Sonoma County 2021-2022 - California Grand Jury Reports

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 (10)

December 31, 2022 — Responses to the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Reports Providing Continuity and Accountability*

12 pages 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 13

Not linked to specific findings.

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 to be implemented by June 1, 2023. 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

December 31, 2022 — What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? a Follow-Up Report on Water in Sonoma Valley

12 pages 5 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Nine of the Recommendations to Sonoma Water, Permit Sonoma, the City of Sonoma, and the Valley of the Moon Water District that were expected to be implemented in the future have either been completed or have been initiated and are in the process of implementation.

F2: Two of the Recommendations relating to the Sonoma Development Center cannot be implemented in the absence of an SDC Specific Plan.

F3: The Recommendation that the City of Sonoma, the Valley of the Moon Water District and Sonoma Developmental Center implement plans to share existing water resources to reduce risks in emergencies was not implemented.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: By September 30, 2022, Permit Sonoma, Sonoma Water, the Valley of the Moon Water District, and the City of Sonoma Water Department meet to ensure that a SDC Specific Plan includes an outline for the sharing of water resources of the site during emergencies. (F3)

R3: The Valley of the Moon CSO The City and VOM agree with this The City installed a main Water District and the City of Recommendation. Plans are extension with a special & Sonoma interconnect their underway with the City for the connection on the end VOM distribution systems, and physical interconnection between the adjacent to one of our establish an agreement for City and the District’s distribution (VOM’s) fire hydrants. The sharing water during system. Work is expected to begin on proximity of these to point emergencies by December 31, this project in the spring of 2021. (destination of final 2020. connection) allows a tow- behind water pump, powered by a diesel engine, 2021-2022 UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS RES. ORIGINAL RESPONSES RESPONSES to be set up quickly and will allow water to be transferred in either direction to the City or the District. This is the permanent interconnection, not a temporary work around. The Grand Jury has confirmed that this has been completed and training of personnel from both water agencies has taken place.

F4: Some Recommendations have not been implemented due to the delay of required reports or studies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Sonoma Water, Valley of the DGS The State (DGS) is open to utilizing This Recommendation was Moon Water District, the City of excess onsite tank storage capacity on not implemented. The City Sonoma, Permit Sonoma, and the an interim basis for other parties to of Sonoma and VOM have California Department of store their water for access during installed a main extension General Services form an emergencies and interruptions, subject to enable them to share agreement by October 31, 2020, to the approval of the SWRCB (State water during emergencies. that potable water storage Water Resources Control Board). See R3 above. facilities at Sonoma CSO The City is monitoring the activities Developmental Center shall of the SDC Specific Plan for when it remain active and available for can participate in plans for shared shared access during water access during emergencies. emergencies. VOM VOM agrees with this Recommendation but conditions at SDC prevent the District’s ability to achieve the desired outcome in the short term. PS Permit Sonoma indicates this The 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation requires further has confirmed that this analysis. PS does not have authority Study is in progress. The or control over SDC’s potable water first phase will be a storage facilities. However, in its role Technical Memo on leading the SDC Specific Plan drought analysis and will process, PS is committed to facilitate be released in May, 2022. the best outcomes for the community Phase 2 will review and will evaluate emergency water additional topics. No date use agreements as part of the planning has been set for phase 2. process. SW Sonoma Water does not have jurisdiction or control over the SDC’s water storage facilities. SW will continue to work on coordinated water resources planning. SW is leading the development of a Regional Water Supply Resiliency Study, anticipated to take 18-20 months to complete.

F5: The future sources of water for the Sonoma Developmental Center property are undetermined at this time.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: By September 30, 2022, Permit Sonoma, Sonoma Water, the Valley of the Moon Water District, and the City of Sonoma Water Department meet to ensure that in any SDC Specific Plan, the water resources of the site are utilized for any future development with limited reliance on water from the Sonoma Aqueduct. (F5)

R5: The Valley of the Moon VOM The District agrees with this The agreement to Water District accelerate its Recommendation and will continue its rehabilitate their wells will program for expanding well accelerated program for the take place over 3 years and 2021-2022 UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS RES. ORIGINAL RESPONSES RESPONSES capacity and water storage by installation of new wells and tanks. will double the production December 31, 2020. This is a high priority in both its capability. They have Water Master Plan and Strategic Plan. agreements with two owners of private wells to provide water as needed and to drill an additional well.

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R6: The Valley of the Moon VOM VOM plans to implement this The 2021-2022 Grand Jury Water District establish specific Recommendation with the insertion of has confirmed that this emergency water-use restrictions the Water Shortage Contingency Plan Recommendation has been and communicate them to its to its customers on its outgoing water implemented. customers by September 30, bills beginning September 23, 2020. 2020. In addition, the District will post on its website specific actions taken during a water shortage emergency.

R7: By September 30, 2020, the VOM The District agrees with this The 2021-2022 Grand Jury Valley of the Moon Water Recommendation and has created a has confirmed that this District inform customers new webpage for its customers about Recommendation has been annually, or when conditions risks and water deficiencies in the implemented. change, regarding risks and emergency water supply. The District deficiencies in the emergency began notifying its customers about water supply and any actions the new webpage on outgoing bills taken to mitigate them. starting September 23, 2020.

R8: Permit Sonoma establish, by PS This Recommendation has been The 2021-2022 Grand Jury September 30, 2020, implemented. PS is committed to has confirmed that this communication with water robust and meaningful engagement Recommendation has been system managers for the City of with these entities and other implemented. Sonoma, the Valley of the Moon potentially affected entities as part of Water District, and Sonoma the SDC Specific Plan. Developmental Center to inform the SDC Specific Plan process. REPORT TITLE: SONOMA VALLEY REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES RES = Respondent CSO = City of Sonoma VOM = Valley of the Moon Water District SW = Sonoma Water PS = Permit Sonoma 2021-2022 UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS RES. ORIGINAL RESPONSES RESPONSES

May 31, 2022 — Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Better Procedures to Avoid Future Misconduct

12 pages 7 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The previous Director of Public Safety received one formal written evaluation from the current City Manager during the five years in which he reported to him.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: By December 31, 2022, the City Manager institute an annual written performance evaluation for the Director of Public Safety. (F1, F2, F3)

F2: During his three-year tenure, the present Director of Public Safety has received only one formal written evaluation, which occurred at the end of his first six months.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: By December 31, 2022, the City Manager institute an annual written performance evaluation for the Director of Public Safety. (F1, F2, F3)

F3: A single evaluation fails to document the strengths and weaknesses of the Director’s ongoing performance.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: By December 31, 2022, the City Manager institute an annual written performance evaluation for the Director of Public Safety. (F1, F2, F3)

F4: The City Manager has no formal process to solicit input from within the Public Safety Department and to communicate concerns to the Director of Public Safety.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: By December 31, 2022, the City Manager obtain input from a representative sample of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety personnel to be considered in the evaluation of the Director’s annual performance. (F4)

R3: By December 31, 2022, the City Manager establish a schedule for communicating with and getting feedback from the Public Safety Officer Association. (F4, F5)

F5: There is no procedural requirement dictating regularly scheduled meetings between the Director of Public Safety and the City Manager. While meetings currently happen weekly at the request of the current Director, there is no procedure requiring that this practice be maintained into the future.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: By December 31, 2022, the City Manager establish a schedule for communicating with and getting feedback from the Public Safety Officer Association. (F4, F5)

F6: There is no requirement for the Director of Public Safety to routinely provide presentations or department updates to the City Council in a public setting. Therefore, there is little opportunity to allow community input to or provide transparency of the Department’s activities.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: By September 30, 2022, the City Manager and the Director of Public Safety complete the preparations for and institute the Public Safety Presentation Calendar as recommended to the City Council on August 10th of 2021. (F6)

R5: By December 31, 2022, the City Manager and the Director of Public Safety complete the recruitment for and establishment of the Chief’s Community Round Table as recommended to the City Council on August 10, 2021. (F6)

F7: Police vehicle tracking has been and remains inadequate.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: By July 1, 2023, the City Council allocate funds to install GPS tracking on all police vehicles. (F7)

R7: By December 31, 2023, the Director of Public Safety shall install GPS tracking on all police vehicles. (F7)

May 31, 2022 — Smart Decision Making Citizen Feedback is Critical for Success

16 pages 18 findings 11 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 18 findings

F1: The Board of Directors lacks adequate input from the Citizens Oversight Committee.

Related Recommendations (3)

R3: By January 31, 2023, the Board of Directors reassess the SMART organizational structure such that the Citizens Oversight Committee and any future advisory committees report directly to the Board. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F9, F11)

R4: By January 31, 2023, the Board of Directors require written Citizens Oversight Committee analysis and recommendations prior to all strategic decisions whether or not incorporated in the five-year Strategic Plan. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F11, F12)

R8: By December 31, 2022, the Board of Directors direct the Citizens Oversight Committee to prepare written recommendation reports to be presented at or entered into the record of the Board of Directors meetings. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6, F10, F11, F12)

F2: The Citizens Oversight Committee reports to SMART management rather than directly to the Board of Directors.

Related Recommendations (3)

F3: The public has expressed concern about the Board of Directors strategic decisions made without the input of a citizens’ oversight committee.

