Contra Costa County Grand Jury
2022-2023
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (8)
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Minimum age to serve on a grand CIVIL GRAND JURY PUZZLER jury
R4:
Naval weapons station location
R5:
Presiding member of a jury
R6:
Vote of a person for political office
R7:
Minimum number of members 12 13 required to make a meeting valid
R8:
Elected official responsible for keeping the peace
R10:
Cocktail invented in martinez
R11:
Building in which judicial proceedings are conducted
R12:
Formal body to investigate the operations of local government
R13:
Farming or fallow land Across
R14:
Person granted full rights and responsibilities in a community
R15:
Formal inquiry to discover facts
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.
F2:
City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.
F3:
There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.
F4:
Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low-income and 4x for low- income residents).
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress, biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor meetings.
R5:
Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.
F5:
Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very low- and low-income housing, including: a. Limited availability of land; b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d. Limited available funding; e. Lack of community support; f. NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community voice in the process and helping to identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community.
R4:
Each city and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RHNA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in their community.
F6:
Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development. Zoning obstacles include: a. Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b. Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c. Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.
Related Recommendations (3)
R6:
Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned “suitable for residential use,” without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.
R7:
Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.
R8:
Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of 2023 (if not already in place).
F7:
Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval
F8:
Builder’s Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.
F9:
When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA’s) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.
F10:
Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low- income residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.
R10:
Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.
F11:
Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer’s overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.
F12:
Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.
F13:
The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very low- and low-income housing.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
For incidents in which a member of a law enforcement agency uses deadly force, the district attorney should consider releasing a public report about the incident or filing charges within six months of the incident and without necessarily waiting for the coroner’s inquest. Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2304 Is the coroner’s inquest timely and does it provide sufficient transparency? The Sheriff’s LEIFI Policy provides: INQUESTS. In each police involved fatal incident where a member of the public dies and where no criminal charges have been filed, a coroner’s inquest will normally be held. The purpose of the inquest is to develop any further evidence and to inform the public of the facts of the incident. Sheriff’s LEIFI Policy Section (J)(2) at . One of the primary purposes for coroner’s inquests is to provide transparency regarding incidents involving law enforcement. The Legislature requires that these proceedings be open to the public. However, in Contra Costa County, the coroner’s inquests are not consistently publicized in advance. State law requires that coroner’s inquest testimony be transcribed at county expense and filed with either the court clerk or the coroner3. In Contra Costa County, the coroner is the designated entity. However, the availability of a record of the proceeding, other than the verdict itself, is not made public. When coroner’s inquests are scheduled with the court, family members of the deceased are notified, as are members of law enforcement, the DA’s office, and testifying witnesses. Generally, a press release from the sheriff/coroner’s office is used to notify the public about the inquest. Members of the civil grand jury attended three coroner’s inquests, listed below. These coroner’s inquests were poorly advertised, if at all, as in the Hickey inquest. The other two inquests we attended were publicized only one or two days in advance and on obscure websites. Using the Google search engine, we were unable to find the coroner’s inquest for Robert Jones in advance, but the Bing search engine found the notification on the www.thepress.net website. None were advertised on the sheriff’s press release or coroner’s inquest web pages. Government Code, sections 27502-03 Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2304 Advanced Coroner’s Inquest Date of Notification Source Inquest Date Notification (days) Naya Jackson 11/18/22 11/16/22 2 KTVU.com Robert Jones 1/13/23 1/12/23 1 www.thepress.net Kent Hickey 1/20/23 None N/A N/A If members of the public did not attend the inquest in person, the one-page inquest verdict would be the sum of what information is publicly available. However, by statute the inquest hearing is recorded by a court stenographer and the proceedings are transcribed at county expense and available in the coroner’s office. The transcription is not mentioned on the inquest verdict or elsewhere on the sheriff-coroner’s website. Also, the verdict in the Kent Hickey inquest, held on January 20, 2023, has, as of May 8, 2023, not been posted or referenced on the sheriff-coroner’s website. Further, there is no section on the sheriff-coroner’s website where information about all prior coroner’s inquests is consolidated. The DA’s website provides an example of posting all LEIFI reports in one section of the site. That section also includes the DA’s LEIFI policy. The San Diego County website also provides an example of posting information about investigations into officer-related fatalities. We noted earlier that coroner’s inquests presently take an average of ten months to complete and that the DA waits for completion before making a criminal charge determination. Given the goal in the Protocol to complete the criminal investigation reports within 30 days and that doing so is “essential,” and that an authoritative source reported to us that all aspects of the investigation could be done in as little as three months and up to six months, the sheriff-coroner should consider completing the coroner’s inquest within four months of the incident, but no later than six months. Completing the coroner’s inquest within six months would reduce the time for the DA criminal charge determination to nine months, and less if the DA did not wait for the coroner’s inquest.
