Sonoma County Grand Jury
2019-2020
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 (7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The decision of California Department of General Services to close the Sonoma Developmental Center treatment plant has impacted emergency water planning in Sonoma Valley.
F2:
The City of Sonoma, Valley of the Moon Water District, and Sonoma Developmental Center would reduce risk by sharing water during an emergency, using existing and easily implemented interconnections.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By December 31, 2020, The Valley of the Moon Water District, City of Sonoma, and Sonoma Developmental Center initiate cooperative planning to reduce risk in emergencies, including promptly implementing ways to share existing water resources. (F2)
R3:
The Valley of the Moon Water District and the City of Sonoma interconnect their distribution systems, and establish an agreement for sharing water during emergencies by December 31, 2020. (F2)
F3:
The Valley of the Moon Water District’s emergency water supply plan, which relied on wells and the mutual aid agreement with Sonoma Developmental Center, is impaired by the reduction in water available from those sources, increasing risks that Valley of the Moon Water District customers will not have sufficient water in an emergency.
F4:
The Valley of the Moon Water District has failed to inform its customers adequately of elevated risks due to deficient local water supplies and reduced availability under the mutual aid agreement with Sonoma Developmental Center.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The Valley of the Moon Water District establish specific emergency water-use restrictions and communicate them to its customers by September 30, 2020. (F4)
R7:
By September 30, 2020, the Valley of the Moon Water District inform customers annually, or when conditions change, regarding risks and deficiencies in the emergency water supply and any actions taken to mitigate them. (F4)
F5:
The decision to close the water treatment plant at Sonoma Developmental Center impacted performance under the mutual aid agreement between the Valley of the Moon Water District and Sonoma Developmental Center.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Valley of the Moon Water District evaluate by November 30, 2020 whether District operation of Sonoma Developmental Center water distribution and storage facilities would offset deficiencies in emergency water for both Valley of the Moon Water District and Sonoma Developmental Center. (F5)
R4:
Sonoma Water, Valley of the Moon Water District, the City of Sonoma, Permit Sonoma, and the California Department of General Services form an agreement by October 31, 2020, that potable water storage facilities at Sonoma Developmental Center shall remain active and available for shared access during emergencies. (F5)
F6:
Water production from the Valley of the Moon Water District’s wells is falling behind projections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Valley of the Moon Water District accelerate its program for expanding well capacity and water storage by December 31, 2020. (F6)
F7:
The Department of General Services has chosen to purchase water for the Sonoma Developmental Center site from Sonoma Water, rather than continue treating local water for its supply.
F8:
The planning process currently underway for the SDC Specific Plan will impact all Sonoma Valley water agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Permit Sonoma establish, by September 30, 2020, communication with water system managers for the City of Sonoma, the Valley of the Moon Water District, and Sonoma Developmental Center to inform the SDC Specific Plan process. (F8)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The unilateral closure of the Sonoma Developmental Center water treatment plant has negatively impacted water agencies throughout the Valley and illustrates the need for a regional approach to water management.
F2:
The Sonoma Developmental Center has chosen to purchase water from Sonoma Water, rather than continue treating local water for its supply, but the Restructured Agreement may give the Valley of the Moon Water District the right to replace Sonoma Water as the water supplier for the Sonoma Developmental Center.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Sonoma Water, the Valley of the Moon Water District, the City of Sonoma and Permit Sonoma work with California Department of General Services to seek an agreement, by October 31, 2020, that potable water storage facilities at Sonoma Developmental Center shall remain active and available for sharing water (F2)
F3:
The SDC Specific Plan provides an opportunity for regional cooperation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Sonoma Valley water agencies take an active role in the SDC Specific plan process, by September 30, 2020. (F3, F7)
F4:
As the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission’s presumptive water supplier for the site, the Valley of the Moon Water District could contract with the Department of General Services to operate and manage the existing water distribution system on the Sonoma Developmental Center site until the SDC Specific Plan is implemented.
F5:
The City of Sonoma, the Valley of the Moon Water District, and Sonoma Developmental Center have common interests that warrant current and ongoing cooperation between and among them through formal and informal processes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Permit Sonoma establish, by August 31, 2020, a continuing dialog with water system managers for the City of Sonoma, the Valley of the Moon Water District, and the Sonoma Developmental Center to inform the SDC Specific Plan. (F5, F8)
F6:
Small private water districts in the Valley would also benefit from regional cooperation.
