City Council’s and City Manager’s Joint Responses to Findings (f) a Disaster Waiting to Happen!

Written plans and checklists are not consistent among county, cities, agencies and departments, and in some cases are non-existent. Response: Agrees The City of Santa Rosa plan was recognized and commended by the Grand Jury as a “well structured but dated plan”. The City appreciates the recognition of the work that has gone into the plan and further notes that the plan is scheduled to be reviewed and updated this year.

Where plans and checklists do exist, they are not always stored in multiple safe places for guaranteed access in the event of a disaster. The most common place is “the office,” not-withstanding that a disaster does not limit itself to regular work hours, and office buildings may not be accessible! Response: Disagrees as to the City of Santa Rosa Santa Rosa plans and checklists are stored in multiple locations and available at the City’s EOC location.

All county employees are listed as disaster recovery resources, as indeed are members of the grand jury, but there is no clear plan on how they will report in for duty, or how they will be used. Response: Disagrees as to City employees The City of Santa Rosa plan provides employee reporting locations and 3 alternative reporting locations. This information is currently being updated and will be reviewed with all affected employees.

The city plans are not consistent in scope and detail. The City of Santa Rosa has a well-structured but dated plan, Cotati’s plan is literally a copy of the county plan, Cloverdale is still using the 1989 two volume door-stopper plan that existed before the adoption of SEMS, and Healdsburg’s plan is dated 1987. See Exhibit D for a table comparing the format and date of the county and city plans. Response: Agrees The Santa Rosa City Council appreciates the acknowledgement of the “well-structured” city plan finding and commits to the updating of the plan. In addition the City Council will further review the recommendations in sections R3 and R5 of the Grand Jury Report 1 at a future study session to develop formal Council recommendations to City Management and a formal adoption of those recommendations.

There is an agreement dated 1997, between the cities and the county, promising help from the county for the construction of, training in, and testing of city-based disaster plans. This assistance is not provided, nor sought on a continually consistent basis, despite the payment of a $2000 annual fee by the cities. Response: Disagrees in part. Sonoma County has worked in cooperation with the City of Santa Rosa. There is a County representative sitting on the City Emergency Preparedness committee. In June 2005 a Joint City/County EOC workshop was held at the City EOC site. The City is currently working with ABAG and other local agencies on a Bay Area Hazard Mitigation Plan to meet the FEMA Mitigation Plan Requirements. Exhibit D – A Table of County/City Plan Comparisons Plan Date of Relationship To Commitment to Calls for Actual Owner Plan County Plan SEMS in plan Checklists Checklists County Nov-00 Full Total Yes Yes Santa Rosa Some 99 Separate Plan Strong Yes Yes Sonoma Nov-01 Clone of SR Strong Yes Some Petaluma Nov-00 Clone of County Strong Some Some Cotati Nov-00 Literally a copy of Strong Some Some, dated 2- County Plan 01 Windsor Draft Makes some Some Some No Xmas reference to 2002 County Plan, not in same format Healdsburg 1987 Separate Plan None Some Some Cloverdale 89-92 None None No No Sebastopol 1996 Clone of a South None Yes Yes-1995 Bay County! 2 CITY COUNCIL’S RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS (R)