R2A:
For fatal incidents in which a member of a law enforcement agency is involved, the sheriff-coroner should consider completing the coroner’s inquest within four months of the incident but no later than six months.
R2B:
The sheriff-coroner should consider providing advance notice to the public of all upcoming coroner’s inquests, including the location, date, and time.
R2C:
The sheriff-coroner should consider posting press releases concerning all upcoming coroner’s inquests on the sheriff’s website.
R2D:
The sheriff-coroner should consider posting information about prior coroner’s inquests, including the verdict and how to obtain a copy of the transcript. This information should remain available on the sheriff-coroner’s website and/or other sites known and accessible to the public. Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2304 Does the Protocol need to be updated? The Protocol has not been updated since 2014. There have been several statutory enactments since 2014 that have implications for LEIFI procedures. The Police Chiefs’ Association and other parties to the Protocol may be well-advised to review and revise portions of the 2014 Protocol and the appended checklists to ensure consistency with current state law and with the policies of the DA and Sheriff’s offices.
R3:
The parties to the 2014 Protocol should consider updating the Protocol to ensure that it is in compliance with current state law, the procedures identified in the DA’s LEIFI Policy, and any applicable changes in the Sheriff’s LEIFI Policy. This should include updating the checklists that are part of the Protocol. Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2304
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There is no formal procedure for the evaluation and approval of agricultural contracts in Contra Costa County by the DCD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The grand jury recommends that the DCD establish a written and publicized process for agricultural contracts, similar to what our comparison county has implemented, by October 1, 2023.
F2:
The current process to review and approve an agricultural contract takes over three years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
We recommend that the DCD establish a well-publicized deadline for all agricultural contract applications (e.g., October 1), process all agricultural contracts together and preschedule a standing item on the planning commission’s agenda (if required) and the board of supervisor’s agenda in late November or early December, with contract approval on or before December 31 of the same year, striving to approve agricultural contracts within 90 days.
F3:
An agricultural contract has not been approved since 2018.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
We recommend that the DCD include an in-person or video teleconference meeting with the applicant to clearly define the required paperwork and the deadline for application submittal.
F4:
Delays in approving agricultural contracts require applicants to continue to pay higher property tax payments while awaiting approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
We recommend that the DCD agricultural contract process be agreed upon and shared with all involved entities, such as county counsel, the planning commission, public works, adjacent cities, LAFCO, and the assessor's office, to gain agreement on the process by all involved entities. Recommended date of agreement is October 1, 2023.
F5:
The DCD ePermit online tool provides an overly broad status on agricultural contracts. As of April 2023, the status of all agricultural contract applications is “hearing prep”. This could indicate the application is under an environmental quality review or being prepared for the board of supervisors for approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
We recommend that the DCD update the ePermit status for agricultural contracts, within 48 hours of a status change, as the application progresses through the involved entities.
F6:
Our interviews found that one planner is trained to work on agricultural contracts and is often compelled to spend a majority of their time on other tasks such as the general plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
We recommend that the DCD train additional planners to process agricultural contracts in order to eliminate the current backlog by October 1, 2023 and meet the 90 day agricultural contract approval interval target for future applications.
F7:
Inquiries for status via email and voicemail by agricultural contract applicants to the DCD are often not responded to.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
We recommend that the DCD review and adhere to their stated goal that calls and emails from applicants be returned within two business days.
F8:
When applicant email inquiries are responded to, they often provide a progress status that fails to materialize and/or is overly optimistic.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
We recommend that the DCD implement an escalation process for agricultural contracts so that the applicant can request management intervention if key milestones and deadlines are in jeopardy of being missed.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
The grand jury recommends that DCD management establish procedures to monitor the progress of agricultural contract applications to ensure progress deadlines are met by each involved entity.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, tele-mental health and audio-only services available through BHS were a small portion of the outpatient services provided (7% in 2018; 8% in 2019). RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. An explanation was given.
