Gran Jurado del Condado de Solano

2021-2022

5 informes

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 14 hallazgos
F1: Shelter Solano, Inc.’s lack of unrestricted funding prevents the shelter from operating at capacity.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: B: Local agency partners adopt a regionalized service delivery and funding model that does not restrict bed usage based on a bed-night rate agreement with the county and/or donor city, but rather allows access to beds based on client need regardless of the city of origin and works toward reducing the number of homeless living on the streets.
F2: The Solano County Civil Grand Jury found it difficult to track money and funding between SHELTER, Inc., and Shelter Solano, Inc. Often, the names of the two entities are used interchangeably. It is unclear which funding sources are specifically awarded to Shelter Solano, Inc. and which funding sources are awarded to SHELTER, Inc.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Local agency partners establish a transparent system of tracking and reporting funds that clearly differentiates between SHELTER, Inc. and Shelter Solano, Inc.
F3: Confusion exists in the Solano community regarding what services and/or programming in Solano County is provided by SHELTER, Inc. and what is provided by Shelter Solano, Inc.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Local agency partners work together to develop and implement transparent reporting of services and programming that clearly differentiates between those provided by SHELTER, Inc. and those provided by Shelter Solano, Inc.
F4: The Solano County Civil Grand Jury found it unclear which funding sources awarded to SHELTER, Inc, are specifically assigned to Shelter Solano, Inc., and which funding sources were awarded to SHELTER, Inc. to provide services in Solano County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Local agency partners work with SHELTER, Inc. and funding providers to establish a more transparent and reconciliation method to clearly disclose which funding sources they receive specifically for Shelter Solano, Inc. and which funding sources SHELTER, Inc. receives that are earmarked for SHELTER, Inc. to provide services in Solano County.
F5: There is a lack of metrics and comprehensive data collection to inform decision- making, to monitor and measure program efficacy and performance, as well as outcomes across the homeless service continuum.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Across the continuum of services, develop metrics to measure and monitor program efficacy, performance and outcomes, to include a transparent system of reporting.
F6: Despite improved collaboration between the service providers, funders, municipal government, and county, there remains a lack of an overall leadership role/authority.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: A: Overall leadership with authority to address homelessness is required to provide direction, ensure timely coordination of services, demand accountability, and liaison with the community.
F7: The SCCGJ found no evidence that CAP Solano, JPA is registered as a public agency with the State of California or Solano County as required.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: CAP Solano, JPA file the necessary forms with the State of California and Solano County and consistently meet filing requirements.
F8: The public is unaware of the volume of money coming into Solano County to address the homeless issue.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: CAP Solano, JPA should create a dashboard disclosing the money coming into Solano County; how it is used, by whom, and their return on investment (program outcomes).
F9: Feedback from multiple stakeholders and document review during the SCCGJ’s investigation revealed that CES is not currently providing the expected services.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: A: The appropriate authority assesses Resource Connect’s current state of operations to identify its readiness to provide the expected services in a user-friendly, timely manner, that reduces the long waitlists currently in place.
F10: Lack of housing makes it difficult for individuals to successfully graduate out of Shelter Solano, Inc. into permanent housing as required by the Housing First Delivery Model used in Solano County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10: A: To successfully address homelessness in Solano County requires that the county and cities work together to secure housing in their respective communities.
F11: Ongoing delays in the completion of the dining hall has impacted Shelter Solano, Inc.’s ability to operate at capacity and contributes to the rising number of individuals living unsheltered.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Continue working towards the projected June 2022 completion date to ensure Shelter Solano, Inc. can operate at full capacity.
F12: Direct observation and feedback received during Shelter Solano, Inc. site visit revealed shelter maintenance has been neglected.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12: A: Adoption of a Regional Service Delivery model in Solano County that stabilizes funding to consistently meet operational needs.