Related Recommendations (3)

F4: A well-informed and responsive citizens’ advisory group has the potential to positively influence the final terms of crucial actions prior to the vote of the Board of Directors.

Related Recommendations (3)

R9: The Board of Directors direct the General Manager to provide a timeline to evaluate the financial viability of freight services by March 31, 2023. (F4, F15, F16)

F5: The SMART Strategic Plan of 2019 did not adequately address the addition of freight operations, and was not updated for consideration by an advisory committee and the public.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: The Citizens Oversight Committee has not fulfilled its oversight role as represented in Measure Q election materials and it has failed to serve as a fully independent advisor on important SMART issues.

Related Recommendations (2)

F7: The Board of Directors and the Citizens Oversight Committee have maintained the responsibility of the Citizens Oversight Committee at what was defined loosely in the 2008 Expenditure Plan of Measure Q—addressing only the minimal responsibility of reviewing the five-year strategic plan—despite recommendations from former Sonoma and Marin County Grand Juries and members of the League of Women Voters to expand the advisory role.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: By January 31, 2023, the Board of Directors expand the role of the Citizens Oversight Committee beyond the minimal requirements of the Measure Q Expenditure Plan to achieve expectations of citizen oversight and accountability. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7,

R5: The Board of Directors define and implement advisory committee bylaws for the Citizens Oversight Committee, by January 31, 2023. (F7, F12, F13, F14)

F8: The requirements of Measure Q and its associated 2008 Expenditure Plan are not sufficiently detailed to provide for a well-trained, well-informed, well-regulated, and suitably responsive Citizens Oversight Committee.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: By January 31, 2023, the Board of Directors develop suitable training programs for new and existing members of the Citizens Oversight Committee regarding their newly defined role and proper public committee protocols, such as the Brown Act rules. (F1,

F9: Measure Q does not prohibit or limit the development of committee roles or additional committees to provide the Board of Directors with informed and independent public opinion.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: By January 31, 2023, the Board of Directors consider additional advisory committees to generate informed, independent advice on important matters under consideration, including but not limited to increasing ridership, building public trust, new lines of business, sale of assets, finance, and other significant decisions. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F7,

F10: The Board of Directors response to the Grand Jury reports of 2014 indicated that comment periods in Board of Directors meetings are sufficient to obtain public input, but failed to recognize the importance of well-informed advisory committees.

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: The Board of Directors responded to prior Grand Jury reports that the Citizens Oversight Committee fulfilled the Measure Q requirements with regard to the five-year Strategic Plan, but failed to recognize their responsibility to provide suitable public feedback and oversight, as promised in election materials.

Related Recommendations (3)

F12: The lack of required formal reports from the Citizens Oversight Committee to the Board of Directors has created an environment where input from the Citizens Oversight Committee is not required or generally expected prior to decision making.

Related Recommendations (3)

R5: The Board of Directors define and implement advisory committee bylaws for the Citizens Oversight Committee, by January 31, 2023. (F7, F12, F13, F14)

F13: Bylaws for the Citizens Oversight Committee do not exist and if developed could provide structure and a set of rules to guide the Committee’s operations and activities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board of Directors define and implement advisory committee bylaws for the Citizens Oversight Committee, by January 31, 2023. (F7, F12, F13, F14)

F14: The undefined term of service in the Citizens Oversight Committee has the potential to allow Committee members to remain for long periods of time or permanently, which could lead to stagnation of ideas, and to leadership and committee fatigue.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: The Board of Directors define and implement advisory committee bylaws for the Citizens Oversight Committee, by January 31, 2023. (F7, F12, F13, F14)

R6: The Board of Directors define the length of terms for Citizens Oversight Committee members, by January 31, 2023. (F14)

F15: The ultimate financial and management impacts of taking on the freight business are very difficult to predict, and accepting the freight business creates the potential risk of distraction from SMART’s primary purpose of implementing and operating a passenger rail system.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Board of Directors direct the General Manager to provide a timeline to evaluate the financial viability of freight services by March 31, 2023. (F4, F15, F16)

F16: The lack of district-wide public discussion of the LPG storage facility in Schellville contributed to the hasty closure of the facility rather than a phased or delayed closure that would have given the SMART management an opportunity to mitigate the financial loss.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Board of Directors direct the General Manager to provide a timeline to evaluate the financial viability of freight services by March 31, 2023. (F4, F15, F16)

F17: Implementing accounting best practices would separate the Measure Q monies from freight or other future ventures into separate bank accounts in addition to their separate bookkeeping accounts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The Board of Directors and the General Manager establish separate bank accounts for the monies associated with passenger transit (Measure Q, et al.) and with freight or other future ventures, by December 31, 2022. (F17)

F18: Committee members who were interviewed by the Grand Jury could not provide requested documents because there was no central information repository.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Directors direct advisory committees to develop and implement a policy to keep documents and information related to their advisory role centrally located and remotely accessible, by January 31, 2023. (F18)

March 13, 2022 — Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance Who is Watching the Henhouse?

13 pages 11 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: Monitoring of compliance with Affordable Housing regulations has been inconsistent and often inadequate.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: By January 1, 2023, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities review and ensure that they have sufficient personnel to conduct on-site monitoring and process self-reported monitoring data to meet future Regional Housing Needs Allocations. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F11)

F2: The use of self-reported data in monitoring is the accepted norm.

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: On-site (in-person) monitoring beyond that required by law is rare due to insufficient personnel, budgetary limitations, and relatively low incentives.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities resume on-site monitoring by October 1, 2022. (F3, F4)

F4: COVID-19 further reduced in-person on-site monitoring due to public health restrictions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities resume on-site monitoring by October 1, 2022. (F3, F4)

F5: Surprise or unscheduled monitoring of individual units is not done, for reasons of privacy, availability, efficiency, and practicality.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: Unscheduled monitoring of properties and management, in order to review tenant files, grounds, and the amenities is not done.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: The Community Development Commission has informational documents and policies to provide upfront training in the monitoring process.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities meet and develop agreed-upon standards and procedures for the monitoring of Affordable Housing. (F7, F8)

R4: The Sonoma County Community Development Commission use informational documents and policies to provide ongoing training in the monitoring process for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects by January 1, 2023. (F7)

F8: There is limited or no standardized training in Affordable Housing compliance regulations for developers and managers of inclusionary housing within the nine Cities.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: By January 1, 2023, the nine Cities develop informational documents and policies to provide both upfront and ongoing training in the monitoring and compliance procedures for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects. (F8)

F9: The cities of Petaluma and Rohnert Park use computerized compliance monitoring programs to facilitate and improve the quality of their work.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss to jointly or individually utilize Affordable Housing monitoring software. (F9)

F10: The property titles of Affordable single-family houses have not always been flagged as deed restricted.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities should update and maintain their inventory of Affordable houses within their jurisdictions and verify that all their property titles are flagged for restricted sale. (F10)

F11: The majority of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed felt that there is not enough staff within their departments to make anyone a full-time compliance monitor.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss pooling resources to fulfill their monitoring responsibilities, through either a consultant or designated employees. (F11)

📋January 01, 2022 — Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future “Do It, or the State Will Do It For You”

26 pages 24 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 24 findings

F1: Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17)

F2: Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.

Related Recommendations (1)

F4: Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.

F6: In Sonoma County, costs and availability of land, building supplies, and labor impede development and construction of Affordable Housing.

F7: There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)

F8: Financing of Affordable Housing projects is unusually complex, slow, and uncertain.

F9: Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.

F10: Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex, and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: The permitting regulations, processes, and fees differ by jurisdiction.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)

F12: Mitigation fees vary by individual projects and jurisdictions, complicating the building of Affordable Housing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)

F13: The speed of issuing permits has improved in some jurisdictions, but greater efficiency would help meet the building needs of Sonoma County.

Related Recommendations (1)

F14: Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing jurisdiction results in fewer inclusionary Affordable Housing units and houses being built.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)

F15: Development of commercial projects such as hotels and big box stores is often favored over housing due to lesser demand on public services and increased sales or occupancy tax revenue.

F16: Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.

Related Recommendations (1)

F17: Changes to city boundaries by annexation of land within their Spheres of Influence could allow the development of more Affordable Housing but is resisted due to the high costs of additional infrastructure.

Related Recommendations (1)

F18: The time periods for which new Affordable Housing units cannot convert to market- rate prices have been lengthened to preserve the units as Affordable.

F19: Rehabilitation and the repurposing of existing properties both preserve and increase the supply of Affordable Housing.

F20: Inclusive Affordable Housing must be equivalent to market rate units and be dispersed throughout a project making it harder to identify and stigmatize them.

F21: Manufactured and factory built home construction provide less expensive routes to Affordable Housing without necessarily reducing its quality.

F22: Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable.

F23: Contrary to commonly expressed fears, Affordable Housing does not usually affect local property values.

F24: Vacation homes, time shares, Airbnb, Pacaso houses, and vacant houses reduce the number of units available to permanent residents and, by reducing supply, increase the cost of housing.

