2021/08/10 City Council Agenda Packet"We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to
Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow."
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL, ROHNERT PARK FINANCING AUTHORITY (RPFA),
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JOINT REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, August 10, 2021
Open Session: 5:00 PM
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The Rohnert Park City Council welcomes your attendance, interest and
participation at its regular meetings scheduled on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 5:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers with modified protocols. In alignment with the County of Sonoma
Health Officer’s August 2, 2021 order to require facial coverings in all indoor public spaces,
everyone must wear a mask or facial covering when attending the council meeting, regardless of
vaccination status.
To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the
public are encouraged to observe the meeting on Cable Channel 26 or by visiting meeting central on our
website https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/city_council/meeting_central
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Provides an opportunity for public comment on items not listed on the agenda,
or on agenda items if unable to comment at the scheduled time (limited to three minutes per appearance
with a maximum allowance of 30 minutes allotted per comment period, with time limits subject to
modification by the City Council in accordance with the adopted City Council Protocols). Please fill out
a speaker card prior to speaking.
Members of the public may also provide advanced comments by email at publiccomment@rpcity.org
Comments are requested by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting, but can be emailed until the close of
the Agenda Item for which the comment is submitted. Email comments must identify the Agenda Item
Number in the subject line of the email and should be a maximum of 350 words, which corresponds to
approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. The emails will be not be read for the record but will be
provided to Council. Please note that all e-mails sent to the City Council are considered to be public
records and subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
City Council/RPFA agendas and minutes may be viewed at the City's website: www.rpcity.org.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Council/RPFA may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on
this agenda. If you challenge decisions of the City Council or the Rohnert Park Financing Authority of
the City of Rohnert Park in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
of Rohnert Park at, or prior to the public hearing(s).
1.CITY COUNCIL/RPFA/SUCCESSOR AGENCY JOINT REGULAR MEETING - CALL
TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
(Adams_____Linares_____Stafford_____Elward_____Giudice_____)
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.PRESENTATIONS
3.A
Mayor's Recognition: Iglesia Cristiana SE Church - Backpack Giveaway Event on July
24, 2021
Item 3.A.
4.DEPARTMENT HEAD BRIEFINGS
4.A Introduction of Emily Quig, Homeless Services Coordinator
5.PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item or on City business not
listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those
wishing to address the Council should refer to Page 1 for information on how to submit public
comments.
5.A Item 5 Supplemental
Item 5 Supplemental
6.CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar will be considered together by one or more action(s) of the City
RIGHT TO APPEAL: Judicial review of any city administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be had only if a petition is filed with the court no later than the deadlines
specified in Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits the time
within which the decision may be challenged to the 90th day following the date that the decision
becomes final.
SIMULTANEOUS MEETING COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE (Government Code Section
54952.3): Members of the City Council receive no additional compensation as a result of convening this
joint meeting of the City Council and the Rohnert Park Financing Authority.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES: On January 26, 2021, the Rohnert Park City Council
adopted ten strategic priorities for 2021 (listed below in no particular order):
a.Navigating through COVID-19 f.Labor negotiations
b.Climate change g.General Plan update
c.Police/community relations and accountability h.Infrastructure, maintenance and beautification
d.Services for unhoused people i.Make progress on the downtown
e.Financial health j.Attract housing at all levels
Council and/or the Rohnert Park Financing Authority and Successor Agency to the Community
Development Commission, whichever is applicable, unless any Council Member or anyone else
interested in a consent calendar item has a question about the item.
Council Motion/Vote:
6.A Acceptance of Reports from Finance Department:
City Bills/Demands for Payment dated July 20 through August 3, 2021
6.B Approval of Minutes for:
City Council/RPFA/Successor Agency Joint Regular Meeting, July 27, 2021
6.C Acceptance of Code Compliance Second Quarter 2021 Report (April, May and June
2021)
Item 6.C.
6.D Authorize the City Manager and the Mayor to Execute and Deliver the City’s Responses
to the Grand Jury Report entitled “Rohnert Park District Elections”
Item 6.D.
6.E Authorize the Mayor to Execute and Deliver the City’s Response to the Grand Jury Report
Titled “Emergency Alerts and Communications: Toward a Culture of Preparedness.”
Item 6.E.
6.F Authorize the City Manager to Execute Agreements with (1) Shared Housing and
Resource Exchange California (“SHARE”) to Provide Permanent Housing Services in an
Amount Not to Exceed $150,000, and (2) Unsheltered Friends Outreach (“UFO”) to
provide Direct Support Services to Unsheltered Persons in an Amount Not to Exceed
$36,000
Item 6.F.
6.G Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Master Maintenance Agreement for the
Edgeway Development Project
Item 6.G.
6.H Authorize Staff to Send a Letter to County of Sonoma Providing City’s Position on
Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO) Program
Item 6.H.
6.I Adopt Resolution 2021-091 Authorizing and Approving an Agreement for Collection of
Special Taxes, Fees, and Assessments with the County of Sonoma
Item 6.I.
6.J Adopt Resolution 2021-092 Approving and Establishing a Citywide Governance Policy
for Elected Officials
Item 6.J.
7.REGULAR ITEMS
7.A Discussion and Direction Regarding the 4Cs Gold Ridge Preschool Long Term Lease on
City Property for State Subsidized Preschool/Child Care at Gold Ridge or Burton
Recreation Center
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comment
C. Council Discussion/Direction
Item 7.A.
Item 7.A. PowerPoint Presentation
7.B Discussion and Direction Regarding Recommendations for Increased Law Enforcement
Accountability and Improved Police/Community Relations
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comments
C. Council Discussion/Direction
Item 7.B.
Item 7.B. PowerPoint Presentation
Item 7.B. Supplemental
8.COMMITTEE / LIAISON / OTHER REPORTS
This time is set aside to allow Council members serving on Council committees or on regional
boards, commissions or committees to present a verbal report on the activities of the respective
boards, commissions or committees on which they serve. No action may be taken.
8.A Standing Committee Reports:
8.B Liaison Reports:
1.Golf Course Oversight Committee (8/3)
8.C Outside Agency Appointment Reports:
1.Water Advisory Committee (WAC) to Sonoma Water (8/2)
2.Sonoma Clean Power Authority (SCP) (8/5)
3.Health Action Council (8/6)
8.D Other Reports:
1.Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) (8/4)
9. COMMUNICATIONS
Copies of communications have been provided to Council for review prior to this meeting. Council
Members desiring to read or discuss any communication may do so at this time. No action may be
taken except to place a particular item on a future agenda for Council consideration.
10. MATTERS FROM/FOR COUNCIL
Any member of the City Council may place an Item on “Matters from/for Council” before the City
Council meeting by providing the City Manager with the title of the item before the agenda is
published. The purpose of the City Council discussion on such item will be to determine whether it
will be placed on a subsequent agenda for deliberation and action. A concurrence of two
Councilmembers will be sufficient to add the item on a subsequent agenda. In accordance with the
Brown Act, at the City Council meeting, Councilmembers may not add items hereunder, except for
brief reports on his or her own activities or brief announcements regarding an event of community
interest.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item or on City business not
listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those
wishing to address the Council should refer to Page 1 for information on how to submit public
comments.
12. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Time shown for any particular matter on the agenda is an estimate only. Matters may be
considered earlier or later than the time indicated depending on the pace at which the meeting proceeds.
If you wish to speak on an item under discussion by the Council which appears on this agenda, please
refer to page 1 for more details on submitting a public comment. Any item raised by a member of the
public which is not on the agenda and may require Council action shall be automatically referred to
staff for investigation and disposition which may include placing on a future agenda. If the item is
deemed to be an emergency or the need to take action arose after posting of the agenda within the
meaning of Government Code Section 54954.2(b), Council is entitled to discuss the matter to determine
if it is an emergency item under said Government Code and may take action thereon.
AGENDA REPORTS & DOCUMENTS: Electronic copies of all staff reports and documents subject to
disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public
inspection on https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/city_council/meeting_central. Any writings or
documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the City
Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed will also be made
available for inspection on our website following the meeting.
DISAB LED ACCOMMODATION: Any member of the public who needs accommodations should
email the ADA Coordinator at vperrault@rpcity.org or by calling 707-588-2221. The ADA
Coordinator will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much
accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for
resolving reasonable accommodation requests. Information about reasonable accommodations is
available on the City website at
https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/departments/human_resources/a_d_a_and_accessibility_resources
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Elizabeth Machado, Acting City Clerk, for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that the foregoing
agenda was posted and available for review on August 5, 2021, at Rohnert Park City Hall, 130 Avram
Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. The agenda is also available on the City web site at
www.rpcity.org.
Executed this 5th day of August, 2021 at Rohnert Park, California.
Elizabeth Machado
Office of the City Clerk
Honoring
I GLESIA C RISTIANA SE C HURCH
As Mayor, and on behalf of the Rohnert Park City Council, I hereby recognize Iglesia Cristiana SE Church for their strong
support and commitment to our community. We are truly grateful for their partnership, ongoing dedication and generosity to the
residents of Rohnert Park.
On July 24, 2021, families with school-age children, arrived at the Rohnert Park Community Center to receive backpacks full of
school supplies for their children. More than 100 volunteers worked to make this event a success by spending numerous hours
helping to assemble and distribute a total of 450 backpacks.
The entire event, which is held annually, was free to the community and was attended by over 1600 people. It was a day where
children and parents came together to have a day filled with fun. They had an opportunity to relax, play games, and win items
without having to worry about any expense. The day included all day raffles, food and 75 boxes of groceries for families.
It is our great honor and privilege to recognize Iglesia Cristiana SE Church and sincerely thank them for their commitment to
connecting the residents of Rohnert Park together through their service to our community.
Signed this 10th day of August, 2021
By: _________________________________________
Gerard Giudice, Mayor
Item 3.A.
From:Jc Pascual
To:Public Comment
Subject:Current status
Date:Thursday, July 29, 2021 11:12:12 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Good evening,
My name is JC Gerard Pascual. I am a student at De Anza College in Cupertino California. I
wanted to discuss the current mental health crisis regarding illness and disorders and its clear
importance since the pandemic. College students are facing barriers in their education because
of everything currently being online and that has affected their mental health immensely. I
want to know the current agenda in aiding these college students affected by the pandemic and
what you have done so far to support and aid them? I also want to know what current projects
are in place in aiding the homeless population as well as the low-income neighborhoods that
cannot sustain themselves financially since the pandemic. Thank you for taking the time in
reading my deep concerns about these issues.
Best,
Jc Gerard Pascual
Behavior Technician
https://autismlearningpartners.com/careers/
Item 5 Supplemental
Item 6.A.
ITEM NO. 6.B.
MINUTES OF THE JOINT REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
City Council
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission
Tuesday, July 27, 2021
1. CITY COUNCIL/RPFA/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CDC JOINT REGULAR
MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mayor Giudice called the joint regular meeting to order at 5:03 p.m., the notice for which
being legally noticed on July 22, 2021.
Present: Gerard Giudice, Mayor
Jackie Elward, Vice Mayor
Susan H. Adams, Councilmember
Willy Linares, Councilmember
Pam Stafford, Councilmember
Absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager Jenkins, City Attorney Kenyon, Assistant City Manager Schwartz,
Information Systems Operations Manager Rowley, Development Services Director Pawson,
Finance Director Bali, Director of Public Safety Mattos, Human Resources Director Perrault,
Director of Public Works Garrett, Senior Analyst L. Tacata, Accounting Supervisor Hawkins,
Accounting Technician II Prouty, Senior Code Compliance Officer Kirk, and Acting City
Clerk Machado.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Mayor Giudice.
3. PRESENTATIONS
Presentation by Director of Public Safety Mattos: Swearing In and Introduction of
Sergeant Jon Kempf, Public Safety Officer Daniel Espinoza, Public Safety Officer Gary
Ubaldi, Public Safety Officer Lupita Figueroa and Public Safety Officer Ryan Wiegman
Director of Public Safety swore in and introduced Sergeant Jon Kempf, Public Safety Officer
Daniel Espinoza, Public Safety Officer Gary Ubaldi, Public Safety Officer Lupita Figueroa.
Public Safety Officer Ryan Wiegman was not present.
4. DEPARTMENT HEAD BRIEFING
Presentation by Director of Development Services Pawson and Director of Public
Works Garrett: Water Conservation
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes for City Council July 27, 2021
RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 2 of 5
Director of Public Works Garrett presented this item and spoke about regional and local
water conservation efforts and the City’s conservation programs.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6.A Acceptance of Reports from Finance Department:
6.A.1. City Bills/Demands for Payment dated July 7 through July 19, 2021
6.A.2. RPFA - Cash Report for Month Ending June 30, 2021
6.A.3. Housing Successor Agency - Cash Report for Month Ending June 30, 2021
6.A.4. Successor Agency - Cash Report for Month ending June 30, 2021
6.A.5. City Cash Report for Month ending June 30, 2021
6.A.6 City Council Quarterly Expense Report (April, May, and June 2021)
6.B Approval of Minutes for:
City Council/RPFA/Successor Agency Joint Regular Meeting, July 13, 2021
6.C Adopt Resolution 2021-089 Authorizing and Approving the City of Rohnert Park
Current Pay Rates and Ranges Revised July 13, 2021
6.D Confirm the Appointment of Human Resources Director Perrault as the City of
Rohnert Park Representative on the California Intergovernmental Risk Authority
(CIRA) Board of Directors and Finance Director Bali as Alternate
6.E Update on Performing Arts Center Facility Use and Production Fees
6.F Receive Series 2007R Excess Bond Proceeds Expenditure Report
ACTION: Moved/seconded (Stafford/Elward) to approve the consent calendar.
Motion carried by the following 5-0-0 vote: AYES: Adams, Linares,
Stafford, Elward and Giudice NOES: None, ABSTAINS: None,
ABSENT: None.
7. REGULAR ITEMS
A. Discussion and Direction Regarding the Analysis of Community Services
Recreation Program Cost Recovery Policy Implementation and Potential Edits to the
Policy
City Manager Jenkins presented this item. Recommended Action(s): Receive a report
analyzing the cost recovery of Community Services programs completed in Fiscal Year
2020/21 in compliance with the Community Services Program Cost Recovery Policy.
Provide staff with direction regarding potential changes to the policy.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
ACTION: By consensus (none opposed), Council directed staff to move forward
with staff’s recommended options for cost recovery levels and
program fess and cost recovery policy edit.
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes for City Council July 27, 2021
RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 3 of 5
B. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Postponement of Scheduled
Sewer Rate and Sewer Capital Preservation Increase to January 2022
Finance Director Bali presented this item. Recommended Action(s): Adopt a resolution
approving the postponement of scheduled Sewer Rate and Sewer Capital Preservation
increase to January 2022.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
ACTION: Moved/seconded (Stafford/Linares) to adopt Resolution 2021-0090
Motion carried by the following 5-0-0 vote: AYES: Adams, Linares,
Stafford, Elward and Giudice NOES: None, ABSTAINS: None,
ABSENT: None.
C. Discussion and Direction Regarding City-wide Governance Policy or Protocol
Amendment
City Manager Jenkins presented this item. Recommended Action(s): Staff recommends the
Council review the attached materials and determine: 1. Whether to adopt guidance or rules
regarding city-wide governance, 2. The content of said guidance or rules.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steve Keith spoke about this item.
ACTION: By consensus (none opposed), Council directed staff to present a
policy or protocol amendment regarding City-wide Governance for
adoption at a future meeting.
ACTION: By consensus (none opposed), Council directed staff to include in the
policy that City Commission, Committee, and Board members will
continue to be appointed at-large, councilmembers may help any
resident regardless of which district the resident resides in, information
will continue to be presented citywide and not separated by district, the
Mayor will remain the ceremonial spokesperson for the City, and
resources will be allocated based on long-term strategic planning
efforts with citywide condersiderations.
ACTION: By consensus (Adams opposed), Council directed staff to require an
acknowledgement of the policy by new councilmembers.
Councilmember Adams left the dais at 5:56 p.m.
Mayor Giudice declared a recess at 6:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 6:16 p.m.
Councilmember Adams returned to the dais at 6:16 p.m.
D. COVID-19 Update and Discussion and Direction Regarding City Council
Meetings Being Held In Person or Virtually
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes for City Council July 27, 2021
RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 4 of 5
City Manager Jenkins presented this item and stated the State’s positivity rate is 5.2%, the
Delta variant accounts for 83% of the cases, and if the tier system were still in place, twelve
counties would be in the purple tier, including Sonoma County. City Manager Jenkins also
stated that facial coverings are required in city facilities in accordance with the Sonoma
County Health Officer’s recommendation to wear facial coverings in indoor public settings.
Recommended Action(s): Provide staff with direction regarding whether City Council
Meetings be held in person or virtually.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steve Keith spoke about this item.
ACTION: By consensus (none opposed), Council directed staff to hold City
Council Meetings in person and authorized the City Manager to
change the meetings to be held virtually if necessary for the safety of
the Council, staff, and public.
8. COMMITTEE / LIAISON/ OTHER REPORTS
A. Standing Committees:
None.
B. Liaison Reports:
1. Senior Citizens Advisory Commission (7/15)
Vice Mayor Elward reported on the meeting.
2. Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors (7/20)
Councilmember Linares reported that this meeting was cancelled.
C. Outside Agency Appointments:
1. Mayors and Council Members’ Association of Sonoma County Legislative Committee
(7/16)
Vice Mayor Elward reported on the meeting.
D. Other Reports:
None.
10. COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Giudice stated Zero Waste will be showing movie at SOMO Village and invited
everyone to attend.
11. MATTERS FROM/FOR COUNCIL
None.
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Giudice adjourned the joint regular meeting at 6:40 p.m.
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes for City Council July 27, 2021
RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 5 of 5
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Elizabeth Machado, Acting City Clerk Gerard Giudice, Mayor
City of Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park
ITEM NO. 6.C.
1
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Development Services Director
Prepared By: Louis Kirk, Senior Code Compliance Officer
Agenda Title : Code Compliance Division
Quarterly Report – Second Quarter, 2021
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file the code compliance report for the second
quarter of 2021.
BACKGROUND: Consistent with Council direction, staff provides quarterly and summary
annual updates on its code compliance activities. This report provides an update on the activities
of the Code Compliance division during the second quarter of 2021.
ANALYSIS:
Impacts from the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cases and calls related to the COVID-19 pandemic
continue the pattern of decline first observed in the prior quarter. The overall progression of
COVID-related enforcement cases over the course of the pandemic can been seen in the
following chart:
With t he easing of State and County health protocols, staff is returning to normal operations. We
continue to support businesses in their recovery efforts, while also overseeing their return to a
pre-pandemic state of code compliance in as reasonable an amount of time as possible.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6.C.
2
Currently, all COVID-related cases have been closed. Staff is monitoring State and County
guidance and orders with respect to COVID-19 and has recently distributed the new indoor
masking requirements to our business mailing list.
Code Compliance Activity - Second Quarter 2021: For the period commencing April 1, 2021
and ending June 30, 2021, Code Compliance activity can be summarized in the following Table:
2021 Q2 Summary
2021 Q2 Existing New Closed Remaining Open
Cases: 265 190 175 280
During the second quarter of 2021, Code Compliance staff added 190 new cases to the 265 cases
carried over from the first quarter, and closed 175 cases during the same period. We started the
thir d quarter of 2021 with a carryover of 280 active cases.
Compared to the first quarter of this year, and with the exception of COVID related cases,
second quarter cases reflect pronounced growth across all case categories. An upturn in cases
was forecast as a likely consequence of reduced COVID restrictions, and is expected to continue
for some time before returning to a more stable model. This increased case activity is easily seen
in the following chart, which provides a year-to-date breakdown of monthly cases – including
COVID-related enforcement efforts – for both 2020 and 2021:
ITEM NO. 6.C.
3
Although virtually all case types increased during the previous quarter, an examination by
category shows that cases pertaining to Property Maintenance and Public Nuisances rose
substantially as compared to other cases. This growth is also apparent when comparing second
quarter cases to the same quarter from the prior year; the only exception being Signage cases
(enforcement of which was suspended during the pandemic, and which has only recently
resumed). These comparisons are reflected in the two tables below:
Comparison – Previous Quarter, Same Year
Category 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 Δ
Construction 8 15 7
Property Maintenance 37 64 27
Public Nuisance 20 76 56
Shopping Carts 0 4 4
Signage 0 0 -
Zoning 7 23 16
Other 2 3 1
Other – COVID Related 31 5 26
Totals 105 190 85
Comparison – Same Quarter, Prior Year
Category 2020 Q2 2021 Q2 Δ
Construction 14 15 1
Property Maintenance 38 64 26
Public Nuisance 23 76 53
Shopping Carts 1 4 3
Signage 1 0 1
Zoning 6 23 17
Other 1 3 2
Other – COVID Related 0 5 5
Totals 84 190 106
ITEM NO. 6.C.
4
The composition and proportional relationships of recent case types in terms of “new,” “closed,”
and “carryover” cases can be seen in the following charts:
OTHER UPDATES
Homeless Issues: On a six-month trial basis, Code Compliance has assumed responsibility for
answering complaints and verifying the existence of homeless encampments located on public
property, which includes facilitating site assessments and starting the site clean-up process for
sites posing health and safety hazards.
The assessment and clean-up process involves coordination between multiple departments –
Public Safety, Public Works and Development Services – and also involves the use of a private
contractor that specializes in the handling and removal of trash, debris, and biohazardous
ITEM NO. 6.C.
5
materials. The Catholic Charities homeless outreach services team, “HOST,” is notified prior to
all encampment clean-ups and prioritizes those sites for outreach, offering services to individuals
found living there.
Through the City’s Homeless Taskforce, staff are continually working to improve and build
efficiencies into this process, with the objective of being able to move quickly and decisively to
correct public property nuisance conditions before they take hold and begin to expand.
On the private property front, Code Compliance continues to pursue efforts with owners who are
contending with nuisance conditions created by homeless activities upon their properties,
assisting them with understanding their respo nsibilities and ensuring that nuisances are mitigated
as rapidly as possible.
Shopping Cart Ordinance: After the temporary suspension of the program during the
pandemic, staff has fully resumed efforts with the business community to complete and
implement their Shopping Cart Retention and Retrieval Plans.
Currently, fifteen businesses have completed the application process, and are in various stages of
plan implementation. Five businesses – 99 Cents Only Store, Burlington Coat Factory, Ross
Dress for Less, Walmart and Walmart Neighborhood Market – are not compliant with the
ordinance, and will be subject to increasing enforcement action in the third quarter.
Though still a presence throughout much of the community, the incidence of abandoned
shopping carts within the City has started to noticeably decline as more and more businesses
implement their programs. Staff expects t his trend to continue as individual businesses improve
in the management of their respective retention and retrieval plans.
Sign Enforcement: During the pandemic, staff relaxed enforcement of Sign Code provisions in
order to offer some relief to the business community and assist the public in knowing which
businesses were actually open during the uncertainty of the lockdown restrictions. Staff is now
working with the business community – and others who utilize signage – to ensure that their
signage once again conforms to established requirements.
In accordance with City Council direction, staff will continue to waive fees for temporary sign
permits throughout the current fiscal year – as well as offer temporary permits for portable
signage, subject to specific design and location requirements – in order to ease business’
transition back into a state of full compliance.
Administrative Citation Program: Code Compliance typically avoids using administrative
citations until all other options have failed to bring about correction. During the second quarter
of 2021, Code Compliance issued just two administrative citations; both were for property
maintenance violations involving nuisance vehicles. Given the number of current cases from the
first and second quarters which remain active despite multiple notices of violation being given,
staff anticipates that administrative citation issuance will increase in the third and fourth quarters
of 2021.
CODE COMPLIANCE FORECAST
Ordinance updates: Staff continues our efforts to prepare needed code updates, and in
identifying issues and anticipating resources needed to undertake future preservation and
improvement efforts. Staff’s current focus is on the City’s Sign Code, a major effort which we
intend to bring before the City Council later this year. Other ordinances identified for needed
ITEM NO. 6.C.
6
updates in the near term include Stopping, Standing and Parking; Abandoned Vehicles/
Abatement Procedures; Noise; and Animal Regulation and Protection.
Looking forward: The fieldwork portion of our long-term survey project – intended to evaluate
how non-regulated/under-regulated violations proliferate within aging residential communities –
is now complete. The goals of this effort are to gain additional insight s into ways in which
seemingly minor violations can propagate over time, and to inform the needs of the City in terms
of establishing directed-enforcement focus areas, where efforts can be applied to slow and
eventually reverse observable trends in neighborhood decline. Staff is now analyzing this
information in order to support the basis of a presentation before the City Council later this year.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Two of the goals of the City’s Strategic Plan are to
“Ensure the effective delivery of public services,” and to “Continue to develop a vibrant
community.” Included in the strategies of these two goals are the aims to promote the deliver y of
high-quality, cost effective services; promote neighborhood improvement ; and provide for
programs that support the community. In support of these goals, staff submits this report in the
furtherance of our productive and continuing dialogue between staff and the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: There is no direct fiscal impact on the City’s
General Fund.
Department Head Approval Date: 08/02/2021
Finance Director Approval Date: N/A
City Attorney Approval Date: N/A
City Manager Approval Date: 08/05/2021
ITEM NO. ____6.D.______
1
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
Prepared By: Elizabeth Machado, Acting City Clerk
Agenda Title: Authorize the City Manager and the Mayor to Execute and Deliver the
City’s Responses to the Grand Jury Report entitled “Rohnert Park District
Elections”
RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Minute Order, move to authorize the City Manager and the
Mayor to execute and deliver the City’s responses to the Grand Jury Report entitled “Rohnert
Park Election Districts”
BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS: On June 16, 2021, the Sonoma County Grand Jury
delivered its report “Rohnert Park Election Districts” to the City Manager. Separately, on June
16, 2021, the Sonoma County Grand Jury also delivered its reports entitled “Emergency Alerts
and Communications” and “Rohnert Park District Elections” t o Mayor Gerard Giudice.
The City Manager and Mayor Giudice are required to respond to the Grand Jury’s findings and
recommendations contained within the Grand Jury Reports within 60 days and 90 days,
respectively.
The Grand Jury Report entitled “Rohnert Park District Elections” contains seven findings (“F”)
and three recommendations (“R”), which are as follows:
F1: The Rohnert Park City Council acted in compliance with California law in transitioning
to district-based Council elections.
F2: There is no credible evidence of violations of the Brown Act with regard to non-public
communication of the City Council. The Brown Act permits closed-session meetings to
discuss litigation.
F3: The election sequence adopted by the City Council complies with California and federal
election law.
F4: The submission of Map 112 and the City Council’s evaluation of it complied with the
California Elections Code.
F5: The City of Rohnert Park does not monitor or track the ethics training required by
California Assembly Bill 1234 of all local agency officials in office on or after January 1,
2007.
F6: The City Council provided legally sufficient opportunity for the public to submit
proposed district maps and to comment on submitted maps.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. ____6.D.______
2
F7: Subsequent to the first sequencing election in 2020, but prior to the second sequencing
election in 2022, in which the transition from At -Large to District-Based elections as
adopted in Ordinance 944 is fully adopted, the City of Rohnert Park will have the results
of the 2020 decennial Census and will need to evaluate whether Map 112 still provides
representation for demographic groups of interest.
R1: The City of Rohnert Park establish a pro cedure to monitor and track ethics training for
publicly elected officials as required by California Assembly Bill No. 1234. This should
occur by December 31, 2021. (F5)
R2: The City of Rohnert Park notify elected officials of ethics training bi-annual deadlines by
December 31, 2021. (F5)
R3: The City Council members proactively plan in advance and allocate time in Council
Meeting agendas to give the public opportunity for robust and ongoing discussion of any
changes to the City’s demographics that need to be addressed when the new Census data
is released on September 30, 2021. This should occur by December 31, 2021. (F7)
The City agrees with all of the Grand Jury’s findings except F5. In direct response to Grand Jury
Finding F5, the City’s response provides that the City disagrees wholly with Finding F5 and
provides details on how the City monitors and tracks the ethics training required by California
Assembly Bill 1234. The City Clerk’s Office uses a compliance log to monitor and track ethics
training. The compliance log tracks the assuming office date, leaving office date, date of current
training certificate, and calculates the date of when the next training is due for the City’s elected
officials and for those who are designated positions in the City’s conflict of interest code.
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury has required responses from the City
Manager on R1 and R2 and a response from Mayor Giudice and the City Council on
Recommendation R3.
Recommendations 1 and 2
R1 and R2 are related to Finding F5, “The City of Rohnert Park does not monitor or track the
ethics training required by California Assembly Bill 1234 of all local agency officials in office
on or after January 1, 2007.” As stated above, the City disagrees wholly with Finding F5. In
response to Grand Jury Recommendation R1 and R2, Recommendations R1 and R2 have been
implemented by the City and its response provides details on the procedure to monitor and track
ethics training for publicly elected officials as required by California Assembly Bill No. 1234,
which includes notifying elected officials of ethics training bi-annual deadlines.
Recommendation 3
In response to Grand Jury Recommendation R3, the City Council has begun the process to
implement this recommendation.
At their regular meeting on April 13, 2021, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park
provided staff with direction to hire a demographer and outreach consultant for services related
to redistricting. Once the Census data is released on or about September 30, 2021, the City will
begin the process of planning meetings and will allocate time in Council meeting agendas to give
the public opportunity for robust and ongoing discussion of any changes to the City’s
demographics, in compliance with the Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and
Political Subdivisions (Fair Maps) Act.
ITEM NO. ____6.D.______
3
The demographer will assist the Council in reviewing and identifying any changes to the City’s
demographics. The outreach consultant will assist the City in proactively engaging the public in
the redistricting process to ensure robust and ongoing discussion of any changes to the City’s
demographics prior to December 31, 2021 as part of the redistricting process, which must be
completed by April 17, 2022.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: None. The Law requires the recommended action.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED: No other options were considered, as this action is required by law.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: None.
Department Head Approval Date: N/A
Finance Director Approval Date: N/A
City Attorney Approval Date: 7/28/2021
City Manager Approval Date: 7/29/2021
Attachments:
1. City Response s to Grand Jury Reports
2. Grand Jury Report “Rohnert Park Election Districts”
Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Report Title: Rohnert Park District Elections______________________________
Report Date: June 20, 2021 __________________________________________________
Response by: Darrin Jenkins______________Title: City Manager _____________________
Agency/Department Name: City of Rohnert Park _________________________ ________
FINDINGS: F5
I (we) agree with the findings numbered ______F1, F2, F3, F4, F6, and F7 ______________
I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: __F5 __________________
_________________________________________________________________________
(Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an
explanation of the reasons.)
RECOMMENDATIONS: R1, R2
Recommendations numbered: ______R1, R2__________________________ have been
implemented.
(Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.)
Recommendations numbered: ________________________________ have not yet been
implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
(Attach a timeframe for the implementation.)
Recommendations numbered: ________________________________ require(s) further
analysis.
(Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe
for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency
when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the
Grand Jury report.)
Recommendations numbered: _______________________________ will not be implemented
because they are not warranted or are not reasonable.
(Attach an explanation.)
Date: _______________________________Signed: _______________________________
Number of pages attached: ___________________
Response to Grand Jury Report on Rohnert Park Election Districts
City of Rohnert Park Clarifications and Responses
FINDINGS
Finding F5: The City of Rohnert Park does not monitor or track the ethics training required by
California Assembly Bill 1234 of all local agency officials in office on or after January 1, 2007.
Response: Rohnert Park disagrees wholly with this finding.
The City of Rohnert Park created an AB 1234 Compliance Log in 2011 to monitor and track the
ethics training required by California Assembly Bill 1234 of all local agency officials in office on
or after January 1, 2007. This compliance log is used to track ethics training for all City of
Rohnert Park publically elected officials and positions designated in the City of Rohnert Park’s
conflict of interest code. Information tracked in the log includes the assumed office date,
leaving office date, date of the current certificate, and due date for the next training.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation R1: The City of Rohnert Park establish a procedure to monitor and track
ethics training for publicly elected officials as required by California Assembly Bill No. 1234.
This should occur by December 31, 2021. (F5)
Response: The City of Rohnert Park has established a procedure to monitor and track ethics
training. The City Clerk’s Office contacts the City Attorney’s Office in March in even numbered
years to make training arrangements. Traditionally, the in-person training takes place in May
and is held in the City Hall Council Chamber. Once a date is selected, an Outlook calendar invite
is prepared and sent to all affected parties outlining the training details. Once the training
concludes, certificates of completion are collected and scanned into the City’s electronic
records management system, the training log is updated to reflect the current certificate date
and when the next training is due, and follow-up notifications are sent to non-compliant
individuals inviting them to complete training. Reminders to non-compliant individuals are sent
periodically until all certificates are acquired.
Recommendation R2: The City of Rohnert Park notify elected officials of ethics training bi-
annual deadlines by December 31, 2021. (F5)
Response: The City of Rohnert Park notified elected officials of ethics training bi-annual
deadlines on November 4, 2020 and due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, directed elected officials
to attend an online training course instead holding an in-person training. Emails reminding
elected officials to attend the training and submit their certificate to the City Clerk’s Office were
sent until the City Clerk’s Office had received the certificates from each elected official. The City
of Rohnert Park will continue to notify elected officials of the ethics training bi-annual deadlines
each even numbered year.
Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Report Title: Rohnert Park District Elections_____________________________________
Report Date: June 20, 2021 __________________________________________________
Response by: Gerard Giudice______________Title: Mayor _________________________
Agency/Department Name: City of Rohnert Park _________________________ ________
FINDINGS: F7
I (we) agree with the findings numbered ____F1, F2, F3, F4, F6, and F7________________
I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: _________ F5___________
_________________________________________________________________________
(Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an
explanation of the reasons.)
RECOMMENDATIONS: R3
Recommendations numbered: have been implemented.
(Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.)
Recommendations numbered: _________R3_______________________ have not yet been
implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
(Attach a timeframe for the implementation.)
Recommendations numbered: ________________________________ require(s) further
analysis.
(Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe
for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency
when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the
Grand Jury report.)
Recommendations numbered: _______________________________ will not be implemented
because they are not warranted or are not reasonable.
(Attach an explanation.)
Date: _______________________________Signed: _______________________________
Number of pages attached: ___________________
(See attached Civil Grand Jury Response Requirements)
Response to Grand Jury Report on Rohnert Park Election Districts
City of Rohnert Park Clarifications and Responses
FINDINGS
Finding F5: The City of Rohnert Park does not monitor or track the ethics training required by
California Assembly Bill 1234 of all local agency officials in office on or after January 1, 2007.
Response: Rohnert Park disagrees wholly with this finding.
The City of Rohnert Park created an AB 1234 Compliance Log in 2011 to monitor and track the
ethics training required by California Assembly Bill 1234 of all local agency officials in office on
or after January 1, 2007. This compliance log is used to track ethics training for all City of
Rohnert Park publically elected officials and positions designated in the City of Rohnert Park’s
conflict of interest code. Information tracked in the log includes the assumed office date,
leaving office date, date of the current certificate, and due date for the next training.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation R3: The City Council members proactively plan in advance and allocate time
in Council Meeting agendas to give the public opportunity for robust and ongoing discussion
of any changes to the City’s demographics that need to be addressed when the new Census
data is released on September 30, 2021. This should occur by December 31, 2021. (F7)
Response: At their regular meeting on April 13, 2021, the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park provided staff with direction to hire a demographer and outreach consultant for services
related to redistricting. Staff is currently working to have the contracts executed. Upon the
release of the Census data, the demographer will review the data and determine if changes to
the current district map will be required. The City of Rohnert Park has planned to hold at least
four public hearings to give the public opportunities for robust and ongoing discussion on any
changes to the City’s demographics that need to be addresses when the new Census data is
released in compliance with the Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political
Subdivisions (Fair Maps) Act. At those meetings, the City Council will allocate time to give the
public an opportunity on the City’s demographics. The City of Rohnert Park also intends to
utilize the services of an outreach consultant who is experienced in helping local governments
execute community education and outreach initiatives for district formation and redistricting. It
is expected that the consultant will assist the City in proactively engaging the public in the
redistricting process to ensure robust and ongoing discussion of any changes to the City’s
demographics prior to December 31, 2021 as part of the redistricting process, which must be
completed by April 17, 2022.
Rohnert Park Election Districts 1
Rohnert Park Election Districts
Transition from At-Large to District-Based Elections
SUMMARY
In October 2019, the City of Rohnert Park was threatened with a lawsuit challenging its existing
system of at-large representation on the City Council and seeking a change to district-based
representation. The premise for the legal action was that at-large representation inadequately
represented a minority population in distinguishable sections of the City. The City Council
decided not to defend against the lawsuit, but rather undertook to convert City Council elections
from at-large to district-based representation within the very short timeframe allowed by statute
to limit the City’s financial exposure.
The California Elections Code § 10010 (Code) requires that the City create districts in
compliance with certain standards and follow specific procedures, including the requirement for
citizen participation in the development of the new district maps and designation of the district
vote sequencing during transition (i.e., which districts will hold elections during a given year).
The district maps specify which parcels and neighborhoods are included within each district, and
the election sequencing specified which district seats were up for election in 2020 versus 2022,
given that terms of Council members are staggered.
The City hired National Demographics Corporation (NDC), a demographic consulting firm, to
provide guidance through the process. NDC gathered data needed to appropriately divide the
city into five districts, and helped draw maps of several proposed districts. The City Council
also solicited citizen input on the drawing of district boundaries. During this process several
maps were created by NDC as well as by residents.
The City Council dedicated time at its regular meetings between November 2019 and February
2020 to discuss the maps that had been submitted and to hear citizen comments. The Council
then debated the options and settled on a proposed map of districts and an election sequence.
The City Council, on February 25, 2020, adopted Ordinance 944, authorizing:
“The election of members of the city council by five districts; establish the district
boundaries; and election order of each district.”
In 2020, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) received two citizen complaints
about the redistricting process. After reviewing the complaints, we determined there was
sufficient cause to investigate. The Grand Jury investigation considered three specific aspects of
the conversion from at-large to district-based representation:
• The process followed by the City Council in defining the five newly created districts
• The process followed by the City Council in determining the election sequencing of the
district-based council seats
• Whether there was any credible evidence that the Council violated open meeting laws
during the process
The Grand Jury concluded that the rules governing the creation of district-based representation
were followed, as were the rules governing election sequencing. Further, the Grand Jury found
no credible evidence that open meeting laws were violated.
Rohnert Park Election Districts 2
GLOSSARY
• Brown Act The Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code §
54950 et seq., is a law that guarantees the public's right to
attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.
• Open Meeting Law See Ralph M. Brown Act above.
• CVRA California Voting Rights Act of 2001
• NDC National Demographics Corporation
• SVREP Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
• Safe Harbor
Provision
A provision in the California Voting Rights Act that provides
a period in which litigation is proscribed and settlement costs
are limited during conversion from at-large to district-based
elections.
BACKGROUND
Council Representation
On October 15, 2019 the City of Rohnert Park received a letter from attorney Kevin Shenkman
representing the "Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP), and its members."
SVREP is based in San Antonio, Texas, and is dedicated to increasing Latino voter participation.
It has been party to more than 70 California Voting Rights Act (CRVA) actions.
In his letter, Mr. Shenkman claimed "The City of Rohnert Park's at-large system dilutes the
ability of Latinos (a "protected class") to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence
the outcome of the City's elections." He also claimed that the at-large elections in Rohnert Park
unfairly impacted the representation of Hispanic/Latino voters. As an example, he compared the
demographics of the City to the ethnic makeup of those serving on the City Council. He closed
by urging the City to make a voluntary change to a district-based election system. Failure to do
so would result in litigation. The letter stipulated a November 26, 2019 deadline to advise the
potential litigant of the City’s decision.
The City Council’s Options
The City Council had two options:
• Fight the lawsuit in an effort to retain the at-large election system and potentially incur
large legal bills with an unknown outcome
• Transition to a district-based election system quickly to limit the City’s legal liabilities
Some members of the City Council expressed misgivings about changing election format in a
city the size of Rohnert Park, but ultimately the City Council opted to eliminate the threat of the
lawsuit. The City Council announced its intention on November 12, 2019 to transition to
district-based representation beginning with the 2020 election cycle.
The Election System Transition
The Council hired NDC to analyze the population of the city and to develop districts that would
be in compliance with the California Elections Code § 10010 (Code). During the City Council
meeting, November 12, 2019, NDC made a presentation that suggested a calendar of public
hearings, draft map presentations, and the required public discussion of the proposed ordinance.
Rohnert Park Election Districts 3
The date of this presentation was critical due to the Code requirement that Council respond to the
attorney’s demand of redistricting per the Code, or face expensive legal action.
Public information hearings were held on November 12, November 26 and December 10, 2019
and January 14, January 28, February 11, and February 25, 2020 The purpose of the initial two
meetings was to discuss the CRVA and the process of defining districts and election sequencing.
The purpose of the subsequent meetings was to discuss proposed maps and election sequencing,
to introduce the proposed ordinance, and to adopt the final map and sequencing plan. Public
comment was solicited at each meeting, and citizens made presentations.
In 2020 the Grand Jury received two citizen complaints about the redistricting. The complaints
centered on the process used in transitioning to the district-based system, and on the resulting
districts and election sequencing. The complainants alleged potential violations of the CVRA
and Code, as well as potential violations of legal requirements for open public meetings (“Brown
Act”).
Based on these complaints, the Grand Jury decided to investigate. The focus of the investigation
was on the compliance with statutes governing the process, and the claim of evidence that open
meeting laws had not been followed during the transition.
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury interviewed City of Rohnert Park personnel, elected officials and one of the
complainants.
The Grand Jury also reviewed relevant laws, including the CVRA, the Code, and the Brown Act.
Finally, the Grand Jury reviewed:
• Documents related to the transition to district elections
• Recorded City Council meetings, public announcements and published minutes of those
meetings
• The Press Democrat’s coverage of the issue
• Documents provided by witnesses
DISCUSSION
At-Large vs. District-Based Elections
Since its formation, the City of Rohnert Park has used an at-large system to elect Council
members. In this system, each voter has the ability to vote for every Council member and every
Council member represents all residents of the City. In October 2019, a lawsuit was threatened
against the City of Rohnert Park, claiming that the existing at-large system under represented a
demographic group concentrated in a portion of the City in violation of the CVRA. The
potential litigant demanded that Rohnert Park change to a district-based system, in which the
City is divided into districts and voters living in a specific district can vote only to elect the
person who will represent that district.
The use of at-large election systems is being reduced by California cities as it has been attacked
as potentially leading to inadequate representation of "groups of interest". The at-large election
process is therefore subject to expensive litigation and is not readily defensible in court given the
CVRA. To date, no city has successfully defended against the claim of unsatisfactory
representation of a protected class with an at-large election system. Litigation fees may be
Rohnert Park Election Districts 4
considerable, and these fees and other court settlements may be awarded to a plaintiff if they are
successful in their lawsuit.
Rohnert Park had an established history of electing at-large Council members, and some City
Council members voiced a preference for continuing to do so, given the size of the City. But the
high cost of litigation and the low likelihood of success pushed them to a decision of the district-
based election alternative.
The Transition Process
Once the decision was made, the City Council needed to act quickly. A “Safe Harbor” provision
exists under current law (AB 350 amendment to Elections Code § 10010), which allows 45 days
from receipt of the plaintiff’s notification of CVRA violation to publicly declare the intention to
transition. Following such a declaration, the statute allows a 90-day period to pass an ordinance
adopting district-based elections before litigation can commence. If the municipality meets both
Safe Harbor periods, the expenses reimbursable to the litigant are capped at roughly $30,000.
The Rohnert Park City Council worked aggressively to meet these deadlines, but was unable to
adopt the new ordinance within the 90-day period. The potential litigant, SVREP, agreed to an
extension. The final map and election sequencing ordinance was passed by the City Council two
weeks after the Safe Harbor deadline.
There is established law and procedures for transitioning to district-based elections. They are
designed to assure that districts are developed under common guidelines and are appropriately
representative of communities of interest, as well as existing commonly distinguished
neighborhoods. The Code also helps to assure that the process is open to citizen input and
evaluation during the transition.
The Code requires a minimum of two public hearings at which the public is invited to provide
input into the development of districts. In addition, there must be a minimum of two public
hearings for the public to review the draft maps and the sequencing of elections. These four
meetings must be completed prior to a vote by the City Council to approve the selected map and
sequence. Along with the Code provisions, the City Council must abide by the Brown Act,
which specifies conditions for open meetings of local governing bodies. The Brown Act directs
the legislative body to provide for open meetings with suitable notification and access of the
public. It does, however, provide for exceptions to open meetings when there is the possibility
of litigation.