F7:
Cooperation between regional water suppliers might include projects such as: wastewater collection and treatment, recycled water use, spreading basins for groundwater recharge and fire suppression.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Sonoma Valley water agencies take an active role in the SDC Specific plan process, by September 30, 2020. (F3, F7)
F8:
The State of California encourages cooperative efforts among water supply agencies, including joint preparation of regional Urban Water Management Plans.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
Permit Sonoma establish, by August 31, 2020, a continuing dialog with water system managers for the City of Sonoma, the Valley of the Moon Water District, and the Sonoma Developmental Center to inform the SDC Specific Plan. (F5, F8)
R4:
Permit Sonoma communicate the results of the Water Supply Assessment to water system managers for the City of Sonoma and the Valley of the Moon Water District as soon as they become available. (F8)
R5:
The City of Sonoma and the Valley of the Moon Water District establish a mutual aid agreement that provides for ongoing cooperation on planning, services, projects and such other collaborative efforts that they deem to be to be mutually beneficial (e.g., sharing of such resources as staff, equipment and emergency water), with a copy of the mutual aid agreement to be sent to the Grand Jury by December 31, 2020. (F8)
R6:
The Valley of the Moon Water District and the City of Sonoma meet by October 31, 2020 to discuss the issuance of a regional 2020 Urban Water Management Plan rather than two separate ones. (F8)
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
DHS hire a CFO who is experienced in government finance and systems DHS and DHR The Recommendation has been implemented. The Grand Jury acknowledges that the Recommendation has been implemented.
R8:
The County Auditor’s Office institute procedures for verifying actual revenue figures, rather than verifying that projected budgets balance, by December 31, 2019
R9:
The Compliance Program be adequately funded and supported, by December 31, 2019 DHS
R10:
We recommend the BOS review its budget oversight responsibilities by December 31, 2019.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The absence of a sufficient number of temporary shelters, including support services, is a primary factor in the consistently high number of unsheltered homeless in Sonoma County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Leadership Council develop and implement a strategy for funding appropriate shelter space that addresses the needs of sub-groups within the homeless community by December 31, 2021. [F1, F2, F3, F9]
F2:
For temporary shelter sites to adequately meet the needs of homeless individuals, temporary shelters must be geographically dispersed and designed to encompass the needs of different target demographics such as families, mentally and physically disabled and LGBTQ people.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Leadership Council develop and implement a strategy for funding appropriate shelter space that addresses the needs of sub-groups within the homeless community by December 31, 2021. [F1, F2, F3, F9]
F3:
In dealing with the Joe Rodota Trail encampment crisis, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors did not follow a strategic planning process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors direct the Leadership Council to develop policies and procedures to manage the homeless crisis on a Countywide and strategic basis by December 31, 2020. [F1, F2, F3, F4]
F4:
Sonoma County does not yet have a countywide plan to address future homeless encampments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors direct the Leadership Council to develop policies and procedures to manage the homeless crisis on a Countywide and strategic basis by December 31, 2020. [F1, F2, F3, F4]
F5:
Because the Department of Health Services and the Community Development Commission were not, until January 2020, under single leadership, there was a lack of coordination of housing and supportive services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Department of Health Services and Community Development Commission remain under single leadership. [F6]
F6:
Currently, short-term federal and state block grants provide the majority of funding for homeless programs.
F7:
The County has no method to track local funding for homelessness services. It therefore, has no metric to determine the effectiveness of these funds in reducing homelessness.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors develop a funding source for consistent and predictable funding of homeless programs by December 31, 2021. [F7]
R6:
The County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator to develop a methodology for tracking all costs of homeless services and programs across County agencies by June 30, 2021. [F8]
F8:
The Leadership Council played no role in developing policies or procedures to respond to the Joe Rodota Trail crisis.
F9:
The fact that the Leadership Council does not include members from all cities in Sonoma County limits its ability to develop policies on a truly County-wide basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Leadership Council adopt a plan to deal with homeless encampment emergencies by December 31, 2020. [F9, F10]
F10:
Neither the Leadership Council nor the Technical Advisory Committee has the resources necessary to adequately address the homeless crisis in Sonoma County.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The County has addressed the timely completion of pathology reports by contracting with Kimi Verilhac, P.C. as the primary provider for forensic pathology services.