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7,

R5: By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16,

R6: By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,

R7: By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11,

R8: By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should review their permitting requirements to allow nontraditional options such as manufactured homes, factory built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,

📋December 31, 2021 — Responses to the 2020-2021 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Reports Providing Continuity by Following Through on Previous

5 pages 20 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 20

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury work with the Board of analysis. The SCSO is open to replacing acknowledges that this Supervisors to replace the the commission-based contract, as long as Recommendation requires current commission-based the inmate programs it supports are not further analysis and cannot be audio and video contract sacrificed. The SCSO would look to the implemented until the with Global Tel Link, using BOS to commit General Funds for these analysis is completed. a model based on the San programs so they would not be Francisco County Sheriff’s discontinued. Department, by December BOS This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury 31, 2021. analysis. County staff will research San acknowledges that this Francisco County’s commission-free model Recommendation requires to evaluate feasibility, fiscal impact and further analysis, and that the operational impact. Upon completion of the BOS cannot implement it by analysis, the BOS will look to the Sheriff’s December 31, 2021. The GJ office to determine if the program and recognizes that the BOS will structure should be changed, and then bring direct staff to perform the a recommendation to the BOS as needed. necessary research for the analysis.

Page 4

R2: By September 30, SCSO This Recommendation has been partially The Grand Jury 2021, the Sheriff’s Office implemented and requires further analysis. acknowledges that this develop a new Detention staff is currently in Recommendation requires communications model to communication with GTL for additional further analysis, and that the provide for sufficient telephone kiosks and video visitation at the analysis should be completed telephone kiosks to allow MADF. The SCSO is currently offering by December 2021. The GJ the inmate population free each inmate 70 minutes of free phone calls recognizes that the SCSO has telephone and video per week. Sheriff’s staff has prepared a made changes to improve visitation for at least 90 funding request to the BOS to ensure inmate telephone access by minutes per week until such continued funding, and if provided, will offering 70 minutes of free time as a new work with GTL for more equipment as phone calls per inmate per needed. week. Continuity Responses to 2020-2021 Report 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATIONS RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS communication contract is in effect.

Page 4

R3: As required by PC § SCSO This Recommendation has been The Grand Jury 4025(e), the Sheriff’s implemented. The SCSO has been acknowledges that this BOS Office provide an annual providing an annual report to the BOS as Recommendation has been report to the Board of required by PC § 4025(e) since FY 03-04, implemented. Supervisors detailing line and will submit the report for fiscal year item revenue and expenses ending June 30, 2021 by November 30, within the Inmate Welfare 2021. Trust, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021, with the initial report due by November 30, 2021.

Page 5

R4: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation will not be The Grand Jury use its $1.6 million Inmate implemented. On June 17, 2021, the SCSO acknowledges that this Welfare Trust surplus to returned to normal visiting operations. The Recommendation will not be remove all charges for SCSO also continues to provide each inmate implemented. The GJ also telephone service while in- a free 10-minute phone call per day. recognizes that the SCSO has person visitation is made changes that improve suspended, on or before inmate access to in-person September 30, 2021. visits and phone usage.

Page 5

R5: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury reevaluate its commissary analysis. The SCSO intends to change the acknowledges that this markup to be in line with pricing structure with an updated and Recommendation requires grocery store, as opposed to modernized commissary system based on further analysis and cannot be convenience store pricing, analysis expected to be completed in implemented until the on or before September 1, December 2021. While it is the intent of the analysis is completed in 2021. SCSO to sell hygiene supplies and December 2021. The GJ also stationery products with a 0% mark-up, recognizes the SCSO does snack items will not be priced similar to a not have the ability at the grocery store because the pricing structure MADF to purchase in bulk needs to compensate for the additional costs and store in large quantity to at the MADF (security, small storage area, obtain discount pricing. The delivery, etc.) that are not present in a MADF also incurs more grocery store setting. direct overhead costs than that of a grocery store.

Page 5

R6: By September 30, SCSO This Recommendation has not yet been The Grand Jury 2021, the Sheriff’s Office, implemented, but will be in the future. acknowledges that this using the reserve Inmate Prolonged interactions between inmates Recommendation will be Welfare Trust funds, from different housing areas has been implemented in the future. resume all inmate programs eliminated in order to reduce the spread of The GJ recognizes that the in existence pre-COVID, COVID-19. Detention staff will resume COVID-19 safety precautions with funding at the same pre-pandemic level programming when it is create program challenges in level once COVID related safe to do so. the MADF congregate restrictions are lifted. setting. Continuity Responses to 2020-2021 Report 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATIONS RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS

Page 5

R7: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation will not be The Grand Jury restructure the 10-member implemented. The Inmate Welfare Trust acknowledges that this Inmate Welfare Trust Committee provides recommendations and Recommendation will not be Committee by December direction to the Sheriff on inmate programs implemented. The GJ also 31, 2021 to include more and IWT expenditures. The SCSO is always recognizes that Penal Code § diverse representation, for open to suggestions from the community. 5006 applies only to state example, community prisons and not the MADF. members, financial analysts, social workers and educators to bring the Committee more in line with the requirements of Penal Code § 5006 regarding commission membership standards for State Prisons. Continuity Responses to 2020-2021 Report COVID-19 MITIGATION AND THE COUNTY JAIL Background: The Grand Jury investigated activities by the Court, the District Attorney and the Sheriff’s Department to reduce jail populations and lessen the likelihood of a major COVID-19 outbreak within the jail. The Sheriff’s Office made significant efforts to mitigate Covid-19 transmission throughout its detention facilities to ensure the on-going health and safety of inmates and employees. The Grand Jury recognized the success of the Sheriff’s Office in avoiding a major COVID-19 outbreak in the jail. However, some actions significantly limited the ability of inmates to communicate with family and legal representatives. Other actions limited inmates’ access to educational and recreational resources. The Grand Jury made several Recommendations aimed at restoring inmates’ rights and maintaining reduced prison populations. RES = Respondent; GJ = Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury; SCSO= Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office; DA = Sonoma County District Attorney; MADF = Main Adult Detention Facility 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATIONS RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS

Page 6

R8: In the annual budget BOS This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury acknowledges process the Sonoma County analysis. The next opportunity to allocate that this Recommendation Board of Supervisors and funding, during the annual budget process, requires further analysis and the Office of will take place in June, 2022. that the County budget is set Administration include on an annual basis. BOS will evaluation of the costs of not be able to consider laying cable or empty cable/conduit fund allocation conduit in upcoming until June 2022. RECOMMENDATIONS RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS infrastructure projects by COA This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury acknowledges December 31, 2021. analysis. The County Administrator's that this Recommendation Office will work with departments to requires further analysis. determine if funding is available for "laying cable or empty conduit in upcoming infrastructure projects" and will make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Supervisors through the normal budget hearing process.

R9: The Sonoma County BOS This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury acknowledges Board of Supervisors, the EDB analysis. Though download/upload speeds that this Recommendation Economic Development and of 100/20 have been recommended by the requires further analysis and Board, and Access Sonoma ASB state as well as identified by NBNCBC as that implementation depends Broadband include in the a target, it is unlikely that formal adoption on establishment of a working implementation of any of any particular speed recommendation plan. broadband plan a clear will be made locally before a governing requirement for the structure and business plan are identified download and upload and created. It is anticipated that an update speeds of 100/20 proposed on this work would be made to the BOS in State of California within six months. Executive Order N-73-20 to be the minimal acceptable level of service by September 30, 2021.

R10: The Sonoma County BOS This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury acknowledges Board of Supervisors assure analysis. Though fiber optic cable or its that this Recommendation that any plan for broadband equivalent is a widely used benchmark, it requires further analysis and expansion should utilize is unlikely that the County will adopt depends on adoption of a plan. fiber optic cable formal transmission standards before a transmission or its governing structure and business plan are equivalent whenever it is identified and created. possible by November 30, 2021. EMERGENCY ALERTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Background: Wildfires and other emergency situations have threatened Sonoma County and its residents for many of the last several years. There have been losses of lives, property, and a sense of security. This Grand Jury Report centered on emergency communications. Information must be precise, accurate and continuously updated. The Jury found that significant improvements in communication policies, procedures, and practices have been made since the Tubbs fire in 2017. The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) have worked in conjunction with the nine cities of the county to ensure that all residents have access to good information. The Jury also noted four specific areas in which improvement was still needed. In addition, the Jury included a comprehensive listing of available resources for information, both before and in case of an emergency. This information is on pages 83-87 of the full report, which is available at any County library and online at www.sonomagrandjury.org. RES = Respondent; GJ = Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury; SCSO = Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office; DEM = Dept. of Emergency Management; CCL = City of Cloverdale; CC = City of Cotati; CH = City of Healdsburg; CP = City of Petaluma; CRP = City of Rohnert Park; CSR = City of Santa Rosa; CS = City of Sebastopol; CSO = City of Sonoma; TW = Town of Windsor; BOS = Sonoma County Board of Supervisors; SCFCA = Sonoma County Fire Chief’s Association 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATIONS RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS ALERTS AND WARNINGS

R11: By September 30, SCSO This Recommendation has been The Grand Jury acknowledges 2021, The Sheriff’s Office implemented. SCSO and DEM coordinate that this Recommendation has DEM and Department of with CALFIRE and local agencies to been implemented. Emergency Management protect local infrastructure. An example is work with the Fire protection of the Mt. Jackson site during Agencies in the County to the LNU Complex fire in 2020. define actions to take during a disaster for the SCFCA SCFCA supports and concurs with this The Grand Jury acknowledges Recommendation. that SCFCA supports this protection of all County Recommendation. communication towers/repeaters and cellular network towers.