The first indication of action by the City Council appeared on the agenda for the October 22,
2019 council meeting. The agenda for this meeting listed a closed session with legal counsel to
discuss "Exposure to Litigation.” The Brown Act does not require public participation in this
type of meeting.
At its next meeting, on November 12, 2019, the City Council publically acknowledged the
receipt of Attorney Shenkman's letter, and after an additional closed session, staff reports, public
comment and open discussion, the Council adopted Resolution 2019-140. This resolution
declared the City’s intent to transition to district-based elections pursuant to the Code. This
Resolution provided an initial answer to the potential litigant, and started the City’s 90-day time
period to adopt a district-based election ordinance before the potential litigant could take action
against the City.
Rohnert Park Election Districts 5
After Resolution 2019-140 was adopted, five public meetings were held to discuss the transition
process, to evaluate proposed district maps (see Figure 1), and to adopt a map and related
election sequencing for the newly created districts (see Figure 2).
The Council published rules for the development of legally-compliant district maps and
boundaries to help citizens participate in the process of defining the districts. They also hired
NDC to suggest potential district maps, evaluate citizen-proposed district maps, and evaluate
proposed districts for compliance with anti-gerrymandering rules. The demographic evaluations
included district population, total population, and voter ethnicity, age, education, income and
home ownership in order to assure that proposed districts met state and federal legal
requirements (see Appendix A). As noted above, the Code requires the City to hold at least two
public hearings to solicit input on potential districts from citizens. The meetings must be held
over a period not exceeding 30 days. Beyond that, the City is required to hold at least two public
hearings over a period of no more than 45 days, at which the public is invited to provide input
regarding the content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of elections.
As a part of its regular Council meetings on November 12 and November 26, 2019, the City
Council included discussion of the proposed transition to district-based elections. Time was set
aside for public comment; two and four citizens, respectively, voiced their opinions on the
process. These meetings met the Code requirement of two public hearings for input into the
development process within 30 days.
As a part of its regular Council meetings on December 10, 2019 and January 14, 2020, the City
Council included discussion of the proposed maps and potential election sequencing. Time was
allotted at these meetings for public comment and presentation of maps from the public; three
citizens spoke about the maps at the December 10 meeting and five citizens spoke at the January
14 meeting. These meetings met the Code requirement of two public hearings for input into the
development of maps and sequencing within 45 days.
When the Council adopted a proposed timeline of meetings in November, it anticipated that it
would be prepared to adopt an ordinance at its January 28 meeting to establish district elections.
A map of the proposed boundaries was identified by the Council members as the preferred
district map (Map 110, Figure 1). There was time for public comment and some objections were
noted by the three citizens who spoke. The City Council decided not to vote on the map at that
meeting, and it was added to the agenda for the next regular Council meeting scheduled for
Februar y 11, 2020.
At the February 11 meeting the agenda indicated "Sixth Public Hearing on Draft Maps and
Potential Election Sequencing." A City Council discussion took place in open session and time
was allocated for public comment. At this meeting, a new citizen-submitted map was
introduced, and the demographics were verified for legal compliance by NDC (Map 112, Figure
1). The Council members indicated that this was now the preferred map, replacing Map 110.
This meeting included the first of two required discussions and public comment of the proposed
ordinance which would adopt Map 112. Two citizens spoke at the meeting regarding the map
and the process. Subsequent to the public discussion, the Council adopted Map 112, and
proposed the sequence of voting for the districts.
Rohnert Park Election Districts 6
Proposed District Map 110 Selected District Map 112
Figure 1: National Demographics Corporation
At the February 25 regular Council meeting, the Council had the second required discussion and
public comment of the proposed ordinance. Seventeen citizens spoke at the meeting, largely
noting the impact of the proposed sequence of district elections. Subsequent to public
discussion, the Council adopted Ordinance 944 by a 3-2 vote in favor of adoption. This
ordinance authorized district-based elections using the boundaries defined within Map 112, and
adopted a sequence whereby districts 1, 3 and 4 would elect members to the Council in 2020,
and districts 2 and 5 would elect members to the Council in 2022. All City Council members
serve four-year terms.
The February 11 and 25 meetings fulfill the Code requirement of two public hearings on the
decision to accept Map 112. The schedule and content of meetings, demonstrate that the Council
was working with public input and following State laws. The additional meetings resulted in the
Council exceeding their 90-day window to adopt an ordinance, however, SVREP agreed to an
extension for the Council to complete the process.
In addition to the required public meetings, the City Council reported closed executive session
meetings with the City Attorney to discuss the potential litigation. These closed meetings related
to litigation are permitted under the Brown Act.
Rohnert Park Election Districts 7
Figure 2
The Final Outcome
In adopting Ordinance 944, the Council voted for a sequencing of district elections that resulted
in one incumbent Council member becoming ineligible to run for office. This member’s 4-year
term expired in 2020, but the member lived in a district that was not up for election until 2022
under the new sequencing. Two other City Council members would remain as at-large
representatives until the expiration of their terms in 2022, and the remaining two Council
members’ terms expired in 2020, making them eligible to run for re-election in the newly created
districts where they resided.
The districts and the election sequence adopted in Ordinance 944 were in place for the
November 2020 election, which unseated both of the Council incumbents running for re-election
and seated three new Council members. These three new Council members joined the two at-
large incumbents whose terms expire in 2022.
Ralph M. Brown Act Compliance
The Grand Jury did not find credible evidence supporting allegations of Brown Act violations.
However, the Grand Jury did find that the bi-annual ethics training required by California
Assembly Bill No. 1234, which includes Brown Act training, was not monitored or tracked by
the City of Rohnert Park. Because this information is not monitored or tracked, City personnel
are unable to determine whether City Council members have attended the training during their
tenure in office and are thereby fully aware of Brown Act requirements. Assembly Bill 1234
does not require a municipality to monitor or track the attendance of required training by local
officials, but it does require a municipality to provide the training. It also specifically requires
local officials to receive training in open government laws. These rules are complex and many
times elected local officials have had no prior experience holding public office.
The Grand Jury also notes that Rohnert Park anticipates that the 2020 decennial Census may
have an effect on recognized demographics of Rohnert Park. The Code requires that district
Rohnert Park Election Districts 8
boundaries be amended to account for any changed demographics documented in the Census
data so that representation continues to meet the legal requirements for districts. Those district
boundary decisions may be put into place prior to the 2022 elections, with further impact to
incumbents or challengers running for office at that time.
CONCLUSION
The Grand Jury’s investigation into the City of Rohnert Park’s transition from an at-large to
district-based election system confirmed that the City Council met the requirements of the law.
The City Council complied with the rules for public notification, public involvement, district
demographics and district boundaries. Notably, the City Council held more public meetings than
the minimum required, had Spanish translations of pertinent information on the City’s website,
had robust public comment and ultimately adopted a citizen-submitted district map.
Additionally, the Grand Jury found no evidence of violation of the Brown Act.
The Grand Jury found, however, that the circumstances of the threatened litigation drove the City
Council’s valid objective to complete the process within the condensed Safe Harbor timeline.
This, then, coupled with related closed session discussions, led some to question whether the
Council was receptive to public input and whether open meeting rules had been violated. The
rapid transition actions are not judged by the Grand Jury to be improper, but they are noted to be
unique to this transition, and should be avoided if and when the City revises district boundaries
in the future. If the Census demonstrates that redistricting is appropriate, the Grand Jury
recommends that the Council take early initiation of the process, with time to propose and debate
district boundaries and election sequences. This will help to assure the public that the re-
districting activity is fully within the public view and according to rule.
FINDINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:
F1. The Rohnert Park City Council acted in compliance with California law in transitioning
to district-based Council elections.
F2. There is no credible evidence of violations of the Brown Act with regard to non-public
communication of the City Council. The Brown Act permits closed-session meetings
to discuss litigation.
F3. The election sequence adopted by the City Council complies with California and
federal election law.
F4. The submission of Map 112 and the City Council’s evaluation of it complied with the
California Elections Code.
F5. The City of Rohnert Park does not monitor or track the ethics training required by
California Assembly Bill 1234 of all local agency officials in office on or after January
1, 2007.
F6. The City Council provided legally sufficient opportunity for the public to submit
proposed district maps and to comment on submitted maps.
Rohnert Park Election Districts 9
F7. Subsequent to the first sequencing election in 2020, but prior to the second sequencing
election in 2022, in which the transition from At-Large to District-Based elections as
adopted in Ordinance 944 is fully adopted, the City of Rohnert Park will have the
results of the 2020 decennial Census and will need to evaluate whether Map 112 still
provides representation for demographic groups of interest.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:
R1. The City of Rohnert Park establish a procedure to monitor and track ethics training for
publicly elected officials as required by California Assembly Bill No. 1234. This
should occur by December 31, 2021. (F5)
R2. The City of Rohnert Park notify elected officials of ethics training bi-annual deadlines
by December 31, 2021. (F5)
R3. The City Council members proactively plan in advance and allocate time in Council
Meeting agendas to give the public opportunity for robust and ongoing discussion of
any changes to the City’s demographics that need to be addressed when the new Census
data is released on September 30, 2021. This should occur by December 31, 2021.
(F7)
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the grand jury requires responses as follows:
• City of Rohnert Park City Manager (R1, R2)
• Rohnert Park City Council (R3)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must
be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Nielsen Merksamer, “Redistricting 101 for Municipalities.” www.cacities.org, December
12, 2019
• Rohnert Park City Council Meeting Agendas: November 2019 through February 2020
• Rohnert Park City Council Meeting Minutes: November 2019 through February 2020
• Rohnert Park City Council Meeting Videos: November 2019 through February 2020
• Rohnert Park City Council, Resolution 2019-140, “Adoption of a Resolution Declaring
the City of Rohnert Park’s Intent To Initiate Procedures to Consider Transition from At-
Large Elections to By-District Elections,” November 12, 2019
• Rohnert Park City Council, Ordinance 944, “An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The
City Of Rohnert Park Amending Title 2 “Administration And Personnel” Of The Rohnert
Park Municipal Code To Add A Chapter 2.66, “District Elections” To Provide For The
Election Of Members Of The City Council By Five Districts; Establish The District
Boundaries; And Election Order Of Each District,” February 25, 2020
• Assembly Bill No. 2123 Chapter 277, “An act to amend Section 10010 of the Elections
Code, relating to elections,” September 6, 2018.
Rohnert Park Election Districts 10
• California Elections Code 10010 Chapter 10, “Local, Special, Vacancy, and Consolidated
Elections,” 10/17/2019
• Rohnert Park City Council, 10/26/2020 District Election Information
• Rohnert Park City Council, 10/26/2020 Draft Maps
• Rohnert Park City Council, 10/26/2020 Mapping Tools
• Assembly Bill No. 849 Chapter 557, “Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities
and Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act” October 8, 2019
• Assembly Bill No 1234 Chapter 700, Section 4 Article 2.4 “Ethics Training”
APPENDIX A
Map Preparation Rules
Rohnert Park issued the following rules for citizens wishing to prepare district maps for
consideration:
• Each council district shall contain a nearly equal population as required by law.
• Each council district shall be drawn in a manner that complies with the Federal Voting
Rights Act. No council district shall be drawn with race as the predominate factor in
violation of the principles established by the United States Supreme Court in Shaw v.
Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), and its progeny.
• Additionally, pursuant to Government Code § 21601(d), the Council must not adopt
district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.
In addition, several objectives needed to be considered for the proposed districts as follows:
• To the extent practicable, council districts shall be geographically contiguous. Areas
within districts that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous.
• To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local
community of interest should be respected and included within a single district for
purposes of its effective and fair representation in a manner that minimizes its division. A
“community of interest” is a population that shares common social or economic interests
that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair
representation.
• Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents.
To the extent practicable, council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial
barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the city.
• To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria,
council districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that
nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations and
where doing so does not conflict with higher-ranked criteria.
• Where doing so does not conflict with higher-ranked criteria, the City Council may
consider other traditional principles in the development of districts. For example, to the
extent practicable, each council district shall respect the previous choices of voters by
avoiding the creation of head-to-head contests between councilmembers previously
elected by the voters, insofar as this does not conflict with Federal or State Law.
Rohnert Park Election Districts 11
Selected District Demographics - National Demographics Corporation
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code
Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or
facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury.
ITEM NO. 6.E.
1
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Department Administration
Submitted By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
Prepared By: Leo Tacata, Senior Analyst
Agenda Title: Authorize the Mayor to Execute and Deliver the City’s Response to the Grand
Jury Report Titled “Emergency Alerts and Communications: Toward a Culture
of Preparedness.”
RECOMMENDED ACTION: By minute order, authorize the Mayor to execute and deliver the
City’s Response to the Grand Jury report titled “Emergency Alerts and Communications: Toward a
Culture of Preparedness.”
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: On June 20, 2021, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
delivered its report “Emergency Alerts and Communications: Toward a Culture of Preparedness.” The
City, through the Mayor, is required to respond to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations
within 90 days. The report focuses largely on improving emergency preparedness through enhancing
emergency communications throughout the county and updating evacuation zones and maps. Rohnert
Park is required to respond to eight findings and four recommendations:
Finding F4: There are some groups and individuals of the population who may not receive
alerts directly; these include the elderly, tourists, farm workers, migrants, those hard of hearing,
non-English speaking, and individuals with special needs.
Finding F6: The role of the Emergency Operations Center during recent emergencies has
helped to improve the sharing of information among the many fire and police districts and the
County as well as improving the consistency of messaging across alert and warning platforms;
particularly, the [sic] Nixle, SoCoAlerts.
Finding F7: The low-technology alert systems (for example hi-lo and air raid sirens), which do
not rely on communication towers, provide essential backup during power outages and
cellphone tower breakdowns during severe storms or fires.
Finding F8: Due to the topography within Sonoma County, the re-institution of audible alarms
such as air -raid sirens could dependably reach residents in remote areas and work as a reliable
tried-and-true alarm system.
Finding F9: Different evacuation zone designations for the same area (numbers, names, streets
areas, etc.) by the County, cities, CAL FIRE and agencies can lead to confusion for residents
during an emergency.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6.E.
2
Finding F10: Because evacuation zones were not published or known, prior to the recent
emergencies, residents were unaware of their evacuation zones.
Finding F11: Not all police and fire agencies within the County show an Evacuation Map on
their website.
Finding F20: Recommendations documented in After Action Reports following a disaster have
not been incorporated into the current Emergency Operations Plans for Sonoma County
Department of Emergency Management, the Sheriff’s Office, Cities, and fire agencies.
Recommendation R1: By October 31, 2021 the Sheriff’s Office, Department of Emergency
Management, and nine cities’ departments include within their Emergency Operations Plans
action steps to reach all subpopulations within the County who may not otherwise receive an
alert.
Recommendation R4: By October 8, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office, Department of Emergency
Management, and nine cities work together to ensure consistent naming for all evacuation maps
used by the public and first responders.
Recommendation R5: By October 8, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office, Department of Emergency
Management, and nine cities work together to ensure the public is informed of their evacuation
zones by publishing evacuation maps in local media, online, and through SoCo Emergency.
Recommendation R15: By October 31, 2021, the nine cities update their Emergency
Operations Plan to incorporate the most up-to-date information and lessons learned since the
disasters of 2017 and post it on their websites.
City staff who are assigned to the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Management Section,
most of whom worked in the EOC during the 2017 Tubbs Fire, the 2019 Public Safety Power Shut
Offs, and the 2019 Kincade Fire EOC activations, reviewed the Grand Jury report and recommend the
following responses in the Mayor’s response, provided as Attachment 2:
• The City agrees with Findings F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 and F20.
o These findings are consistent with Rohnert Park’s experience during EOC activations
over the past 4 years.
• The City has implemented Recommendations R4 and R5.
o In the past year, the City has worked with the Department of Emergency Management,
the Sheriff’s Office, and the rest of the Sonoma County municipalities to define and
coordinate evacuation zones. The map of Rohnert Park’s evacuation zones have been
published on the City website and the notice of the new maps have been published to
the City’s social media channels.
• The City has not yet implemented Recommendations R1 and R15 but they will be
implemented in the future. (Note: the timeline to implement these recommendations will be
October 31, 2021, as prescribed in the Grand Jury Report.)
o The City has not yet implemented Recommendation R1, but the action step to reach
subpopulations within the City who may otherwise not receive an alert will be
incorporated into the City’s Emergency Operations Plan by October 31, 2021. In
consideration of Finding F7, the City’s Department of Public Safety has already
implemented the use of hi-lo sirens within its departmental operational plans. These
procedures will be incorporated into the City Operations Plan by October 31 as
recommended.
ITEM NO. 6.E.
3
o The City has not yet implemented Recommendation R15, but intends to complete the
action it em by October 31, 2021. Rohnert Park is planning to convene a “lessons
learned” conversation in summer 2021. Recommendations from the meeting will be
incorporated into the City’s Emergency Management Plan as recommended by October
31. Additionally, the City has approached the County Department of Emergency
Management, which has previously convened a ‘lessons learned’ meeting between all
Sonoma County emergency partners, to share recommendations relevant to Rohnert
Park so they be incorporated into the City’s Emergency Management Plan as part of
responding to this recommendation.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: None. The recommended action is required by law.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
Recommended: By minute order, authorize the Mayor to execute and deliver the City’s
Response to the Grand Jury report titled “Emergency Alerts and Communications: Toward a
Culture of Preparedness.”
Alternatives: None. The recommended action is required by law.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: None.
Finance Director Approval Date: n/a
City Attorney Approval Date: 7/28/21
City Manager Approval Date: 7/29/21
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Civil Grand Jury Report: Emergency Alerts and Communications: Toward a Culture of
Preparedness.
2. Response to Grand Jury Report Form
2020-2021 Final Report
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
The Grand Jury provides oversight to county, city
government and special districts within Sonoma
County, bringing positive change in the best interest of
all residents.
2020-2021 Final Report
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
The Grand Jury provides oversight to county, city
government and special districts within Sonoma
County, bringing positive change in the best interest of
all residents.
Grand Jury 2021 cover.indd 1Grand Jury 2021 cover.indd 1 6/7/21 9:25 AM6/7/21 9:25 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 2020-2021
Empire Building in Old Courthouse
Square. This Santa Rosa landmark
building was completed in 1910.
Grand Jury 2021 cover.indd 2Grand Jury 2021 cover.indd 2 6/7/21 9:25 AM6/7/21 9:25 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 1 Final Report 2020-2021
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1
Letter from the Presiding Judge 2
Letter from the Foreperson 3
Introduction 4
Broadband Access in Sonoma County 5
Broadband is a Utility; The Quiet Crisis of Availability
County Jail Inmate Telephone and Commissary 24
Overcharging a Captive Population
COVID-19 Mitigation at the County Jail 34
And Its Unexpected Consequences
Emergency Alerts and Communication 51
Toward a Culture of Preparedness
Rohnert Park Election Districts 88
Transition from At-Large to District-Based Elections
Responses to the 2019-2020 Sonoma County 99
Civil Grand Jury Reports
Providing Continuity by Follow-Through
on Previous Investigations
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929
requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the
identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 1Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 1 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2 Final Report 2020-2021
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 2Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 2 6/7/21 9:29 AM6/7/21 9:29 AM
BRADFORD J. DEMEO
JUDGE
~uperior QJ:ourt
~tate of QJ:alifornta
COUNTY OF SONOMA
HALL OF JUSTICE
BD/ml
600 ADMINISTRATION DRIVE
SANTA ROSA , CALIFORNIA 95403
June 1, 2021
Dear members of the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury:
Having reviewed the grand jury final report for the fiscal year 2020-2021, I find that it
complies with Penal Code section 933. You are to be commended for your thorough
investigations and conscientious findings and recommendations. You have fulfilled your duties
with hard work and dedication.
You have endured one of the most crippling hardships in the history of Sonoma County
and produced an exceptional work product. Some of you have endured this hardship for two
terms, and I commend your stalwart effort. COVID-19 has restricted our lives so deeply that our
economy, our government, and individuals have very few options to work and finish projects.
But, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury has found a way to work and communicate through
remote technology to finish all of its projects on time with very high quality. This is a remarkable
feat. Each member of the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury should be very proud of fulfilling their
obligations and duties as civil grand jurors. It is simply amazing and I'm very proud and honored
to be the presiding judge to approve your work for publication.
On behalf of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, I thank you for all that you've done .
I especially would like to thank your foreperson, Sharon DeBenedetti, for her leadership and
dedication to the work of the grand jury.
Once again, congratulations to the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury. Sonoma County
owes you much gratitude.
Sincerely,
Bradford J. DeMeo, Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California,
County of Sonoma
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 3 Final Report 2020-2021
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
PO Box 5109 Santa Rosa, California 95402
(707) 565-6330
gjury@sonoma-county.org
www.sonomagrandjury.org
June 20, 2021
Dear Judge Bradford DeMeo and the Citizens of Sonoma County:
The members of the 2020-2021 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury are pleased to submit our final
report to you and the citizens of our County pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933(a).
The report is a product of many hours of hard work and civic dedication by the individual Grand
Jury members to this critical function of government oversight by its citizens. Our primary goal
has been to be fair, accurate, and thorough in our investigations and we hope that our
recommendations will be received in the manner in which they are presented.
The Grand Jury completed six reports while adapting to the altered work environment of virtual
meetings. Life in the days of COVID-19 and multiple wildfires has been challenging for
everyone, but the commitment of the members of this grand jury allowed our work to proceed to
completion. Looking at the challenges that future Grand Juries may face, it is apparent that
having proper technology with reliable internet and a safe and secure environment is a necessity.
The Grand Jury would like to express appreciation to our cities, county, and special districts for
their dedication to public service. A very special thank you to the members of the Sonoma
County Superior Court: Arlene Junior, Court Executive Officer; Felicia Ford, Executive
Assistant to the Court CEO; and County Counsels, Kara Abelson and Tashawn Sanders.
We also wish to give recognition to the County’s IT department. John Hartwig, Information
Services Director, was able to procure new computers for the Grand Jury through the Federal
CARES Act. Our special thanks to Anita Suyeyoshi and Nick Heimer for their phenomenal
support to individual jurors throughout the year. We wish to also give a special thanks to
Marisha Montenegro and Joanna Lutman in County Administration for their assistance and
guidance in navigating the County network.
Finally, as Foreperson, I wish to express my appreciation to every member of this Grand Jury,
including those who for various reasons could not complete their term, for all their hard work
and dedication. Our alliance made this shortened term a memorable experience and a job well
done. I would be remiss without a special acknowledgment to Deborah Wallman, Pro Tem of the
Grand Jury, for her outstanding contribution and support.
It was an honor and privilege to serve the citizens of Sonoma County.
Respectfully,
Sharon A. DeBenedetti, Foreperson
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 3Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 3 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 4 Final Report 2020-2021
Introduction
Grand Juries have existed in the State of California since the adoption of the State’s Constitution
in 1849-1850. The “Civil” Grand Jury was originally charged with inquiring into all public
prisons within the County. The codification of Grand Jury law in California came about in 1872
with the adoption of the Penal Code, where most all Grand Jury law resides. In 1881, the Penal
Code was amended to allow the Grand Jury to investigate county government, and later to
investigate city governments and special districts. The Constitution requires that a Grand Jury
“be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county.”
All Grand Juries are independent judicial bodies. Their responsibilities include investigating all
aspects of County government, special districts, cities within the County, and citizen complaints,
to ensure that these bodies govern effectively and efficiently. The Grand Jury is considered to be
the civic “watchdog” for the citizens of the County and “an arm of the court.”
The Grand Jury in Sonoma County functions as a “Civil Grand Jury” which means it has the
authority to review and report on the activities of local government. The Grand Jury has no
specific enforcement authority. Its true impact comes from the seriousness of the subjects
reported upon and attention paid to the reports by the media and greater community.
The jury consists of 19 members, all of whom are volunteers, selected at random by the Superior
Court following a careful interview process. In addition, alternates are chosen at random from
the same jury pool. Jurors serve a one year term; an individual juror may serve a second
consecutive term at the discretion of the Court.
The Grand Jury conducts business at a “plenary,” the weekly general meeting. Actions taken
during the year are considered to be official Grand Jury business, and must be approved by at
least twelve of the nineteen jurors.
There are two words foremost to the Grand Jury—confidentiality and collegiality. Jury members
hold all proceedings of the jury in the strictest confidence and all interviewees of investigations
are admonished to do the same. Collegiality is an important value and jurors are expected to
maintain a collegial environment throughout all jury-related activities.
All reports issued by the Grand Jury have their beginning either as a complaint received from a
citizen or as an investigation initiated from within the jury itself. The Sonoma County Civil
Grand Jury reviews “Critical Incident Reports” forwarded from the local District Attorney.
These reports contain the investigative findings of officer-involved fatal incidents.
At the end of each jury term, reports generated by the jury are consolidated into a Final Report
and released to the public, media, county libraries, and County and local city agencies. Key
components of each report include the Summary, Findings, and Recommendations. The final
reports, in essence, reflect the dedication, skill, and knowledge of all members of the Grand Jury.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 4Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 4 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 51 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 1
EMERGENCY ALERTS and
COMMUNICATIONS
Toward a Culture of Preparedness
SUMMARY
As spring moves into summer, and summer into autumn with its hot wind-flamed days, a sense
of apprehension grows in the pits of stomachs. Residents, new and old of Sonoma County, have
come to dread the next wildfire season. This 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury report stems from
concern, anxiety and hopes that we can adapt and become better prepared as a county. In our
investigation, we looked into the role and effectiveness of the emergency alerts and
communications and how they tie into our overall community preparedness for disasters of any
kind.
The Grand Jury sought to understand where the gaps in the alerts and emergency
communications occur and why. What has been done to reach the underserved populations of
the county? The report focuses upon many areas within the County which have experienced the
impact of recent wildfires. The questions that drove the investigation were:
What improvements have been made by the County and cities to emergency
communications since the 2017 Tubbs and Nuns Fires?
Why were emergency communications unreliable in remote areas?
Does everyone know how to sign up with SoCoAlerts and/or Nixle - what phones and
technology work best?
Do residents know their evacuation zones and why have the evacuation maps been
unreliable or confusing?
Finally, why do people still seem frustrated and confused by the alerts while County government,
cities, and the Fire Districts seem confident about their progress with the alert systems and
emergency communications? What do they know that we don’t know?
The investigation looked at how the County government supports community preparedness
efforts through its administrative diligence in updating key documents and in securing needed
funding. This administrative oversight role pertains to any potential disaster; wildfires, floods,
hazardous materials, earthquakes, the collapsing of dams, and public health crises.
The Grand Jury learned of concerns from interviews with emergency first responders. All
expressed their certainty of another fierce wildfire occurring such as the Tubbs Fire: that it is not
a matter of if but of when. They shared their concerns about the human limitations in fighting
such a force of nature, and how their jobs as firefighters and police would become not about
battling the blaze, but getting people out of harm’s way, and protecting their own personnel as
well.
With each succeeding emergency event, the County Department of Emergency Management
(DEM), the Sheriff’s Office and city Police and Fire Departments have adapted their use of
emergency communications. However, the Grand Jury found that not all cities and agencies
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 51Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 51 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 52 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 2
have updated their Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) with the new findings. In addition, the
County’s EOP of 2014, overdue for an update, is being revised and under review. This is
important because the cities and agencies either rely upon the County’s EOP or use it as a base to
create their own local EOPs. In effect, both the County and the local EOPs are an extension of
the State of California’s Emergency Operations Plan.
In parallel, the County’s DEM, fire agencies, and many others are reaching out to educate the
general population and to encourage their personal preparations. It is in this area that the Grand
Jury recommends greater effort be applied. With the threat of large-scale events—mega fires, a
major earthquake, extended power outages—first responders would be quickly overwhelmed and
residents would be on their own and cut off from the usual assistance. In light of this, residents
share in the responsibility for emergency preparedness in partnership with local government.
They can organize into neighborhood groups, fire hardening homes, create vegetation setbacks,
and stay informed. By working together and adopting emergency preparedness as an ongoing
process, the entire community will improve its resiliency. Signing up for alerts and warnings,
knowing evacuation zones, and being connected with neighbors will make living here safer and
more secure in this time of increased wildfires.
For a comprehensive reference on emergency preparedness, valuable resources, contact
information, and to sign up for alerts, see the SoCo Emergency website or Appendix A at the end
of this report.
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
We want to acknowledge that on May 21, 2021 the County and the nine cities updated their
Evacuation Maps with zones. To view; go to SoCo Emergency or city websites for the zone of
your home, work, or children’s schools.
GLOSSARY
ARES Amateur Radio Emergency Service
BOS Board of Supervisors
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CERT Community Emergency Response Teams
COAD Community Organizations Around Disasters
COPE Citizens Organized to Prepare for Emergencies
DEM Department of Emergency Management
EAS Emergency Alert System
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EOC Emergency Operations Center
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fire Agencies County and City Fire Departments or Fire Districts
IPAW S Integrated Public Alert & Warning System
Nixle Email, text, and web messages from local fire and law
enforcement agencies that include public safety messages as
well as emergency information.
NOAA National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 52Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 52 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 53 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 3
PSPS Public Safety Power Shutoff
REDCOM Redwood Empire Dispatch Communications - 911 Fire and
EMS dispatch
SoCoAlerts Sonoma County Alerts
SoCo Emergency Sonoma County Emergency and Preparedness Information
Sonoma County 2-1-1 Information and referral service for Sonoma County. During
times of disaster, 2-1-1 provides incident-specific
information.
WEA Wireless Emergency Alerts
BACKGROUND
The Experience of Sonoma County
Sonoma County has made rapid progress with its alert and warning systems, expanding and
refining its capabilities with use
of technology and striving
towards an integrated approach
using multiple systems. This is
not surprising, looking back at the
series of wildfires and floods.
Our County is among the top of
the approximately 25 fire-prone
counties of California, with
higher populations and more
frequent disaster threats; these
counties have worked to develop
the best tools and best practices
around the State.
The Counties of San Diego, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, and Sonoma stand out for their combined
use of both low-tech and high tech alerts:
Opt-in Alert - Nixle and SoCoAlerts
Non-opt-in systems that broadcast over a defined geography - IPAW S (WEA, EAS, and
NOAA)
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program communications and
preparation for emergencies
Air raid Sirens (sometimes installed for special safety zone alerts, such as at refineries in
Contra Costa or the nuclear power station in San Luis Obispo)
Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) or Ham Radio, as in Santa Cruz
This follows the strategy of using multiple methods to reach the broadest group of residents.
Sonoma County has applied all of these tools and techniques, to some degree. The primary opt-
in alert tool, SoCoAlerts is much like other county alert systems (e.g., AlertMarin, MendoAlert,
SacramentoAlert, Alert San Diego, et al). Many counties, including Sonoma, use a dual system
of these tools plus Nixle in their opt-in communications. Many California Counties have worked
with the Federal alert tools (IPAWS) to adapt its use for their local messages and alerts.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 53Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 53 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 54 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 4
These same Counties have also advocated for localized community response groups such as
CERT. In Sonoma County, fire agencies have been instrumental in their support of community
preparedness groups, such as Citizens Organized to Prepare for Emergencies (COPE). This is an
on-going effort that has best traction in areas of the county that are at highest risk. The Auxiliary
Communications Service (ACS) of 125 volunteers operates under the Department Emergency
Management (DEM) and gives added support to emergency communications between the county
and outlying areas. Trained in all aspects of communications from amateur radio to satellite and
cellular phones, the ACS is an invaluable resource.
Sonoma County is making use of most of the tools, and has become more proficient at using
them in recent years. However, there remains opportunity to continue to develop the types of
alerts and the procedures employed with each, along with creating enough redundancy in the
alert systems, so they may benefit all segments of the community.
New Statewide Warning Guidelines Issued in March 2019
The State of California issued the California Alert & Warning Guidelines (Guidelines) in
response to the increasingly dire fire seasons throughout California, starting with 2017. The
previous alert systems had proved inadequate and inconsistently applied. Echoes of the landline
era quaintly remain in the new Guidelines with the inclusion of low-tech alerts like church bells
and foghorns to warn residents. The Guidelines state:
“A comprehensive alert and warning program is a critical component to a community’s
ability to effectively respond to emergencies. With recent disasters in California
highlighting the differences and inconsistencies among various alert and warning
programs across California, emergency management leadership representing
California’s Standardized Emergency Management System identified the need to
establish statewide guidelines for the purpose of enabling and encouraging consistent
application of alert and warning best practices, procedures, and protocols.”
The guidelines include all manner of warnings: the state of the art in wireless technology, the
IPAWS federal alert system developed in 2012, along with low-technology systems such as
NOAA radios, air sirens, loudspeakers, and door-to-door notification for rural areas. The
Guidelines advise on making sure that redundancies are built in for local emergency alert plans.
Local jurisdictions are tasked with enacting ordinances and developing policies for roles and
responsibilities in disseminating emergency alerts. San Francisco Bay Area Counties, of which
Sonoma County is part of, is responsible for submitting annually a Local Emergency Alert
System Plan (EAS Plan) to the State EAS Committee. All local entities are to coordinate closely
with one another to become familiar with all alert and warning systems prior to an emergency.
A model Local Alert and Warning Plan which supports the jurisdiction Emergency Operations
Plan is appended to the state Guidelines. It covers such topics as the maintenance of 24/7
staffing for emergency alerts, training, a backup emergency system, periodic testing of the
emergency alert systems, as well as requiring After Action Reports after an officially declared
emergency, either by the state or a local entity. Sonoma County is currently updating its EAS
Plan to submit to the State.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 54Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 54 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 55 Final Report 2020-2021Emergency Alerts and Communications 5
The Emergency Management Cycle
It takes up to 10 years or more for a community to recover from a major disaster. Comparative
studies have looked at the impact of disaster recovery in places as diverse as Haiti, Christchurch
New Zealand, and New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina. There is greater understanding about
how and why communities recover differently and how communities can “Build Better”1
afterwards. Recovery has more to do with the conditions existing prior to an event,such as
economic resources, capacity, and social capital,than the event itself. On one hand Sonoma
County is strong in all these ways and we have the ability to rebound successfully; however;
recurring fires make recovery more difficult with people deciding to move to less threatened
locations.
The emergency management cycle illustrates an ongoing process, with no beginning or end,that
organizations and individuals can plan for and take steps to reduce the impact of disasters.
Mitigation: Activities designed to reduce the effects of a major disaster and future ones.
For wildfires, clearing vegetation and hardening
of homes.
Preparedness: Activities, programs and systems
that exist before an emergency and are employed
to enhance response to any emergency or
disaster. Including emergency communications,
neighborhood groups, family plans for
evacuation, plans for pets and livestock, and “go
bags”.
Response: Activities, agencies, and first
responders addressing the immediate effects of
the onset of a disaster. Firefighters, Red Cross,
and police deployed and residents evacuating.
Recovery: Long-term activities and programs to
return systems and support the community back to a normal status. Planning for ways to
avoid future emergencies.
Communities can be in several places of the cycle at the same time and for differing lengths of
time.Sonoma County currently is in mitigation,preparedness and response and recovery –all at
the same time! We are preparing for the next fire with mitigation and preparedness efforts,
responding to the Covid-19 health crisis, and still recovering from the previous wildfires.
It Is Not Just Wildfires That Create an Emergency Situation
While in recent history the focus of emergencies in Sonoma County has been on wildfires,the
dangers caused by flooding, earthquakes, and tsunamis must not be overlooked. Residents need
to prepare for these disasters as well, along with knowing about evacuation routes and
emergency communications.
1 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. adopted at the Third UN World Conference in Sendai,
Japan, on March 18, 2015
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 55Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 55 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 56 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 6
Earthquakes
Sonoma County has experienced a few strong earthquakes over the years. The first notable one
was the 1906 San Francisco earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, destroying a large portion of
downtown Santa Rosa with a magnitude 7.9. It happened again in 1969, when the Rodgers
Creek Fault, which passes beneath Santa Rosa, damaged many structures with a pair of back-to-
back earthquakes at a magnitude 5.6 and 5.7. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
the Rodgers Creek fault has a potential for strong shaking from an earthquake. They gave a 33%
probability of at least one large earthquake (magnitude 6.7 or greater) occurring on this fault or
the adjoining Hayward Fault by the year 2043.
Sonoma County has four major earthquake zones:
Healdsburg – running east of Cloverdale south towards Mark West Springs
Mayacama – running just east of Hwy 101, south of Healdsburg to central Santa Rosa
Rodgers Creek – running from central Santa Rosa south past Sears Point
San Andreas – running just south of Bodega Bay along the coast into Mendocino County
There is a potential for an earthquake to happen in any part of Sonoma County. Residents need
to be prepared to receive emergency alerts, warnings, and notifications. They also need to know
routes of potential evacuations. Individuals can receive automated notification emails from the
Earthquake Notification Services (ENS) when an earthquake happens in their area. The default
to receive this notification is a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake.
Source: SoCo Emergency website
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 56Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 56 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 57 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 7
Flooding in Sonoma County
Flooding in Sonoma County is a common occurrence during the rainy season. Every community
has the potential to be impacted by a flood. It destroys homes, blocks roads, disrupts agricultural
lands, and isolates whole communities. It turns roads to streams where boats become the only
mode of transportation. Heavy rainfall in 2017 caused a series of floods throughout California;
Northern California saw its wettest winter in almost a century, breaking records set in 1982-
1983.
Russian River
The Russian River is one area of concern every year as the rains move into Sonoma County. The
Russian River starts just east of Willits in Mendocino County, moving into Sonoma County
north of Cloverdale. South of Healdsburg, it receives water from Lake Sonoma via Dry Creek.
As it continues past Forestville, Rio Nido, Guerneville and Monte Rio it picks up water from
Mark West Creek, Green Valley Creek, and Austin Creek. After passing Duncans Mills, it flows
into the Pacific Ocean between Goat Rock Beach and Jenner.
The Russian River Flood Stages are as follows (Sonoma Water website):
NORMAL FLOW CHANNEL - The flow based on average channel depth in winter
months (November - February).
MONITOR STAGE - The stage at which initial action must be taken by concerned
interests. This level may produce overbank flows sufficient to cause minor flooding of
low-lying lands and local roads.
FLOOD STAGE - The Stage at which overbank flows are of sufficient magnitude to
cause considerable inundation of land and roads and/or threat of significant hazard to life
and property.
In recent years, the Russian River has risen above flood stage causing the evacuation of
communities, blocking roads, and inundating agricultural lands. In February 2019, flooding
impacted large parts of Sonoma County when the Russian River crested at 45 feet, 13 feet over
flood stage.
Warm Springs Dam
With the construction in 1983 of the Warm Springs Dam across Dry Creek, Lake Sonoma was
born. When full, the lake has more than 2,700 acres of surface area, 50 miles of shoreline, and
holds 381,000-acre feet of water. Built and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the dam is a rolled-earth embankment dam at 319 feet high, 3,000 feet long, and 30 feet wide at
the top. The dam produces electricity from its hydroelectric plant and aids in flood control.
Thankfully, Sonoma County has not yet experienced an emergency when it comes to our dams.
Spring Lake
As part of the Central Sonoma Watershed project in 1964, Sonoma Water constructed Spring
Lake as a flood protection reservoir. Unlike Warm Springs Dam, it consists of three steel and
concrete dams, spillways, and channels. The lake helps divert floodwaters from the springs and
Santa Rosa Creek to alleviate flooding in downtown Santa Rosa. In 1986, according to the
Sonoma Water website, Spring Lake exceeded its capacity resulting in floods .
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 57Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 57 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 58 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 8
Tsunamis
A tsunami is a series of waves or surges that may be generated by earthquakes along subduction
zones around the rim of the Pacific Ocean or submarine faults causing vertical movement of the
sea floor. They have the potential of traveling 20-30 miles per hour with waves forming 10-100
feet high. The NOAA - U.S. National Tsunami Warning Center (NTWC) provides reliable
detection, forecasts, and warnings to promote public safety.
While tsunamis are rare, residents still need to be prepared. Tsunami inundation areas in
Sonoma County have been identified as:
Bodega Head Quadrangle – Valley Ford Quadrangle (Salmon Creek, Bodega Bay)
Arched Rock Quadrangle– Duncan Mills Quadrangle (Jenner, Ocean View)
Sears Point-San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Up Sonoma Creek to the west &
Petaluma River to the east)
Wildfires, Floods, and Public Health Crisis
After four years of repeated emergencies, Sonoma County has well earned its “Sonoma Strong”
badge. A sequence of emergencies began in early January of 2017 when the Russian River rose
3 ft. above flood stage in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, inundating 500 homes in
Guerneville, leading to the evacuation of 3,000 residents. Later in October, the Sonoma LNU
Complex Fires, best known as the Tubbs and Nuns Fires, tore through the County destroying
5,400 homes with a loss of 22 lives. While 2018 was a relatively quiet year, the skies became
smoke-filled and ominous from the Mendocino Complex and Camp Fires. The next year 2019
ushered in two major winter storms in February each with more flooding of the Russian River.
This was followed in October with four PG&E power shutoffs and the Kincade Fire where
77,758 acres burned, 374 structures (including174 homes) were lost, one-third of the County was
evacuated (190,000 residents) but thankfully there were zero deaths.
Since 2015, Sonoma County has made CAL FIRE ’s Top 20 lists in all three categories; most
destructive, deadliest, and largest; including having the dubious distinction five times of being in
the Top 20 Most Destructive category. (Figure 1 below)
Figure 1 – Source: CAL FIRE
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 58Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 58 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 59 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 9
Toward the end of 2019, in response to the homelessness crisis with the encampment on the Joe
Rodota Trail, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was activated and would remain open
through February of 2020. The arrival of Covid-19, in mid-March 2020, further compounded the
emergencies for the year 2020. From August through October, the Walbridge and Glass Fires
and several other fires burned approximately 125,000 acres and destroyed 334 homes in the
County. Responding to the Covid-19 crisis and wildfires, the EOC was open a record 123 days.
The Board of Supervisors Expand the Department of Emergency Management
These intense years of coping with a variety of natural and man-made disasters have made an
impact upon the local government and the residents of Sonoma County. With so many people in
our county experiencing grief and trauma; with the loss of t homes, businesses, and overwhelmed
first responders; our county has been hard hit and stretched to its capacity. Out of this, however,
has developed a resolve to meet the devastation at hand by organizations and local governments
and individual’s communitywide. It is commonly understood among professionals and
organizations involved in disaster relief that it can take a community anywhere up to ten years or
more to fully recover. What may not be fully understood is what happens when the disasters
keep happening?
In response to the longer fire season and extreme weather events, the DEM became an
independent county department in July of 2019, under the direction of the Board of Supervisors
(BOS) and County Administrator’s Office. Its increased staff now also includes a Community
Preparedness Program Manager, a Community Alert & Warning Manager, and dedicated
technicians for alerts and other needs. Its areas of focus are: mitigation, preparedness, planning,
coordination of response, and recovery activities related to emergencies and disasters. For
planning, the DEM oversees and maintains the Sonoma County/Operational Area Emergency
Operations Plan (2014), with the oversight of the Emergency Council.
Emergency Operations Centers
The Sonoma County Operational Area EOC, located at the county government campus, dates
back to 1974 and was remodeled in 2004 for dual use as a computer-training center during
nonemergency times. The EOC is equipped with a Local Area computer network,
communications equipment, an EAS transmitter for local emergency alerts, a twelve-line Public
Information Hotline, and a wireless local area network. During an emergency, Auxiliary
Communications Operators (ACS) will link the County EOC to its volunteer network throughout
the county. The EOC is activated only at times of emergency and will have up to 75 individuals
working at its center.
Cities within Sonoma County also activate local EOC’s during disasters. These city EOCs
maintain vital communication with the County to ensure coordination amongst all disaster
responders.
Overview of Firefighting: County Firefighters and CAL FIRE
During an emergency, a local Fire Department will be the first responder to a disaster site. If this
should evolve into a much greater emergency that requires additional support, the Fire Chief
becomes the Incident Commander in charge of the firefighters from outside their area until the
arrival of CAL FIRE, who will assume lead of the Incident Management Team under Unified
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 59Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 59 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 60 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 10
Command2. There may be a representative from the local Fire Department who goes to the
County EOC to assist with their staff about the fire conditions.