F13: Direct observation, document review, and feedback during the Solano County Civil Grand Jury investigation revealed gaps in service delivery along the entire continuum of services.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R13: A: The county secures a comprehensive independent assessment across the continuum of homeless services to include: • leadership • level of collaboration among stakeholders • funding • how services are accessed • quality of services provided • measurement of outcomes • mechanism to ensure accountability • transparency of reporting
F14: A document review conducted by the Solano County Civil Grand Jury revealed discrepancies and inconsistent accounting and reporting practices among the entities providing services to the homeless in Solano County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R14: A: Entities use a consistent reporting mechanism for the awarding of funding to keep the community informed and assured that the money is being spent effectively and as intended.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: – The most dangerous failure during the LNU fire was the failure of the first Chief on the scene to establish an Incident Command Post.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: –Train all emergency response personnel on the protocol for establishing an Incident Command Post. The Incident Command Post must be established immediately when the danger is detected.
F2: - The lack of a consolidated digital communication system in Solano County hampers effective firefighting efforts.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: – The Board of Supervisors broaden efforts to fund and promote the establishment of a modern digital county-wide emergency communications system.
F3: - Although law enforcement and fire departments throughout the county have been working to establish a JPA to develop a consolidated communications system, there is little support from the county to finalize the efforts.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: –Expedite JPA agreement within the county and develop a plan to move forward.
F4: – A county fire department is needed to serve the unincorporated areas of Solano County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: – Solano County establish a county-wide fire department to serve the unincorporated areas of Solano County.
F5: – Funding from Proposition 172 has not been equitably distributed within the public safety entities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: – Board of Supervisors and cities within the county reprioritize the distribution of funds garnered from Proposition 172 ensuring that it is distributed more equitably to include fire safety.
F6: – Only two agencies involved in the LNU fire produced after-action reports.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: – Solano County and cities within the county require all responding emergency agencies using public funding to produce after-action reports. COMMENTS Because fires are becoming a part of Northern California's new normal, there is no time to wait. Solano County and the cities within the county are out of time and must act now before the next catastrophic incident occurs.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: – Solano County needs a countywide approach to Emergency Management to coordinate emergency planning and response activities before, during, and after a major disaster or emergency incident.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: – Consolidate all existing Solano County emergency management, planning, and prevention services into one Department of Emergency Management, providing an umbrella to coordinate existing county and city functions related to emergency and disaster events.
F2: - There is a need for a coordinated city and countywide evacuation plan for Solano County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2a: – Develop compatible evacuation zones and routes throughout the county.
R2b: – Create public awareness of evacuation zones and routes. COMMENT 1 - With the economy badly damaged by the COVID pandemic, those searching for solutions to address the emergency needs of our community need to look beyond new taxes, which could exacerbate the already fragile personal financial health of many Solano County residents. There are state and national financial sources for emergency prevention and preparedness which the County must thoroughly explore and implement first. Solano County must seriously consider hiring dedicated grant writers to provide the necessary funding to address emergency needs. Our neighbor, Sonoma County, faced similar issues and has hired grant writers whose work has since been instrumental in funding most of the changes and improvements to its emergency safety measures. COMMENT 2 - More wildfires will occur locally in areas that cross district and city boundary lines. In interviews with fire chiefs, the Solano County Civil Grand Jury heard “Predictable is preventable” and “Someone has to be the parent.” As local rural fire districts struggle to maintain equipment and keep training current for volunteers and professional firefighters, their situations impact all areas of the county. With every new city annexation, the rural fire district losing the annexed area also loses property tax revenues. Although each affected fire district receives mitigation payments at the time of annexation, it will face a loss of regular income once those have ceased. A Solano County Department of Emergency Management, including dedicated grant writers, would take the lead in clarifying responsibilities between agencies and look for a long-term solution, using grant funds as appropriate to support the process. COMMENT 3 - During an evacuation or a significant highway disruption, residents rely on the ability to move out of a dangerous area. Well-designed, safe roadways are essential to the process. In Solano County, several roads serve as alternate routes between cities when Interstate 80 is not available or has limited access, including Jepson Parkway and Columbus Parkway. As cities approve new developments along sections of those roads, the developers and cities reach agreements about the deadlines for completion of needed roadway improvements. Cities vary in their expectations. While some areas of these roads are improved early in the construction phase, other sections are not scheduled for improvement until a significant number of housing units are 8 completed. The Solano County Civil Grand Jury heard specific concerns in 2022 about traffic safety on Vanden Road near Canon Road, in Fairfield, and Columbus Parkway between Regents Park Drive and Benicia Road, in Vallejo. As the region moves to improve evacuation plans, jurisdictions should pay increased attention to deadlines for completion of these impacted roadways so the routes can handle traffic during an emergency.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: – In 2019, the City of Vallejo purchased the former State Farm Insurance building at 400 Mare Island Way specifically for the new location of the Vallejo Police Department. The cost of the move continues to rise as the city continues to delay the move.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1A: – Vallejo City Council take the steps they need to relocate the police department.