R12: By December 31, DEM This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury accepts that 2021, the Department of implemented and may not be implemented. DEM does not set safety Emergency Management DEM does not establish infrastructure requirements for commercial RECOMMENDATION RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS work with cellular tower safety requirements for cellular providers, cellular providers’ providers to ensure a plan is but as partners in public safety will support infrastructure. The Jury developed to ensure their efforts. encourages DEM to facilitate defensible space standards measures that support the spirit are implemented around of this Recommendation. each tower.

R13: By October 31, 2021, DEM This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury acknowledges the Department of implemented but will be implemented in that this Recommendation will Emergency Management the future. A new County Emergency be implemented by the end of update the County Management Plan is expected to be 2021, and that After Action Emergency Operations Plan submitted for review and approval by BOS Reports and Recommendations to incorporate and post on in the 4th quarter of 2021. After Action will be posted. the Department of Reports will continue to be posted on the Emergency Management DEM website. website the most up-to-date information and Recommendations from the After Action Reports since the disasters of 2017.

R14: By October 31, 2021, BOS This Recommendation is in the process of The Grand Jury acknowledges the Board of Supervisors being implemented. An updated plan is that this Recommendation will approve the updated County being prepared and is expected to be be implemented early in 2022. Emergency Operations submitted to BOS in the first quarter of Plan. 2022. Completion has been delayed by the need to comply with the County’s new strategic plan and a new State law dealing with community engagement and cultural considerations.

R15: By October 31, 2021, CC This Recommendation has been The Grand Jury acknowledges the nine cities update their implemented, although the Emergency that this Recommendation has CCL Emergency Operations Plan Operations Plan is a long-term planning been implemented. CH to incorporate the most up- document and is not necessarily an to-date information and CS appropriate site for most up to date lessons learned since the information. disasters of 2017 and post it CSO This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury acknowledges on their websites. implemented but it will be in the future. that this Recommendation will CSR Updating is a continuing process, and the be implemented in the future. CRP Emergency Operating Plan is not CP necessarily an appropriate site for the most up to date information. TW This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury acknowledges Implemented and may not be implemented that this Recommendation may because the Emergency Operation Plan is not be implemented. not an appropriate site for detailed information. RECOMMENDATION RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS

R16: By September 30, DEM This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury acknowledges 2021, Department of implemented and may not be implemented. that this Recommendation has Emergency Management The Emergency Operations Plan for Warm not been implemented because obtain from the US Army Springs Dam is available to County the Emergency Operations Plan Corps of Engineers a copy officials but subject to a non-disclosure is subject to a non-disclosure of the Emergency agreement. The Army Corps of Engineers agreement. Operations Plan for Warm must balance security concerns and public Springs Dam and safety with release of information. incorporate it into the County Emergency Operations Plan and post it on the Department of Emergency Management website.

R17: By December 31, DEM This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury acknowledges 2021, Department of implemented and may not be implemented. that this Recommendation will Emergency Management, The County submits reports as part of the not be implemented because the through the San Francisco SF Bay Area Local Emergency appropriate Bay Area and State Bay Area Counties, submit Communications Committee which has not organizations are currently non- its annual Emergency Alert met since 2010; this local committee is functional. These organizations System Plan to the State controlled by the State Emergency are expected to be reconstituted. Emergency Alert System Communications Committee which has not Committee of California as met since 2011 but is being reconstituted recommended within the and will hold annual meetings. 2019 State of California Alert and Warnings Guidelines.

R18: By December 31, BOS This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury acknowledges 2021, the Board of implemented and may not be implemented. that this Recommendation has Supervisors adopt a These plans are multiple and complex and not been implemented and may resolution that all major it is impractical to review and update them not be implemented because County disaster plans annually. Plans will be updated on a three annual updating is impractical. having to do with year or as needed basis. Emergencies and Emergency Preparedness be considered “Living Documents” to be reviewed and updated on an annual basis.

R19: By December 31, DEM This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury acknowledges 2021, the Department of implemented but it will be implemented in that this Recommendation will Emergency Management the future. DEM supports multiple be implemented in the future publicize the work of community preparedness groups and will and that support of community community preparedness continue to do so. DEM has applied for a preparedness groups is an groups such as Citizens grant to support these efforts. ongoing process. Organized to Prepare for Emergencies, Community RECOMMENDATION RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS Emergency Response Teams, and Community Organizations Around Disasters to more effectively reach all residents about emergency alerts and warnings.

R20: By December 31, BOS This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury acknowledges 2021, the Board of implemented and requires further analysis. that this Recommendation Supervisors increase the The capacity of the DEM Community requires further analysis and capacity of the Department Preparedness function has been increased implementation will be part of of Emergency over the last several years. Community the budgeting process. Management’s Community Preparedness is a BOS priority and we Preparedness function in anticipate this discussion will take place order to effectively engage during budget hearings. DEM is currently the greater community in applying for federal grants, which would disaster preparedness with support preparedness efforts including groups such as Fire Safe developing Community Emergency Sonoma, neighborhood Response Teams. groups such as Citizens Organized to Prepare for Emergencies, and Community Emergency Response Teams to foster resilience.

📋December 31, 2021 — Responses to the 2020-2021 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Reports Providing Continuity by Following Through on Previous

13 pages 21 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 21

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation has not yet been The Grand Jury develop, no later than implemented but will be implemented in acknowledges that this September 1, 2021, a policy the future. However, the SCSO partially Recommendation will be to restore out of cell disagrees with the Recommendation implemented in the future, activity, in person and video because out of cell activities partly depend with a specific goal of visitation, and all programs on inmate population over which it does implementation of video to pre-pandemic levels. not have final control. It is the goal of the visitation programs by April Sheriff’s Office to have a revised policy 1, 2022. completed by April 1, 2022.

Page 7

R2: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation has been The Grand Jury implement 30-minutes of implemented. As of June 19, 2021, the acknowledges that this video visits per week by Sheriff’s Office has restored in-person Recommendation has been September 30, 2021, and visiting to pre-pandemic levels. implemented through the continue until it fully restoration of in-person visits. restores in-person visits to the pre-pandemic levels.

Page 7

R3: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation will not be The Grand Jury should continue the implemented because it is not warranted or acknowledges this pandemic-era policies reasonable. The SCSO cannot legally Recommendation will not be favoring citations over “favor” citations over arrests. The decision implemented. arrests. of citation vs arrest is the responsibility of the officer in the field.

Page 7

R4: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury and the Board of analysis. The SCSO recognizes the acknowledges that this Supervisors work together substantial role discharge planners play for Recommendation requires to develop a plan by inmates with ongoing mental health and further analysis. A future GJ December 21, 2021 to medical needs. The SCSO will monitor may choose to follow up on increase the contracted case load and issue recommendations to this issue. Wellpath resources to fund the BOS as needed. four additional Wellpath Continuity Responses to 2020-2021 Report 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATIONS RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS discharge planners for mental health and medical assignments to the Main Adult Detention Facility.

Page 7

R5: The District Attorney DA This Recommendation will not be The Grand Jury discontinue cash bail for implemented because the DA does not acknowledges that this defendants charged with have authority to unilaterally discontinue Recommendation cannot be misdemeanors and non- cash bail. However, the DA acknowledges fully implemented at this violent, non-sexual and less that the practice of issuing citations rather time. serious felonies. than making arrests for misdemeanors and non-violent felonies has helped keep the MADF population from increasing. Further, it involves not only the arrest practices of the SCSO, but that of all law enforcement agencies.

Page 8

R6: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation has not yet been The Grand Jury implement a surveillance- implemented but will be implemented in acknowledges that this testing program and require the future. The California Dept of Public Recommendation will be 100% participation by all Health Services order dated July 26, 2021, implemented. unvaccinated jail staff by requires implementation of the September 1, 2021. Recommendation. The SCSO will be fully compliant with the Order by August 23, 2021.

Page 8

R7: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation will not be The Grand Jury reassign jail staff who implemented because it is not warranted or acknowledges that this decline vaccination or reasonable. This is a Human Resources Recommendation will not be participation in surveillance issue and will be addressed through the implemented. Given the testing by September 1, Sonoma County Human Resources State Public Health Order, 2021. Department. this Recommendation is no longer relevant as vaccination tracking or surveillance testing is now mandatory for State and local correctional facilities and detention centers. Continuity Responses to 2020-2021 Report BROADBAND ACCESS IN SONOMA COUNTY Background: Access to high quality internet (“Broadband”) is not available throughout all of Sonoma County due to the rugged, rural nature of much of the County, the reluctance of broadband providers to underwrite expansion to underserved areas, and the difficulty many residents have in paying for broadband services. This “digital divide” prevents many individuals from participating fully in our increasingly digital society. The Grand Jury investigated the current state of broadband availability in the County and identified several means through which it could be improved. RES = Respondent; GJ = Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury; BOS = Sonoma County Board of Supervisors; EDB = Economic Development Board; TPW = Department of Transportation and Public Works; PS = Permit Sonoma; COA = Sonoma County Office of Administration; ASB = Access Sonoma Broadband 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATIONS RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS

Page 8

R8: In the annual budget BOS This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury acknowledges process the Sonoma County analysis. The next opportunity to allocate that this Recommendation Board of Supervisors and funding, during the annual budget process, requires further analysis and the Office of will take place in June, 2022. that the County budget is set Administration include on an annual basis. BOS will evaluation of the costs of not be able to consider laying cable or empty cable/conduit fund allocation conduit in upcoming until June 2022. Continuity Responses to 2020-2021 Report 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATIONS RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS infrastructure projects by COA This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury acknowledges December 31, 2021. analysis. The County Administrator's that this Recommendation Office will work with departments to requires further analysis. determine if funding is available for "laying cable or empty conduit in upcoming infrastructure projects" and will make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Supervisors through the normal budget hearing process.

