Civil Grand Jury Reports Examine Housing Crisis, Voting/Elections and Investigations into Officer-Involved Deaths

Report into housing crisis finds no "clear assigned responsibility inside local government" for achieving Housing Element goals; National Night Out is Tuesday at Waterfront Park

Each year, the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury is tasked with investigating local governmental agencies “to ensure functions are performed in a lawful, economical and efficient manner.” A new grand jury of county residents is impaneled each year, and the members decide which agencies and topics they wish to investigate. Their reports are made public with key findings and recommendations, and the agencies investigated are required to file responses.

Unlike criminal grand juries that have the power to bring legal action for wrongdoing, civil grand juries primarily serve a watchdog, fact-finding function and make recommendations for improvement to ensure that the public interest is being served.

The 2022-23 Civil Grand Jury has released several reports, three of which I review below.

Affordable Housing: A Plan Without a Home

The state and local housing crisis has received a lot of attention in recent years, and cities such as Martinez have been grappling with strict new mandates by the state in developing their newest Housing Elements meant to address the problem in ways that they have failed to do in recent decades. This report takes a deep dive into the problem in Contra Costa County, particularly around the systemic and broad failure of cities to build low-income housing, and comes to a sobering conclusion that state mandates alone may not be able to fix:

…we could not find clear assigned responsibility inside local government to implement plans after approval.

That alone raises a significant question about whether the new Housing Elements adopted by cities such as Martinez will truly make a dent in the problem, because “plans” alone don’t bring about housing, and nothing in these Housing Elements will require that needed housing be built; rather they’re designed to create the framework and incentives to enable such housing targets to be realized.

But without a true commitment, and assigned responsibilities, within city halls to make those targets a reality, will we really see meaningful progress in solving this crisis over the next several years? Or will the state ultimately have to turn the screws even tighter?

The grand jury continues:

Without significant changes to how local governments address affordable housing, cities and the county risk the imposition of state-mandated solutions that bypass local development protocols.

The following chart looking at Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets and permits issued for cities in Contra Costa County for the 2015-20 period shows the extent of the failure in Martinez. It is the only city in the county, according to this data, that met zero percent of its RHNA targets in the very low, low and moderate income categories. All 88 housing permits issued in Martinez during this period were for “above moderate income” homes.

One of the eye-opening elements of this report is a table showing the median wages for various occupations in Contra Costa County and what housing classifications based on income those occupations fall into. While it’s not surprising that low-wage professions such as food service workers fall into the “extremely low income” housing category, some may be surprised that the mean annual wages for medical assistants and education and childcare administrators fall into the “very low income” category, and licensed nurses and postsecondary educators only make it into the “low income” category for housing affordability.

With the senior population growing, the report also makes clear that the lack of affordable housing in the county is increasingly impacting those 65 and older.

A series of charts in the report underscore the scale of just how badly cities and the county itself have missed their housing allocation targets when it comes to issuing permits for very low and low-income housing over the past two-plus decades. The grand jury sums up the results as “dismal.”

In compiling the report, the grand jury interviewed scores of local government officials throughout the county about the problem and found a clear disconnect between genuine concern about this crisis and responsibility for addressing it:

In every interview the grand jury conducted with city and county officials, all communicated that they care deeply about the affordable housing issue in their communities. However, none of those interviewed acknowledged or identified themselves, their department or any other agency as having responsibility for the actual attainment of RHNA housing targets.

Delving deeper into the root causes of the housing crisis, the grand jury identified six key “obstacles” to making progress toward building badly needed new housing:

• limited availability of land

• restrictive zoning policies specific to affordable housing development

• limited developer interest to bring projects forward

• limited funding

• lack of community support

• NIMBY – an industry term that denotes opposition to development in a neighborhood, community or city.

The report concludes with the following 10 recommendations:

1. 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.

2. Each city and the county should report affordable housing 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.

3. Each city and the county should consider creating a dedicated affordable housing commission consisting 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.

4. 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.

5. Each city and the county should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.

6. 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 affordable housing purposes.

7. Each city and the county should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede affordable housing projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support affordable housing in their community.

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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.

For the 2023-31 Housing Element cycle, Martinez has been allocated 551 units in the “very low” and “low” income categories, out of a total RHNA allocation of 1,345 units. The city in June submitted its plan for achieving those targets to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and possible certification; it is waiting to hear back.

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and each city council in the county will be required to file responses to the grand jury report, which can be viewed at the following link: https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/docs/grandjury/2022-2023/2306/2306withSignaturePage.pdf

Voting and election security

This report on voter outreach, the voter guide and election security produced some interesting observations and recommendations, particularly in light of the broader concerns and debates around democracy and election integrity nationwide.

The relatively brief report can be accessed by going to this link: https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/docs/grandjury/2022-2023/2303/CompletedReport2303.pdf

Here are some major takeaways I found:

• The percentage of Martinez registered voters who cast a ballot in the 2018 and 2020 elections exceeded the percentage for the county as a whole. In 2018, the percentage of Martinez voters who cast a ballot was 73%, compared with 68% countywide. In the 2020 presidential election, the percentage rose to 87%, compared with 84% of the county as a whole. Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda tied for the highest voter participation rate in 2020 at 90%. San Pablo had the lowest participation rate at 73% (data for the 2022 election were not included in this report).