The County EOC handles logistical needs for the firefighting crew at the Incident Command
Base; everything from food to supplies and equipment. At the EOC site, dedicated
communications staff keep the public informed through a variety of alert systems. They
coordinate the messages with the other city EOCs and departments as well as the County
Sheriff’s Office.
By 2019, Nixle was in full use, there was a fully staffed County EOC, and each city had its own
EOC, many with a dedicated Public Information Officer (PIO) to handle alerts and
communications. Using the Incident Command Structure3 as its organizational base, the Fire and
Police Departments have worked to more closely align themselves to this structure, which is also
adhered to by CAL FIRE. Every Police Chief and Fire Chief we interviewed for this report
explained in detail how their departments followed this structure and how it enables a ready and
coordinated response. Everyone knows their job and whom to report to.
Alert Systems in Sonoma County
SoCo Emergency
Operating under Sonoma County’s Department of Emergency Management (DEM), SoCo
Emergency supplies emergency information regarding but not limited to: evacuation orders,
active alerts and warnings, links to road closures, pandemic information, and police and fire
departments. This site also provides information on how to prepare for and recover from a
disaster.
SoCoAlerts
SoCoAlert, managed by the DEM, is a free emergency notification service which provides
information about public safety, property or the community’s welfare. It gives Sonoma County
the ability to utilize a library of preformatted messages to quickly send in an emergency.
This provides the County’s first responders a greater ability to notify residents and businesses
through a broader medium using landline and mobile phone, text message, email, and social
media regarding time-sensitive, geographically specific emergency notifications. The system
also works with devices for the hearing impaired.
Nixle
Nixle is a service used by the Sheriff’s Office, city law enforcement, and fire agencies to send
email and text messages that include public safety messages as well as emergency information.
While each subscribing agency determines how they will utilize the messages, they also
recognize the system has limitations. An example of this is the limited amount of data that can
2 Unified Command - In the incident command system, a unified command is an authority structure in which the role
of incident commander is shared by two or more individuals, each already having authority in a different responding
agency.
3 Incident Command is a standardized approach to the command, control, and coordination of emergency response
providing a common hierarchy within which responders from multiple agencies can be effective.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 60Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 60 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 61 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 11
be sent with each alert. As messages are targeted to specific geographic regions based on cell
phones and email accounts, there is the possibility to receive messages outside the designated
emergency area.
As with SoCoAlerts subscribing agencies have the ability to utilize a library of preformatted
messages to quickly send them in an emergency. Messages are created and assigned a priority
level to ensure important information reaches the public.
Wireless Emergency Alerts – WEA
Wireless Emergency Alerts(WEA) are free messages sent directly to cellular phones in a
geographically targeted affected area. WEAs are sent by state, local public safety officials, the
National Weather Service, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and the President. They have a limited number of characters and
notifications are designed to get your attention and alert users with a unique sound and vibration.
The unique sound and vibration cadence are particularly helpful to people with visual or hearing
disabilities.
Source: Emergency Management 2019 Annual Report
Source: Emergency Management 2019 Annual Report
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 61Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 61 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 62 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 12
WEAs are one‐way alerts to any cell phones in range of the cell tower, which ensures that
authorities cannot collect any data from an individual.
Emergency Alert System
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is a national public warning system that requires radio and
TV broadcasters, cable TV, wireless cable systems, satellite and wireline operators to provide the
President with capability to address the American people within 10 minutes during a national
emergency. These are the messages most of us are aware of as the messages can interrupt radio
and television to broadcast the emergency alert information.
METHODOLOGY
This is a self-initiated investigation by the 2020-2021 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury held interviews with:
Representatives from law enforcement and fire agencies
Appointed and elected officials and governmental department heads
The Grand Jury reviewed and evaluated documents from a wide range of sources addressing
emergency communication and evacuations including Emergency Operations Plans, After Action
Reports, Alert and Warning systems, Newspapers and regional news sources, as well as websites
from County and City departments and agencies.
DISCUSSION
On the Receiving End
Communication shortcomings during the many emergencies have been of grave concern for
everyone in the county. Broadband access remains uneven throughout Sonoma County because
of its unique topography, and this affects the reliability of emergency notifications. The 2017
Grand Jury Report “October Firestorm Emergency Response” captures the lack of developed
infrastructure for emergency preparedness of Sonoma County at that time.
Communication Breakdown of County Agencies During the 2017 Sonoma Complex Fires
During the Tubbs Fire, Police and Fire Departments found their radios unable to connect to one
another or to other fire crews arriving from out of the area. The extreme conditions of the fires
made communications chaotic as firefighters were overwhelmed at the front lines and police
were focused primarily upon evacuating residents. Communications between the County EOC
and the city EOCs was inadequate in meeting their needs. The emergency notification systems
did not reach most residents in time, nor had residents or the county agencies held recent
trainings or practice drills for preparedness.
Residents were unable to find updates online or with their cell phones about the fires or the
evacuations. There were widespread power outages and further problems compounded by the
conditions of thick smoke, strong winds and the rapid speed of the fire. Navigation for the fire
engines at Coffey Park was difficult. Residents drove their cars literally through flames and
falling embers and tree limbs. There was a fundamental lack of widespread notifications such as
Hi-Lo Sirens on police cars, or public sirens. In its place, door-to-door notifications were
employed by police and firefighters and others whose heroic effort saved countless lives.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 62Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 62 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 63 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 13
How Technology Plays a Role in Residents’ Response to an Emergency
For the residents living in Sonoma County, some in remote areas, others in neighborhoods, just
how to respond to an emergency and knowing what to do has not always been clear. Some of the
reasons for this include:
Lack of dependable access to broadband (see companion report Broadband Access in
Sonoma County)
Not enough ongoing specific information in local newspapers and press releases about
Nixle, SoCoAlerts, NOAA radios and other emergency alerts: how they function, what
they do, how to sign up, and who needs which alert system
Confusion about the evacuation zones
Inconsistencies in receiving messages through Nixle or SoCoAlert
Multiple non-emergency Nixle messages from different agencies about community news
and police activity in addition to the alerts and warnings
Not knowing where to get updates and news during power outages
Isolation due to the suspension of normal activity during an emergency and being cut off
from other people
Not having up-to-date phones or computers
Being unprepared for an emergency and overwhelmed by the situation
While the police and fire departments and other emergency responders have worked to build
redundancies into their communication systems, residents do not always have the resources or
know-how for going about this for themselves.
Evacuation Alerts and Notifications
Evacuations require a concentrated and coordinated effort on the part of fire and police
departments and emergency personnel. Numerous emergency alerts and communications will be
sent out repeatedly. During fast-moving fires, these notifications become critical to the success
of timely evacuations and lives saved.
In 2017 and 2018, the massive scale of the fires and evacuations throughout the state of
California exposed inconsistencies of the evacuation messages used by local governments that
often led to confusion by the public at a critical time. In response, the California Governor’s
Office of Emergency Services brought together an Evacuation Terminology Working Group4and
in May of 2019 the Governor’s Office announced new standard evacuation terminology be used
throughout the state.
The evacuation conducted for the Kincade Fire in 2019 was by far the largest with about 190,000
residents, or one-third of the county’s population. Because it was not a fast-moving fire, the
County was able to sequence the alerts which gave residents plenty of time to prepare and get
ready to leave. All in all, compared to the 2017 Tubbs Fire, the emergency response was more
successful and the increased staffing at the EOC and agency partnerships helped in the
4 On March 4, 2019, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services convened law enforcement
representatives of FIRESCOPE.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 63Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 63 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 64 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 14
consistency of emergency alerts, the evacuations and in setting up shelters. While there was a
loss of homes and structures, there were no
lives lost this time.
The unusual electrical storm that moved
through northern California on August 15 -
16th of 2020 sparked numerous small fires and
larger ones, leading to the unprecedented
event known as the LNU Lightning Complex
Fires (including Glass Fire). There were two
major fires in Sonoma County, the Walbridge
Fire north of Austin Creek State Park and the
Meyers Fire southeast of Fort Ross. Over forty
separate emergency messages were sent out to the community, and residents who lived closer to
the fires were evacuated. This was the greatest number of messages ever sent out by the EOC to
date. Even so, there were residents who did not receive the warnings or emergency notifications
to evacuate. For others, it was unclear as to where the fires exactly were in proximity to their
homes. In checking County and local websites, residents were directed to ARCgis.com, a
mapping website, which at times was not reliable because of connectivity issues and the timing
of the updates. The evacuation maps sent out with the alerts caused confusion too; there were
differing zones between agencies, such as the County of Sonoma and City of Santa Rosa. There
appeared to be other discrepancies in the alerts and unclear expectations for information.
University of Florida Survey
The unusually large number of people evacuated and the size of the Kincade Fire created a data
gold mine that caught the attention of a group of international researchers at the University of
Florida. Under the direction of Professor Xilei Zhao, they conducted a survey of residents living
in Sonoma County, with the assistance of the DEM. Its objective was to better understand why
residents choose to evacuate and how long they are gone. The results should help Sonoma
County – and other counties – and countries to prepare and make plans for future evacuations.
The report will be posted later this summer on the University of Florida Transportation Institute
Facebook page.
Kincade Fire Evacuations
2020 Walbridge Fire as part of the LNU Lightning Complex
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 64Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 64 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 65 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 15
Evacuation Maps and Zones
Evacuation maps pose special challenges. CAL FIRE has its own maps that differ from the
Sheriff’s Office and local police and fire
departments. This is not so much of a problem
between these experienced parties, but it does
cause confusion from time to time for those
unfamiliar with these differing maps.
Then there are the zones. Each part of Sonoma
County is divided into zones for the Evacuation
Maps used by the County DEM and Sheriff’s
Office. Some maps utilize an alphanumerical
sequence while others use common name
designations. Residents are expected to know
their zone number. Cities are now playing catch up, creating their own city maps, and dividing
their cities into zone quadrants. The Sheriff’s Office and DEM are working hard to coordinate
between the County map and city maps with a rollout in the near future. All this work should
greatly enhance the flow of future evacuations, helping avoid gridlocks and traffic jams.
Residents should be able to know where the fires are occurring and more precisely when they
should evacuate.
During the Kincade Fire, as one-third of the county evacuated, many experienced frustration
with the evacuation maps. At this time, unbeknownst to the evacuees, the Sheriff’s Office and
the DEM were hard at work upgrading the maps to become interactive and more responsive.
However, just before they had completed all their testing, the Kincade Fire started and grew,
leading to – in this case - the premature release of evacuation maps.
The Reliance Upon Technology
Behind the scenes of emergency communications lies an intricate system of equipment; cell
towers and repeater towers, computer networks, etc. Specially trained technicians and managers
operate and maintain these systems and send out the alerts. There are the dispatch operators,
public information officers of city and county Emergency Operations Centers, who generate and
receive emergency alerts. Their know-how and ingenuity are fundamental to the operations of
emergency communications.
The Heart of Emergency Communications: Infrastructure
The elements of emergency communications infrastructure are the equipment required for first
responders and their support teams to communicate with one another. This same equipment is
used by the emergency response team to communicate with the public.
Infrastructure and its equipment includes:
Radios: The fire and police agencies use different frequencies that sometimes prevent
communication between agencies.
Network equipment: Necessary to relay the messages between Incident Command or
dispatch services and the field personnel.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 65Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 65 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 66 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 16
Dispatch: Computer Aided Dispatch software and their network equipment, including the
Public Safety Answering Point which provides telephone links into the dispatch service.
Phones: Communicate with the public—including landlines, cellular phone towers,
peripheral equipment to provide power, et cetera.
What Happens When You Make a 9-1-1 Call
When a person dials 9-1-1 to report an emergency, the call goes through either a landline or by
commercial cell phone towers to a dispatch center. From any of the dispatch centers, a first
responder will be contacted in the field by radio (e.g., law officials, fire agency, or
EMS/ambulance service) to send help. Their radio request is issued from the dispatch service to
area towers that can broadcast the request. The responder similarly reports via radio
communications that return to a tower, and then to the dispatch service.
Towers and Repeaters
The infrastructure used for all this 9-1-1 communication includes the intermediary towers and
repeaters—devices that receive radio signals at one frequency and transmit them at another
frequency at higher power and range—that are distributed throughout the County (see Figure 2
below). These are necessary for broadcasting messages to and receiving from individual
responder’s radios. The dispatch desk equipment is located in both County and various city
offices, the Sheriff’s Office, the Redwood Empire Dispatch Communications (REDCOM)
service, city police, and any city or district fire services or medical/ambulance dispatch services
that are not part of REDCOM. There are also microwave and fiber optic communications that
are used from base stations to the radio repeaters.
The radio towers and their repeaters, power supplies, and related equipment are the crucial links
that transmit radio communications between base stations and radios in the field or simply
between radios in the field. Without that equipment, the emergency Incident Command cannot
get situational awareness updates and cannot order responders to locations and to take necessary
action. Those towers are dispersed throughout the County, to assure coverage. They are
commonly put into elevated positions on mountaintops that provide for line of sight microwave
connectivity among the regional communications. These elevated placements, however, have
the risk of being exposed to the emergency conditions such as fire or wind and becoming
destroyed or incapacitated. The Wallbridge wildfire, for example, threatened to destroy the
tower on Mount Jackson, and necessitated a stand by fire response teams to protect it. Failure to
do so successfully could have disabled parts of the County’s central radio system. Without the
County’s central radio system, emergency notifications may become disabled and cannot be sent.
This continues to be a real threat today to all radio and emergency communications
In addition to exposure to weather conditions, the equipment must be maintained to assure that it
is operating and dependable during emergencies. Periodically, hardware has to be upgraded or,
when obsolete, replaced.
The County towers are under the control of the Sheriff’s Office and operated and maintained by
the Sheriff’s Office Telecommunications Bureau. The towers serve the Sheriff, REDCOM, and
various other County entities from bus communications to fire agencies. The County towers are
also used by other agencies for their telecommunications equipment (under contract with the
Sheriff’s Office for its installation and maintenance).
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 66Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 66 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 67 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 17
Figure 2 – Repeater Locations Source: REDCOM
From Few Alerts to Numerous Alerts:
The Grand Jury heard during the course of this investigation that - Multiple alerts were
intentional – we want people to be bothered. Sonoma County first responders and the DEM
have gained experience from the hard lessons of repeated wildfires. During an emergency, it is
their priority for the community to be alerted at the earliest time possible, preferably during the
daylight hours. In this way residents can better prepare and make evacuation plans. Using
multiple avenues for alerts helps get the message out.
Redundancy
Duplicate notifications through both Nixle and SoAlert are designed to mirror each other.
However, messages do not stop there, but also through Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMAs) Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS) the use of Wireless Emergency
Alerts (WEAs), the Emergency Alert System (EAS), and on the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Weather Radio (NOAA) which all help to notify the public in
times of emergencies.
While they are not an alert and warning system, additional resources are available using app
based programs such as PulsePoint, phone and internet information systems like 2-1-1 Sonoma
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 67Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 67 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 68 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 18
County. There are also social media sites, under the umbrella of the County, Cities, Board of
Supervisors, law enforcement and fire agencies, such as Facebook and Twitter.
There are many benefits when using alerts issued through a variety of public warning systems
such as SoCoAlerts and IPAWS. A single emergency alert can trigger a variety of public
warning systems, increasing the likelihood that people receive the alert by one or more
communication pathways. Multiple messages encourage redundancy of systems to reach various
segments of the public and to serve as back up communications in the event of one or more
system failures. This is necessary because no one alert system reaches all its targets. The Grand
Jury also learned that on average any one alert system may only reach 40% of its targets.
IPAWS indicates The Common Alerting Protocol can:
Add rich multimedia such as photographs, maps, streaming video and audio
Geographically target emergency alerts to a defined warning area - limited only by the
capacity of the delivery system used
Serve the needs of people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or low vision
Send alerts in multiple languages
These multiple alerts have assisted residents in their greatest time of need by helping them to
understand the disasters and know when to evacuate. They have also helped to reduce the
demands on our county police and fire agencies. This can be noted by the dramatic reduction of
9-1-1 calls. (See Figure 3)
Figure 3 – Source: Law Enforcement and REDCOM Dispatch
The High-Technology Systems - Effectiveness of Nixle and SoCoAlerts
There has been improvement at all levels of the alerts and emergency communications used by
the cities and their police and fire departments as well as the county since the Tubbs Fire in
2017. Today, we take for granted and benefit greatly from the standardized messages for
evacuations. Residents may receive multiple messages during an emergency from these different
entities. For the most part, the messages are coordinated carefully among the city’s departments
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 68Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 68 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 69 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 19
and also with the County’s Sheriff’s Office and the EOC. Later in the report, this topic of
multiple messages and building redundancy among the alert systems will be reviewed.
Although the communications systems have generally improved some confusion still exists.
Nixle broadcasts through cell towers in a defined zip code but those broadcasts may extend
beyond the boundaries of the zip code. The County Emergency Operations Center uses a
different alert system, SoCoAlert, which has the capability of sending messages to cellular,
landline, and email systems. Overall, the more alerts and warnings that a resident has access
tohelps to build redundancy, to ensure at least a few messages get through. Sometimes though
there can be differences in the messages that can cause confusion or lack of clarity.
The Low-Technology Systems: Hi-Lo Sirens, Air Raid Sirens, and NOAA
The extremes of Sonoma County topography do not always allow effective transmission of alerts
through the high technology systems. Because of this there need to be additional avenues to
reach our residents. The California Alert and Warning Guidelines recommends counties look at
alternative methods.
Hi-Lo Sirens
A European-style “hi-lo” siren authorized for use by law enforcement on emergency vehicles
indicates an immediate need to evacuate during an emergency. Senate Bill 909, introduced by
Senator Bill Dodd (D-Napa), authorized the installation on police, fire, ambulance, lifeguard,
forestry or other emergency service vehicles.
The sound alternates between a high and a low frequency that alerts everyone of the critical need
to evacuate now - stop everything and leave immediately. During recent fires, these sirens have
been instrumental in helping to evacuate residents.
Air Raid Sirens
Air-raid-style sirens are used at fire stations to call a volunteer
fire department into service. In recent years, new restrictions
have completely silenced them at night or altogether.
While not traditionally used for wildfires they are used in
many parts of the country to warn for tornados or flash floods.
Due to the topography in many areas around Sonoma County,
residents are unable to receive Nixle, SoCoAlerts and at times
NOAA weather radio connections. While some believe that
outdoor sirens are disruptive, others consider it as outdated technology. However, if it could be
used to provide emergency warnings to the hard to reach populations of approaching danger is it
worth a little disruption?
NOAA Weather Radio
NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards (NWR) is a nationwide network of radio stations that
broadcast continuous weather information from the nearest National Weather Service office.
When properly programmed, the National Weather Service can remotely turn on these radios and
send basic alerts, including for wildfire. The message may be accompanied by a warning tone.
The Grand Jury did learn of heartening progress in the community preparedness efforts. The
Santa Rosa Fire Department distributed NOAA Emergency Weather Radios to city residents
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 69Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 69 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 70 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 20
living in the wildland-urban interface area, which was funded by FEMA. The Geyserville Fire
Department distributed NOAA radios as well to its residents in 2020 and will do so again in
2021.
False Sense of Security
For all the pluses of our technology and reliance upon cellphones for information and
communicating, there are serious drawbacks during
an emergency. The vulnerability of county repeaters,
cell towers, and PG&E’s electric lines to extreme
wind conditions has become more apparent. During
this investigation, we heard of worry and caution
from first responders. In the likelihood of another
catastrophic wildfire (such as the Tubbs in 2017), the
first concern would be of resident evacuation.
Firefighting may not be possible until this is
accomplished. Residents must receive alert
notifications about what to do. In the dire scenario of
residents not receiving notifications, it will be up to them to help one another and make their own
plans to evacuate or seek safety.
Leadership Behind the Emergency
At all levels of government and among residents throughout the County, individuals and groups
have worked tirelessly to confront the challenges that face us. Together, goals and work are
being identified and delegated. Solid channels of communication are being created throughout
the County with new networks among neighborhoods and the sharing of tools and knowledge.
This is the building of an infrastructure to bring us through any disaster safely and prepare for
the next while carrying on with our lives.
Activities Currently Underway
In April 2021, “Evacuation tags” were widely distributed to residents by the Sonoma County
Sheriff’s Office and by cities at designated sites countywide. These tags, placed in a
conspicuous place on homes, will indicate to firefighters the homes that have been evacuated
thus saving valuable time in checking upon residents. Fire Departments in the County will also
fly red flags outside of their stations indicating critical fire weather conditions. Red Flag
Warning days are to help alert that conditions are high for a wildland fire - to get ready for
possible evacuation. The Grand Jury learned that most of the cities have followed the County
Sheriff’s Office and also have their police cars outfitted with hi-lo sirens to immediately notify
residents in the event of an emergency.
In the County, there are organizational grassroots efforts underway to implement the many goals
of fire prevention and preparedness. To become a part of the greater Sonoma County Wildfire
Protection Plan, Occidental citizens established a Community Wildfire Protection Plan-
Occidental (CWPP), to strengthen fire prevention and preparedness. Camp Meeker citizens have
also completed a draft community plan through Fire Safe Camp Meeker. The CWPPs are based
upon the Fire Safe Councils’ template and provide a structure for communities to educate
residents about wildfire safety and prevention and to seek funding.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 70Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 70 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 71 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 21
Expansion of the Department of Emergency Management
In 2018, the County Administrator’s Office (COA) and the Board of Supervisors expanded the
DEM into its own independent County department with responsibility of operating the County
EOC. Staffed with dedicated Public Information Officers, and highly trained alerts
managers/technicians, the EOC functions as the support to the firefighters on the lines; providing
supplies, food, coordination of messages, and communications. Representatives from the larger
city fire and police departments are stationed at the County EOC to relay messages between their
departments in the field and the County.
Law Enforcement
The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office is the main law enforcement agency within the
unincorporated areas of the County. By contract, it also serves the needs of the cities of Sonoma
and Windsor. The other seven cities in the County have their own police departments. The
primary duty of a department is to help protect the people, community, and property. This
includes controlling traffic, responding to emergency calls, arresting violators and solving
crimes.
In a community’s greatest time of need, such as a disaster, they are there to help. During the
major wildfires in our county, they were instrumental in leading the evacuation efforts,
controlling traffic, monitoring the safety of neighborhoods, and keeping the community updated.
Agencies depend on mutual aid agreements to help fill this need. When the EOC is activated,
they play a key role in the alerts and warnings sent to the community.
During a disaster, no law enforcement agency has enough staffing to fulfill the immediate needs.
They must rely on mutual aid from other agencies who can assist with door-to-door evacuations,
direct traffic, and protect the containment areas from looting and for the safety of everyone.
Fire Agencies: Their Many Roles
Firefighters are the front line of our disaster response. They are who residents see first. During
the wildfire season, they become the protectors of homes and of entire communities, not to
mention lives. During the larger events, through mutual aid agreements, fire departments from
other areas will come to the assistance of one another.
An interesting fact about the work of fire departments; a large portion of their calls are health
related; paramedics are part of their staff. Their work goes far beyond the front lines. This is
more apparent than ever with the increased fires. Fire Chiefs serve as real world representatives
on the Emergency Council, and other local government groups. They lobby for bills before the
California State Legislature related to fires issues such as hardening of cell towers and vegetation
mitigation.
Fire preparation and education have become an important part of their communit y outreach.
They encourage and support COPE and CERT groups, the Block Captains Program, and Fire
Safe Councils. Fire departments remain actively involved in the recovery process after a major
disaster. Immediately after a fire, they spend several weeks mopping up, and restoring damage
from bulldozer breaks. Later, they assist homeowners with the rebuilding process and dealing
with insurance claims. This administrative support can last years with fire departments handling
the aftermath of several fire events.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 71Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 71 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 72 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 22
Emergency Council
The Emergency Council is an advisory body with an oversight role over all aspects of emergency
response in the county and the Emergency Operations Plan. They study, advise, and recommend
to the Board of Supervisor on all aspects of the Emergency Operations Plan.
The Emergency Council is composed of 22 or more members, including the Fire Chief, the
County Administrative Officer, the chairperson of the Board of Supervisors, county department
heads, and people representing various private sectors, including the Red Cross and disability
advocates. The County Administrative Officer is designated as the Director of Emergency
Services.
How the County and Cities Work Together
Dusting Off the Emergency Operations Plans
Following the 2017 Tubbs Fire it was found that the Emergency Operating Plans (EOP),
standard required documents of cities and county departments, were outdated and inadequate. .
They were too general, and in need of more specific recommendations for different kinds of
disaster situations. At the time of this investigation, many of these EOPs were in the process of
being closely reviewed for updates – and not yet available for this report.
Overview of Emergency Operations Plans
The California Governor’s Office of Emergencies Services supports the counties with EOP
template plans and best practices. The EOP is designed as a flexible platform to address
significant and extraordinary requirements imposed by large-scale disasters on county
infrastructure. The purpose of the plan is to “facilitate multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional
coordination during emergency operations, particularly between Sonoma County and local
governments, including special districts, as well as state and Federal agencies.” (County of
Sonoma, State of California, Resolution No. 14-0504, approved, 12/9/2014) In this way, the
EOP ensures that emergency responses by local agencies will seamlessly coordinate with larger
entities such as the State of California and Federal agencies as necessitated by the scope and
nature of the emergency.
Sonoma County/Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan
The EOP is designed to establish the implementation of the Standardized Emergency
Management System (SEMS). As the lead agency for coordinating planning, it states the
Wallbridge Fire Hennessy Fire (seen from Sonoma Co.)
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 72Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 72 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 73 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 23
Sonoma County Fire & Emergency Services Department (now the Department of Emergency
Management) is responsible to maintain the EOP, the EOP’s annexes, revision and
documentation. The EOP must include all populations, such as the disabled, within its planning.
Agencies under the umbrella of the EOP may modify their plans.
The County’s current EOP dates from December 2014, in which it identified as “the plan that
each jurisdiction has and maintains for responding to relevant threats and hazards that defines the
emergency management organization, structure and coordination.” The subsequent fire of 2017
and the apparent lack of emergency preparedness triggered the 2017 Civil Grand Jury to query
the lack of updates to this plan, which might have better prepared the County and prevented loss
of life. In response, the Board of Supervisors committed to update the plan by 2019. This date
has come and gone, and the EOP is still under revision.
Investigating this topic produced some rather disturbing insights. At least one member of the
current BOS was not aware of this plan. Other County leaders seemed distanced from the
particulars of the EOP. Furthermore, interviews with emergency responding agencies produced
varying results. Many agencies currently use the County’s Plan instead of developing one of
their own.
The Sonoma County Fire District’s EOP was recently updated. The Healdsburg Fire Department
is in the process of updating their plan and expecting to have it completed in 2021. The residents
of Healdsburg were smoothly evacuated during the Kincade Fire. The Sebastopol Fire
Department’s EOP, last updated in 1996, is currently being updated. It lacks an evacuation plan
which resulted in problems during the Kincade Fire. Lack of a formal plan caused gridlock and
“total chaos” while 8,000 people were evacuating. Fortunately, the city was in no immediate
danger, so the tragedy of the Tubbs fire was not repeated, but this does not bode well for future
emergencies.
Should updates to EOPs be done in response to
changing circumstances incorporating best
practices from After Action reports (see below
After Action Report)? It does not appear that
there is any built-in time requirement for when the
changes are to be made such as there would be in a
living document5. This could be a problem. For
example, since the adoption of the county EOP in
2014, the Tubbs Fire of 2017 resulted in loss of
life when emergency signals failed to be activated
in a timely fashion. Without better oversight of
the timely updating of County and local agency
EOPs, emergency response may fail catastrophically, again.
The After Action Reports
After a declared emergency is over, the County and City agencies involved are required to
produce and file After Action Reports to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency
5 A living document, otherwise known as an evergreen or dynamic document, is a document that is continually
edited and updated. Living documents, at a minimum, are reviewed and updated on an annual basis.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 73Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 73 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 74 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 24
Services (OES), which include a Summary of the Incidents, Lessons Learned with
Recommendations, and a Conclusion. The departments should then implement the
Recommendations made, to make immediate corrections and improvements.
These reports are highly detailed and technical and give an inside look into the complexity of the
emergency communications and alerts operations. If it seems obscure to residents how or why
changes are being made, the following extracts will provide greater understanding into the
behind-the-scenes work.
Excerpts from the January 28, 2020 Power Shutoff and Kincade Fire After Action Report:
“There were times during the power shutoff where warnings were delayed as the EOC
tried to define the power outage area as accurately as possible using GIS maps. However,
this turned out to be futile because the shut-off maps were subject to change and not
accurate or reliable. The Recommendation is that Alerts for power shutoffs should be
widely disseminated even if it means alerting outside the predicted affected areas (unless
doing so may cause undue panic).”
“Testing and operational use of the WEA system has shown consistently that when
attempts were made to minimize the alerting area, this resulted in insufficient alerting
through the failure to activate cell towers. The Recommendations is to continue to “Go
Big” with the WEA system even though it is advertised to have the ability to send
focused messages to defined geographic areas. Even if the system works as advertised in
no-notice dynamic incidents such as wildfires, we should continue to “Go Big”.”
Hi-Lo Sirens - “Although not an asset controlled directly by the EOC, we have received
anecdotal reports that the sheriff’s use of the Hi-Lo sirens was beneficial during the
evacuation. Typically people receiving alerts seek confirmation before acting on alerts;
having the Hi-Lo sirens both helps alert people and provides a confirmation mechanism.”
While After Action Reports are completed following a disaster, the lessons from each need to be
added to the County and Cities EOPs.
Community Preparedness and Outreach
Outreach and education about disaster preparedness to the community is one of the missions of
the newly expanded Department of Emergency Management. The overall objective of disaster
preparedness is to save lives and lay the groundwork for a smoother long-term recovery.
Individual actions taken altogether are what will comprise a societal shift towards preparedness
that becomes a new measure of community well-being.
Preparedness Objectives
The emergency alerts, and knowing how to use them, are part of the preparedness objectives for
residents. For the alerts to be fully effective, residents need to sign up for alerts and learn what it
means to be prepared for an emergency. Preparation would include everything from having
enough food and water supplies for at least three days (or up to a week), a go bag, a family
emergency plan for evacuation, taking care of pets, and making homes and landscapes fire-
resistant. If a wildfire event or other disaster does occur, residents will be better able to act
quickly when they receive an alert to evacuate, and not panic. Importantly, they will not waste
valuable time searching frantically on cellphones for updates on the wildfire or for evacuation
maps.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 74Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 74 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 75 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 25
A ‘Whole Community’ Approach
The re-envisioned and expanded 2019 Department of
Emergency Management includes a position called the
Community Preparedness Program Manager. Its main
objective is to develop disaster preparedness strategies
through applying a “whole community approach” which
will foster countywide resiliency. What this means is
that the outreach focuses upon different social sectors
and neighborhoods and helps them to develop their own
preparedness plans and to work together as a support
group. These groups include those age 65 and over, the
disadvantaged or homeless, people with children, the Latinx populations and many others.
Currently the Community Preparedness Program Manager relies upon volunteers and an intern
for assistance, which may not be sufficient for the goals of the DEM.
Community Preparedness Plan of 2019
The Community Preparedness Plan lays out different strategies and outreach activities to move
the community toward a culture of preparedness. This includes publicity campaigns to
newspapers about signing up for Nixle and SoCoAlerts, and the formation of a new stakeholder
committee to reach different sectors of the community. A committee is at work on the 2021-
2023 Community Preparedness Plan. This group includes partners from local non-profits,
neighborhood preparedness groups, the business sector and local government; representing all
the geographic areas of the county. It also included Latinx and senior representatives.
COPE: Citizens Organized to Prepare for Emergencies
COPE organizations are citizen groups that help a neighborhood to prepare before, during, and
after an emergency. Very often emergencies create gaps that first responders cannot fill. The
gaps can be caused by catastrophic conditions at the onset of an emergency, such as immediate
evacuation needs. Other needs include communications to neighbors, visitors who might not be
reached through official emergency communications, non-English speakers, and individuals
without phones, computers, or the skills to use them. COPE groups are especially important in
fast-moving and wide-spread emergencies, where responders are drawn thin or are overwhelmed.
This was the case in recent wildfires, where responders were not able to give prolonged
support—or any support at all—to some areas because of higher priority demands. It is with this
in mind that self-sufficiency of a neighborhood or area, especially through well thought out
group action as in COPE, is strongly advocated by fire agencies—especially in messages from
fire chiefs who have had to deal with recent major wildfires. COPE groups cover gaps that
government and first responders cannot fill.
COPE activities include:
Up-front preparations: personal preparation for emergencies, training, nei ghborhood
mapping, home hardening, defensible space creation and maintenance (fuel
management), signage for responders and for evacuees, plans for action by COPE
members.
Actions during an emergency: members of the COPE group may have directed
communications planned for emergencies, using radio or phone to provide information
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 75Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 75 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 76 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 26
and to check in on residents. At least one Northern Sonoma County COPE has indicated
that they also use the application PulsePoint to monitor and inform their members of
emergency activity. Checking in with vulnerable residents early in an emergency is one
of the most important actions, to assure that everyone is aware of the emergency and is
able to get to safety. A COPE group can provide evacuation notifications to residents,
and can follow-up with residents who are known to need assistance.
Post-emergency support: COPE groups in the post-emergency stage disseminate
information on recovery, such as insurance, contractors, or erosion control. COPE may
facilitate meetings or may circulate information on those topics, and look in on residents
to assure that they are aware of information and requirements in a post-emergency period.
Sonoma County government supports the formation of COPE groups through the Sonoma
County Emergency Management Department as well as through various fire agencies. Both the
County and fire agencies provide start-up and continuous development information and training
upon request.
COPE groups are now fairly well-established and active in some of Sonoma County’s rural areas
and in some town to wilderness interface areas—places where residents understand that fire and
other emergency support is limited and exposure to wildfire is potentially high. COPE groups
are established in Santa Rosa’s Oakmont neighborhood and in the northern Sonoma County area
served by the Northern Sonoma County Fire District. The North Sonoma County area has
several COPE groups in existence: in Healdsburg as well as areas of Dry Creek, Fitch Mountain,
and Mill Creek, Geyserville, Cloverdale, Franz Valley, Knights Valley, Windsor, and
Larkfield/Wikiup.
COAD: The Community Organizations Active in Disaster
Sonoma County’s Department of Emergency Management also works with a formally managed
group of volunteer organizations that are important for the full span of disaster management.
The Community Organizations Active in Disaster (COAD), is a group of community
organizations that seeks to maximize the benefits that can be offered in “resources, information
and response efforts to best serve Sonoma communities before, during and following a disaster.”
The group is actively managed by an executive committee and has additional committees to
address communications, long-term recovery, donations, emotional care, preparedness, and
functional needs. COAD is a new name for a prior local group called Voluntary Organizations
Active in Disaster (VOAD), which was patterned after the national VOAD precepts following
the establishment of those in 1970, but which was largely inactive prior to the Sonoma County
wildfires of 2017. The COAD has been re-energized subsequent to the wildfires. A new set of
Bylaws and a new Executive Committee were established in 2020. Emergency Management and
the Office of Recovery and Resiliency work with the COAD under the Community Preparedness
programs, and they participate in the COAD leadership and Executive Committee.
CONCLUSION
The Grand Jury initiated this investigation with a set of questions that sought to understand how
well County agencies had adapted emergency communications to lessons learned during recent
wildfire, flood, and pandemic issues. Additionally, the Grand Jury sought to understand how
well the public understood these adaptations. It adds the question: did the public take to heart the
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 76Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 76 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 77 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 27
recommendations for all emergency preparations such as home hardening? What was initially a
rather specific question of whether Nixle and SoCoAlerts communications have been best used
by agencies expanded to whether there has been enough outreach and education by the county on
how to prepare for emergencies. We have used the date of October 8, the anniversary of the
Tubbs and Nuns Fires, in our Recommendations under Evacuations, to underscore the threats
and the need for urgency by Sonoma County for this fire season.
County agencies were very responsive to our questions, and had made significant progress on
communications and preparation for emergencies over the last three years. Revision and release
of core documents—i.e., the County’s Emergency Operations Plan—is expected be completed
this year. It should thereby provide greater confidence in the County’s ability to deal with future
emergencies, and may produce better results. It will guide city plans and evacuation zone
revisions. The County must continue its public education efforts about evacuation zones. This
information is essential in preparing for future large-scale events. Next, the County should take
steps to “harden” and update critical communications infrastructure, to assure that responders
can communicate in emergencies. Finally, if the County takes steps to improve citizen
preparation through education and through establishment of citizen volunteer groups. it will be
in a stronger position to mitigate the harm from future emergencies that overwhelm responders.
The Grand Jury was impressed by the improvements that have been put in place for emergency
communications and the broader emergency response since the Tubbs and Nuns Fires. There
are, as one would expect, items that can be further improved, and there are areas that are deemed
to be inadequately addressed to date (perhaps in some cases because County and district agencies
have been busy with repeated emergencies). The use of Nixle, SoCoAlerts, and IPAWS
communication tools has been demonstrated in recent events to be largely effective to alert the
public and to guide evacuations. However, the County and cities may still have a long way to go
to ensure all notifications are getting out.
FINDINGS
Alerts and Warnings
F1. The alerts and warnings, law enforcement and fire response efforts since the 2017 fires
have been successful in the mass evacuation of residents, saving lives, and preventing
more loss of homes.
F2. The use of Nixle, SoCoAlerts, 2-1-1 Sonoma County, and PulsePoint has helped to
reduce the emergency call load to 9-1-1 during a disaster by providing important
information to the public.
F3. During an emergency, residents in both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of
Sonoma County receive multiple and at times conflicting messages.
F4. There are some groups and individuals of the population who may not receive alerts
directly; these include the elderly, tourists, farm workers, migrants, those hard of
hearing, non-English speaking, and individuals with special needs.
F5. Due to the limitations of the alert and warning systems, duplication of alerts and
warnings across many platforms helps to get the messages to more residents of the
county.
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:
Emergency Alerts and Communications 27
recommendations for all emergency preparations such as home hardening? What was initially a
rather specific question of whether Nixle and SoCoAlerts communications have been best used
by agencies expanded to whether there has been enough outreach and education by the county on
how to prepare for emergencies. We have used the date of October 8, the anniversary of the
Tubbs and Nuns Fires, in our Recommendations under Evacuations, to underscore the threats
and the need for urgency by Sonoma County for this fire season.
County agencies were very responsive to our questions, and had made significant progress on
communications and preparation for emergencies over the last three years. Revision and release
of core documents—i.e., the County’s Emergency Operations Plan—is expected be completed
this year. It should thereby provide greater confidence in the County’s ability to deal with future
emergencies, and may produce better results. It will guide city plans and evacuation zone
revisions. The County must continue its public education efforts about evacuation zones. This
information is essential in preparing for future large-scale events. Next, the County should take
steps to “harden” and update critical communications infrastructure, to assure that responders
can communicate in emergencies. Finally, if the County takes steps to improve citizen
preparation through education and through establishment of citizen volunteer groups. it will be
in a stronger position to mitigate the harm from future emergencies that overwhelm responders.
The Grand Jury was impressed by the improvements that have been put in place for emergency
communications and the broader emergency response since the Tubbs and Nuns Fires. There
are, as one would expect, items that can be further improved, and there are areas that are deemed
to be inadequately addressed to date (perhaps in some cases because County and district agencies
have been busy with repeated emergencies). The use of Nixle, SoCoAlerts, and IPAWS
communication tools has been demonstrated in recent events to be largely effective to alert the
public and to guide evacuations. However, the County and cities may still have a long way to go
to ensure all notifications are getting out.
FINDINGS
Alerts and Warnings
F1. The alerts and warnings, law enforcement and fire response efforts since the 2017 fires
have been successful in the mass evacuation of residents, saving lives, and preventing
more loss of homes.
F2. The use of Nixle, SoCoAlerts, 2-1-1 Sonoma County, and PulsePoint has helped to
reduce the emergency call load to 9-1-1 during a disaster by providing important
information to the public.
F3. During an emergency, residents in both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of
Sonoma County receive multiple and at times conflicting messages.
F4. There are some groups and individuals of the population who may not receive alerts
directly; these include the elderly, tourists, farm workers, migrants, those hard of
hearing, non-English speaking, and individuals with special needs.
F5. Due to the limitations of the alert and warning systems, duplication of alerts and
warnings across many platforms helps to get the messages to more residents of the
county.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 77Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 77 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 78 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 28
F6. The role of the Emergency Operations Center during recent emergencies has helped to
improve the sharing of information among the many fire and police districts and the
County as well as improving the consistency of messaging across alert and warning
platforms; particularly, the Nixle, SoCoAlerts.
F7. The low-technology alert systems (for example hi-lo and air raid sirens), which do not
rely on communication towers, provide essential backup during power outages and
cellphone tower breakdowns during severe storms or fires.
F8. Due to the topography within Sonoma County, the re-institution of audible alarms such
as air-raid sirens could dependably reach residents in remote areas and work as a
reliable tried-and-true alarm system.
Evacuations
F9. Different evacuation zone designations for the same area (numbers, names, streets,
areas, etc.) by the County, cities, CAL FIRE and agencies can lead to confusion for
residents during an emergency.
F10. Because evacuation zones were not published or known, prior to the recent
emergencies, residents were unaware of their evacuation zones.
F11. Not all police and fire agencies within the County show an Evacuation Map on their
website.
Infrastructure and the Reliance Upon Technology
F12. The County communication network is at risk of communication tower/repeater
equipment loss through delayed maintenance and failure to update obsolescent
equipment, or disaster loss affecting the Sheriff’s Department, city, police, fire
agencies, and Redwood Empire Dispatch Communications.
F13. There is no backup system for the County communication towers/repeaters or for
commercial cellular towers should they fail to function.
F14. The County communication towers/repeaters and cellular provider towers are not
maintained and protected (including defensible space) sufficiently to ensure alerts and
warnings can go out in the event of a disaster.
F15. Department of Emergency Management does not have documentation/maps of the
physical location of the cellular provider communication towers in the event of a
disaster.
F16. PulsePoint is a useful tool for community groups and the public for early notification of
fire activites (e.g. controlled burns, smoke). Calls dispatched through Redwood Empire
Dispatch Communications (REDCOM) are updated onto PulsePoint.
F17. Residents of Cloverdale and Rohnert Park cannot receive local PulsePoint alerts
because those cities do not utilize Redwood Empire Dispatch Communications
(REDCOM) for fire and medical dispatch.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 78Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 78 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 79 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 29
Emergency Operations Plans
F18. The Board of Supervisors has not fulfilled its commitment to update the 2014
Emergency Operations Plan by 2018-2019. This commitment was made in response to
a Recommendation by the 2017-2018 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury.
F19. Various agencies, cities, and the public rely on the County Emergency Operations Plan
for their disaster preparedness and best practices regarding the alerts and warning
systems.
F20. Recommendations documented in After Action Reports following a disaster have not
been incorporated into the current Emergency Operations Plans for Sonoma County
Department of Emergency Management, the Sheriff’s Office, Cities, and fire agencies.
F21. The Warm Springs dam is under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
local fire agencies do not have access to protocols established in the event that the dam
fails.
F22. San Francisco Bay Area Counties, of which Sonoma County is part of, has not yet
submitted its annual Emergency Alert System plan to the State Emergency Alert
System Committee of California as recommended by the 2019 State of California Alert
and Warning Guidelines.
F23. Disaster and Emergency Preparedness has become an all-year round activity for both
County departments and staff and residents alike.
Community Outreach-Preparedness
F24. Sonoma County has made good progress in Community Outreach and Preparedness
since the 2017 Tubbs Fire, however; residents may not fully appreciate or realize that
preparing for resiliency during emergencies is an ever-evolving process and requires
ongoing attention.
F25. Government cannot help residents with everything during a disaster. Continued
development and expansion of Citizens Organized to Prepare for Emergencies /
Community Emergency Response Teams groups are deemed essential as major
emergencies could overwhelm agencies’ ability to fully reach and protect people and
property.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Alerts and Warnings
R1. By October 31, 2021 the Sheriff’s Office, Department of Emergency Management, and
nine cities’ departments include within their Emergency Operations Plans action steps
to reach all subpopulations within the County who may not otherwise receive an alert.
(F4, F6, F7, F8)
R2. By October 31, 2021 the Board of Supervisors review and propose additional alert and
warning methods such as air raid sirens and public address systems to put contingencies
in place when broadband fails or is not available. (F5, F7, F8, F13)
R3. By October 31, 2021, the Department of Emergency Management explain the
challenges behind the emergency communications in order that residents may
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:
Emergency Alerts and Communications 29
Emergency Operations Plans
F18. The Board of Supervisors has not fulfilled its commitment to update the 2014
Emergency Operations Plan by 2018-2019. This commitment was made in response to
a Recommendation by the 2017-2018 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury.