Page 11

Page 12

R10: The Sonoma County BOS This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury acknowledges Board of Supervisors assure analysis. Though fiber optic cable or its that this Recommendation that any plan for broadband equivalent is a widely used benchmark, it requires further analysis and expansion should utilize is unlikely that the County will adopt depends on adoption of a plan. fiber optic cable formal transmission standards before a transmission or its governing structure and business plan are equivalent whenever it is identified and created. possible by November 30, 2021. Continuity Responses to 2020-2021 Report EMERGENCY ALERTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Background: Wildfires and other emergency situations have threatened Sonoma County and its residents for many of the last several years. There have been losses of lives, property, and a sense of security. This Grand Jury Report centered on emergency communications. Information must be precise, accurate and continuously updated. The Jury found that significant improvements in communication policies, procedures, and practices have been made since the Tubbs fire in 2017. The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) have worked in conjunction with the nine cities of the county to ensure that all residents have access to good information. The Jury also noted four specific areas in which improvement was still needed. In addition, the Jury included a comprehensive listing of available resources for information, both before and in case of an emergency. This information is on pages 83-87 of the full report, which is available at any County library and online at www.sonomagrandjury.org. RES = Respondent; GJ = Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury; SCSO = Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office; DEM = Dept. of Emergency Management; CCL = City of Cloverdale; CC = City of Cotati; CH = City of Healdsburg; CP = City of Petaluma; CRP = City of Rohnert Park; CSR = City of Santa Rosa; CS = City of Sebastopol; CSO = City of Sonoma; TW = Town of Windsor; BOS = Sonoma County Board of Supervisors; SCFCA = Sonoma County Fire Chief’s Association 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATIONS RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS ALERTS AND WARNINGS

Page 12

Page 16

R12: By December 31, DEM This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury accepts that 2021, the Department of implemented and may not be implemented. DEM does not set safety Emergency Management DEM does not establish infrastructure requirements for commercial Continuity Responses to 2020-2021 Report 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATION RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS work with cellular tower safety requirements for cellular providers, cellular providers’ providers to ensure a plan is but as partners in public safety will support infrastructure. The Jury developed to ensure their efforts. encourages DEM to facilitate defensible space standards measures that support the spirit are implemented around of this Recommendation. each tower.

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

R19: By December 31, DEM This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury acknowledges 2021, the Department of implemented but it will be implemented in that this Recommendation will Emergency Management the future. DEM supports multiple be implemented in the future publicize the work of community preparedness groups and will and that support of community community preparedness continue to do so. DEM has applied for a preparedness groups is an groups such as Citizens grant to support these efforts. ongoing process. Organized to Prepare for Emergencies, Community Continuity Responses to 2020-2021 Report 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATION RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS Emergency Response Teams, and Community Organizations Around Disasters to more effectively reach all residents about emergency alerts and warnings.

Page 18

Page 19

R2021: at an operational capacity sufficient to requires further analysis on the create and recommend policy before a part of ASB. governance structure is identified and created (see R4 above). R8. In the annual budget BOS This Recommendation requires further The Grand Jury acknowledges process the Sonoma County analysis. The next opportunity to allocate that this Recommendation Board of Supervisors and funding, during the annual budget process, requires further analysis and the Office of will take place in June, 2022. that the County budget is set Administration include on an annual basis. BOS will evaluation of the costs of not be able to consider laying cable or empty cable/conduit fund allocation conduit in upcoming until June 2022. RECOMMENDATIONS RES.

Page 11

📋December 31, 2021 — Responses to the 2020-2021 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Reports Providing Continuity by Following Through on Previous

1 pages 20 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 20

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The City of Rohnert CRP This Recommendation has been The Grand Jury Park establish a procedure implemented. Procedures are in place to acknowledges that this to monitor and track ethics arrange and provide training and to monitor Recommendation has been training for publicly elected compliance with AB 1234. implemented. officials as required by California Assembly Bill No. 1234. This should occur by December 31, 2021.

Page 3

R2: The City of Rohnert CRP This Recommendation has been The Grand Jury Park notify elected officials implemented. Notifications of online acknowledges that this of ethics training bi-annual training were sent in November 2020. Recommendation has been deadlines by December 31, implemented. 2021.

Page 3

R3: The City Council CCRP This Recommendation has not been The Grand Jury members proactively plan implemented but will be implemented in the acknowledges that this in advance and allocate future. Plans have been established for Recommendation will be time in Council Meeting contracting with demographic and outreach implemented in the future. agendas to give the public consultants. At least four public hearings opportunity for robust and will be scheduled in 2021 in order to give the ongoing discussion of any public opportunities for robust and ongoing changes to the City’s discussion on any changes in the City's demographics that need to demographics that need to be addressed. The be addressed when the new City’s actions will comply with the Fair and Census data is released on Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and September 30, 2021. This Political Subdivisions (Fair Maps) Act. should occur by December 31, 2021. Continuity Responses to 2020-2021 Report

Page 3

R7: The Sheriff’s Office SCSO This Recommendation will not be The Grand Jury restructure the 10-member implemented. The Inmate Welfare Trust acknowledges that this Inmate Welfare Trust Committee provides recommendations and Recommendation will not be Committee by December direction to the Sheriff on inmate programs implemented. The GJ also 31, 2021 to include more and IWT expenditures. The SCSO is always recognizes that Penal Code § diverse representation, for open to suggestions from the community. 5006 applies only to state example, community prisons and not the MADF. members, financial analysts, social workers and educators to bring the Committee more in line with the requirements of Penal Code § 5006 regarding commission membership standards for State Prisons. COVID-19 MITIGATION AND THE COUNTY JAIL Background: The Grand Jury investigated activities by the Court, the District Attorney and the Sheriff’s Department to reduce jail populations and lessen the likelihood of a major COVID-19 outbreak within the jail. The Sheriff’s Office made significant efforts to mitigate Covid-19 transmission throughout its detention facilities to ensure the on-going health and safety of inmates and employees. The Grand Jury recognized the success of the Sheriff’s Office in avoiding a major COVID-19 outbreak in the jail. However, some actions significantly limited the ability of inmates to communicate with family and legal representatives. Other actions limited inmates’ access to educational and recreational resources. The Grand Jury made several Recommendations aimed at restoring inmates’ rights and maintaining reduced prison populations. RES = Respondent; GJ = Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury; SCSO= Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office; DA = Sonoma County District Attorney; MADF = Main Adult Detention Facility 2021-2022 GJ RECOMMENDATIONS RES. RESPONSES OBSERVATIONS

Department of Health Services Dedication Overcame Dysfunction

23 pages 22 findings 16 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 22 findings

F1: Miscommunication… DHS should develop a We will continue to contributed to the resignations of plan to maintain adequate aggressively recruit nurses experienced public health nurses. nursing levels

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: By March 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors work with the County Administrator’s Office to develop an equitable plan to provide for overtime pay for salaried employees during a disaster. (F1, F10, F19)

F2: Poor communication between DHS should develop a Upper management has the upper DHS management and the plan to improve taken significant steps to staff …resulted in poor morale. communication improve communication • 2018-2019: “The Behavioral Health Budget-A Perfect Storm” Jury Finding Jury Recommendation DHS Response to Jury

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Human Resources Department to initiate a comprehensive and expedited salary survey for critical Department of Health Services staff positions and present their findings upon completion. (F2, F19)

F3: The Department of Emergency Management’s competent leadership, well-developed policies and procedures, and trained staff have helped Sonoma County weather recent disasters.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: By March 1, 2023, the County Administrator’s Office review all County Department Operation Center policies and procedures to ensure that they conform to already established county guidelines for emergency management, procurement, logistics, etc. (F3, F4, F5, F7, F8)

F4: The County has extensive preparedness and emergency management policies and procedures in place, but they were not always followed by the Department of Health Services.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: Lack of adequate personnel The County should Resources, including compromised the Compliance provide adequate funding staffing have been Office’s effectiveness. and support increased

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: By December 1, 2022, the Board of Supervisors reinforce that the existing mandate for FEMA’s Incident Command System will be utilized for all disasters in County Department Operations Centers. (F5, F6, F7, F8)

R4: By June 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Health Services’ Department Operations Center to prepare and complete an after-action report for the County’s COVID-19 response. (F5, F7, F8, F9)

F6: Not all County staff have received regular training in emergency protocols, including the Incident Command System.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: The Department of Health Services’ Department Operations Center did not demonstrate competency in the Incident Command System, nor value its use.