R1B: – The city seeks and applies for federal and state infrastructure grants to pay for retrofitting the chosen building to meet the needs of the police department.
F2: –Current police headquarters has deteriorated and is inadequate for the city’s needs. The building has been neglected for too long. Continually repairing the current facility is not a fiscally responsible policy.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2A: – The city needs to move the police department as soon as possible to a location that will help ensure a well-run police department in Vallejo.
R2B: – Since the proposed JFK Library site is not ADA compliant, the city must find a new facility that guarantees access to all.
F3: –A significant portion of the existing Vallejo Police Department building at 111 Amador is no longer useable because of asbestos and lead contamination. The City is spending thousands of dollars quarterly to pay for testing and cleanup of areas contaminated with asbestos and lead. In addition, after each rain, the building floods and the city has to send in a crew to address water damage as well as the removal of mold.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: – Relocate the Vallejo Police Department as promptly as possible.
F4: – In 2008, the city of Vallejo filed for bankruptcy and cut its police force by about half. The police department is still understaffed. Although the Police Chief has initiated a stronger recruiting effort, the working conditions in the Amador facility prove to be a deterrent to successful recruiting. The current building has been described as “deplorable” by city officials and others who have toured the facility. The Amador Street structure is a deterrent to the department’s ability to attract and hire new employees.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R4A: – Relocate the police department to provide a more attractive, healthy working environment, which will enhance recruitment efforts.
R4B: – In addition to moving the Police Department to a new building, Vallejo seek funding through federal and state grants to augment the pay for police officers.
F5: – The Amador building is an inappropriate environment for the CARE Center’s work.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: – The CARE Center continue to provide services at the 400 Mare Island Building, where the environment is separate from the business of the police department. It is a trauma-centered, calming environment for victims, primarily children, seeking help. COMMENTS The general public and those agencies investigating the Vallejo Police Department have continuously called for transparency. Frustrations mount when resistance is encountered: that resistance to providing information has exacerbated the distrust and animosity that some members of the public have toward law enforcement in Vallejo. Unfortunately, the Solano County Civil Grand Jury, while conducting investigations this term, encountered a significant amount of resistance to transparency from the Vallejo City Attorney’s Office.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: – There will not be enough electric vehicle charging stations in Solano County to support the State’s goals for electric vehicles identified in Executive Order N-79-20.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: – Solano Transportation Authority (STA) Board members commit to programs to increase the number of electric vehicle charging stations in their jurisdictions at a rate sufficient to meet Executive Order N-79-20.