F19. Various agencies, cities, and the public rely on the County Emergency Operations Plan
for their disaster preparedness and best practices regarding the alerts and warning
systems.
F20. Recommendations documented in After Action Reports following a disaster have not
been incorporated into the current Emergency Operations Plans for Sonoma County
Department of Emergency Management, the Sheriff’s Office, Cities, and fire agencies.
F21. The Warm Springs dam is under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
local fire agencies do not have access to protocols established in the event that the dam
fails.
F22. San Francisco Bay Area Counties, of which Sonoma County is part of, has not yet
submitted its annual Emergency Alert System plan to the State Emergency Alert
System Committee of California as recommended by the 2019 State of California Alert
and Warning Guidelines.
F23. Disaster and Emergency Preparedness has become an all-year round activity for both
County departments and staff and residents alike.
Community Outreach-Preparedness
F24. Sonoma County has made good progress in Community Outreach and Preparedness
since the 2017 Tubbs Fire, however; residents may not fully appreciate or realize that
preparing for resiliency during emergencies is an ever-evolving process and requires
ongoing attention.
F25. Government cannot help residents with everything during a disaster. Continued
development and expansion of Citizens Organized to Prepare for Emergencies /
Community Emergency Response Teams groups are deemed essential as major
emergencies could overwhelm agencies’ ability to fully reach and protect people and
property.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Alerts and Warnings
R1. By October 31, 2021 the Sheriff’s Office, Department of Emergency Management, and
nine cities’ departments include within their Emergency Operations Plans action steps
to reach all subpopulations within the County who may not otherwise receive an alert.
(F4, F6, F7, F8)
R2. By October 31, 2021 the Board of Supervisors review and propose additional alert and
warning methods such as air raid sirens and public address systems to put contingencies
in place when broadband fails or is not available. (F5, F7, F8, F13)
R3. By October 31, 2021, the Department of Emergency Management explain the
challenges behind the emergency communications in order that residents may
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 79Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 79 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 80 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 30
understand, trust, and appreciate the complexity and the ongoing work it takes to
maintain effectiveness. (F3, F5, F19)
Evacuations
R4. By October 8, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office, Department of Emergency Management, and
nine cities work together to ensure consistent naming for all evacuation maps used by
the public and first responders. (F9, F10, F11)
R5. By October 8, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office, Department of Emergency Management, and
nine cities work together to ensure the public is informed of their evacuation zones by
publishing evacuation maps in local media, online, and through SoCo Emergency. (F9,
F10, F11)
Infrastructure
R6. By December 31, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office develop a plan and identify what is needed
to bring the communication tower equipment/repeaters up-to-date to ensure during an
emergency the systems function (legacy and end of life systems.) (F12, F13)
R7. By March 31, 2022, the Sheriff’s Office and Board of Supervisors provide funding to
maintain the communication tower equipment/repeaters. (F12, F13, F14)
R8. By June 30, 2022, the Sheriff’s Office implement the plan to bring the communication
tower equipment/repeaters up-to-date. (F12)
R9. By December 31, 2021, the Department of Emergency Management work with Permit
Sonoma to identify where all cellular provider towers are in the county. (F14, F15)
R10. By October 31, 2021 the Sheriff’s Office and Department of Emergency Management
work with the Fire Agencies in the county work ensure that defensible space standards
(as outlined by CAL FIRE) are met for all county communication towers/repeaters and
cellular provider network towers. (F12, F13, F14)
R11. By September 30, 2021, The Sheriff’s Office and Department of Emergency
Management work with the Fire Agencies in the County to define actions to take during
a disaster for the protection of all County communication towers/repeaters and cellular
network towers. (F12, F13, F14)
R12. By December 31, 2021, the Department of Emergency Management work with cellular
tower providers to ensure a plan is developed to ensure defensible space standards are
implemented around each tower. (F12, F13, F14)
Emergency Operations Plans
R13. By October 31, 2021, the Department of Emergency Management update the County
Emergency Operations Plan to incorporate and post on the Department of Emergency
Management website the most up-to-date information and Recommendations from the
After Action Reports since the disasters of 2017 (F19, F20)
R14. By October 31, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approve the updated County Emergency
Operations Plan. (F18, F19)
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 80Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 80 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 81 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 31
R15. By October 31, 2021, the nine cities update their Emergency Operations Plan to
incorporate the most up-to-date information and lessons learned since the disasters of
2017 and post it on their websites. (F20)
R16. By September 30, 2021, Department of Emergency Management obtain from the US
Army Corps of Engineers a copy of the Emergency Operations Plan for Warm Springs
Dam and incorporate it into the County Emergency Operations Plan and post it on the
Department of Emergency Management website. (F21)
R17. By December 31, 2021, Department of Emergency Management, through the San
Francisco Bay Area Counties, submit its annual Emergency Alert System Plan to the
State Emergency Alert System Committee of California as recommended within the
2019 State of California Alert and Warnings Guidelines. (F22)
R18. By December 31, 2021, the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution that all major
County disaster plans having to do with Emergencies and Emergency Preparedness be
considered “Living Documents” to be reviewed and updated on an annual basis. (F18,
F19, F20)
Community Outreach
R19. By December 31, 2021, the Department of Emergency Management publicize the work
of community preparedness groups such as Citizens Organized to Prepare for
Emergencies, Community Emergency Response Teams, and Community Organizations
Around Disasters to more effectively reach all residents about emergency alerts and
warnings. (F4, F24, F25)
R20. By December 31, 2021, the Board of Supervisors increase the capacity of the
Department of Emergency Management’s Community Preparedness function in order
to effectively engage the greater community in disaster preparedness with groups such
as Fire Safe Sonoma, neighborhood groups such as Citizens Organized to Prepare for
Emergencies, and Community Emergency Response Teams to foster resilience. (F24,
F25)
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the grand jury requires responses as follows:
Board of Supervisors (R2, R8, R14, R18, R20)
Department of Emergency Management (R1, R3, R4, R5, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R16,
R17, R19)
Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office (R1, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R10, R11)
City of Cloverdale (R1, R4, R5, R15)
City of Cotati (R1, R4, R5, R15)
City of Healdsburg (R1, R4, R5, R15)
City of Petaluma (R1, R4, R5, R15)
City of Rohnert Park (R1, R4, R5, R15)
City of Santa Rosa (R1, R4, R5, R15)
City of Sebastopol (R1, R4, R5, R15
City of Sonoma (R1, R4, R5, R15)
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 81Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 81 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 82 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 32
City of Windsor (R1, R4, R5, R15)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must
be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
INVITED RESPONSES
The Grand Jury invites the following to respond:
Sonoma County Fire Chiefs Association (R10, R11)
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Bikales, James. “’Totally inadequate’: Most Californians in wildfire-prone counties aren’t
signed up for emergency alerts.” CALMATTERS, October 7, 2020.
Carter, Lori A. “California Legislature passes bill to allow ‘hi-lo’ sirens to signal
evacuations.” The Press Democrat, November 30, 2020
COPE Northern Sonoma County. “Welcome to COPE”. Citizens Organized to Prepare for
Emergencies. copenosoco@gmail.com
California Code of Regulations, Title 19. Public Safety, Division 2. Office of Emergency
Services, Chapter 1. Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), Article 8.
After Action Reports Section 2450. Reporting Requirements
Chavez, Nashelly. “Researchers delve into Kincade fire evacuation trends.” The Press
Democrat, December 19, 2020.
County of Sonoma, Board of Supervisors, Emergency Management, Sonoma County,
2019 Annual Report, 2019
County of Sonoma, County Government Code, Chapter 10, Emergency Management and
Response, December 2014
County of Sonoma, Fire and Emergency Services Department, Sonoma
County/Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan, December 2014
County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Operational Area, Alert and Warning Functional
Exercise After Action Report/Improvement Plan, September 10 and 12, 2018
County of Sonoma, Sonoma Operational Area and the County of Sonoma Department of
Emergency Management, 2019 Kincade Fire After Action Report, March 2020
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, 2017-2018 Final Report, “October Firestorm
Emergency Response.”
Sonoma County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Fire Safe Sonoma 2016.
State of California, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Alert &
Warning Guidelines, March 2019 (Calalerts.org)
State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), Stats and
Events, Top 20 Deadliest California Wildfires, April 28, 2021
State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), Stats and
Events, Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires, April 28, 2021
State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) Stats and
Events, Top 20 Largest California Wildfires, April 28, 2021
State of California, Office of Emergency Services, State of California, Alert & Warning
Guidelines, March 2019
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 82Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 82 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 83 Final Report 2020-2021Emergency Alerts and Communications 33
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015-2030.Adopted at the Third UN World Conference in Sendai, Japan, on
March 18, 2015
APPENDIX A
Resources for Sonoma County and National Alert Notifications
SoCo Emergency
SoCo Emergency supplies emergency information regarding but not limited to:
evacuation orders, active alerts and warnings, links to road closures, pandemic
information, and police and fire departments. Use the links within SoCo Emergency to sign up
for Alerts and Warnings.
SoCoAlerts
SoCoAlert, A free emergency notification service that provides Sonoma County first
responders the ability to notify residents and businesses with specific emergency
notifications. The user may select to receive alerts through landline, cell phone next messages,
or pre-recorded verbal messages and emails. The system also works with devices for the hearing
impaired.
SoCoAlerts has the ability to use reverse 9-1-1. However, it should not assumed that all
information is in the system. Visit SoCoAlert.com to register online.
Register by phone, at (866) 939-0911 or (707) 565-1369 and speak to a communications
specialist to complete the registration.
The SoCoAlert sign-up page allows the subscriber to indicate both primary and alternate
phone numbers.
Subscribe to updates on SoCo Emergency to receive email updates on new safety
information and incidents.
Nixle
Nixle is a service used by local law enforcement and fire agencies to send email and text
messages that include public safety messages as well as emergency information.
Messages are targeted to specific geographic regions based on the cell phone and email account.
If your address falls within this geographic area, you will receive the message. Additional
locations from across the country may be added.
Text your zip code to 888777 to opt-in or sign up online to receive email or text
messages with alerts and advisories
Nixle relies on individuals to sign up to receive alerts
Nixle has the ability for both English and Spanish alerts
Nixle has a limited amount of data that can be sent with each alert
Zip codes cross lines there is potential to get alerted no matter jurisdiction
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 83Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 83 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 84 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 34
2-1-1 Sonoma County
2-1-1 Sonoma County is an information and referral service connecting the community
with information about health and human service t. During times of a disaster in
coordination with local emergency service will also provide incident-specific information,
road closures and shelters.
Service is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with interpretation services
Phone: Dial 2-1-1 from a landline or cell phone in Sonoma County
Text: Text your zip code to 898-211 .
Phone: By dialing toll-free number (800-325-9604).
Online: Search the 2-1-1 resource database online at 211sonoma.org
Integrated Public Alert & Warning System
The FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS) is a national system for local
alerting that provides authenticated emergency and life-saving information to the public through
mobile phones using Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs), to radio and television via the
Emergency Alert System (EAS), and on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Weather Radio (NOAA).
Wireless Emergency Alerts – WEA
Wireless Emergency Alerts are free messages sent directly to cellular phones in a
geographically targeted affected area, to provide brief critical information about a threat in
set location, emergency warning about severe weather, AMBER Alerts and threats to
safety in the area.
WEAs are sent by state, local public safety officials, the National Weather Service, the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the President. The
notification, with a unique sound and vibration, are designed to get attention. The unique sound
and vibration cadence are particularly helpful to people with visual or hearing disabilities.
Learn more about WEA
Emergency Alert System
Emergency Alert System is a national public warning system that requires radio and TV
broadcasters, cable TV, wireless cable systems, satellite and wireline operators.
FEMA, in partnership with the Federal Communications Commission and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is responsible for implementing, maintaining and
operating the EAS at the federal level.
NOAA Weather Radio
NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards broadcasts official warnings, watches, forecasts and
other hazard information 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Use a NWR if cell phones
or internet is interrupted.
The National Weather Service can remotely turn on these radios and send basic alerts, including
for wildfire. The message may be accompanied by a warning tone, depending on the model of
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 84Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 84 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 85 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 35
radio you purchase. If you are deaf or have hearing loss these radios have add-on equipment
such as strobe lights and bed shakers.
Sonoma County residents may tune their NOAA radio to:
o County of Sonoma Frequency 162.475
o Northwest Sonoma County Frequency 162.550
o Southwest Sonoma County Frequency 162.475
SoCo Emergency Weather Radio Guide
National Weather Radio (NWR) Receivers
National Weather Service - Forecasts
Red Flag Warning NWS > Fire weather watch or RFW
NOAA Weather Forecast > Will show forecasted wind events, red flags, etc
Local Radio Stations
740 AM and 106.9 FM: KCBS Radio 1350 AM: KSRO Radio
89.1 FM: KBBF Radio (Bilingual/Spanish) 91 FM: KRCB Radio
100.1 FM: KZST Radio
PulsePoint
PulsePoint is a 911-connected app that can immediately inform you of emergencies
occurring in your community. In Sonoma County REDCOM connects with
PulsePoint related to Fire an EMS dispatch services. PulsePoint is not available in all areas,
the service is only offered where adopted by the local public safety agency.
Users can be notified of significant events and emergency activity in real time. The notifications
provide an early and automatic heads-up to local threats such as wildland fires, flooding and
utility emergencies. This information can also be used on a daily basis to know when and where
there is an accident, controlled burns, or if the smoke is an approaching wildfire.
Additional Resources
CAL FIRE
Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Statewide incidents Overview of all CA incidents, can access fire specific
info via map or name of the incident
https://www.readyforwildfire.org/ Ready for a wildfire
https://incidents.readyforwildfire.org/ The Ready for a Wildfire app allows you sign up for text
messages to receive information about active CAL FIRE
wildfire incidents.
http://www.alertwildfire.org/northbay/inde
x.html?camera=Axis-Diablo
Fire cameras and associated tools to help discover,
locate, and monitor fires. Each camera shows a different
view in Sonoma County
Earthquake Information - U.S. Geological Survey
USGS Monitors and reports on earthquakes, assesses earthquake
impacts and hazards, and conducts targeted research on
the causes and effects of earthquakes.
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 85Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 85 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 86 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 36
USGS Latest Earthquakes View the latest earthquakes map and list within the past
24 hours (M2.5+)
Earthquake Notification Services Enroll in the ENS to receive notification emails when an
earthquake with a magnitude 6.0 or greater
https://myshake.berkeley.edu/ Earthquake Early Warning publicly in California and
Oregon
Flooding Information
Flooding is a real issue in many areas around Sonoma County. The Sonoma Water website has
many available resources to assist residents of potential and current flood activity.
Sonoma Water - Flood Forecast & Emergency Information
Sonoma Water Flood Forecast Hotline (707) 526-4768 - Sonoma Water updates the Flood
Forecast Hotline when the Hacienda Bridge water level is
over 20 feet.
Sonoma OneRain website Interactive map with live data from county-wide
streamflow, rainfall gauges, and reservoir data.
Flood Protection Zones Map of flood control zones and watersheds
Russian River Flood Forecast - NOAA:
Hopland
Russian River Flood Forecast - NOAA:
Healdsburg
Russian River Flood Forecast - NOAA:
Guerneville
Russian River Flood Forecast
Flooded Road Conditions:
Transportation and Public Works County road closure information for closures that will be
longer than 8 hours.
For more information contact (707) 565-2237
list | map View road closures (unincorporated County areas)
California Department of Transportation
Quickmap
Freeways and State Highways
Russian River Levels and Flow Data
The California Data Exchange Center Real-time river level data and forecasts for the Russian
River and Dry Creek
California Department of Water Resources
- Division of Flood Management website
Provides data for Russian River flows
The U.S. Geological Survey Provides data on river levels and flows from stream
gauges maintained along Dry Creek and the Russian
River.
Russian River Flood Stages View a graphic illustrating flood stage levels for
Hopland, Healdsburg and Guerneville.
Additional information from SoCo Emergency website
The SoCo Emergency website has many available resources to assist residents during an
emergency:
Evacuation Updates in Sonoma County Evacuation Orders
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 86Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 86 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 87 Final Report 2020-2021
Emergency Alerts and Communications 37
Road Closures during Emergency
Subscribe to Road Closure update
List of road closures in the unincorporated areas of
Sonoma County and in the City of Santa Rosa
Law Enforcement List of law enforcement in County, California State
Agencies, and Federal Agencies
Fire Departments List of fire departments and districts in County
Maps & Data Interactive maps of recent emergency situations
including earthquake faults, power outages and road
closures
Power Shutoffs – County and Statewide Sonoma County Power Shutoff Map & Dashboard
Recovery Resources Recover resources includes re-entry and recovery
information related to a disaster
Maps
PG&E PSPS and Power status
Sign up for alerts
medical baseline program
Check for PSPS potential and power restoration status
NASA FIRMS Fire Information Management System
Link is targeted over our area – real time heat map
#Firemappers Crowd sourced fire mapping
NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group - National Fire
Situational Awareness map
CalOES Comprehensive statewide map info derived from CalFire
and all fire teams’ reporting.
Sartopo USGS topographic mapping, use for fire mapping,
collaborative trip planning, detailed elevation profiles
and terrain analysis.
Social Media – Facebook AND Twitter
https://www.facebook.com/CALFIRELNU/ CAL FIRE Lake Napa Unit (LNU)
https://www.facebook.com/CountyofSonoma County of Sonoma
https://www.facebook.com/SoCoDEM
Daily briefings during incident, educational
events
Sonoma County Dept of Emergency Management
https://www.facebook.com/newsofthenorthbay
video updates
News of the Northbay
https://twitter.com/sonomascanner?lang=en Sonoma Scanners
https://twitter.com/calfirelnu?lang=en CALFIRE LNU
Broadcastify REDCOM live feed
Wind and Air Quality
Windy.com Real time wind activity in the area and forecasted wind
patterns for 72 hours
Purpleair.com Real time air quality, including PM 2.5
Fire.airnow.gov Click on yellow dot on side bar for legend
Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 87Grand Jury 2021 text.indd 87 6/7/21 9:23 AM6/7/21 9:23 AM
Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Report Title: Emergency Alerts and Communications______________________________
Report Date: June 20, 2021 __________________________________________________
Response by: Gerard Giudice______________Title: Mayor _________________________
Agency/Department Name: City of Rohnert Park _________________________ ________
FINDINGS: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F20
I (we) agree with the findings numbered F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F20 ______________
I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: N/A ___________________
_________________________________________________________________________
(Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an
explanation of the reasons.)
RECOMMENDATIONS: R1, R4, R5, R15
Recommendations numbered: R4, R5_________________________ have been implemented.
(Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.)
Recommendations numbered: R1, R15________________________________ have not yet
been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
(Attach a timeframe for the implementation.)
Recommendations numbered: N/A___________________________ require(s) further analysis.
(Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe
for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency
when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the
Grand Jury report.)
Recommendations numbered: N/A_____________________________ will not be implemented
because they are not warranted or are not reasonable.
(Attach an explanation.)
Date: _______________________________Signed: _______________________________
Number of pages attached: 1 __________________
(See attached Civil Grand Jury Response Requirements)
Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Attachment 1
I. Summary Describing Implemented Actions
Recommendations R4 and R5 have been implemented. In the past year, the City has worked
with the Department of Emergency Management, the Sheriff’s Office, and the rest of the
Sonoma County municipalities to define and coordinate evacuation zones. The map of Rohnert
Park ’s evacuation zones have been published on the City website and the notice of the new
maps have been published to the City’s social media channels.
The link to the City’s webpage which publishes the updated evacuation zones is below:
https://www.ci.rohnert-park.ca.us/city_hall/departments/public_safety/evacuation_and_disaster_preparedness
II. Timeframe for Recommendation Implementation
Recommendations R1 and R15 will be implemented by October 31, 2021, as recommended in
the Grand Jury Report.
ITEM NO. 6.F.
1
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Department: City Administration
Submitted By: Don Schwartz, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Jenna Garcia, Housing Administrator
Agenda Title: Authorize the City Manager to Execute Agreements and Approve Subsequent
Renewal Terms Subject to Council’s Appropriation of Funding, with (1)
Shared Housing and Resource Exchange California (“SHARE”) to Provide
Permanent Housing Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $150,000, and (2)
Unsheltered Friends Outreach (“UFO”) to provide Direct Support Services to
Unsheltered Persons in an Amount Not to Exceed $36,000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: By minute order, authorize the City Manager to execute
agreements with Shared Housing and Resource Exchange California (“SHARE”) to provide
permanent housing services in an amount not to exceed $150,000, and Unsheltered Friends
Outreach (“UFO”) to provide direct support services to unsheltered persons in an amount not to
exceed $36,000, both of which include language to extend the contract in future years pending
Council budget approval.
BACKGROUND: Homelessness is one of the most challenging issues facing Rohnert Park and
communities throughout the country today. It is highly complex, and cities alone cannot solve
the challenge. There are many factors that contribute to homelessness including insufficient
income, the cost of housing, lack of physical and mental health services, and lack of support
systems.
In January 2021, the City Council added homeless services as a priority issue. At its April 6,
2021 meeting, the City Council provided direction on options to increase homeless services,
including providing $3,000 per month to Unsheltered Friends Outreach (UFO) and continued
support of the SHARE program. City Council also directed staff to develop a robust by-name list
program, which captures data and information about the individuals experiencing homelessness
in Rohnert Park and helps staff and service providers identify and prioritize those with the
highest needs. Individuals deemed as the most vulnerable are then prioritized for outreach and
housing services, meaning that they would receive increased support to assist them in navigating
existing community resources and housing options. All service providers that the City contracts
with actively participate in the by-name list program, which includes weekly meetings to review
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6.F.
2
the individuals on the list, identify best methods for engagement and prioritize individuals for
services.
Staff have negotiated agreements with Shared Housing and Resource Exchange California
(“SHARE”) to provide permanent housing services, and Unsheltered Friends Outreach (“UFO”)
to provide direct support services to unsheltered persons. These agreements would start once
executed by the City Manager and end June 30, 2022 unless extended. If extended, these
agreements would start on July 1 in future years.
ANALYSIS:
SHARE
US Census data estimates that there are at least 60,000 empty bedrooms throughout Sonoma
County. These empty bedrooms represent inexpensive, immediate, long-term housing options.
SHARE Sonoma County is a nonprofit home share matching program that matches “home
seekers” with “home providers” in the community that have spare bedrooms. SHARE has been
active in Sonoma County for the past seven years and offers shared housing options in exchange
for an agreed level of support in the form of financial exchange (“Rent Exchanges”), assistance
with household and/or personal tasks (“Service Exchanges”), or a combination of both.
SHARE’s target populat ions are seniors age 60 years and older and those who are experiencing
homelessness or at risk of homelessness.
On October 13, 2020, the City Council approved an agreement with SHARE for $10,000 to
supplement other funding to provide housing placements t o people experiencing homeless – or at
risk of homelessness – in Rohnert Park. Last fiscal year, SHARE was able to leverage funds
from other grants to expand the ir program in Rohnert Park. The City’s agreement started
November 1, 2020 and in nine months , SHARE exceeded their goal of placing 10 people in
housing – and are actively working with several more individuals to identify housing options.
Staff has found the partnership with SHARE to be a valuable tool to address homelessness in our
community. SHARE staff have been active participants in the Homelessness Roundtable and
have collaborated effectively with UFO volunteers , the Catholic Charities HOST and Rapid
Rehousing teams, and City staff. SHARE conducts outreach in Rohnert Park, including offering
“drop -in” hours at the City’s Senior Center. City staff have begun work on implementing a by-
name list program and believe that, along with the permanent housing options through Catholic
Charities’ Rapid Rehousing and Master Lease program, SHARE provides an important
additional housing option for individuals experiencing homelessness in Rohnert Park.
The total program cost for fiscal year 2021-22 is $150,000. While a considerable increase over
the previous year, $150,000 accurately reflects the actual cost s associated with operating a
successful program in Rohnert Park. Last year, SHARE leveraged outside funds to cover nearly
all of the costs to operate its program in Rohnert Park; that was a one-year pilot grant , however,
and is not expected to continue. In addition to covering the cost of housing location, as well as
tenant and landlord supports, the $150,000 would also pay for a dedicated full-time case manager
ITEM NO. 6.F.
3
who would provide supportive services to individuals housed through the SHARE RP program –
including those placed in housing in the last fiscal year. On-going supportive services is an
essential part of ensuring people remain housed and do not re-enter homelessness.
An award of $150,000 would allow SHARE to place and provide ongoing supportive services to
at least 20 households into housing – double the previous fiscal year’s outcome goals. Of the 20
households, SHARE expects at least 80% to remain successfully housed after 6 months in
program.
As with all City homeless service providers, SHARE staff will continue to participate in the
monthly Homelessness Roundtable meetings and coordinate closely with other providers to
promote service integration and reduce duplication of services.
Unsheltered Friends Outreach
Unsheltered Friends Outreach (UFO) is a small group of dedicated volunteers that engage
unsheltered individuals in Rohnert Park and Cotati, help connect them to services and provide
them with meals and basic supplies. UFO grew out of the City’s Homelessness Roundtable and
starting in March 2020, began preparing and delivering meals to unsheltered individuals in and
near the City. They now provide at least 200 meals per week, often partnering with local
restaurants and food pantries who donate the food. In addition to meals, they frequently provide
essentials such as clothing, blankets and sleeping bags. Since January 1, 2021, they have engaged
365 individuals, 60 of which they interact with multiple times per week. Starting in May, UFO
began hosting a mobile shower unit at Faith Community Church for unsheltered individuals. To
date, UFO has served 36 unique individuals through the mobile shower program. While their
efforts provide for individuals’ more immediate needs, they do so with a focus on housing as the
ultimate solutio n. UFO volunteers encourage individuals to seek help and frequently refer them
to housing-focused resources in the community, including the programs funded by the City.
At its April 6, 2021 special meeting, City Council directed staff to enter into an agreement with
UFO to provide $3,000 per month for direct support to unsheltered individuals. UFO obtained its
non-profit status in June, which is why staff are now returning with an agreement to support
UFO’s efforts. Although this agreement is starting mid-August and not at the beginning of the
fiscal year, staff is recommending that the City Council award UFO the full $36,000 as it will
allow them to cover some annual expenses such as their insurance premium and will set up the
contract for future annual renewals.
Through this agreement, UFO would receive funds from the City each month, which may be
used to meet immediate needs of unsheltered individuals including providing food, water,
transportation, clothing, trash bags, gift cards, toiletries and brief motel stays. Additionally, the
agreement allows UFO to use up to 10% (or $3,600) of the total funding allocated towards
administrative costs such as insurance, gasoline and cell phone services. The agreement allows
UFO some flexibility in their monthly request amount , so long as they do not exceed $36,000 for
the contract period, which expires June 2022.
ITEM NO. 6.F.
4
Along with each monthly invoice, UFO will provide an expense and progress report, detailing
how funds are being spent and reporting some key data points, including the number of
individuals being provided direct support, and what the average amount of support is.
Like the other City homeless service providers, UFO will be an active participant at the weekly
by-name list meetings, participate in the monthly Homelessness Roundtable meetings and
coordinate closely with other providers to promote service integration and reduce duplication of
services.
Update on additional homeless services
In addition to the Council direction provided in April, the Council also approved $1.3 million in
funding for homeless services in FY 21-22. Of that amount, $869,300 has been allocated already
– with another $186,000 being considered for allocation to SHARE and UFO. The table below is
a summary of funds allocated, including the requested funds for SHARE and UFO.
Table 1: Homeless Funds Allocated FY 21-22
Description Amount Allocated
Homeless Services Coordinator position $133,741
Encampment Cleanup Efforts $175,000
Mobile Outreach – Catholic Charities’ HOST $127,335
Rapid Rehousing and Master Lease Program – Catholic Charities $433,224
Shared Housing – SHARE $150,000
Direct Support – Unsheltered Friends Outreach $36,000
Total Allocated (including current requests) $1,055,300
Staff is continuing to assess options for other services consistent with the Council’s direction. To
summarize:
• Permanent Supportive Housing at The Commons in Santa Rosa (formerly known as
the Gold Coin Motel): Staff are in discussions with St. Vincent de Paul about purchasing
the rights to house three high-needs individuals from Rohnert Park at this facility. The
projected one-time cost is $165,000 (or $55,000 per unit), with an on-going cost of about
$24,000 per year (or $8,000 per unit.) We are exploring the use of vouchers from the
County to cover the on-going costs.
• By-name List: In May, staff initiated discussions with our neighboring cities about
opportunities to collaborate regionally. The group, which has grown to include additional
cities, the county and a handful of local service providers, immediately identified a
regional by-name list as a valuable addition to services; communities that have
successfully addressed homelessness have such a tool. The Continuum of Care Board, on
ITEM NO. 6.F.
5
which the Assistant City Manager serves, supported creation of a regio nal by-name list
program at its July 28 meeting. Rohnert Park staff may have a lead role in moving this
forward, with financial and other support from other cities, non-profits, and/or funders.
• Providence Health Permanent Supportive Housing: Staff are in discussion with
Providence Supportive Housing, the development arm of Providence St Joseph Health
Care, regarding the potential for an affordable housing complex that would provide 72
units of permanent supportive housing. Contributions from local government can help
finance projects and can be used to leverage state and federal funding. The City may
consider investing some of its housing in-lieu fee funds and/or other one-time funding
sources such as the American Rescue P lan Act , which will be providing the City an
estimated $8.1 million in one-time coronavirus relief funds.
• Volunteer-led Safe Parking: Discussions on this topic have started with the
Homelessness Roundtable, including a panel discussion at the June meeting on similar
programs operating in Santa Rosa.
• Tiny Home Village: Staff expect to explore this option later.
• Homekey: Homekey is a State program that provides funding to acquire and convert
underutilized motels and other buildings into permanent supportive housing. Originally
set up as a one-time program leveraging federal coronavirus fund ing, the State has
announced that it plans to release additional funds after Labor Day. Staff have been in
contact with the County who are doing outreach to local motels to assess interest.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
These actions are consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D – Continue to Develop a Vibrant
Community. This project will address a need for homeless services and the reduction of
homelessness within Rohnert Park.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED
1. Approve the Agreements with SHARE and Unsheltered Friends Outreach. They a
are cost-effective way of following the Council’s direction to expand services for those
experiencing homelessness while creating paths to permanent housing, which is the
ultimate solution to homelessness (Recommended Option).
2. Do not approve the Agreements with SHARE and Unsheltered Friends Outreach.
Staff does not recommend this option because is inconsistent with Council direction.
ITEM NO. 6.F.
6
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The City has budgeted the costs to enter into agreements with SHARE and Unsheltered Friends
Outreach in the FY 21-22 adopted budget. Funds for SHARE ($150,000) and Unsheltered
Friends Outreach ($36,000) are budgeted from the Neighborhood Upgrade and Workforce
Housing fund.
Department Head Approval Date: 7/27/2021
City Attorney Approval Date: 7/28/2021
Finance Director Approval Date: 7/27/2021
City Manager Approval Date: 7/28/2021
Attachments:
1. Agreement with Shared Housing and Resource Exchange California (“SHARE”)
and the City of Rohnert Park to provide Permanent Housing Services for the City of
Rohnert Park
2. Agreement with Unsheltered Friends Outreach and the City of Rohnert Park to
Provide Direct Support Services to Unsheltered Persons for the City of Rohnert Park
[1]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
AGREEMENT FOR PERMANENT HOUSING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PERMANENT HOUSING SERVICES (the “Agreement”) is
entered into as of the ______ day of August, 2021, by and between the CITY OF
ROHNERT PARK (“City”), a California municipal corporation, and SHARED
HOUSING AND RESOURCE EXCHANGE CALIFORNIA, DBA SHARE SONOMA
COUNTY (“SHARE”), a California nonprofit organization.
Recitals
WHEREAS, City desires to obtain permanent housing services for people experiencing
homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless; and
WHEREAS, SHARE hereby warrants to the City that SHARE is skilled and able to
provide such services as described in Section 3 of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, City desires to retain SHARE pursuant to this Agreement to provide the
services described in Section 3 of this Agreement.
Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above, and all defined terms set
forth in such recitals and in the introductory paragraph preceding the recitals, are hereby
incorporated into this Agreement as if set forth herein in full.
2. Project Coordination.
A. City. The City Manager or his/her designee, shall represent City for all
purposes under this Agreement. The Housing Administrator is hereby designated as the Project
Manager. The Project Manager shall supervise the progress and execution of this Agreement.
B. SHARE. SHARE shall assign Amy Appleton, Executive Director, to have
overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this Agreement for SHARE.
3. Scope and Performance of Services
A. Scope of Services. Subject to such policy direction and approvals as the
City through its staff may determine from time to time, SHARE shall perform the services set
out in the “Scope of Work” attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
[2]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
B. Time of Performance. The services of SHARE are to commence upon
receipt of a written notice to proceed from City, but in no event prior to receiving a fully
executed agreement from City and obtaining and delivering the required insurance coverage, and
satisfactory evidence thereof, to City. SHARE shall perform its services in accordance with the
schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. Any changes to
these dates in either this Section 3 or Exhibit A must be approved in writing by the Project
Manager.
C. Standard of Quality. City relies upon the professional ability of SHARE
as a material inducement to entering into this Agreement. All work performed by SHARE under
this Agreement shall be in accordance with all applicable legal requirements and shall meet the
standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in SHARE’s field of
expertise.
4. Compensation and Method of Payment .
A. Compensation. The compensation to be paid to SHARE, including
payments to fund SHARE permanent housing services and program, shall be at the compensation
schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference. However, in no
event shall the amount City pays SHARE and/or funds for SHARE programs exceed one
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) during the initial term, or any subsequent renewal
term, as set forth in Paragraph 6. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a
waiver of unsatisfactory work, even if such defects were known to the City at the time of
payment.
B. Timing of Payment. SHARE shall submit monthly statements for work
performed and monetary assistance provided. City shall make payment, in full, within thirty (30)
days after approval of the invoice by the Project Manager. Compensation under this agreement
shall be at the compensation schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B, and shall be used only for
eligible activities as set forth in the Scope of Work.
C. Changes in Compensation. SHARE will not undertake any work that will
incur costs in excess of the amount set forth in Paragraph 4(A) without prior written amendment
to this Agreement.
D. Taxes. SHARE shall pay all taxes, assessments and premiums under the
federal Social Security Act, any applicable unemployment insurance contributions, Workers
Compensation insurance premiums, sales taxes, use taxes, personal property taxes, or other taxes
or assessments now or hereafter in effect and payable by reason of or in connection with the
services to be performed by SHARE.
E. Litigation Support. SHARE agrees to testify at City’s request if litigation
is brought against City in connection with SHARE’s work product.
[3]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
5. Amendment to Scope of Work. City shall have the right to amend the Scope of
Work within the Agreement by written notification to SHARE 30 days in advance. In such event,
the compensation and time of performance shall be subject to renegotiation upon written demand
of either party to the Agreement. SHARE shall not commence any work exceeding the Scope of
Work without prior written authorization from the City. Failure of SHARE to secure City's
written authorization for extra or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to
adjustment in the contract price or time due, whether by way of compensation, restitution,
quantum meruit, etc. for work done without the appropriat e City authorization.
6. Term. This Agreement shall commence upon its execution by both parties.
Unless amended pursuant to Section 21, or otherwise terminated as provided herein, the initial
term of this Agreement is through June 30, 2022. At the option of the City, this Agreement may
be extended by the City Manager for successive one year terms beginning on July 1, 2022,
provided that: (1) SHARE requests an extension of the term of this Agreement in writing by
April 1, 2022 and (2) the City Council approves funding for the Agreement in the adopted
budget for the applicable fiscal year. In the event that the City Council does not approve the
entire amount of funding needed for a successive term in the adopted budget for the applicable
fiscal year, the Agreement shall terminate at the end of the expiring term. Extensions of the term
of the Agreement shall be documented in writing by the City Manager to be countersigned by
UFO prior to expiration of the preceding term.
7. Inspection. SHARE shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City
to ascertain that the services of SHARE are being performed in accordance with the requirements
and intentions of this Agreement. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be
subject to the Project Manager's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not
relieve SHARE of any of its obligations to fulfill the Agreement as prescribed.
8. Ownership of Documents. Title to all plans, specifications, maps, estimates,
reports, manuscripts, drawings, descriptions and other final work products compiled by the SHARE
under the Agreement shall be vested in City, none of which shall be used in any manner
whatsoever, by any person, firm, corporation, or agency without the expressed written consent of
the City. Basic survey notes and sketches, charts, computations, and other data prepared or obtained
under the Agreement shall be made available, upon request, to City without restriction or limitations
on their use. SHARE may retain copies of the above-described information but agrees not to
disclose or discuss any information gathered, discussed or generated in any way through this
Agreement without the written permission of City during the term of this Agreement, unless
required by law.
9. Employment of Other, Specialists or Experts. SHARE will not employ or
otherwise incur an obligation to pay other providers, specialists or experts for services in
connection with this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City.
10. Conflict of Interest Requirements.
[4]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
A. SHARE covenants and represents that neither it, nor any officer or
principal of its firm, has, or shall acquire any investment, income, business entity, interest in real
property, or other interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the
interests of City, hinder SHARE’s performance of services under this Agreement, or be affected
in any manner or degree by performance of SHARE’s services hereunder. SHARE further
covenants that in the performance of the Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be
employed by it as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor without the express written
consent of the City. SHARE agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest, or the appearance
of any conflicts of interest, with the interests of the City in the performance of the Agreement.
B. SHARE is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political
Reform Act because SHARE :
(1) will not have the power to make any governmental decision,
including whether to: approve any rates, rules, regulations, policies, standards, or guidelines of
the City or any of its subdivisions ; adopt or enforce any laws; issue, deny, suspend, or revoke
any permit, license, application, certificate, order, or any similar authorization or entitlement;
authorize, modify, or renew any form of City contract; grant approval to any City contract
specifications on behalf of the City; or grant City approval for any plans, designs, reports, or
similar; and
(2) will not participate in the making of any governmental decision in
the equivalent of a staff capacity — for the purposes of this provision, “participating in a
governmental decision” including providing informat ion, an opinion, or a recommendation
directly to any person at the City empowered to make a decision on behalf of the City without
significant intervening substantive review; and
(3) will not perform the same duties for the City that would otherwise
be performed by a staff member required to report under the City’s conflict of interest code. (2 Cal.
Code Regs. § 18700.3.)
11. Liability of Members and Employees of City. No member of the City and no
other officer, elected official, employee or agent of the City shall be personally liable to SHARE
or otherwise in the event of any default or breach of the City, or for any amount which may
become due to SHARE or any successor in interest, or for any obligations directly or indirectly
incurred under the terms of this Agreement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall
have no liability or responsibility for any accident, loss, or damage to any work performed under
this Agreement whether prior to its completion or acceptance or otherwise.
12. Indemnity.
A. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, SHARE shall, at
its own expense, indemnify, protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) and
hold harmless City and any and all of its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers
[5]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
(“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all liability (including liability for claims,
demands, damages, obligations, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings,
regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or
threatened, including attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs and expert
witness fees) of any nature (“Liability”), whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of,
pertain to, or relate to the performance or failure to comply with this Agreement, regardless of any
fault or alleged fault of the Indemnified Parties.
For design professionals (as that term is defined by statute) acting within the scope of their
professional capacity, to the fullest extent permitted by law, SHARE shall, at its own expense,
indemnify, protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) and hold harmless any
Indemnified Parties from and against any and all Liability, whether actual, alleged or threatened,
which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of
SHARE, or as may be provided by statute in Civil Code § 2782.8, as may be amended from time
to time.
The only exception to SHARE’s responsibility to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless
the Indemnified Parties from Liability is due to the active negligence or willful misconduct of City
or its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents and employees.
B. Scope of Obligation. SHARE’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless as set forth in this Section 12 shall include the duty to defend (by counsel reasonably
satisfactory to the City) as set forth in California Civil Code § 2778. This indemnification
obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or
compensation payable by or for SHARE under worker’s compensation, disability or other
employee benefit acts or the terms, applicability or limitations of any insurance held or provided
by SHARE and shall continue to bind the parties after termination/completion of this agreement.
This indemnification shall be regardless of and not in any way limited by the insurance
requirements of this contract. This indemnification is for the full period of time allowed by law
and shall survive the termination of this agreement. SHARE waives any and all rights to express
or implied indemnity against the Indemnified Parties concerning any Liability of SHARE arising
out of or in connection with the Agreement or SHARE ’s failure to comply with any of the terms
of this Agreement.
SHARE ’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless as set forth in this Section 12 shall
not be excused because of SHARE ’s ina bility to evaluate Liability, or because the SHARE
evaluates Liability and determines that SHARE is not or may not be liable. SHARE must respond
within thirty (30) calendar days to any tender by the City, unless the time for responding has been
extended by an authorized representative of the City in writing. If SHARE fails to timely accept
such tender, in addition to any other remedies authorized by law, as much of the money due or that
may become due to SHARE under this Agreement as shall reasonably be considered necessary by
the City may be retained by the City until disposition has been made of the matter subject to tender,
or until SHARE accepts the tender, whichever occurs first. SHARE agrees to fully reimburse all
[6]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
costs, including but not limited to attorney’s fees and costs and fees of litigation incurred by the
City in responding to matters prior to SHARE’s acceptance of the tender.
13. SHARE Not an Agent of City. SHARE, its officers, employees and agents shall
not have any power to bind or commit the City to any decision.
14. Independent Contractor. It is expressly agreed that SHARE, in the performance
of the work and services agreed to be performed by SHARE, shall act as and be an independent
contractor and not an agent or employee of City; and as an independent contractor, SHARE shall
obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and
SHARE hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights.
15. Compliance with Laws.
A. General. SHARE shall use the standard of care in its profession to comply
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations. SHARE
represents and warrants to City that it has and shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or
obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, insurance and
approvals which are legally required for SHARE to practice its profession. The City is not
responsible or liable for SHARE’s failure to comply with any or all of the requirements
contained in this section or the Agreement.
B. Workers’ Compensation. SHARE certifies that it is aware of the
provisions of the California Labor Code which require every employee to be insured against
liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and SHARE certifies that it will comply with such provisions before
commencing performance of the Agreement and at all times in the performance of the
Agreement.
C. Prevailing Wage. SHARE and SHARE ’s subcontractors (if any) shall, to
the extent required by the California Labor Code, pay not less than the latest prevailing wage
rates to workers and professionals as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the
State of California pursuant to California Labor Code, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2. Copies of the
applicable wage determination are on file at the City’s office of the City Clerk.
D. Injury and Illness Prevention Program. SHARE certifies that it is aware of
and has complied with the provisions of California Labor Code § 6401.7, which requires every
employer to adopt a written injury and illness prevention program.
E. Business Licenses. Unless exempt by law, SHARE and all
subconsultants shall have acquired, at SHARE’s expense, a business license from the City in
accordance with Chapter 5.04 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code, prior to City's issuance of an
authorization to proceed with work under the Agreement. Such license(s) shall be kept valid
[7]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
throughout the term of this Agreement. City may withhold compensation from SHARE until
such time as SHARE complies with this section.
16. Confidential Information. All data, documents, discussions or other information
developed or received by or for SHARE in performance of this Agreement are confidential and
not to be disclosed to any person except as authorized by the City, or as required by law.
17. Assignment; Subcontractors; Employees
A. Assignment. SHARE shall not assign, delegate, transfer, or convey its
duties, responsibilities, or interests in this Agreement or any right, title, obligation, or interest in
or to the same or any part thereof without the City's prior written consent. Any assignment
witho ut such approval shall be void and, at the City's option, shall immediately cause this
Agreement to terminate.
B. Subcontractors; Employees. SHARE shall be responsible for employing
or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of SHARE hereunder. No
subcontractor of SHARE shall be recognized by the City as such; rather, all subcontractors are
deemed to be employees of SHARE, and SHARE agrees to be responsible for their performance.
SHARE shall give its personal attention to the fulfillment of the provisions of this Agreement by
all of its employees and subcontractors, if any, and shall keep the work under its control. If any
employee or subcontractor of SHARE fails or refuses to carry out the provisions of this
Agreement or appears to be inco mpetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, it shall be
discharged immediately from the work under this Agreement on demand of the Project Manager.