Related Recommendations (3)

F8: Budget development process Section and program Increased and open lacked transparency and staff managers should be communication has been participation. included in decision- prioritized making

Related Recommendations (3)

F9: Professional communication was Procedures for effective We will continue to stifled by a culture of retribution … and professional develop innovative ideas communication should be that will foster effective implemented and respectful information sharing History of Continuing and Persistent Communication Challenges When the 2016-2017 Grand Jury report was published, the Department of Health Services responded and agreed with the Grand Jury’s finding that “Poor communication between the upper management of DHS and the staff in the trenches has resulted in poor morale.” To improve these communication deficiencies and increase employee engagement, the DHS executive team “committed to providing additional regular and timely two-way communication with staff.” DHS leadership also reported to the Grand Jury that the communication plan they requested, with an emphasis on information sharing, had been developed. Unfortunately, two years later, in the 2018-2019 report, the Grand Jury again found a pattern of poor communication. That Grand Jury reported, “…professional communication was stifled by a culture of retribution and neglect which impacted the free flow of information. This led to an egregious lack of transparency.” At that time, the Grand Jury asked that the executive team develop a more collaborative relationship with middle managers. DHS responded that they have implemented several procedures to increase regular information sharing with staff. Staffing Issues Continue In addition to communication problems, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury investigated DHS resignations, retirements, and reorganizations, specifically in the Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health (MCAH) section. The Grand Jury reported retention, recruitment, and excess workload issues, particularly among the nursing staff. The Grand Jury asked that DHS develop a staffing plan, and DHS responded that they were already aggressively recruiting nurses. Unfortunately, staffing issues continued as the 2018-2019 Grand Jury discovered in their investigation of the Behavioral Health Division (BHD). That Grand Jury found that staffing was hampered not only by budgetary constraints, but also by the significant turnover of trained staff. DHS, in its response, agreed that there was inadequate staffing, and agreed to recruit additional personnel. Emergency Operations Center Under the Federal Emergency Managements Agency’s (FEMA) Incident Command System (ICS), the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) functions as a command and control center, gathering information, directing activities, and obtaining support in disaster or emergency situations. The EOC typically consists of a range of trained and otherwise qualified personnel, often tailored to the situation. Standard sections include Command, Operations, Planning, Logistics, and Finance/Administration. In Sonoma County, the County Administrator is the Director of the EOC. However, this authority is typically delegated to the Director of the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) or their deputy when the EOC is activated. For more limited or focused emergencies, a Department Operation Center (DOC) can be utilized. The DOC is essentially a scaled-down version of the EOC, and generally would have the same sections. The 10 Essential Public Health Services The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has identified 10 Essential Public Health Services that should be provided in every community. The essential services include: Assessment 1. Assess and monitor population health status, factors that influence health, and community needs and assets 2. Investigate, diagnose, and address health problems and hazards affecting the population Policy Development 3. Communicate effectively to inform and educate people about health, factors that influence it, and how to improve it 4. Strengthen, support, and mobilize communities and partnerships to improve health 5. Create, champion, and implement policies, plans, and laws that impact health 6. Utilize legal and regulatory actions designed to improve and protect the public’s health Assurance 7. Assure an effective system that enables equitable access to the individual services and care needed to be healthy 8. Build and support a diverse and skilled public health workforce 9. Improve and innovate public health functions through ongoing evaluation, research, and continuous quality improvement 10. Build and maintain a strong organizational infrastructure for public health Figure 1: CDC - Public Health Systems & Best Practices Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention The COVID crisis has provided a severe ‘stress test’ for local public health functions. While in many regards the response was exemplary, existing resources and structures were inadequate to meet the challenges posed by the pandemic, let alone normal public health services. Significant outside funding, new or reorganized administrative functions, and temporary staffing were needed to address the emergency. Neglect of Public Health Functions According to the National Academy of Medicine: …local execution of these programs and functions is often limited by constraints imposed by both federal agencies and state and local jurisdictions. First, funding levels have historically been inadequate to support the delivery of the Essential public health services, let alone prepare for emergency situations. Second, many funding streams for public health are “categorical”, or restricted to specific priority areas (e.g., HIV, tobacco control), which leaves little flexibility for spending to support core foundational capabilities or to support surge needs in times of crisis. Other funding streams are operated as block grants, but…such models in practice have been vulnerable to funding cuts… Overall funding for foundational capabilities has run dry in the face of long- standing neglect and deprioritization by both local and national leaders, with the expenditures of public health agencies decreasing by approximately 10% (between 2010 and 2018) and the share of health care spending attributable to public health declining by nearly 17% (between 2002 and 2014). Indeed, rather than valuing prevention, the American system has become increasingly biased in favor of reaction, with per capita spending on public health services equivalent to 1-3% of per capita expenditures on medical care. Chronically deprived of resources, the capabilities of health departments have begun to atrophy over several key domains. These factors have also operated in Sonoma County. A prime example of local public health programs that have been on the chopping block was DHS’s pre-pandemic proposal to close the County’s public health laboratory. As stated in a March 2022 Press Democrat article: “…former county staff members say the proposal reflected a pre-COVID mindset that sought a shift in the mission of county health services. In essence, community-based prevention programs would be sacrificed to pay for those the county is legally-required to provide.” This proposal was quickly scrapped when the COVID crisis hit, and the value of a local, public, health lab was decisively demonstrated. The CDC’s list of essential public health services should provide the basis for an in-depth review of Sonoma County’s public health functions. This should include an examination not only of substantive programs provided by DHS, but also administrative structure, and critically, stable long-term funding. METHODOLOGY This is an investigation initiated in response to a citizen complaint received by the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury. The Grand Jury conducted over 24 interviews with key individuals in Sonoma County who are or were involved with the Department of Health Services. They included: • Elected and appointed County officials • Past and present DHS employees • County employees assisting in the COVID response The Grand Jury reviewed and evaluated hundreds of documents obtained from both public and private sources. The most important of these are listed in the Bibliography. DISCUSSION County Health Departments, including Sonoma County’s, exist to provide essential public health services, such as environmental health, control of infectious diseases, behavioral health, and services for the underserved. They are generally chronically under-funded, under-resourced, under-appreciated, and yet continue to work diligently behind the scenes to ensure we all live in a safe and healthy environment. The COVID pandemic presented a serious and unprecedented public health threat. It required an immediate response but there was no rulebook. The pandemic required the County to find and mobilize significant resources, many of which it did not have. It also required the County to work collaboratively across departments in a new, untested way. Federal and State resources were quickly provided so the County could fund operations; but it was still exploring what kind of operations it needed. Sonoma County was in uncharted territories with sketchy maps and with leaders who had knowledge of other infectious diseases, but not of this magnitude. Experience with disasters, of any sort, strengthens the response to all types of emergencies, including pandemics. One asset that Sonoma County had was its experience in successfully responding to wildfires. Over the past five years, the County has developed a finely honed capability to deal with fire, flood, and power shutoff emergencies. This includes not only fighting fires, but in providing for displaced and traumatized communities, and working with the Federal and State departments that provide funding and technical assistance. The County’s Department of Emergency Management (DEM), which initially led the COVID response, is a recognized expert in dealing with emergencies. However, the pandemic was not a standard emergency. While the EOC did have processes and training in place to cope with significant emergencies, it had never encountered an emergency of this scale and scope. This report focuses on the way the County deals with these challenges. It has not been a smooth journey and not one without conflict. The control of the response started with the EOC using the Incident Command System (ICS). Shortly thereafter, and due in part to friction between the DHS and the EOC leadership team, it transitioned into a hybrid structure with co-directors from the EOC and DHS’s Department Operations Center (DOC). Within two months it again shifted from the hybrid structure of DHS and EOC to the DOC, with the Director of Health Services now leading the response. The emergency also exposed some of the dysfunctions in the culture, structure, and management processes of the County and the DHS. These problems are not new and in fact had existed prior to the pandemic. They have been cited by previous Grand Juries as needing immediate attention, but based on interviews little has been done to address them. The pandemic is still not over and new variants or new viruses may create future emergencies. The Grand Jury believes these issues must be addressed without delay to ensure the County is organizationally robust enough to meet future public health challenges. Failure to act may seriously affect the County’s ability to respond, putting the health of the County’s population at risk. The discussion that follows explores these issues in more depth, and we begin by first outlining the incident management system which is used nationally in disaster situations. Incident Command System National Incident Management System (NIMS) The federal government has created a standard approach to managing disasters. According to FEMA, the National Incident Management System (NIMS): …guides all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector to work together to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to and recover from incidents. NIMS provides stakeholders across the whole community with the shared vocabulary, systems and processes to successfully deliver the capabilities described in the National Preparedness System. NIMS defines operational systems that guide how personnel work together during incidents… NIMS defines operational systems, including the Incident Command System (ICS), Emergency Operations Center (EOC) structures, and Multiagency Coordination Groups (MAC Groups) that guide how personnel work together during incidents. NIMS applies to all incidents, from traffic accidents to major disasters. The jurisdictions and organizations involved in managing incidents vary in their authorities, management structures, communication capabilities and protocols, and many other factors. NIMS provides a common framework to integrate these diverse capabilities and achieve common goals. The guidance contained in this document incorporates solutions developed over decades of experience by incident personnel across the Nation. The NIMS system has been proven highly effective for the management of disaster/emergency situations, and is utilized by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. Its widespread utilization allows for ready integration of multiple agencies towards common goals. Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) The County also follows California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) which integrates with NIMS. Within the NIMS system is the Incident Command System (ICS), which provides a structure for responding to specific incidents. According to NIMS: ICS consists of five major functional areas, staffed as needed. They are Command, Operations, Planning, Logistics, and Finance/Administration. The ICS organizational structure is modular, expanding to incorporate all elements necessary for the type, size, scope, and complexity of an incident. The ICS structure builds from the top down; responsibility and performance begin with incident command. If one individual can simultaneously manage all major functional areas, no further organization is needed. If one or more of the functions needs independent management, an individual is assigned responsibility for that function. The initial Incident Commander determines which Command or General Staff positions to staff in order to maintain a manageable span of control and ensure appropriate attention to the necessary incident management functions. Figure 2: US. Department of Health and Human Services Of particular note is the ICS’s directive for clear leadership, and a unified approach to disaster management. The ability to rapidly make and execute decisions in disaster situations is critical for an effective response. Another important element is ‘depth of bench’ or the concept that key positions are staffed by multiple persons who can take different shifts or substitute for each other. This is critical to avoid burnout, when many high-pressure and stressful disasters are ongoing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, sometimes for weeks or, as in the COVID pandemic, two years and counting. Sonoma County’s Use of the ICS The Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopted resolutions in support of the nationally recognized ICS system, which has been effective in managing the response to numerous disasters. The County Department of Emergency Management has developed expertise in managing disasters, particularly in the wake of the County’s ‘baptism by fire’ in the devastating infernos of 2017. The County has a comprehensive plan for dealing with a range of disasters, including earthquakes, floods, fires, terrorism, civil unrest, extreme heat, tsunamis, chemical, biological and radiological incidents, and pandemics. The County’s plan clearly states that NIMS, SEMS, and the ICS system will be utilized in declared disasters. Under the County’s plan, the BOS has ultimate authority, providing policy direction, while the County Administrator is designated as the lead administrative officer for disaster management. Typically, the County Administrator delegates this authority to the director of the EOC. In a disaster, the County activates the Emergency Operations Center which is one of the key components of the ICS system. The County may also activate one or more Department Operations Center (DOC) within departments actively engaged in the disaster response. Pursuant to the County’s emergency operation plan, all entities involved with the disaster response are to use the ICS system. Figure 3: Sonoma County ICS Chart Example Source: Sonoma County COVID-19 EOC Activation Assessment Report, July 2021 Disaster Service Workers A Disaster Service Worker (DSW) is any County or Agency employee who may be required to work for a declared disaster assignment. California Government Code 3100 provides that all public employees are DSWs and may be assigned disaster service activities. Some of the assigned activities included: answering telephones, ordering/delivering food or supplies, managing volunteers, developing information or communications, tracking information in the EOC, helping out in a warehouse, shelter or food bank, language interpretation, etc. Emergency Operations Center to Department Operations Center Emergency Operations Center Activated On January 31, 2020, to address the growing public health threat posed by COVID, the United States Health and Human Services Secretary declared a public health emergency for the United States. On March 3, 2020, following local cases of COVID, the Public Health Officer for the County of Sonoma declared a local public health emergency and the EOC was activated. A series of follow-up actions ensued as the virus spread in the community and the County responded, including the activation of the County’s DSWs. Emergency Operations Center De-activated – What Happened? Early on in the pandemic, the County Administrator’s Office (CAO) approved a restructuring of the EOC to have ‘dual directors’ with the EOC Director and the DHS Director as co-leaders. This arrangement, which interviewees indicated lasted for about two months, conflicted with the standard Incident Command System (ICS) management structure and led to problems in decision making and implementation. According to interviews conducted by the Grand Jury, this structure had not been used previously, and was not known to be utilized elsewhere in the state. Under the direction of the EOC, a July 2021 “Sonoma County Assessment Report” was prepared by Tetra Tech consultants to evaluate the emergency pandemic response between March 1, 2020 and May 15, 2020. The report looked at various aspects during that time: • The dual director approach “…seemed to be an apparent challenge with having two EOC Directors. Even though staff focused on the tasks at hand, EOC staff members expressed confusion, discord, and tension.” • Some EOC participants, particularly from DHS, were not fully trained on the ICS system and did not understand their roles. • It also mentioned “poor or below average” communication and coordination between EOC and DOC. • “…Health staff were unfamiliar with EOC functions and had a challenging time fitting in and understanding operations.” • Several survey responses expressed concern about the Health staff not following procurement procedures and unfamiliarity with EOC functionality. • Participants observed that following coordination meetings “DHS would completely change direction”. This proved to be disruptive to process and continuity. Others commented that instead of adhering to FEMA requirements, especially in finance and purchasing, DHS staff often “just did their own thing.” Further, based on interviews conducted by the Grand Jury, the DHS Director was often absent from the Emergency Operations Center, leading to communication issues, some apparent duplication of effort, and delays in decision-making during a declared disaster. It was reported that at times, the DHS Director would be represented by other DHS staff, but the staff present did not appear to have authority to make important EOC decisions. Part of the standard disaster response is an ‘after action’ report. In addition to the Tetra Tech report mentioned above, once the declared emergency is over, an After Action Report will be completed by the DHS. Department of Health Services: Department Operations Center On May 10, 2020, the COVID EOC was deactivated and the emergency response transitioned to the DHS Department Operations Center (DOC). According to a number of interviews conducted by this Grand Jury, DOC staff received the unusual direction from their management to not utilize the resources of the Department of Emergency Services. In addition, the DOC did not follow key elements of the ICS system, such as having sufficient depth of staffing to avoid staff overload and burnout, staff not having adequate authority within the DOC to make key decisions, not consistently utilizing standard ICS forms for documentation, or meeting standard Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contract provisions. Instead of the DOC having internal authority to make and implement decisions, interviewees confirmed that important decisions were made at the Department Director level, likely resulting in some delays in the response. Given the long duration of the COVID emergency, these deficiencies were particularly concerning. Without sufficient depth of staffing, various employees were compelled to work for extraordinarily long hours for extended periods of time; this included salaried personnel who worked without being paid overtime. Salaried workers are not normally entitled to overtime, however FEMA recognizes that disasters often require long hours by all workers, and will reimburse a substantial portion of overtime pay, including for salaried workers. Federal and State reimbursement can vary by declared disaster. Per testimony to the Grand Jury, under standard FEMA policies, and in Federally-declared disasters, FEMA reimburses up to 75% of local costs; the State then pays 18.75%, with the County responsible for the remaining 6.25%. The County paid overtime for all salaried disaster workers for approximately two months—far shorter than the duration of the COVID pandemic. While this saved the County money, what was the impact to County employees? Without the depth of staff, some worked long and stressful hours, six or seven days a week for months on end, affecting their personal lives and well-being. Once salaried worker overtime pay was terminated this resulted in a hardship for those employees who were still required to work the overtime. Notably, partway through the COVID emergency, President Biden approved 100% reimbursement of local costs for a limited time period, which was recently extended to July 2022. In spite of this assurance, the Board of Supervisors did not authorize additional overtime expenditures beyond the first two months of the emergency. As of the writing of this report, the County is considering a ‘cap’ on salaried worker disaster overtime pay. This could balance the need for appropriate compensation in emergency situations with fiscal concerns. Factors that should be considered with any salary cap include the duration of an emergency, coupled with sufficient staffing so that no one is forced to work extraordinarily long hours for an extended period of time. Organizational Culture, Communication and Morale The DHS stated principles call for an open, collaborative, and supportive work culture. The DHS Strategic Plan 2019-23 affirms that the “…plan is built on the values of equity, collaboration, and excellence which provide the foundation for how we do our work and achieve our goals.” In describing its values, the Strategic Plan states that “…we strive to create a culture of learning, innovation, and data-driven practices to guide our internal operations, improve performance, and build staff expertise.” It adds that “…we engage and work collaboratively with partners, community and staff to maximize our impact in Sonoma County.” • Goal 3 of the Strategic Plan specifies that “DHS is a highly achieving, high functioning organization.” To achieve this goal, its first objective is to “Build a highly competent and engaged workforce” through two main actions: “Promote staff well-being and engagement” and “Improve communication and collaboration.” Reinforcing the principles of the Strategic Plan, the DHS Director was quoted in The Press Democrat on March 25, 2022 as being committed to recognizing, valuing and using staff expertise throughout the organization at whatever level. The Director further added: “A top- down organization is so ineffective…The voices [sic] of everyone in our organization is so important. And there must be a focus and a communication to our staff — that every position is important…” Communication and Trust The reality, however, appears to be very different. From our interviews, a common theme emerged of a top-down leadership style characterized by what one interviewee termed a “my way or the highway” approach. Many interviewees said that top DHS leadership only wanted managers who agreed with them, and that there was a fear of retribution if they did not. As a result, there was a lack of transparency and trust. Interviewees used adjectives such as “toxic,” “hostile,” “chaotic,” “dysfunctional,” “desperate,” and “fearful” to characterize the resulting organizational climate. Furthermore, HR management systems, which should have ensured that staff were informed, supported, and felt valued, did not work effectively. Staff criticized poor supervision, irregular staff appraisals, lack of two-way communication, and an ineffective procedure for filing HR complaints. The decentralization of HR led to autonomy in the execution of HR functions within the DHS. Unfortunately, County HR lacks the authority and resources to audit and enforce HR practice in these separate HR units. With this decentralization, some essential HR processes in the DHS have been neglected over the years. This lack of attention has seriously eroded the morale and productive capacity of the DHS. Although many staff had grievances, there were no DHS HR mechanisms that they felt safe to use to make complaints. This appears to have exacerbated the on-going lack of trust. A countywide ombudsperson, independent of HR, would give employees more confidence to voice their concerns. Exit Interviews Tell a Story – Who Does Them, Where Are They Done? In addition to our interviews with current DHS staff, the Grand Jury reviewed exit interview questionnaires completed by employees who left the DHS starting in 2018. Exit interviews are often conducted when a staff member leaves County employment. They may consist of a formal conversation between the person leaving and a HR professional and/or the completion of a questionnaire. This process is designed to help the DHS and the County build a more productive workplace. An exit interview is not compulsory and not everybody leaving responds to the exit interview invitation. The Grand Jury analyzed 58 exit-interview questionnaires from staff who resigned from DHS in the 2018-2022 period. The questionnaires provide information on the reasons people left, and on the bleak picture they paint of the DHS organizational culture. The most cited reasons, in descending order were: 1. Dissatisfaction with DHS culture 2. Dissatisfaction with current position 3. Family / personal reasons 4. Other including retirement 5. Workload 6. Dissatisfaction with manager / supervisor 7. Lack of career path, seeking promotional opportunities 8. Salary and benefits Statements made by staff about why they were leaving included: • Toxic environment • Rigid top down management style • Lack of receptivity to suggestions and feedback • Humiliated, disrespected, undermined, and blamed • Negative feedback • Leadership not accessible, no regular meetings, no authority to make decisions • Unfair and unequal treatment, not recognized for the work performed, lack of cooperation and teamwork • Lack of communication regarding complaints and problems • Lack of encouragement toward career development These were not isolated comments. It is important to note that exit questionnaires and interviews also highlighted many positive attributes of working for the DHS. These included: the opportunity to serve the community; working for the mission of public health, and working with committed, talented colleagues. The employment package was also praised. People seemed to recognize that some of the non-salary benefits of working for Sonoma County were a positive aspect of their employment. Effects on Staff Retention and Recruitment The DHS has had an average staff vacancy rate of 15% over the 2019-2022 period. This is at the upper end of rates for other County departments, but not significantly so. In January 2022, the rate was 17%, the highest it has been for the past three years. Of concern, however, has been the turnover of staff in key management and leadership positions which doubled during 2018-2019 when compared with the previous three years. Some key posts have been hard to fill, such as the Director of Nursing position which has remained unfilled for nearly a year. Although there have been considerable external factors that have contributed to this, many interviewees thought that the Department’s work culture has also adversely affected recruitment. This is an important concern as the DHS needs to staff-up and scale-up for the continued presence of COVID and future public health emergencies. As we have highlighted, the 2016-2017 and the 2018-2019 Civil Grand Juries also raised concerns about similar staffing issues. In order to prepare for the future it is critical that these concerns be addressed without delay. Cultural and Racial Tensions Add to Dysfunction The COVID pandemic created additional stressors on the Department of Health Services. Political, cultural, and racial tensions may have exacerbated the situation and led to a degraded sense of trust. Emergencies engender their own sense of crisis, tension and danger which can cause some people to act in abnormal or inappropriate ways. In addition, they often force different groups of people and organizations to work together, which can create a clash of organizational cultures. Testimony to the Grand Jury indicated that there were also tensions within the Department between medical staff and administrative staff. In addition, at the higher levels of the County government, there were tensions created by the emergency situation, such as unilateral powers of the County’s Public Health Officer (PHO). In some circumstances, the PHO’s authority exceeded that of the department head, and even the Board of Supervisors. Racial tensions added to underlying emergency stressors. During the pandemic, in a Zoom meeting regarding homeless issues, there was a highly-publicized instance of ‘Zoom bombing’ where senior officials, including DHS/CDC leadership, were subjected to racist, violent and obscene online rhetoric and images. This was reported in a July 11, 2020 Press Democrat article titled: Racist Zoom bomb ends Sonoma County meeting on homeless solutions. While Zoom meetings across the nation were similarly disrupted, a County elected official’s comments were viewed as minimizing the incident. The Grand Jury also received testimony about the perceived lack of support by County leadership for persons of color in the meeting who were subjected to this assault. At several points in the pandemic, public statements made regarding the resignation of several senior County staff persons who were persons of color, and the rescission of acceptance of an appointment to a senior DHS position by a person of color, added to the perceptions of racial tensions. Testimony to the Grand Jury highlighted the tensions and distrust provoked by these incidents. The County has responded to concerns about its efforts to address these issues, including creating an Office of Equity in 2020, which is charged with working with County departments towards racial equity in the County workforce and programs. COMMENDATION Sonoma County, along with the rest of California, the United States, and the world, faced a pandemic without precedent in the last 100 years. Few governments or agencies were prepared for a health crisis of this magnitude. Public health departments across the country and in Sonoma County were not adequately funded, staffed or conceptually prepared. The legal authority possessed by California public health officers was unknown to most members of the public, and the community’s understanding of the measures necessary to combat a pandemic were at best poorly understood. That said, in many regards, our County rose to the challenge, with rapid allocation of extraordinary resources, enactment of legal measures to reduce spread of disease and expedite response, initiation of extraordinary medical efforts to understand and mitigate the effects of the disease, and the heroic contributions by countless dedicated public and private workers and managers. We want to commend all members of the County, with special thanks to the Department of Health Services, Disaster Service Workers, and Emergency Operations Center for their commitment to the community. FINDINGS The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:

Related Recommendations (2)

R13: By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator’s Office work with the Department of Health Services executive leadership team in developing an actionable plan to address work culture issues, including retaliation, harassment and bullying. (F9, F13, F14, F15, F18, F19, F20, F21)

F10: Salaried disaster service workers worked for months on end, often seven days a week, without adequate compensation.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: By March 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors, County Administrator’s Office, and the Department of Health Services review the Department of Health Services’ budget to ensure funding for sufficient staffing. (F10, F19)

F11: The Brown Act requirements make it difficult for the Board of Supervisors to directly supervise County departments.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Office and County Counsel to initiate a discussion to determine if the Board of Supervisors can effectively supervise County departments within the confines of the Brown Act. (F11, F12)

F12: The Board of Supervisors has the ability to change the supervisory structure of all departments within the County; modifying this structure could improve oversight.

Related Recommendations (1)

F13: Many Department of Health Services employees are fearful to report harassment, bullying, toxic work environment, and safety issues to their executive team due to a fear of retaliation.

Related Recommendations (4)

R8: By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors consult with the County Human Resources Department to consider establishing an Ombudsperson for County employees to provide a neutral means to voice issues of concern. (F9, F13, F14, F15,

R11: By January 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Office to require annual employee training and verification tracking regarding bullying, harassment, and threat assessment. (F13, F14, F18, F20)

R15: By March 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Office and the County Human Resources Department to review the effectiveness of having departmental human resources units versus one centralized human resources department. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

F14: Many employees in the Department of Health Services do not trust their departmental Human Resources team or its processes.

Related Recommendations (4)

F15: A review of Department of Health Services exit interviews shows a distrust of upper management.

Related Recommendations (2)

F16: Exit interviews can be done by either the County Human Resources Department or by individual departments, potentially leading to a lack of effectiveness and accountability at the department level.

Related Recommendations (3)

R9: Effective December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Office and the County Human Resources Department to require all exit interviews be conducted by the County Human Resources Department. (F13, F14, F15,

R10: Effective October 1, 2022, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Office and the County Human Resources Department to require exit interviews be conducted for Department and Division level management, with a summary provided to the County Administrator’s Office and Board of Supervisors. (F13, F14, F15, F16,

F17: The practices of human resource management in the Department of Health Services is not regularly or consistently reviewed by the County Human Resources Department.

Related Recommendations (2)

R16: By March 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Office and the County Human Resources Department to develop a plan for the Board’s review and consideration whereby the County Human Resources Department has oversight authority over all satellite human resource divisions. (F9, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17,

F18: In the Department of Health Services, essential human resource processes such as performance appraisals, supervision, conflict resolution, etc. are performed irregularly, inconsistently, and are not in alignment with County standards.

Related Recommendations (4)

R12: By March 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors direct the County’s Human Resource Department to require that countywide regular performance evaluations are completed in accordance with County policy. (F18)

F19: In the Department of Health Services there are numerous unfilled positions due to slow recruitment efforts and other deficiencies.

Related Recommendations (4)

F20: The Department of Health Services’ perceived hostile work environment may be causing extra challenges in the recruitment of senior Department of Health Services staff.

Related Recommendations (2)

F21: The Department of Health Services has failed to execute on their commitment to a communication plan between the executive team and their employees.

Related Recommendations (2)

R14: By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Office to work with the Department of Health Services’ executive leadership team to develop a clearly defined and actionable plan for internal communication that includes greater transparency and staff participation throughout the department. (F15, F18, F19,

F22: The Department of Health Services’ employee internal intranet site does not include a policy and procedures section for the Public Health Division.

* 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.