R79-20: target of 100 percent light-duty ZEV sales by 2035, as well as other key climate and air quality goals. C. Solano County The CEC data show that at the end of 2020, Solano County had 5,139 light duty ZEVs on the road, 99.8% of which were EVs. In 2021, the number of EVs increased by 2,074 to a total of 7,213 EVs. The total number of shared public and private chargers in Solano County at the end of 2020 was 471. The Assessment Report modeling process resulted in projections of infrastructure needed to support nearly 8 million ZEVs by 2030, and is the trajectory needed to achieve the Executive Order N-79-20 target of 100 percent light-duty ZEV sales by 2035. The graph below shows, by year, the projected needs for chargers in Solano County for the years 2020 through 2035. As noted above, the number of public and shared private chargers in Solano County at the end of 2020 was 471. This is significantly fewer than the projected need of 1,648. 25000 22535 20738 20000 18820 16760 14778 15000 12612 10876 10000 9094 7493 6250 5020 5000 3949 3266 2559 2062 1648 0 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Source: CEC and National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1. Solano Transportation Authority The Solano Transportation Authority’s Board of Directors includes one county supervisor and the mayors of all seven cities in the county. In 2015, the Solano Transportation Authority (STA) received a grant from the California Energy Commission to prepare the Solano Electric Vehicle (EV) Transition Program. The goal of the program was to identify and overcome barriers to the deployment of electric vehicles in Solano County. STA contracted with consulting firms, ICF in Sacramento and Fehr & Peers in Walnut Creek, to prepare the report which recommended several solutions to overcome barriers to the adoption and use of EVs. These included: - public outreach and education, - establishment of common “trailblazing” signage to point drivers to existing charging stations. - a streamlined permit process for installing charging stations, - 10 - sregrahC fo rebmuN Solano County Chargers Needed by Year Year The report also included analysis of potential future charging station locations throughout the county based on predicted vehicle numbers and on the existing charging station network at that time. It was designed to create guidance for the transition to EV usage tailored to Solano County, based on regional conditions. Many maps and charts of charging station locations (as of 2017) and recommended future locations were included as well as clarifications of a variety of steps that could be taken to improve the county’s EV readiness. On April 11, 2018, the STA Board adopted the Solano EV Program Final Report. The 2018 Report is still available on the STA website (STA.ca.gov), and although the link on the STA website is titled “Solano EV Program Final Report” the report itself is labeled as Draft. Interviews with STA staff conducted by the Civil Grand Jury confirmed that it is final. When viewed online, the reader can connect to information via web links to building codes and permitting departments. Some of the links in the Report are no longer valid. a. Public Outreach and Education Activity One stated goal of the STA EV Transition Program is to make it easier for those who want to own an electric vehicle to find resources and places to charge. The SolanoEV.org website was created as part of the EV Transition Program with the intention of being a primary resource related to electric vehicles for local governments, installers, site owners, and drivers. This website was created in 2018, but is no longer accessible. STA does not have direct authority to enforce measures in the EV Transition Plrogram. The Civil Grand Jury found that not all cities are using this plan for its intended purpose. b. Trailblazer Signage Activity Another goal of the Report was to site potential locations for trailblazer signs. As part of their contract for the report, Fehr & Peers identified 76 potential locations in which to deploy trailblazer signs directing drivers to charging stations in each of Solano County’s seven cities. They also provided to STA a document that detailed all sign and mounting specifications required for installation. The plan was to have some trailblazing signs installed before the end of May 2018. As of 2022, there is no evidence of progress on that goal. c. Streamlining Permit Activity Recognizing the important role of the permitting and inspection process in the expansion of charging infrastructure in the state, California legislators passed a law in 2015 requiring local governments to streamline the permitting process. AB 1236 required communities with populations greater than 200,000 to adopt ordinances that expedite the permitting process for EV charging stations by September 30, 2016. As the only jurisdiction in Solano County meeting this population minimum, the Solano County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance on September 13, 2016, adding section 26 to Chapter 6.3 - Building Standards and Codes of the Solano County Code to provide an expedited permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. All other jurisdictions were required to adopt an ordinance by September 30, 2017. AB 970 was adopted in 2021 and added specific binding timelines to review periods defined in AB 1236. The required ordinance must include specific streamlining elements. Local governments must provide a permitting checklist; installation projects that meet all requirements on the checklist must be eligible for expedited review. In addition to developing streamlined procedures, permitting offices must provide the permitting materials on the government’s website and must allow for electronic submittal of the application materials online. There are a number of templates for the required ordinance and permitting checklist available online. Not all Solano County jurisdictions have complied with AB 1236 requirements. A review of The Permitting Olympics webpage sponsored by the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development shows that only Solano County is completely streamlined. Although not listed on the webpage, Benicia is also fully streamlined. The City of Fairfield has adopted the required ordinance, and has indicated it is in the process of completing a checklist with publication anticipated by the end of May 2022. No other cities have met the requirements of AB 1236. 