• The grand jury found that many candidates running for elective office do not pay to have an official candidates statement included in the voting guide; depending on the office, the fee, designed to cover printing and distribution costs, can range from a few hundred dollars to over $4,000 for a BART director. The grand jury recommended that the fees be eliminated to promote candidate transparency.

• The grand jury also observed that while some voters may be frustrated by a lack of information on particular candidates, they may be overwhelmed with too much information on ballot measures. As an example, it pointed to the Martinez Unified School District’s Measure K, a $90 million bond issue on last November’s ballot that failed to garner the 55% yes votes necessary for approval. The grand jury noted that the measure took up over seven pages in the voter guide.

• In terms of election security, the grand jury observed the collection and counting of ballots on Election Night in the November 2022 election and found “no areas of concern” in terms of physical security. It also noted security measures that have been implemented to protect against network breaches and cyberattacks, including firewalls and virus-blocking software to prevent unauthorized access to voting systems. Voting systems are not connected to the internet or regular county computer systems. The grand jury recommended adding a video to its website describing the physical and cyber security measures that it employs.

The Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder’s Office will be required to file a response to the report.

Officer-involved death investigations

The grand jury also issued a report examining investigations into deaths involving law enforcement, with the aim of expanding transparency and reducing delays within the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff-Coroner’s Office

The report particularly zeroed in on the 2.5 years that passed before the D.A. filed criminal charges against sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Hall over a 2018 shooting death in Danville. During that time, Hall shot and killed another civilian. Though he wasn’t charged in the latter killing, Hall was convicted of assault with a firearm in the first case and sentenced to six years in prison. Hall was the first law enforcement officer ever charged with a crime related to excessive use of force in Contra Costa County.

Of note, the grand jury found that the average time for criminal investigations into officer-involved deaths after the incident is between 21 and 29 months in Contra Costa County, compared with approximately six months in San Diego County. It also reviewed 31 cases across the United States in which an officer was convicted of an on-duty shooting and found that in most cases the average time to bring criminal charges was eight months, with most cases resulting in charges in less than six months.

At the same time, the grand jury found that the criminal investigation process into officer-involved deaths has “significantly improved” since 2018, with criminal charge determinations now publicly disclosed in all cases where an officer uses deadly force. Part of the reason for the long delay in the charging decision against Hall was attributed to the implementation of a new policy in the D.A.’s office to review all law enforcement-involved fatal incidents dating to 2017.

The grand jury recommended that Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton consider completing such investigations and making a charging decision within six months of a fatal incident. It also recommended that the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office consider holding inquest hearings (in which a jury determines the manner of death) into officer-involved deaths within four to six months of the incident, give adequate notice of the hearings, and make a record of the proceedings accessible to the public. It found that the coroner currently takes too long to conduct the inquest hearings, an average of 10 months.

While inquests do not determine criminal or civil responsibility for deaths involving law enforcement, the D.A.’s Office has traditionally awaited the inquest finding before making its own decision on potential criminal charges. The grand jury noted that this reality creates further delays in the determination of criminal charges and questioned whether it is necessary; under current protocol, an inquest is not required for the D.A. to file charges in an officer-involved death.

As those who have been following the case of the Martinez Refining Company’s “spent catalyst” release last Thanksgiving are aware, long wait times for the D.A. to making a charging decision are not limited to cases involving officer-involved fatalities. Contra Costa Health asked the D.A.’s Office in early January to consider charges against MRC for failing to report the incident as required by law through the Community Warning System; the D.A. agreed to review the matter, but nearly seven months later, there’s still been no word on when it will make a decision, and the community-involved oversight committee and third-party consultant tasked with conducting an independent investigation into the incident have been prohibited by county officials from exploring the failure to activate the Community Warning System because of the D.A.’s own investigation.

The District Attorney and Sheriff-Coroner are required to file responses to the grand jury report, which can found at this link: https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/docs/grandjury/2022-2023/2304/CompletedReport2304.pdf

D.A. offering Community Academy for residents

Speaking of the Contra Costa D.A.’s Office, it will be hosting a nine-week, free program designed to provide community members with an inside look at the criminal justice system, prosecution process and the daily operations of the office.

Classes, taught by seasoned attorneys and experienced investigators, will be held on Wednesdays, Sept. 6 to Nov. 1, from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at 900 Ward St. in Martinez. To take part in the Community Academy, community members must be age 18 or older and live or work in Contra Costa County. Upon completion, participants will receive a certificate of completion.

To learn more or apply, visit www.contracostada.org or contact the office at DA- CommunityAcademy@contracostada.org or call 1-925-957-8638.

National Night Out is Tuesday

Martinez’s National Night Out event will be held Tuesday evening at Martinez Waterfront Park from 6 to 9 p.m. The annual community event features various law enforcement and emergency services agencies as well as community groups and entertainment. On tap this year will be live music from Midnight Flyer, an Eagles tribute band, and kids entertainment including a petting zoo and face painting.

For more information about the event, contact event organizer Pete Sabine at Pete@PeteSabine.com or 1-925-787-2548 (phone or text). More information is available at the following link: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/national-night-out-2023-martinez-waterfront-park-registration-595393065687