Responses to the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Reports Providing Continuity and Accountability*

Recommendations 13

• R1
  By December 31, 2022, This recommendation has been As to recommendation having been implemented "to some Permit Sonoma and the nine implemented to some extent. The City will give the issues described extent", there is no summary of cities should begin to in the recommendation a higher the action taken. As to issues streamline their procedures, from preliminary review level of attention and getting a "higher level of commitment. attention and commitment", through the permitting there is no timeframe for future process, related to the development of Affordable implementation. This response is not compliant. Housing.
• R2
  By December 31, 2022, There is no timeframe for future сот The City is willing to discuss Permit Sonoma and the nine standardizing procedures but implementation. This response is cities should meet to consider there may be only limited not compliant. standardizing their procedures opportunity for standardizing due related to the development of to unique requirements and varied Affordable Housing. priorities of each jurisdiction.
• R3
  By December 31, 2022, The City is willing to meet with There is no timeline for future Permit Sonoma and the nine other entities to discuss implementation. This response is coordination of fee reduction cities should meet to discuss not compliant. the coordination of fee standards. reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County.
• R4
  By January 31, 2023, the Board of Some of the recommendations The BOD may have Directors require written Citizens misunderstood the will be implemented. Oversight Committee analysis and recommendation, which recommendations prior to all requires written analysis and strategic decisions whether or not recommendations from the incorporated in the five-year Citizens Oversight Committee, Strategic Plan. and which is only a single recommendation. If the BOD intended to say that some aspects of this recommendation will be implemented, the BOD should provide an explanation of what aspects will be implemented, and when. Additionally, an explanation should be given for the reasons why some aspects will not be implemented. Since these explanations were not given, the response is not compliant. Responses to the 2021-2022 SoCo CGJ Reports RES RECOMMENDATION RESPONSE SUMMARY GRAND JURY OBSERVATIONS BOD
• R5
  By December 31, 2022, Recommendations R5, R6, and R7 While there is a summary of Permit Sonoma and the nine have been partially implemented implementation efforts taken so Cities should identify and the City will continue working far, there is no timeframe for future implementation of the properties within their with community partners and jurisdictions and Spheres of other agencies to secure funding remainder. These responses to Influence that are likely and to facilitate the development
• R6
  By June 1, 2023, Permit This response calls for further This recommendation requires Sonoma and the nine Cities further analysis and involvement analysis with anticipated should develop permit ready by the regional ADU Center. This is implementation date of June 1, 2023, which is not within the accessory dwelling unit and anticipated junior accessory dwelling unit required six-month timeframe. plans. This response is not compliant.
• R7
  By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and 9 Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. This recommendation will be There is no timeframe for future
• R8
  By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and 9 cities implemented through updates to implementation. This response is the City's Housing Element and should review permitting not compliant. Zoning Code, which are currently requirements to allow nontraditional options such as underway. manufactured homes, factory- built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply.
• R10
  The Board of Directors and the There is no explanation why General Manager establish separate be implemented because it is this recommendation is not bank accounts for the monies not warranted. warranted. This response is not associated with passenger transit compliant. (Measure Q, et al.) and freight or other future ventures.
• R11
  The Board of Directors direct This recommendation will be There is no timeframe for advisory committees to develop and future implementation. This implemented. implement a policy to keep response is not compliant. documents and information related to their advisory role centrally located and remotely accessible, by January 31, 2023. Note: The chairperson of the Citizens Oversight Committee was given a copy of the report before publication, with the invitation to respond to the recommendations. No response was received from that invitation. Responses were received only from the SMART Chairman of the Board of Directors (required) and the SMART General Manager (invited).
• R13
  By December 31, 2022, the There is no timeframe for This recommendation requires Board of Supervisors and County further analysis. The CAO will further analysis. This response Administrator's Office work with the collaborate with DHS to further is not compliant. Department of Health Services understand this issue. executive leadership team in developing an actionable plan to address work culture issues, including retaliation, harassment, and bullying. There is no timeframe for
• R14
  By December 31, 2022, the This recommendation requires further analysis. This response Board of Supervisors direct the further analysis. The CAO will collaborate with the DHS and County Administrator's Office to work is not compliant. HRD to further understand this with the Department of Health Services' executive leadership team to issue. develop a clearly defined and actionable plan for internal communication that includes greater transparency and staff participation throughout the department. There is no timeframe for This recommendation requires
• R16
  By March 1, 2023, the Board of further analysis. This response further analysis. The CAO will Supervisors direct the County work with HRD to review a is not compliant. Administrator's Office and the County centralized human resources Human Resources Department to structure. develop a plan for the Board's review and consideration whereby the County Human Resources Department has oversight authority over all satellite human resources divisions. Note: The 2021-2022 Grand Jury required Sonoma County's County Administrator's Office, the Department of Health Services, and the Human Resources Department to respond to this report. By law, the CAO, DHS, and HRD are not required to respond to the Grand Jury reports. However, responses to this report were received from the CAO, DHS, and HRD. Because they are not "required responders", their responses are not included here. Responses to the 2021-2022 SoCo CGJ Reports SMART Decision Making BOD = SMART Board of Directors RES = Respondent RES RECOMMENDATION RESPONSE SUMMARY GRAND JURY OBSERVATIONS BOD This recommendation will be There is no timeframe for