

"That wasn't there until COVID," Eisenbarth said. "Then they put the green covering and now we can't see what's going on out there. It feels like they're closing in on us."

One by one as RVs left over the past year, the fencing closed in on vacant areas. Eisenbarth and Ramirez said management told them to move their RV to the back lot.

Fairgrounds Management Corporation Board Chair Ty Greaves said the nonprofit is in conversations with businesses to redevelop the fairgrounds, but nothing has been finalized. COVID-19 slowed down talks with sports and entertainment venues concerned over how long gatherings will continue to be limited in size.

"We've been in lockdown, people have been terrorized for a year. Will they ever come back and be in a public venue in numbers that would justify investments of significant amounts of money?" Greaves said. "But we have commitment, we have people who are passionately interested in fulfilling the vision, and we push in that direction."

In the latest attempt to revitalize the fairgrounds, Santa Clara County supervisors in January approved a plan to build go-kart racing tracks, a virtual reality arcade, zip lining and other outdoor activities to be developed on the land the RV park currently occupies.

But as the pandemic drags on, no date is set for work to start. Andrade said projects are still in development.

"I'm not so much worried about myself as I am for all the families who will have no other place to go," Estrella said. "They have little kids. If they're tearing this place down there needs to be somewhere for these people to stay."

San Jose Spotlight, News Partner
By Vincente Veras
Friday, April 30, 2021