F2:
The responsibilities and organization of the Coroner’s Office have been restructured, increasing oversight and efficiency.
F3:
The future sale of the Chanate property makes it necessary to relocate the Coroner’s Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors, working in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Office and the Coroner’s Office Lieutenant, identify a new location for the Coroner’s Office and Morgue facility by December 1, 2020. (F3)
F4:
The obsolete dental x-ray machine impedes work flow and endangers staff. COMMENDATIONS The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury commends the Sheriff’s Office and Coroner’s Office for: • Dealing effectively with the backlog problem. (F2) • Restructuring responsibilities in the Coroner’s Office. (F2) • Settling the pathology contract issues. (F1) • Adding a modern case management system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors budget the purchase of a new dental x-ray machine for the Coroner’s Office for delivery by December 1, 2020. (F4)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
with deferred maintenance planned, actual and deferred impairment. reporting comparable to that in maintenance activities is not Federal Accounting Standards the responsibility of the The Grand Jury acknowledges that SFFAS 6, 40 & 42. ACTTC, and because it is not the tracking and reporting of appropriate to apply Federal planned, actual and deferred Accounting Standards in the maintenance of County-owned preparation of the County's assets is not the responsibility of the CAFR. ACTTC and agrees that the BOS is responsible for designating which We agree that accurate department(s) shall consistently information on deferred track and report deferred maintenance should be maintenance for purposes of both provided to the BOS management and public consistently and timely. A disclosure. However, the BOS report designed for internal response did not clearly designate management use can meet the responsibility for tracking and County's needs rather than one reporting deferred maintenance and designed for external users, therefore, does not respond to the such as the CAFR. spirit of the recommendation. The Grand Jury encourages the BOS to The purpose of Fiscal Policy designate which departments shall
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
SW review and establish viable SW The Recommendation will be The Grand Jury acknowledges that options for accelerating how rapidly implemented by June 30, 2020. SW intends to implement the the highest-priority mitigation Additional time beyond Recommendation as soon as is measures are being funded and December 31, 2019 is required practical given budget cycles. implemented by December 31, based on the annual schedule 2019. for the water transmission budget.
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The critical shortage of emergency shelter beds for the homeless youth population limits the County’s ability to serve this population adequately.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Sonoma County Community Development Commission increase the number of shelter beds for homeless youth, keeping in mind the needs for safe space for young people, by February 28, 2021. (F1)
F2:
Shelter beds for homeless youth are currently concentrated in Santa Rosa, leaving inadequate services in other parts of the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Sonoma County Community Development Commission ensure that shelter beds for young people are available in all areas of the County with a homeless youth population, by February 28, 2021. (F2)
F3:
Because the County lacks a Medi-Cal residential rehabilitation facility for young people with substance abuse disorders, homeless young people who need such treatment are at particular disadvantage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Sonoma County Department of Health Services contract with an existing in-County residential addiction treatment facility to set aside a small number of beds for youth, by February 28, 2021. (F3)
F4:
The same substance abuse treatment protocols are being used for youth and adults even though research shows that young people need treatments designed for their particular age and needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Sonoma County Department of Health Services establish a drug and alcohol program specifically designed to treat youth with substance abuse disorders, by February 28, 2021. (F4)
F5:
The availability of outpatient mental health service provider appointments that accept Medi-Cal payments is inadequate to serve the number of youths requiring such services; more options are needed for therapeutic resources for children and young adults.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Sonoma County Department of Health Services staff a department with a sufficient number of Behavioral Therapists to meet the demand for Medi-Cal mental health services in the homeless youth population, by February 28, 2021. (F5)
F6:
The County needs a short-term mental health facility that accepts Medi-Cal payments and serves young people.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
If it is safe to do so, Sonoma County Department of Health Services set aside a small number of beds for unaccompanied youth in the new short-term mental health facility in Sebastopol, by December 31, 2020. (F6)
F7:
Additional programs in schools are needed to provide marketable skills and financial literacy to young people.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Sonoma County Office of Education form a partnership with a local financial institution to implement a financial literacy program for middle and high school students, by February 28, 2021. (F7)