18. Insurance. Without limiting SHARE ’s indemnification provided herein, SHARE
shall comply with the requirements set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement.
19. Termination of Agreement; Default .
A. This Agreement and all obligations hereunder may be terminated at any
time, without cause, by the City upon 60-days’ written notice to SHARE, or with cause, by the
City upon 15 days’ written notice to SHARE.
B. If SHARE fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement
within the time and in the manner herein provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this
Agreement, in additio n to all other remedies provided by law, City may terminate this
Agreement immediately upon written notice. In such event, SHARE shall be entitled to receive
as full payment for all services satisfactorily rendered and expenses incurred hereunder, an
amount which bears the same ratio to the total fees specified in the Agreement as the services
satisfactorily rendered hereunder by SHARE bear to the total services otherwise required to be
performed for such total fee; provided, however, that the City shall deduct from such amount the
amount of damages, if any, sustained by City by virtue of the breach of the Agreement by
SHARE.
[8]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
C. In the event this Agreement is terminated by City without cause, SHARE
shall be entitled to any compensation owing to it hereunder up to the time of such termination, it
being understood that any payments are full compensation for services rendered prior to the time
of payment .
D. Upon termination of this Agreement with or without cause, SHARE shall
turn over to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings,
computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by SHARE or its
subcontractors, if any, or given to SHARE or its subcontractors, if any, in connection with this
Agreement. Such materials shall become the permanent property of the City. SHARE, however,
shall not be liable for the City's use of incomplete materials nor for the City's use of complete
documents if used for other than the project contemplated by this Agreement.
20. Suspension. The City shall have the authority to suspend this Agreement and the
services contemplated herein, wholly or in part, for such period as it deems necessary due to
unfavorable conditions or to the failure on the part of SHARE to perform any provision of this
Agreement. SHARE will be paid for satisfactory Services performed through the date of
temporary suspension.
21. Merger; Amendment . This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive
statement of the agreement between the City and SHARE and shall supersede all prior
negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This document may be
amended only by written instrument, signed by both the City and SHARE. All provisions of this
Agreement are expressly made conditions.
22. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted as though it was a product of a
joint drafting effort and no provisions shall be interpreted against a party on the ground that said
party was solely or primarily responsible for drafting the language to be interpreted.
23. Litigation Costs. If either party becomes involved in litigation arising out of this
Agreement or the performance thereof, the court in such litigation shall award reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, to the prevailing party. In awarding attorneys’ fees, the
court will not be bound by any court fee schedule, but shall, if it is in the interest of justice to do
so, award the full amount of costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees paid or incurred in good faith.
24. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
25. Written Notification. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval or
communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be in
writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice,
demand, etc. shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below. Either party
may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. Notice shall be
deemed communicated within 72 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this
section.
[9]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
If to City: City Manager
City of Rohnert Park - City Hall
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
If to SHARE: Amy Appleton, Executive Director
SHARE Sonoma County
411 Russell Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
26. SHARE ’s Books and Records.
A. SHARE shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices,
vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for
services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City and all documents and records
which demonstrate performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years,
or for any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this
Agreement.
B. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this
Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business
hours, upon written request by the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Manager, or a designated
representative of any of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to the City
for inspection when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed
upon, the records shall be available at SHARE’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this
Agreement.
C. The City may, by written request by any of the above-named officers,
require that custody of the records be given to the City and that the records and documents be
maintained in the City Manager’s office.
27. Agreement Binding. The terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement
shall apply to, and shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and
subcontractors of both parties.
28. Equal Employment Opportunity. SHARE is an equal opportunity employer and
agrees to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations governing equal employment
opportunity. SHARE will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment
because of race, age, sex, creed, color, sexual orientation, marital status or national origin.
SHARE will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated during such employment
without regard to race, age, sex, creed, color, sexual orientation, marital status, or national origin.
Such action shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading,
demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; lay-offs or termination; rates of pay
or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. SHARE
[10]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
further agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for
employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
29. City Not Obligated to Third Parties. The City shall not be obligated or liable for
payment hereunder to any party other than SHARE.
30. Remedies and Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right
or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have
hereunder. As a condition precedent to commencing legal action involving a claim or dispute
against the City arising from this Agreement, the SHARE shall comply with claims presentation
requirements under the Government Tort Claims Act, California Government Code Sections 900
et seq. and the Rohnert Park Municipal Code.
31. Severability. If any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any
reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, then such provision or
provisions shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions hereof, and such invalidity,
illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement
shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had not been contained
herein.
32. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated
herein by this reference:
A. Exhibit A: Scope of Work and Schedule of Performance
B. Exhibit B: Compensation Schedule
C. Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements
33. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of
which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties
when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this
Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.
34. News Releases/Interviews. All SHARE news releases, media interviews,
testimony at hearings and public comment shall be shared in advance with and approved by the
City of Rohnert Park; all communications from City of Rohnert Park regarding this contract shall
be shared in advance with SHARE.
35. Applicable Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted
according to California law. In the event that suit shall be brought by either party hereunder, the
parties agree that trial of such action shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of
Sonoma, California.
[11]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
36. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the
parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of
such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with its terms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and SHARE have executed this Agreement as of the date
first above written.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
SHARE CALIFORNIA
By:__________________________________
Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
By:
Amy Appleton, Executive Director
Date: Date:
ATTEST:
By: _________________________________
Elizabeth Machado, Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:__________________________________
Sergio Rudin, Assistant City Attorney
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
[12]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work and Schedule of Performance
HOUSING PLACEMENT SERVICES
Overview:
US Census data estimates that there are at least 60,000 empty bedrooms throughout Sonoma
County. These empty bedrooms represent inexpensive, immediate, long-term housing options.
SHARE Sonoma County is a home share matching program that matches “home seekers” with
“home providers” in the community that have spare bedrooms. A program of Shared Housing
And Resource Exchange California, a 501c3 nonprofit, SHARE Sonoma County is already
active in Rohnert Park and throughout Sonoma County. SHARE offers shared housing options
in exchange for an agreed level of support in the form of financial exchange (“Rent
Exchanges”), assistance with household and/or personal tasks (“Service Exchanges”), or a
combination of both. SHARE’s target populations are seniors age 60 years and older and those
who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness.
In addition to matching home seekers with home providers with spare bedrooms, SHARE also
creates “Community Houses” which are managed by SHARE to ensure each bedroom in the
house is occupied at all times. SHARE can also utilize other housing configurations such as
Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. SHARE defines permanent housing as an
individual being stably housed for a minimum of six (6) months. SHARE provides ongoing
supportive services for as long as the home share remains intact to ensure stability for each
participant.
In FY 20/21, the City of Rohnert Park provided SHARE $10,000 to use towards permanent
housing placements and supportive services of individuals currently experiencing homelessness
in Rohnert Park, at imminent risk of becoming homeless in Rohnert Park, or experiencing
homelessness in Sonoma County and lost their housing while in Rohnert Park. These funds
supplemented other funding that SHARE had received and allowed SHARE to place 10 Rohnert
Park households into permanent housing.
At this time, the City of Rohnert Park is desirous of expanding its contract with SHARE due to
increased demand, and the successes and lessons learned from FY 20/21. In order to place an
additional 20 households in shared housing and provide dedicated case management support
to those who have been placed, SHARE requires $150,000 in FY 21/22 . Key to the success of
this program will be coordination with Unsheltered Friends Outreach (UFO), Catholic Charities
HOST, Rapid Rehousing and Master-Lease program teams, and other peer service providers
operating within the City, in an effort to leverage resources, expertise and avoid duplication.
Project dates: Effective Date – June 30, 2022
Qualifying Criteria:
The SHARE Rohnert Park (SHARE RP) program will serve households that meet one of the
following criteria:
1. Currently homeless and living in Rohnert Park;
[13]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
2. At imminent risk of becoming homeless and living in Rohnert Park; or
3. Currently homeless in Sonoma County and lost their housing while living in Rohnert
Park.
Referral and Prioritization Process:
Aligned with a “no wrong door” philosophy, which facilitates participant access, SHARE RP
referrals will be made through City referrals, community outreach, Catholic Charities Rohnert
Park-funded Rapid Rehousing and HOST programs or self-referral. The SHARE RP program
will participate in the by-name list program and will prioritize households experiencing
homelessness in Rohnert Park that have been identified as top priority by the by-name list
cohort.
SHARE staff will work with City staff to market the SHARE program via the City’s channels,
including the Rohnert Park Homelessness Roundtable.
Service location(s):
Personnel will be based at SHARE’s offices in Santa Rosa. Participant meetings can be in
Rohnert Park, in homes, at SHARE offices, or another convenient location for participants. In
compliance with County Public Health Orders, meetings will be conducted as directed, and if
needed, virtually given the participants’ preferred digital application, or at a distance while
maintaining participant confidentiality.
Outcomes:
• 20 households meeting the qualifying criteria identified above will be placed in
permanent housing during the Project Dates.
• 80% (16 of 20) of the households placed that are successfully housed during the
Project Dates, will remain permanently housed upon exit from HMIS .*
• 80% adults placed in housing will retain or increase income through benefits
and/or employment upon exit from HMIS, increasing their stability in permanent
housing.
*Households are exited from HMIS after they have been housed for at least six (6)
months, or if they exited the SHARE program earlier.
Tracking:
In addition to the outcomes above, the SHARE RP program will track and report the following
data points:
• Housing status at time of program entry (i.e., homeless or at risk of homelessness)
• Average length of time individuals were homeless prior to becoming housed
(measured once they are housed)
• Number of individuals who re-enter homelessness after exiting the SHARE program
• Children served
• Veterans served
• Income (by area median income)
• Race and ethnicity
• Number of households utilizing SHARE Client Special Needs Fund including, but not
[14]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
limited to Security Deposits, Rental Assistance and/or other agency RRH funds
CORE SERVICES
SHARE focuses on creating immediate, affordable, permanent housing by utilizing existing
housing, (e.g. empty bedrooms,) entire homes (for SHARE Community Housing), Accessory
Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, granny units or other available, stable
housing fit for occupancy.
SHARE RP Services:
The SHARE RP Program minimizes returns to homelessness and the associated personal
and public impacts by providing the following services:
• Housing location and placement
• Conducting background checks for all participants
• Facilitating match interviews between housing-seekers and homeowners
• Preparing and facilitating signing of agreements, which follow Fair Housing Rules &
Regulations
• Regular check-ins/ monitoring of each match/participant for as long as the match is
intact
• Providing conflict resolution support
• Providing any pertinent resources/advocacy available to ensure all parties establish
and maintain stability
• Providing Security Deposits and rental assistance if required
Customized Case Management:
Participants work with their Case Ma nager to outline their housing goals and set target dates for
completion, documenting progress toward housing goals and placement. Once case plans are
created, the Case Manager may offer the following, depending on participant needs:
• Connections to services essential to maintaining housing stability, including:
o Budgeting, credit and saving strategies
o Public Benefit Enrollment and Free Tax Preparation, including TANF,
CalFresh, SSI/Disability
o Health services through Rohnert Park Health Center
o Legal services
o Behavioral and mental health resources, as available
• Education around participant’s landlord-tenant rights/responsibilities (for details see
section below.)
• Assistance around employment needs and benefits eligibility, and referrals to
community resources, such as Job Link, Disability Services Legal Center, and
Department of Rehabilitation, that specialize in employment services and disability
benefits access.
• Housing search and re-location services.
[15]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
Program review:
Regular program evaluation and review will include:
• Weekly Participant Case Reviews
• Monthly Supervision
• Monthly operational meetings
• Data collection
Staffing Structure:
The staffing for the program will include experienced SHARE staff, including:
Function Position FTE
Management of Grant/Program Executive Director 0.2 FTE
Housing Location/Leasing/Landlord
Relations Housing Specialist 0.1 FTE
Housing Location Support for Clients
Seeking Housing Housing Navigator 0.3 FTE
Housing Retention case management,
including referral and linkage to other
services and supports Case Manager 1.0 FTE
DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING
SHARE RP staff will input participant data into the Federal Homeless Management Information
System (HMIS), following all relevant data quality standards. SHARE shall establish a separate
HMIS account specifically for SHARE RP . The number of individuals and households served,
income demographics, ethnicity, outcome performance, significant changes in program staffing,
and anecdotal descriptions of services provided by this program will be reported quarterly to the
designated contact at the City of Rohnert Park, using the City’s provided template.
Additionally, SHARE RP staff will provide a monthly “snapshot” report, which will include:
• The number of people served that month
• The number of people who were placed in a SHARE home that month
• Narrative updates
• Any other information requested by the City
In addition to the weekly City Homeless Taskforce meetings, SHARE RP staff will attend the
Rohnert Park Homelessness Roundtable monthly meetings.
[16]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
EXHIBIT B
Compensation Schedule
During the initial term, SHARE shall invoice the City monthly starting in September 2021 based
on the following compensation schedule:
• $7,696 fixed fee per month
• $3,652 per successful placement*
For any renewal term authorized under Section 6 of the Agreement, SHARE shall invoice the
City monthly based on the following compensation schedule:
• $6413.33 fixed fee per month
• $3,652 per successful placement*
Compensation paid under the initial term or any individual renewal term authorized under
section 6 of the Agreement, shall not exceed the amount of $150,000 and any additional work or
services performed by SHARE shall be at SHARE’s sole risk and expense.
Compensation paid under this contract shall not, under any circumstances, exceed the total
contract not to exceed amount of $150,000 and any additional work or services performed by
SHARE shall be at SHARE’s sole risk and expense.
*A successful placement is defined as a household (regardless of household size) who was
placed into permanent housing and has remained in that placement for at least 30 days.
[17]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
SHARE shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against
claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the SHARE, its agents,
representatives, or employees.
MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering
CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property
damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or
the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering, Code
1 (any auto), or if SHARE has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned), with
limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory
Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per
accident for bodily injury or disease. (Not required if consultant provides written
verification it has no employees)
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriates to the SHARE’s
profession, with limit no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000
aggregate.
If the SHARE maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums
shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the
higher limits maintained by the SHARE. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of
the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional
insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations
[18]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
performed by or on behalf of the SHARE including materials, parts, or equipment
furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be
provided in the form of an endorsement to the SHARE’s insurance (at least as broad as
ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85, or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20
37 forms, if later revisions used).
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the SHARE’s insurance coverage shall be
primary insurance primary coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 with
respect to the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or
self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers
shall be excess of the SHARE’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall state that coverage shall not be canceled,
except with notice to the City.
Waiver of Subrogation
SHARE hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of
said SHARE may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under
such insurance. SHARE agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to
effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not
the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may
require the SHARE to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations,
claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language
shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied
by either the named insured or City.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with
a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the
City.
Claims Made Policies
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:
1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or
the beginning of contract work.
[19]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at
least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made
policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the SHARE must
purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after
completion of contract work.
Verification of Coverage
SHARE shall furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including all
required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language
effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and
Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to City before
work begins. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work
beginning shall not waive the SHARE’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves
the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
[20]
OAK #4821-2494-4627 v2
CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTANT
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the __________________________________, and a duly
authorized representative of the firm of _____________________________________,
whose address is ______________________________________________________, and that
neither I nor the above firm I here represent has:
a) Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent
fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide
employee working solely for me or the above consultant ) to solicit to secure
this Agreement.
b) Agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to
employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying
out the Agreement; or
c) Paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona
fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) any fee,
contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with,
procuring or carrying out the Agreement;
Except as here expressly stated (if any);
I acknowledge that this certificate is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both
criminal and civil.
_________________ ___________________________________
Date Signature
[1]
1208604v1 80078/0012v2012-09
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
AGREEMENT FOR DIRECT SUPPORT SERVICES TO UNSHELTERED PERSONS
THIS AGREEMENT FOR DIRECT SUPPORT SERVICES (the “Agreement”) is
entered into as of the ________ day of August 2021, by and between the CITY OF
ROHNERT PARK (“City”), a California municipal corporation, and UNSHELTERED
FRIENDS OUTREACH (“UFO”), a California nonprofit organization.
Recitals
WHEREAS, City desires to provide direct support services to unsheltered persons in and
near Rohnert Park; and
WHEREAS, UFO hereby warrants to the City that UFO is skilled and able to provide
such services as described in Section 3 of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, City desires to retain UFO pursuant to this Agreement to provide the
services described in Section 3 of this Agreement.
Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above, and all defined terms set
forth in such recitals and in the introductory paragraph preceding the recitals, are hereby
incorporated into this Agreement as if set forth herein in full.
2. Project Coordination.
A. City. The City Manager or his/her designee, shall represent City for all
purposes under this Agreement. The Housing Administrator is hereby designated as the Project
Manager. The Project Manager shall supervise the progress and execution of this Agreement.
B. UFO. UFO shall assign Janal Reyes, President, to have overall
responsibility for the progress and execution of this Agreement for UFO.
3. Scope and Performance of Services
A. Scope of Services. Subject to such policy direction and approvals as the
City through its staff may determine from time to time, UFO shall perform the services set out in
the “Scope of Work” attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
B. Time of Performance. The services of UFO are to commence upon receipt
of a written notice to proceed from City, but in no event prior to receiving a fully executed
[2]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
agreement from City and obtaining and delivering the required insurance coverage, and
satisfactory evidence thereof, to City. UFO shall perform its services in accordance with the
schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. Any changes to
these dates in either this Section 3 or Exhibit A must be approved in writing by the Project
Manager.
C. Standard of Quality. City relies upon the professional ability of UFO as a
material inducement to entering into this Agreement. All work performed by UFO under this
Agreement shall be in accordance with all applicable legal requirements and shall meet the
standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in UFO’s field of
expertise.
4. Compensation and Method of Payment .
A. Compensation. The compensation to be paid to UFO to provide direct
support services shall be at the schedule included in and attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
incorporated herein by reference. However, in no event shall the amount City pay UFO and/or
funds for UFO programs exceed thirty-six thousand dollars ($36,000), during the initial term, or
any subsequent renewal term, as set forth in Paragraph 6. Payment by City under this Agreement
shall not be deemed a waiver of unsatisfactory work, even if such defects were known to the City
at the time of payment.
B. Timing of Payment. UFO shall submit itemized monthly statements for
work performed and direct support provided. City shall make payment, in full, within thirty (30)
days after approval of the invoice by the Project Manager. Compensation under this agreement
shall be at the rate attached hereto as Exhibit A, and shall be used only for eligible activities as
set forth in the Scope of Work.
C. Changes in Compensation. UFO will not undertake any work that will
incur costs in excess of the amount set forth in Paragraph 4(A) without prior written amendment
to this Agreement.
D. Taxes. UFO shall pay all taxes, assessments and premiums under the
federal Social Security Act, any applicable unemployment insurance contributions, Workers
Compensation insurance premiums, sales taxes, use taxes, personal property taxes, or other taxes
or assessments now or hereafter in effect and payable by reason of or in connection with the
services to be performed by UFO.
E. Litigation Support. UFO agrees to testify at City’s request if litigation is
brought against City in connection with UFO’s work product.
F. Restrictions on Funds. UFO shall accept the funding provided by City
under this Agreement solely as payment for the costs of providing the services detailed in the
Scope of Work, and to the extent applicable, shall comply with any legal restrictions on use of
funding from the City, including without limitation, restrictions on receipt and use of funds for
[3]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
religious or sectarian purposes in California Constitution Article 16, section 5. UFO shall not
provide, nor require participation in, any religious or sectarian instruction as part of providing the
services set forth in the Scope of Work.
5. Amendment to Scope of Work. City shall have the right to amend the Scope of
Work within the Agreement by written notification to UFO 30 days in advance. In such event,
the compensation and time of performance shall be subject to renegotiation upon written demand
of either party to the Agreement. UFO shall not commence any work exceeding the Scope of
Work without prior written authorization from the City. Failure of UFO to secure City's written
authorization for extra or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to
adjustment in the contract price or time due, whether by way of compensation, restitution,
quantum meruit, etc. for work done without the appropriate City authorization.
6. Term. This Agreement shall commence upon its execution by both parties.
Unless amended pursuant to Section 21, or otherwise terminated as provided herein, the initial
t erm of this Agreement is through June 30, 2022. At the option of the City, this Agreement may
be extended by the City Manager for successive one year terms, beginning on July 1, 2022,
provided that: (1) UFO requests an extension of the term of this Agreement in writing by April 1,
2022 and (2) the City Council approves funding for the Agreement in the adopted budget for the
applicable fiscal year. In the event that the City Council does not approve the entire amount of
funding needed for a successive term in the adopted budget for the applicable fiscal year, the
Agreement sha ll terminate at the end of the expiring term. Extensions of the term of the
Agreement shall be documented in writing by the City Manager to be countersigned by UFO
prior to expiration of the preceding term.
7. Inspection. UFO shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of UFO are being performed in accordance with the requirements and
intentions of this Agreement. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject
to the Project Manager's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve
UFO of any of its obligations to fulfill the Agreement as prescribed.
8. Ownership of Documents. Title to all plans, specifications, maps, estimates,
reports, manuscripts, drawings, descriptions and other final work products compiled by the UFO
under the Agreement shall be vested in City, none of which shall be used in any manner
whatsoever, by any person, firm, corporation, or agency without the expressed written consent of
the City. Basic survey notes and sketches, charts, computations, and other data prepared or obtained
under the Agreement shall be made available, upon request, to City without restriction or limitations
on their use. UFO may retain copies of the above-described information but agrees not to disclose
or discuss any information gathered, discussed or generated in any way through this Agreement
without the written permission of City during the term of this Agreement, unless required by law.
9. Employment of Other, Specialists or Experts. UFO will not employ or otherwise
incur an obligation to pay other providers, specialists or experts for services in connection with
this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City.
[4]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
10. Conflict of Interest Requirements.
A. UFO covenants and represents that neither it, nor any officer or principal
of its firm, has, or shall acquire any investment, income, business entity, interest in real property,
or other interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of
City, hinder UFO ’s performance of services under this Agreement , or be affected in any manner
or degree by performance of UFO’s services hereunder. UFO further covenants that in the
performance of the Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an
officer, employee, agent , or subcontractor without the express written consent of the City. UFO
agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest, or the appearance of any conflicts of interest,
with the interests of the City in the performance of the Agreement.
B. UFO is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political
Reform Act because UFO:
(1) will not have the power to make any governmental decision,
including whether to: approve any rates, rules, regulations, policies, standards, or guidelines of
the City or any of its subdivisions ; adopt or enforce any laws; issue, deny, suspend, or revoke
any permit, license, application, certificate, order, or any similar authorization or entitlement;
authorize, modify, or renew any form of City contract; grant approval to any City contract
specifications on behalf of the City; or grant City approval for any plans, designs, reports, or
similar; and
(2) will not participate in the making of any governmental decision in
the equivalent of a staff capacity — for the purposes of this provision, “participating in a
governmental decision” including providing informatio n, an opinion, or a recommendation
directly to any person at the City empowered to make a decision on behalf of the City without
significant intervening substantive review; and
(3) will not perform the same duties for the City that would otherwise
be performed by a staff member required to report under the City’s conflict of interest code. (2 Cal.
Code Regs. § 18700.3.)
11. Liability of Members and Employees of City. No member of the City and no
other officer, elected official, employee or agent of the City shall be personally liable to UFO or
otherwise in the event of any default or breach of the City, or for any amount which may become
due to UFO or any successor in interest, or for any obligations directly or indirectly incurred
under the terms of this Agreement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall have no
liability or responsibility for any accident, loss, or damage to any work performed under this
Agreement whether prior to its completion or acceptance or otherwise.
12. Indemnity.
A. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, UFO shall, at its
own expense, indemnify, protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) and hold
[5]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
harmless City and any and all of its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers
(“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all liability (including liability for claims,
demands, damages, obligations, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings,
regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or
threatened, including attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs and expert
witness fees) of any nature (“Liability”), whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of,
pertain to, or relate to the performance or failure to comply with this Agreement, regardless of any
fault or alleged fault of the Indemnified Parties.
For design professionals (as that term is defined by statute) acting within the scope of their
professional capacity, to the fullest extent permitted by law, UFO shall, at its own expense,
indemnify, protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) and hold harmless any
Indemnified Parties from and against any and all Liability, whether actual, alleged or threatened,
which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of
UFO, or as may be provided by statute in Civil Code § 2782.8, as may be amended from time to
time.
The only exception to UFO’s responsibility to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the
Indemnified Parties from Liability is due to the active negligence or willful misconduct of City or
its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents and employees.
B. Scope of Obligation. UFO’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless as set forth in this Section 12 shall include the duty to defend (by counsel reasonably
satisfactory to the City) as set forth in California Civil Code § 2778. This indemnification
obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or
compensation payable by or for UFO under worker’s compensation, disability or other employee
benefit acts or the terms, applicability or limitations of any insurance held or provided by UFO
and shall continue to bind the parties after termination/completion of this agreement. This
indemnification shall be regardless of and not in any way limited by the insurance requirements of
this contract. This indemnification is for the full period of time allowed by law and shall survive
the termination of this agreement. UFO waives any and all rights to express or implied indemnity
against the Indemnified Parties concerning any Liability of UFO arising out of or in connection
with the Agreement or UFO’s failure to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement.
UFO’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless as set forth in this Section 12 shall
not be excused because of UFO’s inability to evaluate Liability, or because the UFO evaluates
Liability and determines that UFO is not or may not be liable. UFO must respond within thirty
(30) calendar days to any tender by the City, unless the time for responding has been extended by
an authorized representative of the City in writing. If UFO fails to timely accept such tender, in
addition to any other remedies authorized by law, as much of the money due or that may become
due to UFO under this Agreement as shall reasonably be considered necessary by the City may be
retained by the Cit y until disposition has been made of the matter subject to tender, or until UFO
accepts the tender, whichever occurs first. UFO agrees to fully reimburse all costs, including but
not limited to attorney’s fees and costs and fees of litigation incurred by the City in responding to
matters prior to UFO’s acceptance of the tender.
[6]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
13. UFO Not an Agent of City. UFO, its officers, employees and agents shall not
have any power to bind or commit the City to any decision.
14. Independent Contractor. It is expressly agreed that UFO, in the performance of
the work and services agreed to be performed by UFO, shall act as and be an independent
contractor and not an agent or employee of City; and as an independent contractor, UFO shall
obtain no rights to retirement benefit s or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and
UFO hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights.
15. Compliance with Laws.
A. General. UFO shall use the standard of care in its profession to comply
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations. UFO
represents and warrants to City that it has and shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or
obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, insurance and
approvals which are legally required for UFO to practice its profession. The City is not
responsible or liable for UFO’s failure to comply with any or all of the requirements contained in
this section or Agreement.
B. Workers’ Compensation. UFO certifies that it is aware of the provisions
of the California Labor Code which require every employee to be insured against liability for
workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that
Code, and UFO certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing
performance of the Agreement and at all times in the performance of the Agreement.
C. Prevailing Wage. UFO and UFO’s subcontractors (if any) shall, to the
extent required by the California Labor Code, pay not less than the latest prevailing wage rates to
workers and professionals as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of
California pursuant to California Labor Code, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2. Copies of the
applicable wage determination are on file at the City’s office of the City Clerk.
D. Injury and Illness Prevention Program. UFO certifies that it is aware of
and has complied with the provisions of California Labor Code § 6401.7, which requires every
employer to adopt a written injury and illness prevention program.
E. Business Licenses. Unless exempt by law, UFO and all subconsultants
shall have acquired, at SHARE’s expense, a business license from the City in accordance with
Chapter 5.04 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code, prior to City's issuance of an authorization to
proceed with work under the Agreement. Such license(s) shall be kept valid throughout the term
of this Agreement. City may withhold compensation from UFO until such time as UFO
complies with this section.
16. Confidential Information. All data, documents, discussions or other information
developed or received by or for UFO in performance of this Agreement are confidential and not
to be disclosed to any person except as authorized by the City, or as required by law.
[7]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
17. Assignment; Subcontractors; Employees
A. Assignment. UFO shall not assign, delegate, transfer, or convey its duties,
responsibilities, or interests in this Agreement or any right, title, obligation, or interest in or to
the same or any part thereof without the City's prior written consent. Any assignment without
such approval shall be void and, at the City's option, shall immediately cause this Agreement to
terminate.
B. Subcontractors; Employees. UFO shall be responsible for employing or
engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of UFO hereunder. No subcontractor of
UFO shall be recognized by the City as such; rather, all subcontractors are deemed to be
employees of UFO, and UFO agrees to be responsible for their performance. UFO shall give its
personal attention to the fulfillment of the provisions of this Agreement by all of its employees
and subcontractors, if any, and shall keep the work under its control. If any employee or
subcontractor of UFO fails or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Agreement or appears to
be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, it shall be discharged immediately
from the work under this Agreement on demand of the Project Manager.
18. Insurance. Without limiting UFO’s indemnification provided herein, UFO shall
comply with the requirements set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement.
19. Termination of Agreement; Default .
A. This Agreement and all obligations hereunder may be terminated at any
time, without cause, by the City upon 60-days’ written notice to UFO, or with cause, by the City
upon 15 days’ written notice to UFO.
B. If UFO fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement within
the time and in the manner herein provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this
Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, City may terminate this
Agreement immediately upon written notice. In such event, UFO shall be entitled to receive as
full payment for all services satisfactorily rendered and expenses incurred hereunder, an amount
which bears the same ratio to the total fees specified in the Agreement as the services
satisfactorily rendered hereunder by UFO bear to the total services otherwise required to be
performed for such total fee; provided, however, that the City shall deduct from such amount the
amount of damages, if any, sustained by City by virtue of the breach of the Agreement by UFO.
C. In the event this Agreement is terminated by City without cause, UFO
shall be entitled to any compensation owing to it hereunder up to the time of such termination, it
being understood that any payments are full compensation for services rendered prior to the time
of payment .
D. Upon termination of this Agreement with or without cause, UFO shall turn
over to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings,
computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by UFO or its subcontractors,
[8]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
if any, or given to UFO or its subcontractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such
materials shall become the permanent property of the City. UFO, however, shall not be liable for
the City's use of incomplete materials nor for the City's use of complete documents if used for
other than the project contemplated by this Agreement.
20. Suspension. The City shall have the authority to suspend this Agreement and the
services contemplated herein, wholly or in part, for such period as it deems necessary due to
unfavorable conditions or to the failure on the part of UFO to perform any provision of this
Agreement. UFO will be paid for satisfactory Services performed through the date of temporary
suspension.
21. Merger; Amendment . This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive
statement of the agreement between the City and UFO and shall supersede all prior negotiations,
representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by
written instrument, signed by both the City and UFO. All provisions of this Agreement are
expressly made conditions.
22. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted as though it was a product of a
joint drafting effort and no provisions shall be interpreted against a party on the ground that said
party was solely or primarily responsible for drafting the language to be interpreted.
23. Litigation Costs. If either party becomes involved in litigation arising out of this
Agreement or the performance thereof, the court in such litigation shall award reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, to the prevailing party. In awarding attorneys’ fees, the
court will not be bound by any court fee schedule, but shall, if it is in the interest of justice to do
so, award the full amount of costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees paid or incurred in good faith.
24. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
25. Written Notification. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval or
communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be in
writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice,
demand, etc. shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below. Either party
may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. Notice shall be
deemed communicated within 72 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this
section.
If to City: City Manager
City of Rohnert Park - City Hall
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
If to UFO: Janal Reyes
Unsheltered Friends Outreach
349 Firethorn Drive
[9]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
26. UFO’s Books and Records.
A. UFO shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices,
vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for
services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City and all documents and records
which demonstrate performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years,
or for any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this
Agreement.
B. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this
Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business
hours, upon written request by the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Manager, or a designated
representative of any of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to the City
for inspection when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed
upon, the records shall be available at UFO’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this
Agreement.
C. The City may, by written request by any of the above-named officers,
require that custody of the records be given to the City and that the records and documents be
maintained in the City Manager’s office.
27. Agreement Binding. The terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement
shall apply to, and shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and
subcontractors of both parties.
28. Equal Employment Opportunity. UFO is an equal opportunity employer and
agrees to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations governing equal employment
opportunity. UFO will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment
because of race, age, sex, creed, color, sexual orientation, marital status or national origin. UFO
will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated during such employment without
regard to race, age, sex, creed, color, sexual orientation, marital status, or national origin. Such
action shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading,
demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; lay-offs or termination; rates of pay
or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. UFO
further agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for
employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
29. City Not Obligated to Third Parties. The City shall not be obligated or liable for
payment hereunder to any party other than UFO.
30. Remedies and Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right
or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have
hereunder. As a condition precedent to commencing legal action involving a claim or dispute
[10]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
against the City arising from this Agreement, UFO shall comply with claims presentation
requirements under the Government Tort Claims Act, California Government Code Sections 900
et seq. and the Rohnert Park Municipal Code.
31. Severability. If any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any
reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, then such provision or
provisions shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions hereof, and such invalidity,
illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement
shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had not been contained
herein.
32. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated
herein by this reference:
A. Exhibit A: Scope of Work and Schedule of Performance
B. Exhibit B: Insurance Requirements
33. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of
which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties
when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this
Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.
34. News Releases/Interviews. All UFO news releases, media interviews, testimony
at hearings and public comment shall be shared in advance with and approved by the City of
Rohnert Park; all communications from City of Rohnert Park regarding this contract shall be
shared in advance with UFO.
35. Applicable Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted
according to California law. In the event that suit shall be brought by either party hereunder, the
parties agree that trial of such action shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of
Sonoma, California.
[11]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
36. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the
parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of
such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with its terms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and UFO have executed this Agreement as of the date first
above written.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
UNSHELTERED FRIENDS OUTREACH
By:__________________________________
Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
By:
Janal Reyes, President
Date: Date:
ATTEST:
By: _________________________________
Elizabeth Machado, Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:__________________________________
Sergio Rudin, Assistant City Attorney
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
[12]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work and Schedule of Performance
MOBILE OUTREACH SERVICES
Overview: Unsheltered Friends Outreach (UFO) volunteers meet immediate needs of
individuals experiencing homelessness in Rohnert Park, addressing urgent physical life
sustaining needs such as providing meals (200 per week), blankets, clothing and toiletries, as
well as operating a weekly mobile shower trailer. UFO volunteers actively engage and build
relationships through the mobile shower program as well as through street outreach, with an
aim towards ending connecting people with housing solutions that will end their experience of
homelessness. UFO collaborates closely with other City service providers including Catholic
Charities Homeless Outreach Services Team (HOST), Homeless Services Center, Rohnert
Park Rapid Rehousing program, and SHARE. Additionally, UFO refers individuals to the
Coordinated Entry System, County of Sonoma Department of Health, COTS, Redwood Gospel
Mission, Crisis Stabilization Unit, Social Advocates for Youth, Face to Face, Interfaith Shelter
Network, Rohnert Park Health Center, St. Joseph Urgent Care, Memorial Hospital, Nightingale,
and Sonoma County Human Services.
UFO provides volunteer outreach services to unsheltered persons in and near Rohnert Park
four days a week, and has identified a need for funds to provide direct support to participants.
These funds will be used to meet immediate needs of unsheltered individuals including
providing food, water, transportation, clothing, trash bags, gift cards, toiletries and brief motel
stays. Key to the success of the efforts of UFO will be close coordination with the Catholic
Charities Homeless Outreach Services Team (HOST) and other peer service providers
contracting with the City, in an effort to leverage resources, expertise and avoid duplication.
UFO staff will participate in the weekly By Name List meetings and the Rohnert Park
Homelessness Roundtable monthly meetings.
Project dates: Effective Date – June 30, 2022
Qualifying Criteria: UFO will serve unsheltered individuals who are currently experiencing
homelessness in or near Rohnert Park and Cotati.
Referral and Prioritization Process: UFO already conducts outreach proactively to known
encampments and related sites and will coordinate closely with HOST and City staff to
prioritize resources and reduce duplication of services. UFO will participate in regular
participant check-in meetings with HOST and the City.
Service location(s): UFO will provide direct services in the field: at unsheltered persons’
encampments or other public spaces in and near Rohnert Park and Cotati.
Tracking & Reporting:
UFO will track and report the following data points:
• Number of individuals provided direct support
• Average amount of direct support provided per person
[13]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
• Average number of times an individual receives direct support
• Number of individuals referred to HOST
• Number of individuals referred to Catholic Charities RP Rapid Rehousing and Master-
Lease Program
• Number of individuals referred to SHARE
• Number of individuals referred to other services
ELIGIBLE EXPENSES
The City of Rohnert Park has allocated $36,000 for direct support to participants the UFO is
providing outreach services to UFO will coordinate with HOST to ensure non-duplication of
services. UFO will utilize the funding for direct support expenses, which may include, but is not
limited to:
• Food for meal preparation and delivery (to supplement donated food items)
• Meal supplies such utensils and containers
• Water bottles
• Bus tickets or other transportation services
• Vouchers for legal disposal of waste from recreational vehicles
• Gift cards for food and non-alcoholic beverages, haircuts, gasoline, and merchandise
• Motel vouchers for brief stays
• Tents, tarps, rain ponchos, sleeping bags, and fire extinguishers
• Laundry services
• DMV fees
• Vehicle parts or repair
• Shoes or clothing
• Pet food, supplies and veterinary services
• Trash bags
• Toiletries, personal care items, first aid
In addition to direct support to participants, UFO may use up to 10% of the funds awarded to
cover administrative costs, including:
• Insurance
• Gasoline
• Dues or membership fees
• Cell phone services
The City will provide these funds for expenses incurred between effective date and June 30,
2022.
INVOICING AND REPORTING
UFO shall submit invoices to the City on a monthly basis, requesting the funds anticipated to be
needed for the coming month. Invoices shall be due to the City at least two weeks ahead of the
following month to allow for time for the City to process the request. The total amount available
through this agreement is $36,000 and UFO is anticipated to request $3,000 per month. With
the City’s prior written approval, however, UFO may request more than $3,000 per month,
[14]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
based on need and rate of expenditure. Under no circumstances shall the total funds disbursed
exceed $36,000 for the project period of this agreement. In the event of a renewal term, total
funds disbursed during a renewal term shall not exceed $36,000 per renewal term.
UFO will maintain expense reports showing the date of expenditure, items purchased, and
amounts spent. UFO will maintain receipts documenting these expenses and make them
available upon request to City staff. Along with its monthly invoice, UFO shall submit a monthly
report which shall include data listed under “tracking & reporting” above as well as all receipt
details for direct support provided, using a template provided by the City.
[15]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
UFO shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against
claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the UFO, its agents,
representatives, or employees.
MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01
covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations,
property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less
than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or
the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering,
Code 1 (any auto), or if UFO has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned),
with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with
Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than
$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. (Not required if consultant provides
written verification it has no employees)
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriates to the UFO’s
profession, with limit no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000
aggregate.
If the UFO maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown
above, the City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher
limits maintained by the UFO. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the
specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following
provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional
insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations
[16]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
performed by or on behalf of the UFO including materials, parts, or equipment
furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be
provided in the form of an endorsement to the UFO’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO
Form CG 20 10 11 85, or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37
forms, if later revisions used).
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the UFO’s insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance primary coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 with respect to the
City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of
the UFO’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall state that coverage shall not be canceled,
except with notice to the City.
Waiver of Subrogation
UFO hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of
said UFO may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such
insurance. UFO agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this
waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City
has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may
require the UFO to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations,
claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language
shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied
by either the named insured or City.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with
a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the
City.
Claims Made Policies
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:
1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or
the beginning of contract work.
[17]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at
least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made
policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the UFO must
purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after
completion of contract work.
Verification of Coverage
UFO shall furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including all required
amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting
coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page
of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to City before work begins. However,
failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive
the UFO’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by
these specifications, at any time.
[18]
OAK #4820-8549-2723 v2
CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTANT
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the __________________________________, and a duly
authorized representative of the firm of _____________________________________,
whose address is ______________________________________________________, and that
neither I nor the above firm I here represent has:
a) Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent
fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide
employee working solely for me or the above consultant ) to solicit to secure
this Agreement.
b) Agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to
employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying
out the Agreement; or
c) Paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona
fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) any fee,
contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with,
procuring or carrying out the Agreement;
Except as here expressly stated (if any);
I acknowledge that this certificate is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both
criminal and civil.
_________________ ___________________________________
Date Signature
ITEM NO. 6.G.
1
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Development Services Director
Prepared By: Mary Grace Pawson, Development Services Director
Agenda Title: Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Master Maintenance Agreement for
the Edgeway Development Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Minute Order, authorize the City Manager to execute a Master
Maintenance Agreement for the Edgeway Development Project, located at the corner of East Cotati
Avenue and Camino Colegio, subject to minor revisions approved by the City Attorney and City
Manager.
BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS: The City utilizes Master Maintenance Agreements (MMAs) to
ensure that development projects undertake the long term maintenance obligations required by their
conditions of approval. Council has approved and authorized the City manager to execute standard
MMA that covers the storm water detention and treatment features that are required of all new
development. The standard MMA includes provisions that:
• obligate the developer to continue maintenance of private facilities;
• allow the City to undertake private maintenance if necessary; and
• provide the City with tools to recover its cost if it must undertake private maintenance.
The MMA is recorded against the property to ensure that maintenance obligations transfer when
ownership transfers.
Occasionally, a development project will include features that go beyond the standard storm water
maintenance and detention features, in which case the standard MMA is customized to reflect the
project obligations. The Edgeway Development, which is a mixed use development located at the
corner of East Cotati Avenue and Camino Colegio, requires a customized agreement because the
project conditions require long-term maintenance of multiple facilities. The Edgeway Project was
approved by the City Council, on appeal, in 2018. At the time of approval, the City Council worked to
ensure that the project conditions balanced the developer’s right to improve its property with the
impacts that this infill project could cause on the neighborhood.
In addition to maintenance of the storm water features, the Edgeway MMA obligates the project owner
to maintain a property line sound wall and to conduct three years of supplemental watering and
assessments of large trees adjacent to the project site.
The property line wall, which was required by the conditions of approval, helps to mitigate the visual
and noise impacts of the project on five single family residential lots directly east of the development
and fronting on Caridad Court.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6.G.
2
The tree assessments and supplemental watering help mitigate the impacts of construction on large
trees located on the easterly residential properties. The conditions of approval require the developer to
protect these existing trees. Multiple arborist reviews were made during project construction and the
three years of supplement watering and assessments were recommended as construction mitigation.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The proposed action is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D –
Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED: None. An executed Master Maintenance Agreement is required to satisfy
the conditions of approval for the Edgeway Project.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: None. The Master Maintenance Agreement ensures that
the property owner conducts required maintenance for its development at its cost. The Agreement
includes provisions for the City to recover any cost it may incur if, for any reason, the City needs to
undertake required private maintenance.
Department Head Approval Date: 08/03/2021
Finance Director Approval Date: NA
City Attorney Approval Date: NA
City Manager Approval Date: 08/05/2021
Attachments:
1. Master Maintenance Agreement – Edgeway Project
ITEM NO. 6.H.
1
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Department Administration
Submitted By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
Prepared By: Lou Kirk, Senior Code Compliance Officer
Agenda Title: Authorize Staff to Send a Letter to County of Sonoma Providing City’s Position
on Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO) Program
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: By minute order, authorize staff to send a letter to County of
Sonoma providing City’s position on Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO) Program.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: On July 26, 2021, the County of Sonoma informed the City
that the Board of Supervisors is considering to have the County opt in to the State’s Microenterprise
Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO) program. This is a county-wide regulatory decision that would
also apply to the cities.
Assembly Bill 626 (AB 626), Chapter 470, Statutes of 2018, was signed into law on September 18,
2018; effective January 1, 2019. This bill amends the California Health and Safety Code to establish a
“microenterprise home kitchen operation”, referred to as MEHKOs, as a new type of retail food
facility that will allow an individual to operate a restaurant in their private residence.
Assembly Bill 377 (AB 377) was chaptered in October 2019 to provide more regulatory clarity to the
original AB 626. Under AB 377, the County has the ability to opt in and authorize a local MEHKO
program for the entire jurisdiction, including all nine cities within the County; the law gives the
County full discretion to authorize the MEHKOs program in their jurisdiction.