F2:
During the Covid-19 pandemic, BHS did not offer training to prepare clinicians or clients for effective and confidential use of tele-mental health services. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. An explanation was given.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Develop a training program for BHS clinicians, network providers, and support staff to facilitate the use of tele-mental health. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The recommendation requires further analysis. An explanation was given. Due: June 30, 2022 Analysis Complete? Unknown
R4:
Develop a training program for clients to facilitate and provide support for the use of tele-mental health. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the recommendation. A summary was provided.
F3:
During the Covid-19 pandemic, BHS tele-mental health services continue to be underutilized. While audio-only increased to 52% of all outpatient services, tele-mental health was 18% of outpatient services delivered RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. An explanation was given.
F4:
At the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic, tele-mental health and audio-only services decreased the number of missed appointments. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the finding.
F5:
Tele-mental health services are appropriate for clients who are more stable, verbal and insightful. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the finding.
F6:
Tele-mental health services are appropriate to use with clients displaying symptoms of anxiety and depression. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the finding.
F7:
The greater use of audio-only services has the limitation of not offering visual cues, which provide clinicians with important clinical information. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the finding.
F8:
Tele-mental health services are not appropriate fora. Homeless populationsb. Patients presenting with chronic schizophrenia with a limited capacity to manage the tasks of daily lifec. Patients prescribed controlled substances or injectable medication. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. An explanation was given.
F9:
BHS has not incorporated tele-mental health into a comprehensive service delivery model to offer a broad range of opportunities for underserved populations to receive mental health services. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. An explanation was given.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Develop a hybrid plan to integrate tele-mental health services with in-person services in their clinics. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the recommendation. A summary was provided.
R2:
Coordinate with network provider groups to integrate tele-mental health services with in-person services. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the recommendation. A summary was provided.
F10:
Access to outpatient mental health services in Contra Costa County suffers from difficulties with transportation to clinics, long wait times for appointments, and insufficient availability of after-hours appointments. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. An explanation was given.
F11:
BHS has a limited number of clinicians who can provide culturally and linguistically sensitive services to diverse minority groups. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. An explanation was given.
F12:
Increasing access to mental health services is a priority for Contra Costa County BHS. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the finding.
F13:
The FCC reported 99.2% of Contra Costa County residents have access to internet broadband for greater use of tele-mental health services. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. An explanation was given.
F14:
BHS has not followed the directives of the California Telehealth Advancement Act of 2011 to develop telehealth services to better meet the needs of underserved populations in the community. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. An explanation was given.
F15:
The Congressional Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 expands Medicare services to allow tele-mental health services to be integrated with in-person sessions, and to be received by beneficiaries in their home without geographic limitations. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the finding.
F16:
BHS lacks an adequate electronic data system to evaluate the efficacy of outpatient mental health services provided. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. An explanation was given.
Related Recommendations (6)
R5:
Collect outcome data from BHS providers and programs to provide feedback to improve mental health services delivered to the community. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the recommendation. A summary was provided.
R7:
Increase the use of MyChart health care information system to make clinical information accessible to clients and providers. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the recommendation. A summary was provided.
R8:
Modernize the electronic data collection capabilities of the quality management program to provide meaningful information about mental health services. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The recommendation requires further analysis. An explanation was given. Due: June 30, 2022 Analysis Complete? Unknown
R9:
Develop appropriate clinical metrics to evaluate outcomes that improve the effectiveness of mental health services provided. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the recommendation. A summary was provided.
R10:
Seek grants and MHSA funding to upgrade the technological resources of the quality management program. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent agrees with the recommendation. A summary was provided.