F8:
The share of funding for youth homeless programs is disproportionally smaller than the relative size of the homeless youth subpopulation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Sonoma County Community Development Commission allocate funds to homeless youth programs and services proportionate to the size of the subpopulation in the most recent census data, when not otherwise constrained by restrictions on state and federal funds, for the FY 2021-22 budget cycle. (F8)
F9:
The majority of the County’s efforts related to the homeless youth population focus on providing programs and services to young people already living on the streets, rather than programs to prevent homelessness in the first place.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors commit to reducing the number of homeless young people in Sonoma County to functional zero within three years. (F9)
R10:
Sonoma County Department of Health Services conduct outreach to the local medical community to encourage the use of the PEARLS assessment tool and provide them information about County programs available to assist children who have experienced serious trauma, by February 28, 2021. (F9)
R11:
Sonoma County Office of Education, by February 28, 2021, begin monitoring the implementation and progress of the Upstream Project, in Hopkins, MN, and the Geelong model pilot project in Tukwila, WA, and consider implementing a pilot program on this model in Sonoma County. (F9)
F10:
The County’s failure to fund a Youth Action Board has likely contributed to its lack of success in obtaining HUD’s Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Sonoma County Community Development Commission establish and budget for a Youth Action Board to improve the chances of federal funding through HUD’s Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program, by February 28, 2021. (F10)
F11:
The County does not currently track housing status in a way that permits a determination of how many homeless people it serves and the cost of those services.
Related Recommendations (2)
R13:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Sonoma County Administrator’s Office identify, by December 31, 2020, a stable funding source to support sustainable programs that will reduce youth homelessness to functional zero. (F11, F12)
R14:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Sonoma County Administrator’s Office develop and implement, by June 30, 2021, a procedure for County departments to consistently identify and track the cost of services provided to the homeless population. (F11)
F12:
Due to state and federal funding cuts, the Leadership Council has announced a 34% reduction for 2020-2021 that will severely affect the County’s homeless programs and services across the board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Sonoma County Administrator’s Office identify, by December 31, 2020, a stable funding source to support sustainable programs that will reduce youth homelessness to functional zero. (F11, F12)
F13:
The lack of a stable funding source prevents the County from developing and implementing sustainable programs and services for homeless young people.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
A resident of Donald Street, using reasonable diligence, would have had difficulty finding out that their neighborhood was part of a large rezoning planning process.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Permit Sonoma offer Donald Street residents an official apology for their missteps by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F6,F7)
R2:
Permit Sonoma hold substantive discussions with the Donald Street residents regarding their principal concerns regarding the SSP by July 1, 2020, or before finalizing the SSP, whichever comes first. (F1,F2,F3,F4)
R5:
Permit Sonoma determine where the procedures used for SSP failed, and adopt revised procedures to avoid a repetition of the oversight, with a copy of the revised procedures sent to the Grand Jury by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F6,F8,F9) The Grand Jury has recommended several dates above prior to the official required response dates. These earlier dates are provided because the approval process is ongoing and time critical.
F2:
The boundaries of the SSP area, intended by MTC and ABAG to be within a street or two of a rural transportation corridor – Highway 12 in this case – does not logically encompass a neighborhood as far removed as the Donald Street area.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Permit Sonoma offer Donald Street residents an official apology for their missteps by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F6,F7)
R2:
Permit Sonoma hold substantive discussions with the Donald Street residents regarding their principal concerns regarding the SSP by July 1, 2020, or before finalizing the SSP, whichever comes first. (F1,F2,F3,F4)
R4:
The Grand Jury does not dictate policy, however, if accommodations cannot be reached, the Board of Supervisors should consider severing Donald Street from the SSP. (F2,F4,F7)
R5:
Permit Sonoma determine where the procedures used for SSP failed, and adopt revised procedures to avoid a repetition of the oversight, with a copy of the revised procedures sent to the Grand Jury by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F6,F8,F9) The Grand Jury has recommended several dates above prior to the official required response dates. These earlier dates are provided because the approval process is ongoing and time critical.