2. Grant Writing STA has developed a partnership with a vendor, Electric Vehicle Charging Solutions, Inc. to provide turnkey installation of charging stations in the county. One area of expertise mentioned in the Civil Grand Jury’s interview with STA personnel which made this company appealing is its grant writing ability. There are a number of grant opportunities and incentives available from utility companies, Air Quality Management Districts, and other agencies. Successful grant writing can be time consuming, and city staff members do not always have sufficient time to undertake this facet of EV charger installations. V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING 1 – There will not be enough electric vehicle charging stations in Solano County to support the State’s goals for electric vehicles identified in Executive Order N-79-20. RECOMMENDATION 1 – Solano Transportation Authority (STA) Board members commit to programs to increase the number of electric vehicle charging stations in their jurisdictions at a rate sufficient to meet Executive Order N-79-20. FINDING 2 – In 2018, the STA adopted an Electric Vehicle Transition Program (EVTP) and the website (solanoev.org) for Solano County The website is no longer working which is of no value; the EVTP is no longer current, minimizing its value and applicability. RECOMMENDATION 2 – STA update the EVTP and its website (solanoev.org) to provide accurate and current information for Solano County residents. FINDING 3 – In the 2018 EVTP, the STA Board approved a plan to install trailblazing signs to identify locations of electric vehicle charging stations. As of 2022, there is no evidence of progress on that plan. RECOMMENDATION 3 – STA Board work with jurisdictions and agencies to install signage denoting the location of existing charging stations and to include appropriate signage as a component of future installations. FINDING 4 – The 2018 STA EVTP was intended to serve as regional guidance for the transition to electric vehicles, but this guidance has not been effectively communicated. RECOMMENDATION 4A – STA increase staff time available for implementation and oversight of the Electric Vehicle Transition Plan. RECOMMENDATION 4B – STA add dedicated grant writing staff to bring this function in-house rather than relying on third-party vendors. FINDING 5 – AB 1236 and AB 970 require all California cities and counties to develop an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. Not all jurisdictions in Solano County have complied. RECOMMENDATION 5 – All Solano County jurisdictions comply with streamlined permitting requirements, including adoption of an ordinance and checklist as required by AB 1236 and AB 970. REQUIRED RESPONSES Solano County Board of Supervisors (Findings 1 and 3) Cities (Findings 1,3, and 5): Vacaville Vallejo Suisun City Rio Vista Dixon Fairfield Solano Transportation Authority Board (All Findings) COURTESY COPIES Pacific Gas & Electric Company Electric Vehicle Charging Solutions, Inc.
F2: – In 2018, the STA adopted an Electric Vehicle Transition Program (EVTP) and the website (solanoev.org) for Solano County The website is no longer working which is of no value; the EVTP is no longer current, minimizing its value and applicability.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: – STA update the EVTP and its website (solanoev.org) to provide accurate and current information for Solano County residents.
F3: – In the 2018 EVTP, the STA Board approved a plan to install trailblazing signs to identify locations of electric vehicle charging stations. As of 2022, there is no evidence of progress on that plan.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: – STA Board work with jurisdictions and agencies to install signage denoting the location of existing charging stations and to include appropriate signage as a component of future installations.
F4: – The 2018 STA EVTP was intended to serve as regional guidance for the transition to electric vehicles, but this guidance has not been effectively communicated.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R4A: – STA increase staff time available for implementation and oversight of the Electric Vehicle Transition Plan.
R4B: – STA add dedicated grant writing staff to bring this function in-house rather than relying on third-party vendors.
F5: – AB 1236 and AB 970 require all California cities and counties to develop an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. Not all jurisdictions in Solano County have complied.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: – All Solano County jurisdictions comply with streamlined permitting requirements, including adoption of an ordinance and checklist as required by AB 1236 and AB 970.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.