R11:
Allocate funds for BHS to upgrade its quality management program. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. An explanation was given. Summary of Responses
F17:
BHS does not collect clinical data from network providers, which limits accountability for the outpatient mental health services provided to county residents. RESPONDENT RESPONSE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. An explanation was given.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Collect outcome data from network providers to provide feedback to improve mental health services delivered to the community. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. By: July 1, 2022. Implemented? Unknown
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F3:
a The RFQ and SOQ process used in the 2021 CNWS master developer selection prevented LRA staff from providing analysis and recommendations on the three respondents. Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2305 are posted at https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-reports.aspx
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
a To control costs and foster more accurate expense forecasting, City of Concord PSAs for LRA consultants should have specified hourly rates by either position or by individual and the hourly rates should remain fixed across the one-year PSA. Transparency The grand jury discovered that the LRA staff and their outside consultants were not allowed to offer recommendations on the selection of CNWS master developer applicants during the SOQ. This situation was present during the selection between Lennar and Catellus in September 2015. According to data officially released in the 2016 Jenkins Report, on September 1, 2015, there was discussion about whether the city council wanted staff to make a recommendation in the report presented at the meeting at which the city council would select the master developer. The initial decision by the city council was that “…consistent with general city policy, staff should make a recommendation.”33 This decision was made in response to questions posed in a report on Master Developer Term Sheets and Selection Process by LRA staff.34 Additionally, both companies vying for the master developer selection were advised there would be a staff recommendation at the end of negotiation process. On September 16, in a closed city council session, a near final staff report was presented, which included staff’s recommendation of Catellus as Master Developer.35 In late September 2015, the City Manager instructed the LRA staff to remove the staff recommendation from the staff report, after meeting separately with three members of the city council. In the days following the closed session, several council members changed their positions regarding inclusion of a recommendation in the staff report. The impetus for this change was a series of questionable allegations against Catellus and concerns by council that there would be a perception of favortism in the staff report. In late September, the city manager instructed LRA Manager Michael Wright, to remove the staff recommendation from the final staff report.36 Catellus then withdrew from the master developer selection process, and Lennar was awarded the CNWS master developer contract in May 2016. As stated in the Implementation of the Selection Process section earlier in this report, the Master Developer Selection ad hoc committee did not follow the LRA manager’s December 2020 recommendations on RFQ content. The RFQ limited the LRA team’s role to reviewing and vetting materials submitted for each applicant’s SOQ and then compiling these materials. There was no written report from the LRA team, just a spreadsheet showing the responses of the three applicants.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
a For future RFQs and RFPs used to select a master developer for the CNWS project, there should be a full analysis and report issued by LRA staff. Concord City Loans to Local Reuse Authority Through fiscal year 2019-2020, the City of Concord loaned the LRA $14.06 million to pay for CNWS expenses not paid from funds from governmental entities or the initial master developer, Lennar. These loans began in fiscal year 2012-2013 and were made through fiscal year 2019- 2020. In fiscal year 2019-2020, they totaled $3.35 million.37 These loans came from three Concord revenue sources: General Fund reserves of $9.91 million and Workers’ Compensation Fund of $3.15 million and Pavilion Fund of $1.0 million that total $14.06 million.38 Table 3 –CNWS Expenses Paid with City Loans ($ million) - February 2020 Prior Fiscal Year 10.46 Fiscal Year 19-20 2.73 Unencumbered Funds 0.87 Total 14.06 These loan agreements state that the Lender (General Fund or Workers’ Compensation Fund or Pavilion Fund) agree to lend to Borrower (Local Reuse Authority) and that Borrower agrees to repay to Lender an amount not to exceed the Loan amount plus applicable interest. Regarding payment of the loan, the agreement states “…principal payments shall be paid by the Borrower to the Lender at the time that sale proceeds of raw land at the Community Reuse Project are available…”.39 The sale of land regarding these loans is not the transfer to the LRA but a subsequent sale to a master developer. This will not occur until after a master developer is selected, the Navy and Concord have completed all regulatory requirements for transfer of the CNWS land to the LRA and the LRA has sold the land to the master developer. The grand jury was advised it would be two to three years following the master developer selection before the Navy would transfer land to the LRA and there would be two years of infrastructure development at CNWS before residential construction would begin. The December 2022 term sheet proposal negotiated with CFP called for paying Concord approximately $5 million before issuance of building permits for 90 percent of the market rate dwelling units (2,180) in phase one, and paying the City approximately $10 million before issuance of building permits for 90 percent of the market rate dwelling units (3,777) in phase two.40 Using, the timelines from these statements and contracts, the loans to the LRA would repaid in two payments four to five years after a master developer is selected plus the time required to buildout the units specified in phases one and two. There are many issues to be addressed before construction at CNWS can begin, including hydrology, air quality, traffic flow, hazardous materials, soil geology, BRAC disposition activities, and affordable housing that require analysis and study involving public and private Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2305 are posted at https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-reports.aspx
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F4:
a through F4.d R4.a through R4.d
F5:
a through F5.e R5.a through R5.d
F6:
a through F6.c R6.a through R6.c Local Reuse Authority F1.a through F1.c R1.a through R1.j