F3:
Planners should have recognized that the Donald Street neighborhood was not represented in any of the public meetings. The groups tasked to work on the SSP, such as the Community Advisory Team (CAT), Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC), the Sonoma Alliance, and others also failed in this regard.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Permit Sonoma offer Donald Street residents an official apology for their missteps by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F6,F7)
R2:
Permit Sonoma hold substantive discussions with the Donald Street residents regarding their principal concerns regarding the SSP by July 1, 2020, or before finalizing the SSP, whichever comes first. (F1,F2,F3,F4)
R5:
Permit Sonoma determine where the procedures used for SSP failed, and adopt revised procedures to avoid a repetition of the oversight, with a copy of the revised procedures sent to the Grand Jury by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F6,F8,F9) The Grand Jury has recommended several dates above prior to the official required response dates. These earlier dates are provided because the approval process is ongoing and time critical.
F4:
Because the Donald Street residents reasonably assumed they were not part of “The Springs,” and notifications did not mention Donald Street’s involvement in the SSP, their distress and surprise upon learning of the rezoning of parcels in the neighborhood is understandable.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Permit Sonoma offer Donald Street residents an official apology for their missteps by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F6,F7)
R2:
Permit Sonoma hold substantive discussions with the Donald Street residents regarding their principal concerns regarding the SSP by July 1, 2020, or before finalizing the SSP, whichever comes first. (F1,F2,F3,F4)
R3:
Permit Sonoma respond to the principal concerns expressed by Donald Street neighborhood with an explanation as to why they can or cannot accommodate the requests of the Donald Street neighborhood residents by July 1, 2020. (F4,F5,F6,F7)
R4:
The Grand Jury does not dictate policy, however, if accommodations cannot be reached, the Board of Supervisors should consider severing Donald Street from the SSP. (F2,F4,F7)
F5:
Citizens’ trust in their government was tested at many points in the handling of the SSP, leaving the Donald Street residents feeling marginalized and unheard by their County government.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Permit Sonoma respond to the principal concerns expressed by Donald Street neighborhood with an explanation as to why they can or cannot accommodate the requests of the Donald Street neighborhood residents by July 1, 2020. (F4,F5,F6,F7)
F6:
The Donald Street residents were caught off guard in the requested meeting on March 6, 2019; they felt they were misled by a County official as to its purpose.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Permit Sonoma offer Donald Street residents an official apology for their missteps by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F6,F7)
R3:
Permit Sonoma respond to the principal concerns expressed by Donald Street neighborhood with an explanation as to why they can or cannot accommodate the requests of the Donald Street neighborhood residents by July 1, 2020. (F4,F5,F6,F7)
R5:
Permit Sonoma determine where the procedures used for SSP failed, and adopt revised procedures to avoid a repetition of the oversight, with a copy of the revised procedures sent to the Grand Jury by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F6,F8,F9) The Grand Jury has recommended several dates above prior to the official required response dates. These earlier dates are provided because the approval process is ongoing and time critical.
F7:
By not proactively engaging with the Donald Street neighborhood, the County did not live up to its best practices as explicitly set out in MTC Resolution No. 4035.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Permit Sonoma offer Donald Street residents an official apology for their missteps by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F6,F7)
R3:
Permit Sonoma respond to the principal concerns expressed by Donald Street neighborhood with an explanation as to why they can or cannot accommodate the requests of the Donald Street neighborhood residents by July 1, 2020. (F4,F5,F6,F7)
R4:
The Grand Jury does not dictate policy, however, if accommodations cannot be reached, the Board of Supervisors should consider severing Donald Street from the SSP. (F2,F4,F7)
F8:
No public disclosure laws were broken.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Permit Sonoma determine where the procedures used for SSP failed, and adopt revised procedures to avoid a repetition of the oversight, with a copy of the revised procedures sent to the Grand Jury by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F6,F8,F9) The Grand Jury has recommended several dates above prior to the official required response dates. These earlier dates are provided because the approval process is ongoing and time critical.
F9:
It is important for County planning officials to disseminate information about development plans in a timely manner in order to uphold residents’ confidence in the fairness of the development process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Permit Sonoma determine where the procedures used for SSP failed, and adopt revised procedures to avoid a repetition of the oversight, with a copy of the revised procedures sent to the Grand Jury by July 1, 2020. (F1,F2,F3,F6,F8,F9) The Grand Jury has recommended several dates above prior to the official required response dates. These earlier dates are provided because the approval process is ongoing and time critical.