Legislation regarding MEHKOs in Sonoma County present these features:
• The County must opt in via resolution or ordinance for MEHKOs to be permitted. Because the
County’s Department of Health Services is the food permitting and enforcement agency within
the County, if the County elects to opt into the program, that legal decision will apply within
the city limits as well. (Health & Safety Code § 114367).
• There is no "opt out" provision for cities. Put another way, this is legally an "opt in" or "opt
out" decision for the County as a whole.
• If the County opts in, then a MEHKO will automatically be a permitted use in any private
home, both in the unincorporated area and within city limits, provided that the MEHKO is
operated by a resident of the home. (§ 114367).
• Zoning ordinances cannot prohibit or regulate MEHKOs, and the County and cities also cannot
impose new requirements via the building code. The law allows for the enforcement of noise
and nuisance ordinances. (§ 114367.4).
• The MEHKO law specifies that food preparation is limited to 30 meals per day or 60 meals per
week. MEHKOs may not have more than one full-time equivalent food employee, not
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6.H.
2
including a family member or household member. The MEHKO may not exceed $50,000 in
verifiable gross annual sales, as adjusted for inflation. Food must be prepared, cooked and
served on the same day. (§ 113825).
• Outdoor signage and advertising will not be permitted, but food may be sold via the internet.
(§§ 114367.4, 114367.6).
• Customers may dine in, pick up, or have food delivered. (§ 113825).
• Delivery to the consumer must be done by an employee of the MEHKO, a family member, or
household member of the MEHKO permit holder. (§ 114367.5).
DISCUSSION: When AB 626 was passed, the State Legislature recognized the following elements to
compel the permission and regulation of home cooking businesses 1:
• Small-scale, home-cooking operations can create significant economic opportunities for
Californians that need them most — often women, immigrants, and people of color.
• Because the bar for entry to restaurant ownership is high, and the cost of renting a retail kitchen
is so great, an informal economy of locally produced and prepared hot foods exists in the form
of meal preparation services, food carts, and communally shared meals.
• Due to a lack of appropriate regulations, many experienced cooks in California are unable to
legally participate in the locally prepared food economy and to earn an income legally therein.
• Thousands of private chefs, home caterers, and many other food microentrepreneurs cook out
of private homes or unlicensed food facilities, with little access to education for best practices
or safety guidelines.
• A regulated program providing guidelines, training, and safety resources to home cooks would
increase public health safeguards in existing informal food economies.
• The exchange of home-cooked food can also improve access to healthy foods for communities,
particularly in food deserts with severely limited options.
It is likely that informal and unlicensed food businesses are currently operating in Rohnert Park. A
MEHKO program would provide a regulatory, safety, and training structure where no framework
exists now.
The County’s Department of Health Services believes that a MEHKO program can be operated safely.
The County has requested that the City provide input to a Sonoma County MEHKO program by
August 16, 2021.
ANALYSIS:
A MEHKO program permits enterprising restaurants to operate in residential spaces which were not
designed for commercial activity. Once a MEHKO program is instituted, cities have narrow regulatory
ability to remedy disruptions. Staff recommends that the County refrains from opting into a MEHKO
program until sufficient planning and resources are agreed upon regionally.
The introduction of a MEHKO program at this time is not recommended due to the following factors:
1. More consideration for kitchen fire safety is needed. Counties that currently permit
MEHKOs allow for wood-burning stoves and open-air barbecues. On June 23rd, an informal
cooking business in a Bridgit Drive apartment, using an outdoor cooking setup, ignited a fire of
1 State of California. “Assembly Bill No. 626 Chapter 470.” Bill Text - AB-626 California Retail Food Code: Microenterprise
Home Kitchen Operations., California Legislative Information, 18 Sept. 2018, 9:00pm,
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB626.
ITEM NO. 6.H.
3
the building’s wood siding that caused significant damage to the side of the building, affecting
other apartments. This example highlights the enhanced fire risk of operating a MEHKO
within a residential occupancy. Devices such as automatic fire-suppression systems, exhaust
hood systems, grease filters, and similar protective equipment typically found in a commercial
establishment may not be installed in a MEHKO, dramatically increasing the possibility of
severe or extensive damage should a fire catch light.
2. To the extent possible, a County MEHKO licensing program should incorporate
parameters that consider minimizing residential impacts. Once a MEHKO program is
instituted, the City cannot impose new requirements via the building code. Food businesses
require the delivery of materials, the disposal of refuse and waste, the collection and disposal of
grease, hours of operation, parking consideration for customers, and other organizational needs
typically provided in a commercially-regulated context. The imposition of these needs into a
residential area could be disruptive, particularly in areas of high density housing, and could
affect the character and safety of neighborhoods. Given that the County becomes the regulatory
agency over a MEHKO program, regional zoning requirements to minimize residential impacts
should be developed or incorporated into the licensing program.
3. Sufficient resources should be in place before implementation. Although the County
Department of Health Services will be the permitting and enforcement agency, city staffing is
required when issues arise. The County should first develop a collaborative system for its
program to establish smooth monitoring and regulation. For example, Cities should be regularly
provided with the information about the MEKHOs in their respective jurisdictions, including
providing copies of permits, delivering updates on complaints filed, and communicating
enforcement activities. In this way, the cities can become a collaborative partner to convey the
success of the program as well as work together to address community-specific issues.
Conversely, the County’s Health Services Department should have the capacity to perform
timely inspections, permitting, and enforcement for its program in order for the program to
succeed as intended.
4. Consider impacts to existing businesses. With respect to the acknowledgement that informal
food businesses currently exist, a MEHKO program can potentially and significantly disrupt
the local commercial restaurant industry by inspiring many new competitors to enter the market
space. Commercial restaurant entrepreneurs bear obligations for occupancy, utilities, insurance,
and other operational commitments that do not tie down MEHKO entrepreneurs. While
commercial enterprises have substantially more earning potential than the MEHKOs, it can be
argued that commercial restaurants are still recovering from the pandemic downturn. To
encourage the entry of new businesses with a lower bar for operations may significantly stall
the recovery of restaurants that survived the first year of the pandemic, and may also tip
struggling established businesses to close. Furthermore, the alarming surge of cases in Sonoma
County and California suggests it is too soon to declare the end of pandemic restrictions. The
possibility of new or reinstated restrictions is certainly a possibility. To that end, maybe the
institution of a MEHKO program could wait until the currently existing commercial restaurants
regain stability.
RECOMMENDATION:
ITEM NO. 6.H.
4
The staff recommendation is that the City discourage the County from opting into a MEHKO program
at this time. The City should instead recommend that the County delay implementation until a program
considering regional partners is developed, and until the local restaurant industry be provided a little
more time to recover from pandemic restrictions.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
Option 1. Recommended. Authorize staff to send the attached letter in response to a County
Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations program. Factors to be considered might include:
• Recommendations to consider equipment and fire safety
• Recommendations to consider residential impacts
• Recommendations to prioritize collaboration with the cities
• Recommendations to discourage exploitation of sales and labor by developing clear
measures
• Consideration to delay the timing of MEHKO program implementation in order to
minimize disruption due to pandemic recovery
• Overall recommendation to support or not support a MEHKO program.
Option 2. Recommended. Authorize staff to send a letter of support for the County opting in
to a MEHKO program.
Option 3. Not recommended. Decline to submit a response to the County. The City is not
required for the County’s consideration of a county-wide MEHKO program. Regardless of
input, the City will be under the regulations of the County’s program if it is instituted. This
option is not recommended because Council may want its input regarding a MEHKO program
on the record.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: Unknown. There has not been a study of how many
unlicensed food service businesses operate in Rohnert Park. That notwithstanding, a MEHKO program
could stimulate a substantial increase in food entrepreneurs that could consequently improve the
incomes of Rohnert Park families, which could in turn improve the City’s economy and any related
returns to the City’s budget. On the other hand, the program could tip a significant number of currently
existing commercial restaurants to close due to increased competition in a time where the industry has
not yet recovered from the pandemic downturn. This outcome would likely negatively impact the local
economy and ultimately the City budget. It is also possible that due to the relatively low gross sales
cap per business, the introduction of a MEHKO program will not attract enough new businesses to
impact the local restaurant industry or significantly increase the household incomes of enough families
to be measured.
Finance Director Approval Date: n/a
City Attorney Approval Date: n/a
City Manager Approval Date: 8/5/2021
Attachments:
1. Draft response to County letter
August 10, 2021
Ms. Sheryl Bratton
County Administrator
County of Sonoma
575 Administration Drive – Room 104A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2888
In RE: Response by the City of Rohnert Park relative to our position on the State’s
Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO) Law
Dear Ms. Bratton:
Thank you for your July 26, 2021 letter to the City of Rohnert Park relative to the above-referenced
issue. The City of Rohnert Park City Council appreciates having the opportunity to participate in
this dialogue, and has approved this letter be submitted in response to Board of Supervisors request
for input on a MEHKO program.
Briefly, while the City of Rohnert Park does see the value of programs similar in scope to MEHKO,
we feel that, as conceived, this program inherently goes too far – on many levels – and in doing so
creates myriad areas of concern, ranging from basic public health and safety to economic inequities
for traditional brick-and-mortar businesses.
In support of this view, there are numerous issues which must be given consideration. These factors
include several well-reasoned, real-world consequences that would likely result should the County
choose to opt into this State program:
1. Fire Safety
The operation of a MEHKO, in essence, creates a commercial kitchen environment within
an occupancy that was never designed or conceived for uses of such intensity. Because of
this increased volume and scale of use, there is a direct and commensurate increase in the
risk of fire. Devices such as automatic fire-suppression systems, exhaust hood systems,
grease filters, and similar protective equipment typically found in a commercial
establishment will likely never exist in a MEHKO, increasing the likelihood of a
combustion accident. The City of Rohnert Park has already experienced one such fire
which was the direct result of the attempted operation of a commercial kitchen from a
residence.
Further, by creating environments where members of the public can dine-in, a MEHKO
poses a higher threat for injury or death in an emergency situation than a commercial
establish would. Consider: lack of emergency exit signage; non-existent panic/egress
hardware; lack of fire sprinklers (in older structures); ADA accessibility; etc. Essential
safety structures required of commercial establishments will be absent, putting the public
at higher risk.
2. Neighborhood Disruptions
Residential neighborhoods are designed around the concept of security, stability and quiet
property enjoyment. The introduction of MEHKO’s complicate zoning laws intended to
prevent businesses and other types of incompatible uses from developing in residential
neighborhoods. Commercial restaurants require infrastructure. They require the delivery
of materials; the management of refuse and waste; the collection and disposal of grease;
provision of adequate parking facilities for employees and customers; and countless other
organizational needs.
There are certain home-based enterprises that are allowed in some residential areas, but
they are subject to defined conditions designed to prevent the types of neighborhood
impacts which would be created by the inclusion of MEHKO’s within these areas. These
impacts can manifest in parking availability issues, increased foot traffic, and the
prevalence of noise and/or odor disturbances – all of which affect the right of quiet
enjoyment customarily associated with residential living.
3. Pressure on Limited Resources
The County’s Health Services Department becomes the regulatory agency for a MEHKO
program. However, cities are generally required to assist or carry out the enforcement
activities, which is the case when restaurants violate an operational order. A MEHKO
program might increase the need for City enforcement staff. Conversely, it is unknown if
the Health Services has the capacity to license and monitor this new industry. The City of
Rohnert Park strongly recommends that the County consider and build capacity for the
program and establish the proper tools to coordinate the successful program between
County and city partners in the region.
It is also worth noting that some key County MEHKO standards, such as work hours and
meal volume, are not yet defined. Such flexibility presents challenges to monitoring and
enforcement, and unfortunately creates areas of exploitation for hours of operation,
capacity, service frequency, and labor. Clear standards plus sufficient resources to monitor
and enforce will help to prevent abuse of a system.
4. Impacts to Existing Businesses
Restaurants have struggled for the last eighteen months as a result of the pandemic and its
associated restrictions, and – for those businesses that have survived thus far – it can be
argued that the industry has not yet recovered. The recent surge of the Delta variant proves
that the pandemic is not over. The establishment of MEHKO’s at this time introduces new
players into an already-vulnerable market space, the impacts of which could result in
traditional brick-and-mortar restaurants no longer being able to sustain their operations.
This is simply not the appropriate time to initiate the MEHKO program.
The position of the City of Rohnert Park is that the State, while well-intentioned, went too far with
the MEHKO legislation. While under better-defined circumstances there are merits to the MEHKO
concept, the legislation that exists lacks the necessary collaboration, resources, and planning
guidance for a truly successful program. To that end, the City would prefer to work with the County
to find a regional solution that addresses all of the concerns enumerated above.
In closing, we would again like to express our appreciation for having this opportunity for input,
and to start a meaningful dialogue concerning this important and far-reaching matter.
Sincerely,
Darrin Jenkins
City Manager
City of Rohnert Park
ITEM NO. 6.I.
1
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Department: Finance
Submitted By: Nishil Bali, Finance Director
Prepared By: Cheri Hawkins, Accounting Supervisor & Nishil Bali, Finance Director
Agenda Title: Adopt Resolution Authorizing and Approving an Agreement for Collection of
Special Taxes, Fees, and Assessments with the County of Sonoma
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution authorizing and approving an agreement for collection of special taxes, fees, and
assessments with the County of Sonoma.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Rohnert Park (City) has several Benefits Assessment Districts that were formed for funding
specific infrastructure improvements and to provide services to certain geographical areas.
Benefit/Special Assessment Districts are a ‘property tax’ mechanism used by local governmental
agencies in California and serve as a direct mode of taxation, recognizing the variations in the type and
levels of public improvements and services provided to different neighborhoods.
The City has four Special Assessment Districts – a Fire Assessment District to provide Fire Suppression
services within an identified response time for all parcels within the City, and three Community
Financing Districts (CFDs) that satisfy Public Maintenance Fee obligations per different Developer
Agreements that offset projected fiscal deficit to the City for providing residential services. The City
currently has CFDs for the Southeast Specific Plan, Westside Residential Services, and Five Creeks
Special District.
California government code (GC) 51301 et seq. provides that a City legislative body may contract with
a County for the performance of city functions by its appropriate officers and employees. The City
contracts with the County of Sonoma for collections of special taxes, fees and assessments services for
the City’s Special Assessment Districts.
ANALYSIS:
California GC 51301 described above and GC 51514 allow that the compensation paid to the County for
assessing and collecting taxes for a City be fixed by agreement between the Board of Supervisors and
the City legislative body. Pursuant to these codes, staff recommends that the City Council approve the
attached Agreement for ‘Collection of Special Taxes, Fees, and Assessments’ with the County of
Sonoma, effective for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022. This agreement shall be automatically renewed each
fiscal year thereafter, unless terminated.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6.I.
2
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Contracting with the County of Sonoma to provide collection services for special taxes, fees, and
assessments supports the City’s goal of ensuring effective delivery of public services.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
No options considered since general law cities are prohibited from assessing and collecting their own
taxes per GC 51500-51562.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE:
There is no direct fiscal impact or funding needed to execute this agreement.
Department Head Approval Date: 07.21.21
City Attorney Approval Date: 07.21.21
City Manager Approval Date: 08.04.21
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A: Contract
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-091
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
APPROVING CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF SONOMA FOR COLLECTION
OF SPECIAL TAXES, FEES, AND ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, Government Code 51301 provides that a city legislative body may contract
with the county for the performance by its appropriate officers and employees, of the city
functions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park (“City”) contracts with the County of Sonoma
(“County”) for the collection of special taxes, fees, and assessments; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to contract with the County for Collection Services for the
fiscal year 2021-2022 and automatically renew the contract each fiscal year thereafter, unless
terminated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park that it does hereby authorize and approve an agreement by and between the County of
Sonoma, for the collection of Special Taxes, Fees, and Assessments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that it
does hereby authorize and approve the: Agreement for collection of special taxes, fees, and
assessments, attached as Exhibit A;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to execute documents and take related action pertaining to same for and on behalf of the
City of Rohnert Park.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 10th day of August, 2021.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Gerard Giudice, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Elizabeth Machado, Acting City Clerk
Exhibit A: Agreement for Collection of Special Taxes, Fees, and Assessments
ADAMS: _________LINARES: _________ STAFFORD: _________ ELWARD: _________ GIUDICE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
1
AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION OF SPECIAL
TAXES, FEES, AND ASSESSMENTS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ____ day of _______________, 20____, by
and between the COUNTY OF SONOMA, a political subdivision of the State of California,
hereinafter referred to as "County" and the CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, a municipal
corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, state law authorizes the County to recoup its collection costs when the
County collects taxes, fees, or assessments for any School District, Special District, zone or
improvement District thereof; and
WHEREAS, when requested by City, it is in the public interest and efficient that the
County collect for City the special taxes, fees, and assessments imposed on parcels subject
to real property tax;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1.County agrees, when requested by City as hereinafter provided, or as required by
law, to collect on the County tax rolls the special taxes, fees, and assessments (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "Charges") of City, and of each zone or improvement district
thereof, except as follows: (1) Tax bills will not be generated for Charges imposed on
parcels exempt from real property taxation because of low value when the total amount of the
tax bill is $10 or less. Charges on all parcels exempt from real property taxation because of
low value that are unpaid at the end of the fiscal year will be removed from the tax roll and
referred to the City for further collection efforts. (2) Tax bills will not be generated for
Charges imposed on parcels that are immune or otherwise exempt from real property taxation
when the total amount of the tax bill is $10 or less. Charges on all parcels that are immune or
otherwise exempt from real property taxation that are unpaid at the end of the fiscal year
will be removed from the tax roll and referred to the City for further collection efforts.
2.When County is to collect City's Charges, City agrees to notify the Auditor-
Controller of the County on or before the 10th day of August of each fiscal year of the
Assessor's parcel numbers and the amount of each Charge to County. To be effective, the
notice must be received by the Auditor-Controller by said date.
EXHIBIT A
2
3. County may charge a cost recovery fee for each Charge that is to be collected
on the County tax roll in an amount sufficient to recover the costs incurred by the County to
collect the Charge on behalf of City. This cost recovery fee will not exceed 0.0085 of the
annual levy.
4. City warrants that the Charges imposed by City and collected pursuant to this
Agreement comply with all requirements of state law, including but not limited to Articles
XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218).
5. City agrees to re-certify each year that the Charges imposed by the City and
collected pursuant to this Agreement comply with all requirements of state law, including
but not limited to Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218).
City further agrees to provide any other documentation, such as a certified copy of the City
Council’s Resolution or Ordinance authorizing the Charges to be collected on the secured
tax bill or a certified ballot measure, supporting the authority to levy the Charges as
requested by County and that, without this documentation, it is the Auditor-Controller’s
discretion whether to place the Charges on the tax roll.
6.Indemnification. Without limiting the County's obligations under California law
to collect the Charges, the City agrees to defend and indemnify the County, its agents, officers
and employees (the “County Parties”) from any demands, liability, losses, damages, expenses,
charges or costs of any kind or character, including attorneys' fees and court costs (collectively,
Claims) arising from performance of this Agreement. City shall, at its own expense, defend any
suit or action founded upon a claim of the foregoing. City further releases and forever discharges
the County and its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, liabilities,
costs and expenses, damages, causes of action, and judgments, in any manner arising out of
City's responsibilities under this Agreement or other action taken by City in establishing the
Charges and implementing collection of the Charges as contemplated in this Agreement.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, City shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify
County and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, and agents, from and against
any claim or suit to determine the legality of the Charges or arising from or related to the
accuracy of the information provided by City, or any procedures employed by the County or its
officers or employees in the collection of the Charges. If any judgment is entered against any
of the County Parties as a result of action taken to implement this Agreement, City agrees that
3
County may offset the amount of any judgment paid by County or by County Parties from any
monies collected by County on City 's behalf, including property taxes, special taxes, fees, or
assessments. County may, but is not required to, notify City of its intent to implement any
offset authorized by this paragraph.
7.To promote and maintain efficient property tax administration, City agrees:
a.That its officers, agents and employees will cooperate with County by
timely answering inquiries made to City by any person concerning City's Charges, and that
its officers, agents and employees will not refer such individuals making inquiries to County
officers or employees for response.
b.To follow all administrative procedures as established by the County,
including submitting all documents and data in the required formats to County by
established deadlines, and providing all requests for removal or correction of charges in
writing.
c.City is responsible for the validity and accuracy of the amount of the
Charges as well as the assessor parcel number to which it is being charged regardless if such
data is submitted by the City itself or by a third-party consultant/contractor on its behalf.
d.That administrative citations and fines and other charges of this nature
will not be placed on the secured roll.
e.That City gives the Auditor-Controller the authority to process and
handle at his or her discretion special situations and unusual circumstances not addressed
elsewhere in this Agreement. Such actions may include the removal of Charges from the tax
bill and relieving County from any further responsibility for collection making City solely
responsible for its collection. Should this situation occur the Auditor-Controller will
promptly notify City.
8.City shall not assign or transfer this agreement or any interest herein and any
such assignment or transfer or attempted assignment or transfer of this agreement or any
interest herein by City shall be void and shall immediately and automatically terminate this
agreement.
9.This agreement shall be effective for the 2021-2022 fiscal year and shall be
automatically renewed for each fiscal year thereafter unless terminated as hereinafter
provided.
4
10.Either party may terminate this agreement for any reason for any ensuing fiscal
year by giving written notice thereof to the other party prior to May 1st of the preceding
fiscal year.
11.County's waiver of breach of any one term, covenant, or other provision of
this agreement, is not a waiver of breach of any other term, nor subsequent breach of the
term or provision waived.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and
year first above written.
City: ____________________________________
By: ______________________________________
SONOMA COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
_________________________________________
ITEM NO. 6.J.
1
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
Prepared By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
Agenda Title: Adopt a Resolution Approving and Establishing a Citywide Governance Policy
for Elected Officials
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing a Citywide Governance
Policy.
BACKGROUND:
On July 27, 2021, City Council, by consensus, directed staff to bring back a Citywide Governance
Policy. Consideration of such a policy is consistent with recommendations for cities transitioning to
district based Council elections.
ANALYSIS:
The attached resolution clearly sets forth expectations for Citywide Governance in Rohnert Park. It
provides clarity to the Council, staff, and the public.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Adopting a policy regarding citywide governance supports “Strategic Plan Goal C: Ensure the
effective delivery of public services.”
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
1. Recommended Option: Adopt the attached resolution establishing a Citywide Governance
Policy for Elected Officials.
2. Alternative 1: The Council could provide edits or revisions to the resolution prior to adoption.
3. Alternative 2: The Council could opt not to adopt the resolution. This alternative is not
recommended as adopting a policy will provide clarity to the Council, staff, and public on
several key issues related to governance.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE:
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6.J.
2
There is no fiscal impact from the recommended action.
Department Head Approval Date: N/A
Finance Director Approval Date: N/A
City Attorney Approval Date: 7/30/2021
City Manager Approval Date: 7/30/2021
Attachments:
1. Resolution Approving and Establishing a Citywide Governance Policy for Elected Officials
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-092
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING A CITYWIDE GOVERNANCE
POLICY FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 944,
establishing that future City Council elections will be held by district, and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, the City Council affirmed its commitment to citywide
governance, regardless of the method by which City Council members are elected, and directed
staff to bring forward a citywide governance policy; and
WHEREAS, governing citywide allows for the continuation of accessible customer
service, the most effective use of taxpayer resources, and consistency in City services; and
WHEREAS, all members of the City Council will continue to serve all of the people of
Rohnert Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park, California, that:
1. The City Council will govern on a citywide basis and ensure decisions are made
based on the needs and interests of the entire community; and
2. The City Council wishes to remain united in its customer service to the community
and providing excellent quality of life for all; and
3. All members of the City Council will help all members of the community regardless
of which district residents reside in or from which districts the City Council
members are elected; and
4. Professional management in a strong City Manager/City Council form of
government will continue; and
5. Commissions and board appointments will continue to be made at large, with each
Councilmember able to nominate appointees from anywhere in the City irrespective
of election districts; and
6. Information necessary for the City Council to govern on a citywide basis will be
shared with all City Councilmembers; and
7. Resources will continue to be allocated based on long-term strategic planning
efforts, with citywide considerations of service levels and financial capacity; and
8. Current practices of inviting all Councilmembers to events and activities will
remain in effect; and
Resolution 2021-092
2
9. The City Council will follow the current practice of the Mayor speaking at events
on behalf of the City Council and if not available, the Vice Mayor or other
Councilmembers who are available will speak on behalf of the City Council; and
10. Financial, operational, project, and other information will be presented on a
citywide basis and not segregated by election district; and
11. City Council fiscal management, best practices, and city systems will continue to
reflect services provided to all residents citywide; and
12. City Council members upon election, re-election, or appointment, will certify, in
writing, their receipt and understanding of this Citywide Governance Policy.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 10th day of August, 2021.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Gerard Giudice, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Elizabeth Machado, Acting City Clerk
ADAMS: _________LINARES: _________ STAFFORD: _________ ELWARD: _________ GIUDICE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
ITEM NO. 7.A.
1
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Department: Public Works and Community Services
Submitted By: Cindy Bagley, Director of Community Services;
Vanessa Garrett, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Cindy Bagley, Director of Community Services;
Vanessa Garrett, Director of Public Works
Agenda Title: Discussion and Direction Regarding the 4Cs Preschool Long Term Lease on City
Property for State Subsidized Preschool/Child Care at Gold Ridge or Burton
Recreation Center
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion and Direction Regarding the 4Cs Group Long Term Lease on City Property.
BACKGROUND: The Community Child Care Council of Sonoma County (4Cs) is Sonoma
County’s State funded Child Care Resource & Referral agency serving the Sonoma County community
since 1972. 4Cs assists parents to secure early learning and child care programs across Sonoma County
and draws down state funding to assist families in need of subsidized preschool and childcare for
children birth to 12 years old. 4Cs offers full-time, part-time, and afterschool childcare in Rohnert
Park’s local community and the surrounding areas through state funded vouchers and specifically for
preschool children ages 3 and 4 years at the 4Cs Gold Ridge Preschool facility.
4Cs is currently occupying a modular building on property owned by the City of Rohnert Park (City)
to provide the above preschool services. The location of the facility is 1455 Golf Course Drive, which
is a former elementary school site that the City owns and maintains. 4Cs constructed interior tenant
improvements to the modular building as part of a First 5 Sonoma County, and state-funded grant, to
ready the building for the program in 2016. The total dollar amount for these improvement was
$240,624. The state of the modular building that the 4Cs currently occupies is beyond economical
repair and it is not recommended that the business stay in the unit another year.
Pre-COVID 4Cs capacity included space for 48 part-day part-year children and up to 40 children in a
full-day full-year classroom. Currently, 4Cs is enrolling up to 32 children at this Gold Ridge facility
due to COVID health & safety practices, and the uncertainty of the facility’s future. 80% of currently
enrolled students are residents of Rohnert Park, this number is 85% when you include Rohnert
Park/Cotati. 100% of families qualify for the California State Preschool Program services based on
meeting state income-eligibility requirements. 4Cs also currently prioritizes Rohnert Park residents for
enrollment at the Gold Ridge site.
Access to preschool in Sonoma County and Rohnert Park is very limited, particularly free and reduced
cost spaces. 4Cs is one of only two state funded preschool classrooms in Rohnert Park/Cotati, with the
second being the Sonoma State University Children’s School. 4Cs preschool spaces represent 8% of all
ITEM NO. 7.A.
2
spaces for 2-5 year-olds in Rohnert Park/Cotati. The overall County preschool/child care capacity
(subsidized and tuition based) has seen a huge decline during the pandemic. The total number of
spaces has been reduced by 67% due to COVID protocols or temporary and/or permanent program
closures. This has put a heavily burden on the industry’s available services.
Since March, 2020 Rohnert Park/Cotati has seen a 17% decrease in open child care facilities and a
47% decrease in child care spaces for children birth to 12 years old. Full-day, full-year child care and
preschool is essential for the recovery of our economy by supporting parents return to work and
children’s school readiness heading into Kindergarten.
The Lease Agreement between 4Cs and the City is a 10-year term (2016-2026) with water, sewer, gas,
and electricity included in the rent. The base rental rate is $3,119 but a reduction of $2,005/month over
the 10 year lease was applied to reimburse the 4Cs for the tenant improvements mentioned earlier in
this report. The current rental rate is $1,114 per month with this reduction applied, which equates to
$13,368 per year.
4Cs has resources to invest approximately $40,000 into relocating to a different facility, which
includes $10,000 for a moving truck. The purpose of this staff report is to provide the City Council
with options for other City facilities that could be leased to 4Cs.
ANALYSIS: After meeting and discussing the program needs, 4Cs provided the following facility
requirements in order to continue to run their operation to serve a minimum of 40 students in one
classroom space:
• Indoor space (minimum 1,400 square feet – 35 sq ft usable space/child)
• Fenced outdoor space (minimum 3000 square feet – 75 sq ft usable space/child)
• Kitchen with an oven
• Separate staff restroom facilities
• Separate child restroom facilities
• Functional heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) equipment
• Space can only be utilized by 4Cs (no shared spaces due to Community Care Licensing
Requirements and full day full year program services)
After evaluating all of the City’s facilities, the two facilities that meet the 4Cs business
requirements are the Gold Ridge multi-use building and the Burton Recreation Center. These locations
are shown in Attachment 1. On July 19, 2021, staff performed walkthroughs with the 4Cs
administrative staff of both facilities and reviewed the improvements needed to move 4Cs into each one
of the facilities. Staff also connected 4Cs representatives with the City of Cotati to examine the
possibility of relocating to one of their facilities. In addition, 4Cs reached out to the Cotati-Rohnert
Park Unified School District for potential use of one of their facilities.
Gold Ridge multi-use building facility
The Gold Ridge multi-use building is approximately 14,000 square feet and is located at the
same site as the 4Cs current location. This facility is approximately 10 times the size of the current 4Cs
location, but due to its layout (one large room only), the facility still would only be able to
accommodate 32 children in the program. The facility contains most of the features that the 4Cs
requires to run their childcare center, with a few exceptions. The HVAC units do not work at this time
and would need to be repaired or replaced in order to accommodate a permanent use. 4Cs can continue
to use their existing outdoor fenced space at the modular building or, if desired, there is room to
construct a fence on the outside of the building that directly connects to the facility. The existing
ITEM NO. 7.A.
3
kitchen also would need to have an oven, countertops, and cabinetry installed to meet use requirements
for their child care facility. Currently, the Gold Ridge multi-use building does not have existing
agreements that are committed to other private renters/ businesses, and no tenant/renter relocations
would need to take place in order to accommodate the 4Cs moving into the building. In the recent pre-
COVID past, the facility was used by a Community Services contract instructor for cross-fit training.
This class will not be returning post-COVID. The facility has also been used by a group of individuals
for recreational ping-pong who plan to resume post-COVID. At this time, there would not be an easy
location to move this activity due mostly to storage constraints. Intermittently, the facility has been
rented by sports organization such as CYO Basketball and Credo High School. CYO no longer uses
Gold Ridge and rents space at the Callinan Sports and Fitness Center (Sports Center). Credo High
School also utilizes the Sports Center.
A cost breakdown for the infrastructure needs is shown in table 1 below:
Table 1- Gold Ridge MU capital costs
HVAC replacement $200,000
Kitchen update $20,000
Fencing $30,000
Accessibility improvements $30,000
Staff Time/ Permits/ Misc Expenses $10,000
Contingency (20%) $38,000
Total $328,000
Burton Recreation Center facility
The Burton Recreation Center (Burton) is a 6,000 square foot facility located at 7421 Burton Avenue.
This facility is approximately 4 times the size of the current 4Cs location. Due to the configuration of
the rooms in this facility, the 4Cs would still only be able to accommodate 40 children in the program.
The Burton Recreation Center would require fencing for their outdoor space in order to move 4Cs into
this facility, and a plan for child drop-off and staff parking. There is a location in the back of the
building for the outdoor space, and the Benicia Park parking lot can be used for parent and staff
parking. Table 2 is an estimate of the cost for infrastructure improvements needed to relocate the 4Cs
program to the Burton Recreation Center:
Table 2- Burton capital costs
Fencing $30,000
Staff Time/ Permits/ Misc Expenses $5,000
Contingency (20%) $7,000
Total $42,000
The Burton Recreation Center has a host of rentals and programs that utilize the facility throughout the
year. The following programs as shown in Table 2 below are currently programmed in Burton
Recreation Center. The table also lists accommodations needed for relocating these groups to the Gold
Ridge multi-use building facility.
ITEM NO. 7.A.
4
Table 2- Burton Programming
Program Duration Proposed
Relocation
Accommodations Needed for
Relocation
Community Band Once Weekly Gold Ridge
Multi-Use
Facility
• Storage for equipment
• ADA lift needs to be
inspected and licensed
Rohnert Park
Chorale
Once Weekly Gold Ridge
Multi-Use
Facility
• Storage for equipment
• ADA lift needs to be
inspected and licensed
RP Summer Day
Camp
Weekdays June
through August
Gold Ridge
Multi-Use
Facility
• HVAC Repair
• Kitchen Upgrade
• Storage
• ADA lift same as above
War on Sags and
Bulges - Fitness
Class
Weekday
Evenings
Gold Ridge
Multi-Use
Facility
• Small storage for equipment
Facility Rentals Weekends –
currently 10
rentals on the
books from
September 1, 2021
through July 23,
2022
Gold Ridge
Senior Center
Community
Center
• Commercial kitchen
• 2 of 10 rentals are not able to
be relocated to City facilities
in Rohnert Park and may
need to be canceled or
relocated by the renters to a
location outside Rohnert
Park.
Gold Ridge vs Burton Analysis
After evaluating each of the facilities and the programming associated with each, either the Gold Ridge
Multi-Use Building or the Burton Recreation Center work to meet the needs for the 4Cs program
relocation. From an infrastructure standpoint, utilizing the Burton Recreation Center is the most
improved building and requires only minor improvements to accommodate the 4Cs. However, there
are several community-based factors to consider when comparing these two facilities.
Table 1 describes the current uses of the Burton facility. Each use serves a benefit to the community in
one way or the other. Staff evaluated the impacts to each of the users and the implications of losing
Burton for each as follows:
Community Band and Rohnert Park Chorale: Staff reached out to each of the community groups
who use Burton on a weekly basis. Each group is enthusiastic about the possibility to move to the Gold
Ridge multiuse facility because of the stage, which has both indoor and outdoor capabilities, and
ITEM NO. 7.A.
5
storage capacity for their equipment. This transition does not appear to have any negative implications
other than is typical with a move of equipment.
War on Sags and Bulges: This is a long standing fitness class that has been offered in Rohnert Park
for many years. It would be a high priority to find a new location for this group. Staff believe that Gold
Ridge would be a feasible alternative and presents little to no complications.
RP Summer Day Camp (Camp): This is the City’s in-house summer camp for kids ages 5 ½ to 11.
This camp was formerly named “Camp Burton” (pre-COVID), which illustrates the relationship
between the camp and its long-time home at the Burton Recreation Center. The only reason for the
name change was that the camp could not be indoors last summer, and was moved to the Rohnert
Park Community Center lawn. The camp has returned to Burton this summer.
Burton offers a wide-variety of benefits to campers including the kitchen, two separate activity rooms,
the Benicia Pool, and the Benicia Park playground. Moving the camp is feasible to either the Rohnert
Park Community Center or Gold Ridge Recreation Building, but is not ideal without additional
accommodations at each. Another challenging component to moving the camp is that residents have
come to know the camp at Burton and some may choose this camp because of its location. That said,
there may be other residents that don’t attend the camp that would choose to attend if it were closer to
their home in another part of the City.
If the City were to lease Burton to 4Cs, staff would ideally move the camp to Gold Ridge next
summer. However, to do so, many of the same upgrades that are needed to lease Gold Ridge to 4Cs
would need to happen in order for the camp to be held there. These upgrades include the kitchen and
HVAC repair. The City would have more time to make these upgrades for the camp than for 4Cs.
Facility Rentals
Table 2 above illustrates the number of ongoing rentals that are currently booked that would be
immediately impacted by the City choosing to lease Burton to 4Cs. Table 3 below represents how
the currently booked rentals would be affected. The rentals highlighted in gray could not be
relocated, either due to lack of room availability or size of their event. Even if there is availability at
another facility, some renters may not want to have their special event somewhere other than
Burton. 4C’s had indicated, that they would be able to stay in the current modular through the end of
the calendar year, which would only require the move of two currently booked rentals.
Table 3: Currently Booked Rentals at Burton
2021 Rentals (September 1 through December 31)
Date Type of Event Party
Size
MU
Availability
Senior
Center
Availability
9-4 Family Reunion 200 Yes Yes
9/11 Quinceanera No Yes
9/17-18 Quinceanera No Yes
10/9 Baby Shower 200 Yes Yes
10/22-23 Anniversary 200 No N/A
11/6 Baby Shower No Yes
11/13 Wedding 200 No N/A
ITEM NO. 7.A.
6
2021 Rentals (September 1 through December 31) cont.
12/11 Wedding Reception Unknown No Yes
12/17-18 Baptism Yes Yes
2022 (January 1 through July 23)
1/21-22 Quinceanera Yes Yes
7/8-9 Wedding Yes Yes
It is important to note that there are significantly less rentals on the books as of the time this report was
written than would normally be the case pre-COVID. In non-COVID years, Burton is generally rented
by private renters every weekend of the year, representing approximately $38,000 in annual revenue
for the facility.
As mentioned previously, Gold Ridge has a kitchen room but does not currently have any appliances in
it. Gold Ridge has the capability of becoming another facility that is available for private rentals in
place of Burton, but would need to have the same improvements completed as listed in Table 1, minus
the fencing. Currently 93% of the renters who rent City facilities utilize the kitchen. With these
mentioned upgrades, Gold Ridge makes an ideal rental location on paper. Challenges to considering
Gold Ridge for facility rentals is that this could be perceived as a nuisance to the neighbors, especially
those who live within 150 feet of the facility. Staff experienced this with private rentals of the Senior
Center and had to reduce the rentable hours of the facility, which has made that facility a less desirable
place to host parties. At the Senior Center the nearest residence is 140 feet away. At Gold Ridge the
nearest residence is 30 feet away and there are 8 houses within 150 feet. At Burton, the nearest house
is 150 feet away.
Private rentals, while good for the renters and for revenue, do not necessarily represent a high
community benefit. About one third of renters come from Santa Rosa and other neighboring
communities. However, rental of Burton is an affordable option for residents to host their personal
celebrations and family milestones.
The Community Services Recreation Program Cost Recovery Policy does not apply to facility rentals,
however, the Community Benefit Methodology (CBM), which was adopted as part of that policy, can
be utilized to consider community benefit of any type of program or rental in a City facility. Staff
evaluated facility rentals and 4C’s programming by utilizing the CBM and assigning a community
benefit level to each. The five levels of the CBM are defined below:
Level I – Mostly Community Benefit:
Recreation programs and activities in Level I have a wide community benefit and meet the core mission
and vision of the City by enhancing the overall quality of life for community members. Participation in
Level I programs and activities is available to all members of the community, with an emphasis on
serving populations in-need. High participation is beneficial to the community, and thus it is valued over
cost recovery. Examples of Level I programs and activities include: community parks and the Senior
Center.
Level II – Considerable Community Benefit: Programs or activities that fulfill the core mission of the
Community Services Department that provide a wide community benefit. These programs and activities
are general, basic and non-specific to any one recreational activity or are generally accepted as traditional
municipal youth programs. Examples of Level II programs and activities include: After-school
programs, generic middle school programs (non-interest specific such as dances, or teen nights).
ITEM NO. 7.A.
7
Level III – Individual and Community Benefit:
Recreation programs and activities in this level are more interest-specific for individuals. These
programs and activities may be traditional municipal programs or may vary depending on current
recreation trends. Market rate consideration, as well as participation rates, are taken into consideration
when determining the cost recovery for Level II program and activities. An example of a Level III
program is swim lessons for youth.
Level IV – Considerable Individual Benefit:
These programs and activities have a higher individual focus and may be competitive or highly
specialized programs or activities. Examples of Level IV programs and activities include: Youth Day
Camps, Teen Camps, Arts and Crafts Faire.
Level V – Mostly Individual Benefit:
Recreation programs and activities in Level V benefit the individual more than the wider community.
These programs and activities have a higher degree of specialization, and adults are often the primary
beneficiaries. The demand for the program or activity is a factor in fee setting and some activities may
be strictly revenue-oriented. Examples of Level III programs and activities include: gym membership,
pottery studio, and adult sports leagues.
General facility rentals for private celebrations would likely fall into the Level V category as they are
mostly for individual benefit as they are not open to the community and are interest specific. In
addition, private facility rentals are the most damaging to City facilities and some have historically
needed Public Safety intervention.
On the other hand, 4Cs subsidized preschool would likely fall into Levels II or III as the program
functions more similarly to an after-school program and provides opportunities for low-income
families to have access to affordable high-quality child care that may not be available in any other
location in Rohnert Park for children under the age of 5.
Summary of Analysis and Staff Recommendation
Staff recognizes that 4Cs subsidized childcare program represents a high community benefit for
Rohnert Park and staff desires to keep their program in City limits.
High quality pre-school programs improve child brain development and can have lasting impacts
including improved educational and behavioral outcomes. Quality childcare has been impacted
heavily by the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff believe effort should be made to preserve this program in
Rohnert Park.
While more challenging in regards to the relocation or cancellation of programs/rentals, staff feel
Burton is the best option to keep 4Cs in Rohnert Park.
The Gold Ridge multi-use facility is not as ideal for 4Cs programming needs, and would require
significant upgrades in a relatively short period of time to be considered program-ready. In addition,
current community groups using Burton are very interested in using Gold Ridge instead, which
represents a high community benefit and can serve as a win-win for all three community groups.
The most significant impact to the elimination of Burton as a City recreation facility is the loss of an
ideal location to offer summer camp for community youth. This program has been full with a waiting
list for the past two summers and staff anticipate that trend to continue in the future. If the City leases
Burton to 4C’s, staff recommend the City commit to making the necessary improvements at Gold
Ridge prior to June, 2022 in order to move the City’s programming to that facility, which could be a
great fit if the improvements are made.
ITEM NO. 7.A.
8
If the City in unable to commit to improvements at Gold Ridge in order to make it a usable facility
for youth programs, community group use, and rentals, the loss of Burton would be damaging to the
core function of the City’s Community Services Department in providing recreation opportunities
and gathering spaces for our residents.
4Cs Rent Affordability
The 4Cs is a non-profit program that draws down CA State Preschool funds from the CA Department
of Education to operate the preschool program. Currently, with rent at $1,114 per month the program is
able to successfully pay their teachers and provide the supplies and meals that their program recipients
need. Commercial space in the area is typically between $12 and $24 per square foot, and the amount
of rent for a long-term tenant for either the Gold Ridge Multi-Use Building or Burton would
substantially exceed feasible rent that the 4Cs budgeted for the program. If negotiations proceeded for
either facility to be used as the new location, the 4Cs would not have the ability to pay market rate.
However, in light of the significant public benefits that would be provided to the community by
maintaining the availability of affordable child-care services for low-income persons, the City is not
required to charge market rent for this type of use. If City Council chooses to lease either facility to
4Cs, staff recommend working with 4Cs to determine a lease rate that makes sense for both the City
and 4Cs in light of 4Cs ability to pay.
If City Council chooses to lease either facility to 4Cs, staff recommend working with 4Cs to determine
a lease rate that makes sense for both the City and 4Cs that may be below market rate in the private
sector.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: These actions are consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D –
Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community. Relocating the 4Cs will continue to enhance the
community with subsidized child care services in Rohnert Park. Moving City programming to Gold
Ridge Recreation Building presents new opportunities for future community programming.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
1. Option 1 (staff recommended option): Direct staff to move forward negotiating a new lease
with 4Cs at the Burton Recreation Center and plan for the relocation of the current City
programming at the Burton Recreation Center to the Gold Ridge multi-use building.
2. Option 2: Negotiate a new lease with the 4Cs to be relocated to the Gold Ridge multi-use
facility.
3. Option 3: Do not renegotiate a lease with 4Cs and have other 4Cs facilities absorb the staff and
children enrolled at their current facility.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The recommended option would cost a minimum of
$340,000 for facility upgrades to accommodate the relocated programs. In addition, the City would
lose approximately $38,000 per year in event rental revenue from its General Fund.
Option 2 would cost $328,000 for facility upgrades at Gold Ridge. In addition, a minor and
inconsistent loss of annual revenue for Gold Ridge rentals for programs like fitness classes.
Option 3 would result in the loss of $13,368 of 4Cs rental revenue per year, partially offset by reduced
utility costs at Gold Ridge.
The one-time costs for the facility upgrades could be funded from the City's Infrastructure Fund or City
assigned reserves for facilities, operations, or contingencies. There may be other City funds available
for the upgrades. Regardless, the funds spent on upgrading these facilities would not be available for
other City facility needs.
ITEM NO. 7.A.
9
Department Head Approval Date: V. Garrett / C. Bagley
Finance Director Approval Date: N/A
City Attorney Approval Date: N/A
City Manager Approval Date: D. Jenkins
Attachments:
1. Map of Facility Locations
7/25/2021
Enter Description
Attachment 1-Facility Locations
0.61Miles0
38,400Scale 1:
4Cs Subsidized
Preschool Program
Relocation
August 10, 2021 1
Presented by:
Cindy Bagley,
Director of
Community Services
&
Vanessa Garrett,
Director of
Public Works
Program
Overview2
The Community Child Care Council of Sonoma County (4Cs)
Assists families in need of
subsidized childcare
Provides early learning programs for children birth to 12 years old
Serves largely the Rohnert
Park community at the Gold
Ridge facility
Current 4Cs
Facility –
Rohnert Park
3
Located in modular building at Gold Ridge
Funded interior improvements in 2016 through grant for building
Building experiencing premature deterioration
Existing 4Cs
Location –
Building
Assessment
4
Rapid structural
deterioration
Drainage onsite
Inadequate foundation
Assessment
Recommendations
and
Associated Cost
5
Ventilate floor cavities
Remove and replaces most
structural steel under building
Regrade area around building
and add drainage
Reroute roof drainage further
from building
Cost for
Retrofit/Repair $500k-$600k
Relocation Needs6
Indoor space
Fenced
outdoor
space
Kitchen with
an oven
Separate staff
restroom
facilities
Separate
child restroom
facilities
Functional
heating,
ventilation, and air
condition (HVAC)
equipment
Cannot share
facility
New Locations Considered in Rohnert Park7
•Could work with significant
improvements to the building
Gold Ridge Multi-Use Building
•Could work with minor
improvements to the building
Burton Recreation Center
•Does not have the required
outdoor space
Early Learning Institute
•Does not have adequate
space/facilities available
Cotati-Rohnert Unified Park School District (CRPUSD)
8
Gold Ridge Multi-Use Building
◦14,000 square feet (10 times larger)
◦Could accommodate 32 children
Potential Facilities for Relocation
Repair Needed Cost
HVAC Replacement $200,000
Kitchen Upgrade $20,000
Fencing $30,000
Accessibility Improvements $30,000
Staff Time/Permits/Misc $10,000
Contingency (20%)$38,000
Total $328,000
Potential Facilities for Relocation
(Cont.)9
Burton Recreation Center
◦6,000 square feet (4 times larger)
◦Could accommodate 32 children
Upgrades Needed Cost
Fencing $30,000
Staff/Permits/Misc $5,000
Contingency (20%)$7,000
Total $42,000
Regular Burton Recreation Center Programming
10
Community Band
Weekly
Rohnert Park Chorale
Weekly
RP Summer Day Camp
Summer Weekdays
War on Sags and Bulges Class
Weekly
Private Facility Rentals
Weekends
Potential
Relocation
Facilities for
Regular
Programming
11
•Gold Ridge Recreation Building
•Community Center
•Senior Center
Facility Rentals
•Gold Ridge Recreation
Building
•Community Center
Programs
*Same upgrades that 4Cs require would be
necessary at Gold Ridge if programming and rentals
moved to this location
Booked Private
Facility Rentals
2021-22
12
Total Rentals 2021= 9
Total Rentals 2022 = 2
Rentals are Down
Compared to Pre-
COVID
9 of 11 Rentals could
be relocated
Some Renters may not
want to move to a
different facility
Gold Ridge vs Burton for 4Cs
Gold Ridge Recreation Building
Costly upgrades needed
Could not move in as quickly
Could use current outdoor play area
Would not have costly moving expenses
Does not displace any regular City programming
13
Gold Ridge vs Burton for 4Cs
Burton Recreation Center
Displaces a large amount of regular City programming
May not be able to relocate facility rentals
Would still need to make costly improvements at Gold Ridge
Could move in more quickly
A better fit for 4Cs programming
14
Using the
Community
Benefit
Methodology
15
LEVEL 5 Mostly Individual Benefit
LEVEL 4 Considerable Individual Benefit
LEVEL 3 Individual and Community Benefit
LEVEL 2 Considerable Community Benefit
LEVEL 1 Mostly Community Benefit
Facility Rentals
vs.
Subsidized Preschool
4Cs Affordability16
CURRENTLY BELOW MARKET RATE
CITY NOT REQUIRED
TO CHARGE
MARKET-RATE WITH
COMMUNITY
BENEFIT OFFSET
CURRENT RENT $1,114 PER MONTH
Staff Recommendation17
Burton Recreation Center
Negotiate new lease –potentially
below market rate
City would need to commit to
renovating Gold Ridge prior to
Summer 2022 to relocate of City
programming.
Other Options18
Gold Ridge Recreation Building
Negotiate new lease –potentially below
market rate
Would keep 4Cs in Rohnert Park
Do not lease any City facilities to 4Cs
Could require other facilities outside of
Rohnert Park to absorb current students
Other Options19
Financial Support for Lease of
Another Rohnert Park Location
Provide 4Cs with funding to assist in
rent/renovations at a non-City facility in
Rohnert Park; could include annual support
for rent payments
Would keep 4Cs in Rohnert Park
Would potentially cost the City less and
would retain City facilities for community use
Fiscal Impact 20
Staff Recommendation-Burton Recreation Center
•$298,000 for Facility Upgrades at Gold Ridge for relocated programming
•$42,000 for Upgrades at Burton
•Up to $38,000 in loss of revenue to General Fund from rentals
Gold Ridge Recreation Building
•$328,000 for Facility Upgrades at Gold Ridge
No City Facility for 4Cs
•Loss of $13,368 in annual rental revenue from 4Cs
Note: 4Cs can contribute approximately $40,000
Questions,
Discussion,
and
Direction
21
ITEM NO. 7.B.
1
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
Prepared By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager & Tim Mattos, Director of Public Safety
Agenda Title: Recommendations for Increased Law Enforcement Accountability and
Improved Police/Community Relations
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review staff’s recommendations regarding the City Council’s Strategic Priority of Police/Community
Relations and Accountability and provide further direction on the suggested recommendations.
The recommendations are as follows:
1. Retain an Independent Police Auditor to review public safety investigations into civilian
complaints.
2. Adopt a Public Safety Presentation Calendar for regular opportunities for the City Council and
the community to provide feedback on Public Safety matters.
3. Create a community roundtable to obtain feedback from a diverse group of stakeholders
representing underrepresented minority people groups.
4. Implement an alternative response model—using CAHOOTS as a basis—to provide enhanced
crisis intervention, mental health, and homeless assistance services.
5. Restart the Civilian Public Safety Academy when it is safe to do so and there is sufficient
interest from the public.
6. Continue to expand trainings regarding explicit and implicit bias, sensitivity, de-escalation,
LGBTQ+, and racial profiling. Invite non-public-safety staff and City Councilmembers to
partake in trainings when appropriate.
7. Augment existing staff resiliency programs with the addition of 24/7 counseling services on
demand accessed through a phone application.
8. Continue existing officer stewardship and mentoring methods.
9. Engage the community stakeholders regarding the Council’s direction for enhanced public
safety accountability and community relations measures.
If the Council ultimately enacts the recommended measures, the City of Rohnert Park will have
the most comprehensive system of police accountability and community relations in Sonoma
County.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 7.B.
2
BACKGROUND:
On January 7, 2021, a special meeting was held to discuss City Council strategic priorities moving
forward with the newly sworn-in Council. During the meeting the City Council identified three new
additional goals and priorities to focus Council and staff attention. The new goals and priorities
identified were Climate Change, Homelessness, and Police/Community Relations and Accountability,
(to include increasing the image of Public Safety, building trust, and increasing accountability).
On Tuesday, May 1 1, 2021, City Council received a report from Public Safety Director Tim Mattos
including an update on laws, policies, practices, and procedures currently being reviewed or enacted to
address police accountability. In addition, City Manager Jenkins provided use of force and traffic stop
statistics organized by race for the Department of Public Safety.
During the discussion of how to address police accountability and increase police/community relations,
City Council, by majority consensus, directed staff to return with information in seven areas as
follows:
1. What a public safety audit would look like;
2. Quarterly City Council updates on police matters;
3. Advisory board/round table for the chief;
4. Extensive training for the entire Public Safety Department on explicit and implicit bias,
sensitivity, BIPOC (black, indigenous, people of color), LGBTQ+, racial profiling including
the possibility of sitting side-by-side with City Council;
5. Resiliency training for officers to support their physical and mental health;
6. Information regarding Public Safety one-on-one stewardship or mentorship between officers
and supervisors;
7. Options regarding community engagement.
This report provides responses to each of the seven areas identified by the City Council. The report
also includes two additional suggested community relations measures – alternative response model
(CAHOOTS) and the Civilian Public Safety Academy.
Also during the May 11 discussion, a councilmember requested an update on the 2020 Listening
Session project. The listening sessions were held to obtain input from the public regarding any City
policies or practices that may result in disparate treatment based on race. Attachment 1 provides an
update on that project.
ANALYSIS:
Police Oversight
Police oversight is often suggested as a way to increase police accountability. The National
Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) is a professional association of
practitioners of police oversight. NACOLE provides the following as the definition of civilian
oversight of law enforcement:
In its simplest meaning, civilian oversight may be defined as one or more
individuals outside the sworn chain of command of a police department who take
ITEM NO. 7.B.
3
up the task of holding that department and its members accountable for their
actions.
NACOLE also states:
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to police oversight. There are more than
200 oversight entities across the United States. No two are exactly alike. There
are civilian review boards, monitors, auditors, and inspectors general, among the
models. The “best” approach continues to be a subject of debate. In part, this is
because so many different factors influence what particular agencies and
communities need and can sustain.
Rohnert Park currently has “one or more individuals outside the sworn chain of command of
a police department who take up the task of holding that department and its members
accountable for their actions.” Namely, the City Manager, City Attorney, Human Resources
Director, outside independent investigators, the District Attorney, and now the State Attorney
General.
Nevertheless, we can always improve and this report recommends additional measures for
increased civilian oversight of law enforcement.
Existing Department Accountability Practices - The Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety has
a rigid process of oversight on all members of the agency. Because this is within the sworn chain of
command, it does not meet NACOLE’s definition of civilian oversight. However, it is a critical part of
maintaining accountability for our officers. Department policies and state law govern the complaint
and discipline process as well as review and disposition of personnel actions. All formal citizen
complaints are logged, investigated, and a determination is made and provided to the complainant.
Existing Internal Police Oversight - The City Attorney’s office and Human Resources Department
provide another form of review of the Public Safety Department. The City Attorney and Human
Resources Department are both outside the police chain of command and these two departments work
together in providing another independent, separate review of complaints and usually take the lead in
conducting internal investigations involving police officers.
Existing External Police Oversight - The Department adheres to the Sonoma County Law
Enforcement Chief’s Association Critical Incident Protocol which requires an outside law enforcement
agency investigate all critical incidents, (e.g. officer involved shooting, in-custody death, use of force
leading to great bodily injury, etc.). At the completion of the outside agency investigation, a review of
the case is completed by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office to determine whether criminal
charges will be filed on the officers involved. Using this system, two former Rohnert Park Public
Safety Officers were successfully prosecuted for criminal misconduct.
In addition, in critical incidents, an independent administrative review by an outside investigator is
completed to determine if any policy or procedure violation occurred, or whether updated policies are
warranted.
During the last legislative session, Assembly Bill 1506 was passed and became law on July 1, 2021.
This bill requires a state prosecutor from the Attorney General’s office to investigate any incident
where an officer-involved shooting resulted in the death of an unarmed civilian – defined as any person
not in possession of a deadly weapon.
ITEM NO. 7.B.
4
So, some critical incidents will be investigated and reviewed four times – by an outside law
enforcement agency, by the Sonoma County District Attorney, by an outside independent investigator,
and by the California State Attorney General. Other critical incidents will receive all those same
reviews except the automatic review by the Attorney General.
Additional Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement:
Independent Police Auditor - At the May 11, 2021, meeting the Council directed staff to report back
what a police auditor would look like. In order to provide an open and transparent view of Public
Safety, the City can adopt a police oversight model utilizing an outside Independent Police Auditor
(IPA) to review civilian complaints. Unlike some oversight models, this Independent Police Auditor
would have full access to all evidence, investigations, documents, body worn camera footage, and
other materials needed to conduct its review. After reviewing the department’s investigation of
complaints, the IPA will generate its own report, which includes recommendations to the Director of
Public Safety regarding whether the investigation into civilian complaints was adequate and followed
department processes and policies. That report would be provided to the City Council and
published as a public document for our community to review.
The City of Palo Alto uses this model. The program is described in the attached staff report
(Attachment 2) and the attached scope of work (Attachment 3) from Palo Alto. Also attached is one of
their annual reports (Attachment 4). These documents are provided as examples. We would propose
to develop our own scope of work if the Council directs us to pursue the Independent Police Auditor
mo del.
In terms of expected costs, we can estimate based on population and officers. Palo Alto ’s population is
around 67,000 and it has 90 sworn officers. Rohnert Park’s population is around 43,000 and we have
73 sworn officers. The cost estimate fo r Palo Alto is $25,000 per year, which serves as a good
preliminary estimate of what such an auditor might cost in Rohnert Park.
Recommendation: Retain an Independent Police Auditor to review public safety investigations
into civilian complaints.
Public Safety Presentation Calendar - The City Council is the ultimate authority in civilian oversight
of law enforcement under our form of government. Unlike a county sheriff model, Councilmembers
are civilians and are outside the police chain of command and independent , meeting the NACOLE
definition for civilian oversight of law e nforcement. Working with and through the City Manager the
Council determines policy, law, goals, and a vision for policing our community. On May 11, 2021, the
Council directed staff to research implementing a regular calendar for the City Council to review
Public Safety reports and policies. These reports might include use of force by race, traffic stops by
race, all detentions by race, police policy changes or adjustments, number of complaints received by
the department, Independent Police Auditor report, program updates, (e.g., Alcohol Beverage Service
Ordinances, Alarm Ordinance, Loud and Unruly Gatherings Ordinance), traffic safety, property and
evidence audits, and yearly crime statistics. This is only a sampling of the reports which could be
placed on the calendar. These reports would also be published as public document s for our community
to review.
ITEM NO. 7.B.
5
A presentation calendar would provide the City Council and the community an opportunity to receive
ongoing briefings and presentations from the Public Safety Department. Civilians interested in law
enforcement matters may speak directly to the Council regarding these matters in a public
forum. The Cit y Council would retain the ability to add or remove items from the calendar from time
to time to continually receive pertinent and relative information regarding the operations of the Public
Safety Department.
Recommendation: Adopt a Public Safety Presentation Calendar for regular opportunities for
the City Council and the community to provide feedback on Public Safety matters.
Increased Community Relations:
Chief’s Community Round Table - On May 11, 2021, the City Council directed staff to look at a
round table of civilians to provide feedback to the Director of Public Safety. To improve, everyone
needs feedback. We want feedback on how our Public Safety Department is perceived in the
community, particularly by minority population groups. By strengt hening our relationship, we will
understand better how to improve our service to the community as well as providing additional
transparency. It is imperative that Public Safety hear from the community regarding our level of
service, what we are doing well, what we are not doing well, and how we can improve. In order to
open lines of communication and obtain feedback, we can create a platform which will provide a safe
environment that creates trust and confidence. We need a group of individuals, from
underrepresented people groups, to meet directly with our Police Chief, not an intermediary, to
provide honest feedback. This venue may also provide additional access to department operations, as
well as a better understanding of policies, and procedures. The Chief’s Community Round Table,
(CCRT) could consist of a diverse group of individuals, of a manageable size, who ideally represent
ethnic, social, economic, and diverse stakeholder groups in the community. The team will consist of
residents of Rohnert Park and individuals employed in Rohnert Park. Staff would propose that we
invite the Sonoma NAACP and the Rohnert Park Latino Alliance and other groups as they express
interest to nominate representatives to the round table.
The CCRT will be designed to assist in building a bridge between the community and the Rohnert Park
Department of Public Safety. It will be designed to facilitate and enhance communication and the
relationship between the Police Department and the community. The team will assist in informing the
Director pf Public Safety of the broader community’s concerns and views regarding public safety.
The CCRT will review and make recommendations to the Director on matters pertinent to the Public
Safety Department. These areas include community issues, program review, and community outreach
assistance. Development of the CCRT will greatly enhance Public Safety’s ability to understand how
policies and procedures are perceived and how they affect all community members.
Recommendation: Create a community roundtable to obtain feedback from a diverse group of
stakeholders representing underrepresented minority people groups.
Mental Health Response -The City is currently moving forward on the “Alternate Response Model”
(CAHOOTS) to address mental health and homelessness issues. The new program will provide the
City a new tool to address mental health and homelessness issues, while reducing the need to place law
enforcement officers into situations that do not necessitate a law enforcement response. We have
ITEM NO. 7.B.
6
witnessed, nationwide, how these encounters have resulted in the loss of life which may have been
avoided if mental health specialists had responded instead of a uniformed officer. This program is
designed to lessen the unnecessary contact between individuals experiencing a mental health issue and
law enforcement.
Recommendation: Implement an alternative response model using CAHOOTS as a basis to
provide enhanced crisis intervention, mental health, and homeless assistance services.
Civilian Public Safety Academy – Our Public Safety Department has had great results fr om ho lding
civilian public safety academies, both for adult s and high school aged attendees. A Civilian Academy
provides an ins ide look in to how a police depart ment works, and why cert ain procedures and policies
are in place. In addition, Public Safety st aff benef it fr om t he pr ogram by having a better underst anding
how communit y members t hink, t heir percept ion of law enforceme nt , and what t hey expect fr om t heir
police depart ment . When the COVID-19 pandemic abates to a safe level, we intend to restart our annual
Civilian Public Safety Academy.
Recommendation: Restart the Civilian Public Safety Academy when it is safe to do so and there
is sufficient interest from the public.
Public Safety Training:
Training for Department Personnel Addressing Explicit and Implicit Bias, Sensitivity, BIPOC,
LGBTQ+, and Racial Profiling – State law requires specific training for public safety officers.
Training requirements are legislatively mandated and required topics are provided by Peace Officer
Standards & Training (POST). Topics of Racial Profiling and Explicit/Implicit Bias are combined
under Penal Code 13519.4 Racial and Cultural Diversity Training; Racial Profiling. This training is
mandated every 5 years. The course is also included in the police academy. The initial training
requirement is 5 hours and refresher training is 2 hours. All officers are current on this mandate.
Instructor training is also legislatively mandated and presented through the Museum of Tolerance. Our
current POST certified outline for the training is available on the City’s website at
https://records.rpcity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=366590&dbid=0&repo=CityOfRohnertPark
Sensitivity training is conducted through a variety of course topics:
Crisis Intervention Behavioral Healt h Senate Bill 11 and Senate Bill 29 trainings. Our Department has
a POST certified 4 hour course and uses both a sworn officer and a community member subject matter
expert to instruct. Training requirements are legislatively mandated and required topics are provided by
POST. Our current outline is available on the City’s website at
https://records.rpcity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=366594&dbid=0&repo=CityOfRohnertPark
We last held Crisis Intervention Behavioral health training in 2019. We have scheduled Get Safe to
present their POST-certified Crisis Intervention & De-escalation 8-hour training on two separate days
in September to ensure all officers are able to attend and plan to offer the training to our professional
staff. The course complies with Assembly Bill 392, Senate Bill 230, Penal Code 835a, Senate Bill 11,
Senate Bill 29 and Strategic Communication Perishable Skills training requirements for our officers.
Get Safe will be presenting the course to our department under a POST grant.
ITEM NO. 7.B.
7
Strategic Communications training is a new legislative requirement this year and replaces the Tactical
Communication every 2 year perishable skills training requirement. A new 2 hour Strategic
Communications virtual course is being developed for the POST Learning portal.
Over the years, many of our officers have also attended a 32 hour Crisis Intervention course offered by
the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and Sonoma County Behavioral Health.
In addition, o ur Department “Learning Management Software”, Target Solutions, allows us to assign
our officers a variety of courses including Calibre Press’s, The Essential Component of De-Escalation
and Conflict Resolution and Implicit Bias: Facts & Myths.
All Sergeants and Public Safety Officers have taken, or are scheduled to take these trainings. Each
training attended provides our officers with 2 hours of training credit. Nine officers attended a 16-hour
Practical De-escalation and Tactical Conduct training course which was offered at Sonoma State
University earlier this year. We are currently in discussions to bring the training to the Department for
all personnel.
The Public Safety Department hosted an 8-hour “Critical Incident Response, Use of Force, & De-
escalation” training in June, and sent officers to a 10-hour Threat Assessment and De-escalation
strategies course in 2020.
In addition to our public safety officers, our dispatchers will be attending an 8-hour De-escalation for
Dispatch course later this year. The Public Safety Department is scheduled to host an 8-hour De-
escalation training taught by “Procedural Justice” in October 2021.
POST offers a variet y of online courses on its Learning Portal which are assigned through our Target
Solutions software. During the past two years, our officers have attended Bias and Racial Profiling,
Hate Crimes, Use of Force, Tactical Communications and many other trainings online through the
Learning Portal. Each training attended provides our officers with 2 hours of continuing professional
training credit.
LGBTQ+ training is offered as LGBT Community Awareness Training through Napa Valley College
Criminal Justice Training Center as a 4-hour online course. In addition to the Napa Valley training
course, a “Train the Trainer” course is also available in order to allow agencies to develop in-house
instructors. The Department is currently looking for an interested employee to send through this
course to become a trainer.
Lastly, we have reached out to “Game Changer”, an organization who has obtained a POST innovative
grant to offer a POST certified Community Policing course. The mission of “Game Changer” is to
bring about changes in perceptions and behavior among members of law enforcement, the general
public and elected officials. The desired behavior change is to bring about more peaceful outcomes
between law enforcement and the communities they serve as a result of consistent exposure and
education.
The Department understands the need to train personnel in an effort to see continued growth and
understanding. Sharing different training opportunities with City staff and our elected City Council is
ITEM NO. 7.B.
8
also an important growth opportunity. As training topics become available which will help Public
Safety, City staff, and City Council provide better service to our community, the Public Safety
Department Training Coordinator will make every attempt to open training to all.
Recommendation: Continue to expand trainings regarding explicit and implicit bias, sensitivity,
de-escalation, LGBTQ+, and racial profiling. Invite non-public-safety staff and City
Councilmembers to partake in trainings when appropriate.
Resiliency Training for Department Personnel - The Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety has
an active Peer Support Team, in addition to a supportive Employee Assistance Program. Following
critical incidents, the Department conducts Critical Incident Stress Debriefs with all of the individuals
involved, from the call taker to the responding police and fire personnel. The Debrief is facilitated by
a Clinical Police Psychologist and non-involved Peer Support Team Members attend as well. The
individuals that are involved in the incident are identified by the Peer Support Team and are given
extra support if needed. Those that wish to have additional meetings with a police psychologist are
forwarded to Human Recourses and introduced to the services available through the Employee
Assistance Program. The Peer Support Team has worked closely with the Human Recourses
Department to ensure that there are Public Safety minded psychologists available to the DPS Staff.
The Department has also implemented a Wellness Program that introduces different avenues of
addressing mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual health. When the training schedule permits, the
Department hosts wellness training days, which includes subject matter experts in mental, emotional,
physical, and spirit ual health. As a Department we have provided team building exercises that are
done away from the Department. The emphasis on the Wellness Training Days is to introduce new
and/or different things that will help break down the proverbial walls that often time rise while
working in the public safety profession. This program is for all department staff and does not exclude
anyone. Lastly, The Peer Support Team has taken a proactive approach to the growing concern of
supporting mental and physical health by sending out frequent emails and posting Peer Support
Information.
In addition the Peer Support Team and the City EAP Program, the Department of Public Safety is also
looking into an additional option to provide personnel with immediate access to mental health
professionals in the palm of their hand through an App based platform. Cordico is a leader in wellness
technology for high-stress professions, providing trusted, confidential, 24/7 proactive and preventative
wellness support specially developed for law enforcement, firefighters, dispatchers, medical
professionals, and others serving in the most demanding and critical roles.
Recommendation: Augment existing resiliency programs with the addition of 24/7 counseling
services on demand accessed through a phone application.
One-on-One Mentorship:
Stewardship and Mentoring - The Department of Public Safety completes a shift rotation every six
months. The shift rotations take place during the beginning of February and August. At the beginning
of each rotation, each shift sergeant sits with each of their assigned personnel to discuss and document
the officer’s goals for the rotation, schools and training the officer would like to receive, as well as
ITEM NO. 7.B.
9
longer term goals such as working toward a specialty assignment or promotional opportunities.
During the rotation, the sergeants periodically sits down with the officers to determine the officers are
on track, and to determine if there are additional or different priorities the officers are interested in
pursuing. Officers have unlimited access to their chain of command, including the Chief.
In addition to mentorship from sergeants, lieutenants, deputy chiefs, and the chief, new officers are
assigned a peer mentor when they begin the police academy. The peer mentor is assigned to help the
trainee with anything that comes up during the academy. The peer mentor is also available to the
trainee after graduating the academy and is often the first person the new officer will go to even after
completing the field training program.
Recommendation: Continue existing officer stewardship and mentoring methods.
Community Engagement:
Once the City Council provides direction on which of the recommendations above it wishes to pursue,
staff can engage with stakeholders as we develop the programs. These stakeholders would include
interested residents, representatives from community groups, public safety association representatives,
and others. The types of engagement would be a combination of the following:
Consult – Obtain input and feedback from stakeholders on the programs;
Inform – Provide balanced and objective information through various channels;
Collaborate – Partner with stakeholders where they provide advice and recommendations.
Once the Community Engagement process is complete, staff would come back to the City Council
with final v ersions of some of the programs for formal adoption. For some of these programs, this
process could take up to six months.
Recommendation: Engage the community stakeholders regarding the Council’s direction for
enhanced public safety accountability and community relations measures.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report reflects the Strategic Plan’s goals of developing a vibrant community, delivering effective
public services, and practicing participative leadership.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE:
In the Fiscal Year 2021-22, the City appropriated $100,000 for accomplishing the Strategic Priority
around Police Accountability and Community Relations discussed in this report. Total costs for
activities presented here are likely around the budgeted amo unt. Staff will account for the costs of the
activities described and if additional appropriations are needed for Administration, City Attorney, and
Public Safety Department in order to support and implement the selected programs, we will return to
the City Council .
ITEM NO. 7.B.
10
Department Head Approval Date: July 30, 2021
City Attorney Approval Date: August 2, 2021
City Manager Approval Date: August 4, 2021
Attachments:
1. Update on Listening Sessions
2. Palo Alto Auditor Staff Report
3. Palo Alto Auditor Scope of Work
4. Palo Alto Annual Audit Report
Attachment 1 – Update on Listening Sessions
In 2020, the City conducted listening sessions with the community to hear concerns of racial or
ethnic prejudice or bias within City policies or practices. The goal was to learn whether policies
practices adopted by the City hindered our residents based on race or ethnicity.
A total of three listening sessions were held virtually to comply with COVID19 protocols on July
22, 2020, July 27, 2020 and August 12, 2020. All three listening sessions were attended by a
Spanish interpreter, and attendees were given the option to participate in English or in Spanish.
Attendance was modest: approximately 20 community members (non-City/non-Listening
Session moderators) attended the July 22 session; approximately 10 community members
attended the July 27 session, and approximately 35 community members attended the August 12
session.
City department heads and managers attended the sessions as listeners only. In an effort to obtain
as much community input as possible, community participants were offered the respectful space
to share their stories and concerns. The listeners did not converse or problem-solve in the
sessions. (Due to Brown Act restrictions, Councilmembers observed the recorded sessions which
are also posted to the Equality Policy and Practice Review page o f the City’s website ).
In general, the participants shared the belief that persons of color experience Rohnert Park
differently than its white residents. Most stories focused on the police, the perceptions of being
observed by the police, feelings of suspicion, or differential treatment from those with white
skin. Some attendees expressed the desire for greater transparency on police policies and
availability of race data in police reports.
There was also criticism that the City does not engage communities of color; perceptions that the
older sections of the city, which happen to be the areas of higher Latino resident density, are
disregarded; and complaints that some residents feel marginalized as “not really belonging to the
city.”
Some talked about mist reatment attached to being a person of color by businesses or private
citizens. Although these experiences are not affected by City policy, they may affect how a
resident experiences the community in which they live.
In addition to the listening sessions, 38 emails of public input were collected relating to the
project —35 comments were submitted as public comment during City Council meetings and 3
emails were received at policyreview@rpcity.org. The verbal and written comments generally
fell into six topic areas, and most submissions were related to police reform. Following is a count
of the comments by topic:
• Creation of a police oversight committee: 15
• City policy reform: 9
• Police reform more generally: 6
• Increased diversity in public discourse: 5
• Support of Rohnert Park Police: 2
• Black community engagement: 1
The collected public comments and Recordings of the Listening Session can be found on the
Equality Policy and Practice Review page of the City’s website.
Discussion
During the listening sessio ns, questions and comments were heard fr om communit y members regard ing a variet y of t opics. The primary themes staff heard were as fo llows:
Racial Bias - Speakers provided co mment s where t hey felt police actions were racially
motivated. Information from speakers was limited as to actual personal encounters or event s
leading them to their conclusion s. We want additional feedback and conversation to better
understand where this feeling comes from and how we can act in a way that minimizes people
feeling that police actions are racially motivated. Policies - Largely directed at use of force policies, speakers questioned the use of Lexipo l polices as “boiler plate” policies. Questions were raised regarding the Lexipo l use of force policy concerning deadly force. The Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety (RPDPS) strives to maintain po licies that are in accordance with the most recent case law and state law as well as modern police practices. The Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety ut ilizes a policy manual produced by Lexipol, which is used by 93% of the law enforcement agencies in California. Authoring policy requires continued tracking of hundreds of legislative actions each year alo ng with following court decisions that become case law. Further, input fr om su bject matter experts is import ant in assuring policies are wr itten in alignment with modern, best practice strat egies in mind. All policy utilized by t he Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety is under t he co ntrol of t he department . No policy issued by Lexipo l is impleme nt ed wit hout vett ing by Depart ment Comma nd St aff, and where necessar y, review by t he Cit y Attorne y’s Office. If amendment s are desired, st aff may amend t he policy prior to implement at ion. Rohnert Park staff have reached out to the Lexipol board and confirmed that Lexipol is doing a comprehensive review our police policies for racial bias or potential related systemic issues.
Transparency - Participants requested a higher level of transparency regarding race related
enforcement data. The Public Safety Department has created and maintained a
Transparency page located on the department’s website. The Transparency page provides
monthly activity reports for both the Fire and Police Divisions, Annual Reports, and Historical
Crime Data. The goal is to provide access to all information releasable per Senate Bill 1421 and
Assembly Bill 748 on the Transparency page. (To refresh memories, Senate Bill-1421became
effective January 1, 2019, and increased the ability of the public and the media to obtain some
previously confidential police personnel records. Senate Bill 1421 amended Penal Code section
832.7 to broadly allow the release of the following:
• Records relating to the report, investigation or findings of an incident involving
the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or a custodial officer.
• Records relating to the report, investigation or findings of an incident in which the
use of force by a peace officer or a custodial officer against a person results in
death or great bodily injury.
• Records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law
enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer
engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public.
• Records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law
enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or
custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a
crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by,
another peace officer or custodial officer.
In addition, AB 748 became effective July 1, 2019 and is viewed as something of a companion
statute to SB 1421. This bill requires that law enforcement agencies produce, in response to
Public Records Act requests, video and audio recordings of “critical incidents,” which are
defined as incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or
custodial officer, or an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer
against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury). During the May 11, 2021 council
meeting, City Manager Darrin Jenkins provided statistical data regarding Use of Force and traffic
enforcement as it relates to race and demographics in the City of Rohnert Park.
Police Oversight - A number of speakers shared their belief of a need for additional police oversight. The Council discussed the issue on May 11, 2021 and will be discussing again on August 10, 2021.
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
December 16, 2019
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Approval of a Contract With the OIR Group in the Amount of $75,000
for Independent Police Auditing Services for a Three-year Period
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the Clerk to execute a contract with the
OIR Group in the amount of $75,000 for independent police auditing services for a three-year
period (Attachment A).
Background
The Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) receives and investigates complaints that are made
from time to time by members of the public against police officers. State law requires all police
agencies to have such a process (Cal. Penal Code §832.5.). PAPD also investigates potential
policy violations of uniformed officers that come to the attention of the Chief, even when a
complaint is not filed. The investigative function of the PAPD is generally referred to as
Since approximately 2006, Palo Alto has contracted with an outside firm to act as Independent
Police Auditor (IPA). The IPA performs several functions for Palo Alto. First, the IPA provides
independent review of PAPD internal affairs investigations. Department management confers
with IPA periodically as investigations are opened and in process. When
investigation is
IPA provides recommendations for training, procedural adjustments or other follow-up actions.
of that deployment, regardless of whether a citizen complaint is filed. Twice a year, the IPA
produces a written public report to the City Manager and City Council summarizing the IPA s
conclusions and comments.
complies with the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act and provisions of the
California Penal Code that provide procedural and privacy protections to sworn personnel. (See
Penal Code § 832.7; Govt Code §§ 3300 et seq.) These laws provide procedural and privacy
protections for uniformed officers that are greater than those for public employees generally.
Accordingly, the IPA must refrain from naming or including any information that identifies
its reports to the City Attorney and Chief of Police for the purpose of review for compliance
Page 2
with state law. Prior to finalizing its report, the IPA is also directed to discuss identified
problems with PAPD and the City Manager and attempt to reach consensus as to solutions.
Once final, the IPA reports are made available to the public via a Council Informational Item.
Independent review of police investigations is not required by law. A program of independent
review is entirely discretionary, and where one is developed, it is up to the individual city to
define its parameters. Many large metropolitan areas work with an independent auditor. It is
rare for a small city to retain a police auditor.
Since the inception of the IPA program in 2006, the IPA has reviewed investigations regarding
sworn personnel, almost always while engaged in policing activities, such as conducting
investigations, issuing citations, and making arrests. This year, a question arose regarding
whether the IPA should also review and comment on City investigations of internal personnel
matters not involving policing activities or members of the public. This type of matter could
include complaints by PAPD personnel with respect to their supervisors or co-workers regarding
unfair or discriminatory treatment in areas such as assignments, overtime, training,
promotions, or interpersonal conduct. Throughout the City, the Human Resources Department
investigates or supervises the investigation of these matters. In the Police Department, such
matters could involve sworn or non-sworn personnel, such as dispatchers, Community Safety
Officers, or administrative staff.
In 2014, the City issued a Request for Proposals for independent police auditor services. Three
firms submitted proposals. The City selected the Michael Gennaco dba Office of Independent
Review (OIR Group) as the most qualified to perform the services. The contract between the
City and the OIR Group expired in October 2019 and is due to be renewed.
Analysis
After careful consideration, staff recommends that Council approve the attached contract with
the OIR Group (Attachment A), which confirms and clarifies the longstanding traditional scope
of IPA review: PAPD internal affairs investigations and taser deployments. Personnel matters
that arise in the PAPD will not be included in the IPA process; rather, they will continue to be
investigated and resolved by the Human Resources Department, or under its direction.
There are several reasons for continuing the current scope. Sworn personnel perform critical
public safety services that can place them and their families at risk. The City has an overriding
interest in protecting the privacy of sworn personnel so that these employees can do their work
without concern about risk or intrusions into their personal and family affairs. In addition, the
City has an obligation to maintain a confidential human resources system, so that employees
feel safe coming forward to make complaints or to provide information in an investigation that
involves their co-workers or supervisors. According to established policies and procedures, the
departments throughout the City. The City does not publicly report on human resources
matters. While we recognize that secondary review and reporting of Human Resources
Page 3
investigations in PAPD offers some potential for additional insights, the risks to personal privacy
and a safe and confidential human resources complaint system weigh in favor of continuing to
handle these matters confidentially under the direction of the Human Resources Department.
Resource Impact
Departmental budgets include adequate funding for this contract.
Policy Implications
Approval of this contract affirms current and longstanding City policy regarding police oversight
and reporting.
Environmental Review
Approval of this contract is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental
Quality Act. No environmental review is required.
Attachments
A: Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Michael Gennaco DBA OIR Group for
Professional Services
B: Exhibit A to the Agreement, with strikeouts and underlines showing changes from prior
Scope
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A : 2019 Contract with Michael Gennaco dba OIR Group for Professional
Services_FINAL.docx (PDF)
Attachment B : CMR 10924 Exhibit B - Redlined Changes Scope of Services - IPA
contract_CPA (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
13
SCOPE of SERVICES
Independent Police Auditor Services
CONSULTANT shall perform the following services:
1. Complaints by Members of the Public and Internal Affairs Investigations
Intake The CONSULTANT may receive complaints directly from members of the public.
The CONSULTANT will forward a summary of the complaint and contact information for
the complainant directly to the Department. If the Department received the complaint
directly or initiates an internal investigation regarding sworn personnel, they will notify
the CONSULTANT within (3) working days about the nature of the allegation(s). The
Department and the CONSULTANT will review each complaint by a member of the
public/internal investigation to determine whether a criminal component exists and
proceed accordingly. Complaints and investigations of internal personnel or human
resources matters are not part of these Independent Police Auditor Services.
Investigative Plan As needed, the CONSULTANT will discuss the investigative plan
with the Personnel & Training Coordinator and arrange for a mutually convenient way to
update CONSULTANT on the progress of the investigation.
Review The CONSULTANT will review each complaint by a member of the public and
internal affairs investigation to determine thoroughness, objectivity and appropriateness of
disposition within (10) working days.
Follow-up After reviewing the completed investigations, the CONSULTANT will confer
with the Personnel & Training Coordinator to evaluate results and discuss any suggestions
for additional follow-up.
Disposition When all aspects of the investigation are complete, the CONSULTANT will
confer with the Police Chief to resolve any issues about the process, the disposition or the
recommendations outlined in the investigation. Disposition shall be defined as
Status and Tracking The CONSULTANT will track each case through its conclusion to
ensure that each investigation is completed in a timely manner.
Semi-Annual Reporting Twice a year, the CONSULTANT will produce a written report
to the City Manager and City Council. The report will contain a statistical breakdown of
the number of complaints/investigations and any developing trends. The report will also
contain the initial allegation(s), the findings and the number and type of recommendations
made to the Police Chief. The report will not contain any specific information that would
identify the involved officers either internally or externally.
CONSULTANT Meetings If requested by the City, the CONSULTANT will meet with
the City Council, City Manager and/or Police Chief in order to discuss any trends.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB4F6982-1976-4935-9A52-2C0084686700
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
14
2.Review Taser Deployment
The Department will promptly notify the CONSULTANT of each Taser deployment. Once
completed, the CONSULTANT will review the Use of Force investigation related to the
use of the Taser. The CONSULTANT will make any recommendations on the investigation
and findings. The CONSULTANT may also make recommendations to the Police Chief
regarding training and policy modifications.
The CONSULTANT will include a brief summary of each Taser deployment in their semi-
annual report including the findings and any recommendations.
3. Transmittal of Reports
CONSULTANT will produce two reports during each year summarizing its findings and
reporting on each investigation and disposition. The CONSULTANT will produce reports
California Government Code 3300 and California Penal Code 832.7. CONSULTANT will
Office and the Chief of Police of the
Palo Alto Police Department at least 14 days prior to its final submission for the purpose
of review for compliance with state law. CONSULTANT will consider any suggestions
of Police regarding the information
contained in the report.
significant identified problems and recommendations with the Police Department and the
City Manager. CONSULTANT
solutions in its reports.
4. Definitions
Sustained There is sufficient credible evidence to believe that the subject officer
committed the act charged in the allegation and thereby engaged in misconduct.
Not Sustained The available evidence is insufficient to determine whether the officer
did or did not commit misconduct.
Unfounded There is sufficient credible evidence to believe that the subject officer did
not commit the alleged act.
Exonerated The subject officer was found to have committed the act alleged but the
tions were determined to be lawful and proper.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB4F6982-1976-4935-9A52-2C0084686700
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
March 22, 2021
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
2019 Independent Police Auditor's Report and Supplemental Report
From the City Manager
INTRODUCTION
Since approximately 2006, Palo Alto has contracted with an outside firm to act as Independent
Police Auditor (IPA). The IPA performs several functions for Palo Alto. First, the IPA provides
independent review of PAPD internal affairs investigations, including both investigations of
complaints by members of the public and department-initiated investigations that involve a
member of the public. Police Department management confers with the IPA periodically as
investigations are opened and in process. When the Police Department’s investigation is
complete, the IPA conducts a secondary review and assesses “thoroughness, objectivity and
appropriateness” of the investigation and disposition. Where appropriate, the IPA provides
recommendations for training, procedural adjustments or other follow-up actions. Second, the
IPA reviews every deployment of a Taser device and the PAPD’s use of force review of that
deployment, regardless of whether a citizen complaint is filed. It should be noted that based on
City Council action in November 2020, future IPA reports will include additional categories of
operational review, as noted below. In addition, in conjunction with the next written report,
City Council will have an opportunity to confer with the IPA at an open-session meeting.
Typically, the IPA produces a written public report to the City Manager and City Council twice
per year summarizing the IPA’s conclusions and comments. Attached to this memo is the
written public report by the IPA for calendar year 2019. All IPA reports issued since 2006 are
posted and available on the City’s website, here:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/auditor.asp. In addition, for details about other
accountability measures within the Police Department, go here:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/policeaccountability.
PROCESS TO FILE A COMPLAINT
The Chief of Police is responsible for overseeing the complaint process. An explanation of the
complaint process and a complaint form can be found at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/report/employee_complaint.asp.
Complaints may also be directed to the Independent Police Auditor through the following:
Contact: Mr. Mike Gennaco
Phone: (323) 412-0334
Email: Michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com
Or mail to: OIR Group
1443 E. Washington Blvd., #234
Pasadena, CA 91104
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
Page 2
IPA REPORT RELEASED FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019
A contract renewal process resulted in delays in the IPA’s work for a portion of 2019, causing an
interruption in the development of the written public report for that year. For that reason, the
standard reporting period of twice per year was adjusted and a single report cov ering the full
calendar year for 2019 is published for City Council review and public information. Following
City Council’s receipt of the 2019 report, the next IPA report will come to the City Council after
the City Council summer break, later in 2021.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTING OF PERSONNEL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
In addition to the IPA report, the City Manager’s Office provides a supplemental reporting of
investigations not included in the IPA’s scope of work as of the 2019 IPA contract amendmen t
adopted by the City Council. The City Manager’s supplemental reporting includes personnel and
Human Resources matters that do not directly involve police activities with the public and are
not initiated by members of the public. Personnel and Human Resources matters are defined as
workplace conflicts. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations of human
resources and personnel matters regarding sworn officers relating to assignments, evaluations,
promotions, demotions and similar issues, and allegations of harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation. Under State and Federal labor laws, these issues are subject to review by State or
Federal agencies set up to provide third party review of labor-related matters in addition to
City-administered reviews and potential appeals and grievance procedures.
For the current 2019 calendar year reporting period, the City Manager’s Office is reporting one
investigation as follows:
Supplemental Reporting of Personnel and Human Resources Matters
Allegation Allegation Summary Determination*
Disparaging remark or conduct
Employee made an inappropriate
comment during a staff meeting.
Supported.
* Definitions of “Determination” Terms
• Unsupported - the investigation failed to disclose evidence sufficient to prove or disprove the
allegation by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Supported - the investigation disclosed evidence sufficient to prove the allegations by a
preponderance of the evidence.
• No finding - the complainant failed to provide necessary information to further the
investigation; the complainant failed to cooperate; the incident was reported to the Police
Department after the statute of limitations for the Police Department to initiate a disciplinary
investigation had expired; the investigation revealed that another agency was involved, and the
complaint has been referred to that agency; or the complainant withdrew the complaint.
As noted, complaints and investigations of internal personnel and human resources matters are
not included in the City’s current independent police auditing program and the OIR (IPA)
existing contract. As discussed later in this memo, under the framework of the City Council’s
Page 3
adopted priorities on Race and Equity, the Policy and Services Committee will consider if th e
IPA’s scope of work should be expanded to include review and reporting of instances involving
sworn officer personnel and human resources matters such as the case above.
IPA TO REVIEW INFORMAL INQUIRIES
In some instances, members of the public make in formal inquiries (called “Informal Inquiry
Review” or “IIRs”) that are not filed as formal complaints and do not require a full formal
investigation; however, the IIRs are still examined by the Police Department. These matters are
typically resolved after review of police records and policies. Informal inquiries may include
matters such as misunderstandings or minor issues of discourtesy. Historically, these informal
inquiries have not been included in the IPA’s scope of work and as a result were not includ ed in
the 2018 IPA reports issued, but were included in the City Manager’s Supplemental Report ing.
However, beginning with the attached IPA report for calendar year 2019, and moving forward,
these inquiries will be included in the IPA’s review. As a result of the IPA report review, there is
no IIR chart listed in this supplemental reporting of calendar year 2019. The attached IPA report
includes two IIRs for the reporting period of calendar year 2019.
RACE AND EQUITY WORK RELATED TO THE INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR
In November 2020, following several months of intensive work on issues related to Race and
Equity, the City Council adopted a set of directives (link pages 4-5:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/79566) covering a number of
areas, including police policies and practices. Several of the directives are related to the IPA role
and contracted scope of work. Those directives and relevant updates are listed here.
City Council Direction to Staff Related to Independent Police Auditor
City Council Adopted Direction (November 2020) Timeline
1. “Expand IPA scope to include all administrative use of force
reports where a baton, chemical agent, Taser, less-lethal
projectile, canine, or a firearm is used, and all cases where the
subject’s injuries necessitate any treatment beyond minor
medical treatment in the field.”
Taser deployments are already
included in the IPA review and
reports. The contract is being
amended to include the
additional uses of force. The
additional uses of force will be
included in any IPA report that
covers investigations which
occurred after January 1, 2021.
Contract amendment for
consideration by the City Council
is anticipated by late Summer
2021.
Page 4
2. “IPA to provide an audit workplan to the City Council for
approval.”
Contract amendment for
consideration by the City Council
is anticipated by late Summer
2021. This directive is being
discussed with the IPA as part of
the contract amendment.
3. “Refer to the Policy and Services Committee consideration of IPA
oversight of internal complaints regarding misconduct related to
harassment, discrimination, or retaliation resulting in city
investigation of uniformed officers.”
This directive is related to the
workplace conflicts/internal
complaints which are currently
investigated by HR.
This item is tentatively
scheduled to the Policy and
Services Committee in April
2021.
4. “Amend the contract to require the Independent Police Auditor
(IPA) to meet with the City Council in open session twice a year
with each report”
and
“Direct Staff to maintain an every six (6) months schedule for IPA
reports to City Council containing reviews ready at the time of
the report.”
Contract amendment for
consideration by the City Council
is anticipated by late Summer
2021.
Staff is coordinating with the IPA
to tentatively release their next
report in August 2021.
5. For future supplemental memorandums: Direct Staff to include
use of force information to the regular Supplemental Report
submitted to the City Council as a cover memorandum to each
IPA report.
The use of force (UOF)
information for Jan. 1, 2015 –
June 1, 2020 is available online
(https://tinyurl.com/4kwwy6xb).
The next UOF report will be
included in the January 2022
Supplemental Report in order to
include a full year of data.
For other updates on the timeframes listed above or other Race and Equity work at the City,
visit the recent staff report that went to the Policy and Services (P&S) committee on March 9,
2021. Link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80509 .
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Palo Alto Independent Police Auditors’ (IPA) Report: Review of Investigations
Completed in 2019 (PDF)
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Palo Alto Report Confidential Draft 2 25 21 (PDF)
Page 5
• Attachment A-Palo Alto Independent Police Auditors Report-Review of Investigations
Completed in 2019 (PDF)
Department Head: Ed Shikada, City Manager
Page 6
1
INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITORS’ REPORT:
Review of Investigations Completed in 2019
Presented to the Honorable City Council
City of Palo Alto
March 2021
Prepared by: Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly
Independent Police Auditors for
the City of Palo Alto
7142 TRASK AVENUE
PLAYA DEL REY, CA 90293
OIRGroup.com
Attachment A
OR
GROUP
2
Introduction
This report addresses materials received by the Independent Police Auditor (“IPA”) for review
from the second half of 2019. It includes five cases that were investigated by the Palo Alto
Police Department (“PAPD”) and completed during that time period. Though our past practice
has been to issue reports that cover six months of investigation activity at a time, and though our
most recent report addressed the second half of 2018, we have skipped ahead for the simplest of
reasons: there were no cases finished by the city during the first portion of the year.
The report includes the review of one Taser case and four allegations of misconduct. The Taser
incident involved the detention – and ultimately the arrest – of a man who was stopped on his
bicycle for traffic violations and quickly became angry with the officer. The Taser activation
was brief and oddly effective: though the probes did not penetrate the man’s layered clothes, he
did rock back into a seated position and remained there until backup officers arrived, as if
deferring to the weapon’s potential as much as its physical effect. While concurring with the
Department’s finding that the force was justified and in policy, we note some peripheral issues
for consideration.
As for the misconduct allegations, they fall into two related categories. All of them originated
with complaints from members of the public about how they had been treated during contacts
with Department officers, with three of them including allegations of excessive force. However,
while two of them were investigated in the traditional way, two were characterized as “Informal
Inquiry” matters. This meant that the Department assessed the complaint and found that it was
able to reach a resolution regarding its merits without going through a full-scale investigation
process (including, most significantly, interviews of witnesses and subjects).
Though agencies call it different things, and may follow slightly different protocols, the idea
behind the Informal Inquiry approach is one we have seen with other departments. It combines
an appropriate deference to “due diligence” and accountability with a recognition that some
complaints lend themselves to efficient disposition. This could be because the substance of the
complaint, even if true, does not constitute a policy violation or even an individual performance
issue; a hypothetical example would be a person who admits to a traffic violation but complains
that the Department should have better things to do than writing tickets). Or it could be because
there is sufficiently definitive evidence to establish what occurred in the encounter at issue, thus
rendering further investigation or interviews unnecessary.
Here, both of the complaints at issue pertained to incidents for which there were recordings of
what happened, and these were central to the ultimate determination that a more complete
workup was not necessary. While we have minor concerns that we discuss below, PAPD’s
version of the concept seems like a legitimate approach. We also appreciate the added
accountability the Department has imposed on itself by offering the cases for our assessment.
3
Taser Incident
The scope of our auditing responsibilities in Palo Alto includes any use of force involving a
Taser. This has been the case for several years and is responsive to community concerns about
this particular force option. PAPD had one relevant incident in 2019. It involved an adult male
whom a PAPD officer spotted while driving on patrol.
Factual Overview:
The man was on a bicycle on the wrong side of the road, in violation of traffic rules. When the
officer initially pulled up alongside the man and made contact from within his vehicle, the man
reacted by yelling and pedaling slowly away. This prompted the officer to engage his car lights
and make a more earnest effort to detain the man.
After a short distance, the cyclist stopped, threw down his bike, and turned toward the officer in
obvious anger as the officer got out of his car and approached. A standoff ensued in which the
man berated and challenged the officer, who called for backup and removed his Taser from its
holster. The officer gave increasingly heated commands for the man to get on the ground;
eventually the man bent into a crouched position but refused to comply fully and remained
verbally belligerent. Much of his frustration seemed related to a belief that, as an African
American, he was being unfairly singled out for “profiling” and harassment.
Some seconds later, as the officer moved slightly closer, the man began to lean forward in a way
the officer interpreted as aggressive and perhaps the prelude to an assault. This caused him to
activate the Taser. The probes hit the man’s outer clothing and appeared to knock him back into
a seated position without fully “working” in terms of muscular incapacitation. The Taser did
seem to make an impression on the man – if more psychological than physical – and he stayed in
place (while maintaining his verbal challenges to the officer) until backup units arrived. The
additional officers took the man into custody without significant additional struggle – although
his attempts to kick caused them to wrap his legs in a special restraint device.
The man was briefly evaluated by medics at the scene; they determined that he had no injuries,
which matched the man’s own assertions. He was booked into jail on charges of
resisting/obstructing an officer in performance of his duties.
Outcome and Analysis:
In keeping with established protocols, the Department’s review of the use of force involved
several steps. These included a supervisor’s interview with both the subject of the force and the
involved officer, a downloading and analysis of the Taser data, written reports from the primary
and backup officers, and evaluation of available recordings (including in-car video and body-
worn cameras).
4
Unfortunately, while in-car video was helpful, the primary officer’s body camera lens was
blocked by his own jacket until after his Taser use– a seemingly foreseeable situation that
officers have found ways to avoid. While the problem was acknowledged in the sergeant’s
original memo, no remediation of it is cited in the materials.
RECOMMENDATION ONE: The Department should address (through
documentation and counseling) performance issues that interfere with body-
worn camera recordings when they come to the attention of supervisors.
The handling sergeant and the reviewing lieutenant ultimately determined that the use of force
was justified and in policy. They based this on considerable evidence of the man’s agitated,
uncooperative, and hostile state from the outset of the encounter. (It should also be noted that
the officer had a valid legal basis for detaining the man.) The Taser activation itself was
preceded by warnings (in compliance with policy), short in duration, and responsive to an
objectively reasonable threat assessment by the officer.
We found this answer to the “bottom line” policy question to be well-supported by available
evidence. We also noted some additional issues – some of which the Department addressed as
part of its review, and some which we introduce here.
Officer Tactics and Communication
The officer was alone in dealing with the subject for several minutes before other officers
arrived. He did some things commendably well, including calmly and promptly calling for
backup. He also controlled his Taser effectively – including turning it off and back on to “re-
arm” it if needed after the first activation – and with some measure of restraint. Once the subject
had ended up seated, the officer held his position patiently until the additional officers arrived.
There were, however, other aspects of officer performance that were more questionable. One of
these was the officer’s heated and repeated use of profanity in his exchanges with the subject.
The policy prohibiting the use of “obscene, indecent or derogatory” language does contain a
relevant exception: for a “deliberate verbal tactic” intended to gain compliance and/or avoid a
physical confrontation with an individual who is “non-compliant, hostile, or aggressive.”
To the Department’s credit, the sergeant’s report accurately documented the officer’s language,
and the lieutenant analyzed the issue in his own memorandum on the incident – and determined
that it was consistent with the exception cited above. We find this reasonable in the context of
the encounter as it played out, and it did seem as though the officer was in control of his own
emotions (as opposed to seeming angry or gratuitously abusive).
On the other hand, the recordings raise broader questions about the efficacy of the officer’s
verbal approach. He appears to quickly match the subject’s pugnacious demeanor with his own,
and makes no attempt to defuse or de-escalate the situation by explaining his own actions or
otherwise addressing the man’s anger over being stopped. Once the Taser had been activated and
5
the man was seated on the ground and somewhat neutralized (at least as a physical threat), the
officer’s tone shifted into more of a glib condescension. He addressed the (older) man several
times as “bro,” for example, which did little to mitigate the man’s resentment or establish a more
constructive footing for the interaction.
Again, the lieutenant’s memo addresses the issue by recommending a debrief with the involved
officer, with a particular focus on approaches to de-escalating “tense encounters.” Assuming
that this session actually occurred, this constitutes the sort of “next level” supervisory
intervention that we have long advocated, and that is a clear advantage of the more direct and
formal involvement of lieutenants in the review process for these incidents.
Also puzzling from a tactical perspective was the decision to move closer to the man that seemed
to precipitate a reaction from him – and in turn prompted the Taser activation. There is no
question that the man was both agitated and verbally belligerent. The officer’s decision to
remove the Taser from his holster and give commands for the man to get on the ground seemed
justified as well, and he provided clear warnings as guided by policy. Perhaps the goal was to
ensure the effectiveness of a Taser deployment that the officer had (reasonably) decided upon
before moving in. But it seemed like a specific question worth addressing in the analysis.
Investigative Steps
A PAPD supervisor did conduct an interview with the subject as to his perceptions of the
incident. This did not provide significant insight as to the Taser use – the man’s remarks were
rambling and seemed only tenuously related to particulars of the force. However, the man
alleged racial bias and lack of probable cause at various points in the interview. And, while
patiently accepted during the interview, these claims were not pursued or formally addressed.1
There was nothing malicious about this: the objective evidence did establish a legal basis for the
stop, and the sergeant was clearly focused on the force to the exclusion of other issues. But the
issue – inherently sensitive and worthy of careful attention – was relevant in the broader sense.
The man’s initial anger at being stopped was based at least in part on a perception of racial
discrimination, and he chose to amplify this when the sergeant provided the opportunity.
Accordingly, some forum for addressing this “complaint” as it emerged in the supervisor’s force
interview would have been appropriate, even though that had not been the original purpose
behind taking the statement.
RECOMMENDATION TWO: The Department should evaluate, investigate
as needed, and document its response to racial bias allegations, even when
they emerge through avenues outside the traditional complaint system.
1 There was a similar failure to address the racial bias allegation in a complaint investigation
discussed below.
6
Impressively, the Department also sent officers to canvas the immediate surroundings for
possible witnesses. While this did not yield useful results, it showed creditable due diligence by
the responding parties.
Misconduct Investigations
Case 1: Allegation of Excessive Force After an Initial Consensual
Encounter
Factual Overview:
This complaint came from an individual who was challenging different aspects of his arrest for
obstructing/resisting officers in the performance of their duty. The incident in question had
begun under circumstances that were later disputed: the complainant was waiting at a bus
terminal in the early morning hours and got the attention of an officer who was passing by in his
radio car. His intent was either to offer a friendly hello (his version) or to summon the officer
(which was the officer’s claimed understanding). The officer parked and approached, and the
encounter deteriorated from there.
For his part, the man seemed bothered by the officer’s demeanor and aggressive reaction to a
pleasant wave; the officer, on the other hand, found the man’s behavior strange and came to
believe he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The officer detained the man and called
for backup, which further antagonized the complainant.
When the second officer arrived, the misunderstanding/confrontation escalated. The man was
uncooperative with requests to show his identification, did not comply with other directions, and
made aggressive statements and gestures. The officers sought to take physical hold of the man,
and later reported that he offered significant resistance, including a punch to the face of the
initial officer as well as a persistent struggle once he was taken to the ground.2 A total of five
officers were eventually involved in handcuffing him and taking him into custody.
The man was eventually charged with four misdemeanor counts, including battery on the officer,
in conjunction with the incident. Six months after his arrest, he filed a written complaint with the
Department. He also filed a claim with the Palo Alto City Attorney. From these materials, the
Department identified two central allegations: that the detention and arrest were unlawful, and
that he had been subjected to excessive force in the form of an unwarranted punch to the face
that left a “permanent scar.”
2 The body camera footage depicts what was clearly a struggle to get the man in cuffs, but as
oftentimes with “hands on” events, the particulars are difficult to discern.
7
Outcome and Analysis:
Ultimately, the Department determined that the allegations were unsupported. It took the
position that the detention and arrest had been legally justified, and that the man’s claim of a
punch – necessary or otherwise – was unfounded.
For the most part, we found the complaint investigation to be thorough and thoughtful, and the
outcome to be reasonable; as discussed below, some of the investigative resourcefulness was
particularly noteworthy. But we also noted a couple of shortcomings in the Department’s
approach.
Investigative Steps
Early in his review, the investigating sergeant attempted to interview the complainant in order to
supplement the written complaint with a more detailed version of events. The man was reluctant
to cooperate with this process on the advice of his civil lawyer, but they nonetheless ended up
speaking on the phone for more than a half hour.3
This made for an odd hybrid: the repeated references to the lawyer made the first part of the
conversation cumbersome, as the sergeant attempted to clarify the initial complaint. Then the
sergeant persevered with a series of follow-up questions that the man willingly answered, but
that seemed out of sync with his stated preferences to follow his lawyer’s advice. While the
sergeant drew repeated distinctions between the legal claim and his own responsibilities, and
while his intentions seemed much more related to thoroughness than any attempt to “trick” or
take advantage of the man, the obvious overlap in issues – particularly with regard to fact-
gathering and the significance of the man’s own version – perhaps warranted a revised approach.
Ideally, some outreach to the attorney might have been a useful way to bridge the
communication gaps, get a more definitive version from the complainant, and ensure that a
represented party’s legal rights were being protected.4 Moreover, the man alluded briefly to a
security guard witness who had supposedly agreed in a conversation with that lawyer that the
actions of the police officers were hard to understand; this would have been an interesting angle
to pursue.
While attorneys often decline to facilitate the cooperation of their clients in administrative
reviews, a better practice would have been to get the lawyer’s contact information and reach out
3He also directed the PAPD supervisor to a YouTube video in which he was informally
interviewed about the incident in question and offered his version of events in more detail; the
sergeant did watch this as well.
4Our understanding is that criminal charges were also still pending at that point, which heighten
the concerns about engagement with represented individuals.
8
to get confirmation of this decision. Doing so would have shown enhanced due diligence at the
very least and may have led to a more thorough exploration of events.
RECOMMENDATION THREE: When complainants are represented by
counsel, the Department should coordinate with that person before
proceeding with an interview in pursuing the best available evidence as to
what occurred.
One important source of information was a third-party witness: a transit system security officer
who witnessed the arrest and had himself encountered the complainant prior to the first officer’s
arrival.5 The security officer had provided the man with bus directions and found him to be in a
cheerful but peculiar mood. He saw the complainant get the officer’s attention and watched the
officer approach in a casual manner that seemed a reasonable response to the complainant’s
actions. He described the event as shifting in tone when the officer asked for the man’s
identification, which clearly provoked him. Though he did not see the man punch the first
officer, he did confirm that the man had taken an aggressive physical stance and eventually
lunged at the officer; this led to his being taken to the ground. The security guard did not see any
of the officers punching the man, justifiably or otherwise, and found them to be controlled and
matter of fact in their handling of the incident.6
PAPD’s investigating sergeant also took pains to pursue physical evidence relating to the
allegation of a “permanent scar” the man claimed to have received from being punched in the
face. This included asking for copies of his medical reports from the jail (which did not make
reference to a facial injury), acquiring a copy of his driver’s license photo, and requesting a
booking photo from a prior arrest of the complainant in another part of California. These
materials were inconclusive. (While the man appeared to have a relevant mark on his face after
his arrest, its nature and source were unclear. Nor did any other evidence – including the
contemporaneous recorded statements of the man himself – offer corroboration for his claim.)
The finding and analysis of them, however, reflect impressive thoroughness on the investigator’s
part.
5The investigator was directed toward this witness when inquiring about possible surveillance
cameras operated by the transit center. Although the cameras were apparently not operational at
the time of the incident, the emergence of the witness was a significant development. Curiously,
though, he claimed to have not been previously contacted by the complainant or his lawyer,
which leaves an open question about the complainant’s assertions during his interview.
6 This interview, which was quite helpful to PAPD, became somewhat “leading” at times, with
the sergeant prompting the security guard as to his recollection of specific actions discernible
from the body camera videos. This is not ideal as an investigative practice. But some of it was
attributable to the passage of time as being an understandable impediment to complete
recollection.
9
The reports from the prior arrest were instructive in other ways as well. They featured allegations
of erratic and belligerently uncooperative behavior that were doubly relevant: first as
corroboration of the demeanor the officers claimed to have experienced, and second as a
counterweight to the complainant’s claim that his initial actions had been a gesture of benign
politeness that the officer inexplicably misunderstood. While we are sometimes leery of
complainant’s “prior acts” being used to undermine the legitimacy of later assertions – since a
spotless history should not be a prerequisite for fair, objective consideration – in this case the
earlier police encounter had specific overlaps with the claims at issue here.
Additionally, both of the primary officers involved in the arrest were interviewed as subjects
pursuant to the complaint investigation – and later arriving officers were treated as witnesses.
The initial officer’s body-worn camera shows the initial encounter, tense dialogue, and eventual
efforts to subdue the man as additional officers arrived. Unfortunately, though, camera angles
and movements make it hard to discern what specifically occurred once the two officers closed
distance to take the man to the ground.7
Use of Force Review
One gap in the Department’s review process was the lack of a supervisory review of force, or
detailed reporting about force from the involved officers. On the contrary, the responding
supervisor seemed quick to accept the representations that no force requiring a formal workup
had occurred, in spite of the fact that several officers had responded and had been physically
involved in handcuffing the man – and in spite of the fact that one of the officers had a visible
injury to his eye that he attributed to the suspect’s aggression.
The Department’s relevant policy includes several circumstances in which a supervisor’s report is
required, and it is true that none of those technically applied in this case. (The subject’s assertions
about his facial injury were not made at the time, and he was not cooperative with questioning
after his arrest.). Still, the physical effort actions required to subdue the man surely constituted
“force” within the Department’s definition, and therefore at least warranted a detailed accounting
from involved officers – which is required by a separate policy. Instead, only one officer
apparently wrote a report, and his description was both brief and somewhat vague. This one in
spite of the fact that, as he wrote, “It took five (5) officers to gain compliance and gain control of
his hands and take him into custody.”
This lack of conclusive documentation – particularly from the officer whom the subject later
alleged to have punched him – was a deficiency in the investigative record of the complaint that
should have been avoided at the time of the incident.
7 It was also unfortunate that two of the on-scene officers’ cameras failed to capture the takedown
at all, for fairly technical reasons that were explored in a lieutenant’s memo concerning the case.
10
RECOMMENDATION FOUR: The Department should use this case as a
forum for assessing whether lower-level force incidents are being
appropriately documented by its personnel and assessed by its supervisors.
Case 2: Allegation of Excessive Force After Arrest and
Handcuffing
Factual Overview
A PAPD officer observed a female cross the intersection in downtown Palo Alto against traffic
and detained her for further investigation. Because the woman appeared unsteady and showed
symptoms of intoxication, the officer detained her to conduct an “intoxicated in public”
investigation. Based on his observations and the woman’s conduct, he decided to take her into
custody, advised her she was under arrest, and handcuffed her.
The woman was verbally resistant while the initial officer handcuffed her. Another officer
assisted, and the two officers then began to escort her to the police car. At some point as the three
were walking, the woman turned and bit the second officer in the upper arm. Observing this
action, the initial officer pulled the woman away from the officer and then both officers took her
to the ground. The woman struck her face on the sidewalk, causing her nose to bleed.
Medical attention was requested on scene, paramedics responded, and the woman was
transported to the hospital for further treatment.
Later, the woman complained that the officer had arrested her for no reason and had used
unnecessary force against her. PAPD conducted an investigation and determined that there was
sufficient cause for the arrest and the use of force was within policy.
IPA Analysis of Allegations
IPA has reviewed the complaint, the investigative materials, and the body-worn camera footage
relating to this incident and agree that there was a sufficient basis to effectuate a detention and
that the use of force was within policy. However, IPA identified the following issues that are
deserving of further discussion:
Confusion regarding identification requirement
A point of strong contention between the on-scene officers and the woman was whether she was
required to obey their instructions to produce identification after she repeatedly rebuffed her
entreaties to do so. When the woman advised that she had no reason to provide them with her
identification, one of the backup officers said “actually, you do.” When the woman asked why she
would have to produce identification, the initial officer told her that when you are detained in the
United States, you have to identify yourself.
The officers’ statements to the women are actually misstatements of the law in California. While
the failure to identify oneself may have further implications in that it will increase the likelihood
11
that an individual will be arrested or even taken to jail because of the heightened suspicion caused
when an individual fails to identify oneself, there is no law requiring that a pedestrian who is
detained provide identification to an inquiring officer. PAPD should regularly advise its officers
about the limits of their authority on this point, as it is frequently a point of confusion among law
enforcement.
Unprofessional remark by arresting officer
Appropriately, a PAPD supervisor responded to the location and conducted an inquiry into the
incident. In describing the incident, the initial officer told the supervisor he observed the woman
bite his colleague and said: “then we dumped her.” The way in which the officer described his
use of force was inconsistent with the professionalism PAPD appropriately expects of its police
officers. Even though it was an internal conversation and not made in a mocking or celebratory
way, the characterization not only seems callous on its face, but also occurred in a public setting.
It is the sort of comment that reflects poorly when the public hears, or when recordings are
produced to the public for one reason or another. This description of the use of force incident
should have been identified by the supervisor who conducted the investigation as an opportunity
for course correction.
Activation of Body-Worn Camera in Hospital Setting
The initial officer continued to activate his body worn camera as he walked through the hospital,
capturing employees and patients as he traveled through the halls to speak with the woman in her
hospital room. At one point, the officer asked a supervisor whether he should have his camera
activated and was told that police officers were exempt from any privacy concerns. Current PAPD
policy regarding activation of body-worn cameras does not provide any guidance to officers
regarding this issue.
Hospital patients and workers have an expectation of privacy that their activity or conversations
will not be tape recorded by police officers unless there is an official reason for doing so.
Certainly, it is appropriate to use the taping capability of the body-worn cameras to record an
interview in a confined hospital room of an individual who has been subjected to a use of force.
But officers should be instructed through policy to minimize their intrusion into hospital space by
de-activating their cameras as they walk through the hospital corridors and activate them only
when interacting with the interviewee.
We have been advised that the local hospital has identified the issue and now routinely advises
officers that they should not walk through the corridors with their body-worn cameras activated.
Despite this initiative by the hospital, it would be important to align PAPD policy with hospital
expectations to ensure privacy concerns are not impacted.
RECOMMENDATION FIVE: PAPD officers should regularly advise its
officers on the right of individuals not to identify themselves and how they
should respond when an individual declines to do so.
12
RECOMMENDATION SIX: PAPD should advise the supervisor who
reviewed the body camera footage of this incident about the missed
opportunity for course correction regarding the officer’s unprofessional
description of his actions.
RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: PAPD should counsel the officer about
the need to use professionalism in describing any use of force.
RECOMMENDATION EIGHT: PAPD should modify its body-worn
camera policy to provide further guidance to its officers regarding activation
in hospital settings.
Case 3: Allegation of Excessive Force During a Pat Down Search
Factual Overview
A PAPD officer conducted a traffic stop when he noticed that the vehicle had failed to come to a
full stop at a stop sign and the car was missing appropriate license plates. After his approach to
the vehicle, the officer recognized the driver as having a felony warrant for theft. When asked,
the driver provided someone else’s identity.
The officer wrote in his arrest report that he placed the driver unhandcuffed in the back of his
patrol vehicle for officer safety purposes, because he was going to have the other two occupants
exit the vehicle so he could search it incident to an arrest, and there was only one additional
officer on-scene. The report indicated that the officer observed multiple sets of clothes with
clothing security tags on them in the back seat of the vehicle in plain view. The police officer
also wrote that multiple family members of the vehicle occupants arrived on scene and started
causing a disturbance.
The officer wrote that upon a search of the vehicle, he found more clothes with metal detector
clips on them in the backseat of the vehicle. The officer wrote that, believing that the driver was
in possession of stolen property, he then conducted a probable cause search of the vehicle’s trunk
and discovered additional clothing with clothing security tags on them.
The officer wrote that while the driver was in the back of his patrol vehicle, he asked her about
the clothes that he had located inside of the car but that she was not under arrest for possessing
stolen property. The officer wrote that the driver said she bought the clothes from someone that
she knows steals clothes.
The officer wrote that he arrested the driver for false impersonation (for providing him with a
false identity) and the outstanding warrants.
The officer said he asked the driver out of the vehicle and then arrested her.
13
The complainant, who was seated in the front passenger’s seat of the vehicle and was the driver’s
sister, prepared a complaint form. She was also interviewed by a supervisor assigned to conduct
an inquiry and made the following allegations in writing and/or during the intake interview:
• The officer was rude by opening the door after approaching the car.
• The officer placed her sister in the rear of his police car without Mirandizing her.
• The officer searched the car “for no reason”.
• The officers asked them if there were any weapons in the car because they were African
American.
• The officer left with an arrestee not in handcuffs.
According to the supervisor assigned to conduct the inquiry into the allegations, the complainant
told her that PAPD could “do what they wanted” with the complaint and that she was satisfied
just letting the supervisor know about her feelings regarding the police contact and arrest of her
sister. The supervisor concluded that the opening of the door by the officer was understandable
considering the facts that the driver did not attempt to roll down her window to speak with him
and that there the was obvious damage to the car. The supervisor further determined that placing
the arrestee in the back of the patrol car unhandcuffed and without reading a Miranda advisement
was a discretionary procedure. The supervisor found no violations of policy with regard to the
allegations.
IPA Analysis of allegations
The officer was rude in opening the car door. A review of the body camera footage shows
that as the officer approaches the driver’s side, he politely asks if he can open the driver’s door
and then proceeds to do so. There is nothing objectively rude about the officer’s actions.
As noted above, the supervisor’s assessment was that the officer’s actions were reasonable since
the driver did not attempt to roll down her window to speak with him and the obvious damage to
the car door. But these explanations are limited in their persuasiveness. The officer did not ask
the driver to roll down her car window, which would seemingly have been a useful intermediary
step. (Indeed, later in the encounter, he did ask her to roll down the driver door window and she
immediately complied.) Nor did the damage to the car explain why the officer chose to open the
driver’s door; the car damage was all on the right side of the vehicle.
To reiterate: we did not find the officer’s opening of the driver’s door to be “rude” or
inappropriate to the circumstances. But it was inherently more intrusive than a more
commonplace traffic stop dialogue through a window, and the supervisor’s justification for the
officer’s action is not borne out by the body camera footage. It is imperative that supervisors are
accurate when using evidence to account for officer behavior. Ideally, a slightly more nuanced
response – and an acknowledgment of possible bases for the complainant’s perceptions – would
have occurred here.
14
The officer placed her sister in the rear of his police car without Mirandizing her. The
supervisor concluded that the decision of the officer to place the arrestee in the back of the patrol
car and not Mirandize her was discretionary. Both assertions are correct. However, the report
indicates that, after the sister was detained, the officer then asked her about the clothing and she
made an admission. The officer intimated in his police report that since the arrestee had not been
arrested at that point, at least with regard to the suspected stolen clothing, he did not need to
Mirandize her before asking her about them.
At the time of the questioning, the arrestee was clearly not free to leave and arguably under arrest.
Even if the preliminary reasons for her arrest were for the felony warrant and failure to correctly
identify herself to him, by the time the officer questioned her about the clothing, he had suspicion
that the clothing was stolen. If the officer wanted to ask her about the clothing, it would have
been better practice to avoid running afoul of Miranda to have advised her of her Miranda rights
before questioning her about the clothing. The supervisor should have identified this issue in his
review of the allegations.
The officer searched the car for no reason. As indicated in the arrest report and borne out by
the body-worn camera footage, there was clothing in plain view in the car which had clothing
security tags still on the clothing. That observation formed sufficient suspicion for the officer to
then search the remainder of the car. When the officer found additional clothing in the back seat
with clothing security tags intact, he had sufficient cause to search the trunk of the car.
In his inquiry report, however, the supervisor did not address this allegation. Best practice in
complaint review requires separate and direct attention for each allegation that is raised, even
when the objective facts show that it is unfounded.
The officers asked the occupants if there were any weapons in the car because they were
African American. There is no evidence that the officer’s on-scene investigation and
questioning was racially motivated. However, again, it is imperative that any review of complaint
allegations address each of them. While there is actual notation made presumably by PAPD that
there was a racial component to the handwritten complaint, the supervisor did not address this
allegation in his analysis. He should have.
The officer left with an arrestee not in handcuffs. The arresting officers chose not to handcuff
the arrestee until they arrived at the police station. Under current PAPD policy, the decision
whether to handcuff arrestees is discretionary as stated by the supervisor who conducted the
inquiry. Despite the discretion provided officers on whether and when to handcuff individuals
who are under arrest, it is our understanding that the Department’s strong preference and
presumption is that individuals who are under arrest will be handcuffed, especially if they are to
be transported to the station. While we have been advised that the first contact officer is no longer
with PAPD, a review of the body camera footage indicates that the decision not to
15
handcuff the arrestee was suggested by the secondary officer. That officer should be briefed on
Department expectations.
RECOMMENDATION NINE: The supervisor should be briefed about the
need to address every allegation raised by a complainant in his review and
the need to base any justification for officers’ actions on the evidence
available.
RECOMMENDATION TEN: The on-scene officer who suggested not
handcuffing the arrestee in this case should be briefed on PAPD practice
and expectations.
Additional Issues
Complainant interview not tape-recorded
It is standard internal investigative practice to tape record interviews of complainants so that
there is the “best record” of what was alleged and the fullest account of the complainant’s
narrative. In this case, the supervisor did not tape record the conversation and there is no
explanation in the file for why this did not occur. PAPD should devise protocols to ensure that
complainant interviews are recorded.
RECOMMENDATION ELEVEN: PAPD should devise protocols to
ensure that all intake and follow-up interviews of complainants are tape
recorded, and if extenuating issues make this not feasible (such as
complainants’ refusal to be recorded), there should be documentation
explaining this.
Use of profanity
In his initial encounter with all of the three occupants of the vehicle, the arresting officer is polite
and professional. He does not assume a commanding or demeaning presence and uses a tone
that effectively keeps tensions low. The officer gives the occupants significant leeway and
patiently explains to them why he is doing what he is doing and why he is asking them to do
certain things. However, at one point, he tells the arrestee repeatedly “this is bull****” when he
believes that she is not telling him the truth. The comment seems both discordant and
unnecessary in relation to the overall tone of the encounter. While these remarks were not part
of the sister’s complaint, she would likely not have been within earshot of them.8 But the
reviewing supervisor presumably would have encountered the comments on the recording and
should have identified them as a basis for remediation.
8They occurred outside the patrol car, while the complainant was still inside the subject vehicle.
16
Notification Letter
In advising the complainant of the disposition of this matter, PAPD sent a form letter with no
information about what the Department did to investigate the complaint. It is an approach
common among law enforcement agencies, largely because of confidentiality and efficiency
concerns. But the downside to the lack of detail is that it easily contributes to skepticism about
the thoroughness of the review and the legitimacy of the outcome. We have seen agencies
address this dynamic by providing specific information that personalizes the response and
reflects the due diligence that occurred.9 And those departments include language thanking the
complainant for engaging and acknowledging the importance of public feedback.
We mentioned this issue in our last report – in the context of encouraging PAPD to share its
efforts in a case that it had reviewed quite carefully and thoughtfully. Providing additional
information will make the process more meaningful to complainants and, given the small volume
of cases.
RECOMMENDATION TWELVE: Whenever a review of an incident
identifies gratuitous profanity being spoken by an officer to a civilian,
supervisors should ensure an appropriate remediation.
RECOMMENDATION THIRTEEN: PAPD should consider providing
more information and context in its closing letters, such as advising the
complainant what investigative steps were taken and what sources of
information contributed to the Department’s conclusion.
Case 4: Allegation of Excessive Force During a Search Incident to
an Arrest
Factual Overview
An officer stopped a vehicle with expired registration. During the investigation, the driver
exhibited signs of intoxication. The officer decided to arrest the man for being under the
influence of illicit drugs. Just before searching the man incident to this arrest, the officer
instructed the individual to spread his legs and when the individual did not immediately comply,
used his foot to spread the man’s legs farther apart.10 The man immediately screamed about the
action, said that he had been injured and that a pre-existing medical condition had been
9 Clearly, a summary of the allegations and a description of the investigative steps/sources of evidence
fall outside the confidentiality restrictions imposed by the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights.
10 In his police report, the officer described his actions as follows: “While searching [the man] incident to
arrest, I asked him to separate and he refused. I lightly moved his left foot with my right foot so I could
properly search him. [The man] began to complain of pain and PAFD medics were called to the scene”.
17
aggravated by the officer’s action. As a result of the man’s complaint, he was taken to a local
hospital for evaluation and treatment.
While on-scene, the man’s level of cooperation with law enforcement went from initially
cooperative to argumentative, belligerent, and slow to cooperate as the incident proceeded –
especially after the officer asked him questions like: “When was the last time you used?” When
the officer asked the man to perform sobriety tests, the man was partially cooperative but indicted
that he could not perform some of them due to a pre-existing physical infirmity. After the
officer’s action with the foot, the man’s belligerence significantly increased and continued during
his time at the hospital, with the man threatening the officer with harm.
The District Attorney agreed to file charges against the man for being under the influence of an
illicit substance and for possession of an illegal billy club that was discovered in the man’s
vehicle during the investigation.
Later the man submitted a written complaint alleging that the officer “kicked” his feet apart,
causing him injury. The supervisor who was on-scene during the incident endeavored to contact
the man to interview him about his complaint, but was unable to locate him despite repeated
attempts. The supervisor, who was on scene during the search, did review the body camera
footage and the case report; he concluded that the officer’s use of his foot in searching the man
was an approved defensive tactic technique and consistent with PAPD policy.
IPA Analysis of Allegations
Concepts of De-Escalation
Recently, PAPD worked in conjunction with the other City stakeholders regarding its policies on
use of force. As a result of those conversations, PAPD revised its policies to require a supervisor
to “describe any de-escalation techniques employed or an explanation for why such techniques
were not feasible”. In addition to revising the policy, PAPD revised its use of force cover sheet to
require information regarding the use of de-escalation techniques.11 Since that time, state law now
requires police agencies in California to integrate de-escalation concepts in its use of force
policies and training.
As a result of the new policy, whenever an encounter between police officers and the public
results in a complaint about excessive use of force, PAPD will now evaluate the encounter not
only in terms of whether the officer’s use of force is consistent with its policies, but also whether
the officer’s use of de-escalation practices is also consistent with the new policy.
11 We have also been advised that the Department has also proactively offered to generate a Use of Force
report to be submitted to City Council as a cover memorandum with each IPA report. This report will
contain information on use of force incidents and will specifically address the use and effectiveness of de -
escalation techniques by officers.
18
While this incident pre-dated the recent change in PAPD policy, the concepts of de-escalation
have been long featured in PAPD’s training. In this case, the officer indicated that he instructed
the suspected intoxicated man to spread his legs further apart. When there was no immediate
compliance, he used his foot to “assist” the man, causing the resulting allegations of injury, the
need for medical attention, and conflict that escalated over the next several hours.
Had the officer been a bit more patient with the man, asked him if he was able to do what the
officer was requesting (the man had already complained about a pre-existing medical condition
that hampered his ability to complete some of the field tests given to him), and given him more
time to either respond or comply, the escalated conflict and the subsequent complaint of
excessive force may well have been avoided. Moreover, in this situation, there was time to
deploy such a strategy: the man was handcuffed, a back-up officer was on scene, and no
significant threat level was presented requiring immediate action. Police departments are
recognizing how important consideration of de-escalation approaches prior to resorting to force
and how effective deployment of them can work to the benefit of both the civilian and the officer
alike.
In the spirit of the new policy, PAPD should begin to embrace the de-escalation concepts
recently adopted.
RECOMMENDATION FOURTEEN: PAPD should counsel the involved
officer on how de-escalation efforts should be deployed whenever
practicable, using this incident as an example.
Systemic Issues: Adding Reporting Component to New De-Escalation Policy
We appreciate the swiftness with which PAPD modified its policy in response to community
sentiment and impending state law. While the new reviewing requirement noted above will
ensure that de-escalation techniques (or the lack thereof) will be considered, we also believe it
should be incumbent on the officer who uses force to describe any efforts to de-escalate a
situation or why such efforts were not feasible.
RECOMMENDATION FIFTEEN: PAPD should devise policy that instructs officers who
use force to include a narrative about any attempts to use de-escalation prior to the
application of force, and to explain why such options were not feasible if no de-escalation
efforts were deployed.
19
'',':4 fit.
CI-
4.
J
,; o m
.I Q
C H
�,.. E z
( V
� � Q
w W
'� 0 V
.
J
• - t• ' -' 9
aQ
•••. C...,. )
2'y
06'
a)
0
E
a)
c
0
0
Ci) CD a,
C -0 l- >
0 a a)
L.- cv co -C3
06 0 U (1) UCO
'0 o = Q
C Q
4D C °4_
EV co
cua) c (J)c,_E
. a} U
ca
U N >. i
CD a= c
Q c6 —
a} U E c �>
E co U
c ° c -
co co a3 a,
�. Q � no
0 c 0_ til
= Q U CC
U 4--� 'U
a -0 : O
E o C o CD
to
-0 - v C V
— ate-+ 'O +_+
CD 4-P
}'ra U I�_-+ C tap C2
ti) Q 7 E c
aJ
al 0
0 MO -�' c� w OD u
4A
Q
tIO (�cci -� - `�
JV O v) cn
E v
o .� a) .- L-
E
r0-E fro cuti) U.,_ , ,_ .5cu
a,
„.., o 4_ " o
O +-0 �, a,
V QCD
cn tap O = CD 0
co -0 CO C CLO E 2 :42
CC Q. c — C c2
X 4 '� E a� —
o v
+� '� 'W O >•
4-0
O =
E ate--+ fT U L-
uc� 0O " O
Tp < ouEu_l 'au
0
U
0
O
U cn N
Q� a.) 4-, •-
U N O
U 0
CO 4-1 cu L) a) > CD
_ 03 a)
CL J hA c !al) To. U C
�--+
i
E L- -- 6 .—
cia 'a) m > 'i •- >-
ci p = 0 U >, E C
._ �. L
v
O
O O O O
Q
X _ a.
_ 44-1
-'
LU •p ca O (a co .,..,
a_ C 4 )- C E U Q) i
i
C 4J >- C .4J N O
N C :+-' X 0 •
`� co
E tv0 U cn 0 U
to
" c C
Q. v v
0 w w
N
0
c/'f
From:Christine Wright-Shacklett
To:Public Comment
Subject:Agenda Item 7b, August 10, 2021
Date:Friday, August 6, 2021 9:04:51 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL
I wish to voice my support of the recommendations listed under Item 7b. especially as it
relates to increased sensitivity training to the diverse society in which we live. I also support
independent oversight to ensure that the laws of the State and local governments are upheld by
all in a just and equitable manner.
Sincerely,
Christine Wright-Shacklett
Resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 7.B. Supplemental
From:Segretta Woodard
To:Public Comment
Subject:Discussion regarding police and community relations
Date:Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:49:27 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL
My name is Segretta Woodard, President of Santa Rosa-Sonoma County NAACP.
I'm communicating today because of the NAACP's banner desire to advocate and champion
progressive policing and community relations. This calls for transparency and accountability
and oversight in policing. Especially important is sincere effort to improve relationships
between law enforcement (police) and the communities (people) they serve.
Thank you. Looking forward to progress in serving and protecting.
Sincerely,
S. Woodard, President
Santa Rosa-Sonoma County Unit 1074-B
NAACP
From:Caroline Banuelos
To:Public Comment
Subject:Public Comment
Date:Tuesday, August 10, 2021 4:55:44 PM
Attachments:Letter to Rohnert Park City Council.docx
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Council Members,
Please find a letter of support for the council that also addresses Item 7b on the agenda today.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Caroline Banuelos,
President,
SCLDC
P.O. Box 3425 ♦ Santa Rosa, California 95402 ♦ (707) 228-8961
E-mail: socolatinodems@gmail.com
August 9, 2021
Via Electronic Mail
Dear Mayor Giudice, Vice-Mayor Elward and Council Members,
We are writing to express our club’s shock and deep disappointment regarding the
racially motivated incidents targeting Council Member Linares and Vice-Mayor Elward.
Our club wishes to express our most sincere regrets that these two fine public servants
were the subject of such shameful behavior. Our club stands in solidarity with Rohnert
Park’s elected leaders and we sincerely hope that you are treated with the respect that
each of you as city officials deserve.
Along this line we wish to let you all know that we whole-heartedly support and endorse
Measure D (the ban on fireworks in Rohnert Park). Our membership is from all parts of
Sonoma County and we are very aware that fireworks are already banned in most cities
and the reasons for doing so. You all have our full support on this issue.
Lastly, in regard to item 7B under Regular Items on today’s council agenda, we support
the recommendations summited by the city manager and public safety. Especially the
recommendation for an Independent Police Auditor. We would just add that the auditor
be able to act truly independent of the police department. We would also strongly
recommend that the council consider adding a Civilian Oversight Board or Civilian
Review Board to strengthen the role of the Auditor as well as bring about more police
accountability. We can’t stress enough how important it is for the city to establish
authentic police accountability for your residents.
Thank you for the work you are doing to make Rohnert Park the best it can be.
In solidarity,
Caroline Bañuelos, President
Sonoma County Latino Democratic Club