HomeMy WebLinkAboutPolice Advisory & Accountability Committee 2025-05-21 Agenda PacketPOLICE ADVISORY AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY MAY 21, 2025, AT 6:00 PM In-Person: San Rafael City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Ave, San Rafael, California Virtual: Watch Online: https://tinyurl.com/PAAC2025 Listen by Phone: (669) 444-9171 Meeting ID: 861 8590 4369 AGENDA How to participate in the meeting: • You are welcome to provide comments in person at the meeting. Each speaker will have 2 minutes to provide public comments. • Submit your comments by email to PAAC@cityofsanrafael.org by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER–6:00 PM MINUTES 1. Approve regular meeting minutes from the April 16, 2025, meeting. OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION The public is welcome to address the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee at this time on matters not on the agenda that are within it s jurisdiction. Comments may be no longer than 2 minutes and should be respectful to the community. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS If necessary to ensure the completion of the following items, the Chairperson may establish time limits for the presentations by individual speakers. 2. Other Agenda Items: a. Response to Racial Identity and Profiling Act (RIPA), SRPD Staff, Tammy Edmonson, MVFREE Recommendation: Receive the informational report, provide feedback, and recommendations. b. Homelessness, Lynn Murphy, Mental Health Outreach Specialist, SRPD, Daniel Cooperman, Community Services Division Director, City of San Rafael Recommendation: Receive the informational report and provide feedback. STAFF LIAISON REPORT 3. Other brief program updates or reports on any meetings, conferences, and/or seminars attended by staff. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. Other brief reports on any meetings, conferences, and/or seminars attended by the Committee members. ADJOURNMENT Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Board less than 72 hours before the meeting, sh all be available for inspection online and in the city hall large conference room, third floor, 1400 5th Avenue, San Rafael, California placed with other agenda-related materials on the table in front of the location prior to the meeting. Sign Language interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or using the California Telecommunications Relay Service by dialing “711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request POLICE ADVISORY AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE (PAAC) WEDNESDAY APRIL 16, 2025, AT 6:00 PM In-Person: San Rafael City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Ave, San Rafael, California Virtual: Watch Online: https://tinyurl.com/PAAC2025 Listen by Phone: (669) 444-9171 Meeting ID: 898-5264-7245# MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Tokolahi called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and requested a roll call. ROLL CALL Present: Member Daniel Alm Member Marilyn Alvarez Vice Chair Davidi Member Paula Kamena Member Darlin Ruiz Chair Fatai Tokolahi Alternate Member Salamah Locks Alternate Member Karla Valdez Absent: Member Mydung Nguyen Alternate Member Valdez voted in Member Nguyen’s absence. Staff Present: Angela Robinson Piñon, Assistant City Manager David Spiller, Police Chief, San Rafael Police Department Scott Eberle, Lieutenant, San Rafael Police Department Teresa Olson, Sr. Mgmt. Analyst, San Rafael Police Department Lieutenant Scott Eberle informed the community that the in -person meeting would also be recorded and streamed live to YouTube and through Zoom. He noted the two-minute timer for public comment and closed captioning on Zoom. 1. MINUTES Chair Tokolahi invited public comment. Speakers: Heidi Member Kamena moved to approve the minutes of the March 19, 2025, meeting, with an amendment reflecting Member Alvarez was absent and Member Valdez voted on the approval of the minutes, a typographical error on the title of item 2c., and reflecting “schools” rather than “school” in the Committee Reports section. Member Davidi seconded the motion. AYES: MEMBERS: Alm, Alvarez, Davidi, Kamena, Ruiz, Tokolahi, Valdez NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Nguyen The motion carried 7-0-1. OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION Heidi spoke on committee member informational requests, action minutes versus verbatim minutes, upcoming expiring terms for PAAC members, and announcements for PAAC vacancies. 2. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS a. AB481 Military Equipment The Committee asked questions. Chair Tokolahi opened the item for public comment. Speakers: Tara, Heidi, Marina, Christa, male no name provided, Arella Vargas, Elena Deleon, Cruz Vargas, Annabel, Reesa Garcia, Gloria Barrios, Floridalma Rodas. The Committee provided comments. Member Kamena moved that the PAAC unanimously support and recommend the Drone First Responder (DFR) program to the City Council. Member Davidi seconded the motion. AYES: MEMBERS: Alm, Alvarez, Davidi, Kamena, Ruiz, Tokolahi, Valdez NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Nguyen The motion carried 7-0-1. STAFF LIAISON REPORT Lieutenant Eberle reported on the first quarter complaints for 2025. Three complaints have been received. All of the complaints were determined to be unfounded. None of the complaints qualify under SB2, therefore, no other information is subject to public disclosure. Lieutenant Eberle reminded PAAC members to sign up for a date and time for a patrol ride - along. Assistant City Manager, Robinson-Pinon, shared that the Drone as a First Responder (DFR) will be presented to the City Council on June 2 nd at 6 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS • Member Alm participated in an oral board panel. • Member Davidi mentioned that the City recognized Persian New Year holiday and attended a celebration/picnic in one of the parks , which was attended by members of the SRPD. He also had coffee with Chief Spiller and Lieutenant Eberle and encouraged other PAAC members to do the same. • Member Kamena had a meeting with the Tiburon Police Chief and the Mill Valley Police Chief to discuss the topic of RIPA. She also congratulated Member Ruiz for graduating from the Citizens Academy. She further shared that she confirmed that Camp Chance is still an active and funded program. • Member Locks shared there is an event on Saturday, April 26th, “Policing: Friend or Foe” being held in Marin City at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. There is a dinner at 5 pm and speakers begin at 7 pm. She also shared on Saturday, April 19th that the is a rally at the Capitol and possibly somewhere in San Rafael to protest immigration matters. She attended a rally on April 5th at the Civic Center, which was attended by approximately 5,000 people and was one of the largest in the community. • Member Ruiz nothing to note. • Member Tokolahi nothing to note. • Member Valdez nothing to note. ADJOURNMENT Chair Tokolahi adjourned the meeting at 8:33 PM Teresa Olson Teresa Olson, Staff Liaison APPROVED THIS _____DAY OF_______, 2025 Page 1 of 1 POLICE ADVISORY AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT Item 2a TITLE: RESPONSE TO RACIAL IDENTITY AND PROFILING ACT (RIPA) RECOMMENDATION: Provide feedback. BACKGROUND: At its March 19, 2025, meeting, the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee (PAAC) received a staff report and presentation on the Racial Identity and Profiling Act (RIPA), which is provided as Attachment 1. During the March 19, 2025, meeting, several Committee members requested additional data and information related to traffic citations and mechanical violations. Staff has compiled the requested materials, which are included in Attachment 2. Additionally, Committee members requested that representatives from Mill Valley Free (MVFRE E) return to provide a presentation on their RIPA report. Staff has coordinated this presentation, which is included as Attachment 3. DISCUSSION: Please note that staff and the guest presenters provided much of the background and context related to RIPA during the March 19, 2025, meeting. The recommendation is for the Committee to provide additional feedback to staff during the May 21, 2025, PAAC meeting about the content covered in the presentation. Staff can also respond to any questions about the PAAC meeting on March 19, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Submitted by: Teresa Olson Teresa Olson Senior Management Analyst II ATTACHMENTS: 1. March 19, 2025, Staff Report and Presentation 2. 2024 Mechanical Citation Data 3. Mill Valley Free (MVFREE) Materials and Presentation Page 1 of 9 POLICE ADVISORY AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT March 19, 2025 Item 2c TITLE: THE RACIAL IDENTITY AND PROFILING ACT (RIPA): A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF RIPA RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. BACKGROUND: The Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) was enacted in 2015 through Assembly Bill 953, aiming to address and eliminate racial and identity profiling in California’s law enforcement practices. This legislation mandates all law enforcement agencies collect and report detailed data on all vehicle and pedestrian stops, including the perceived race, ethnicity, gender, and age of individuals stopped, as well as the reasons and outcomes of these encounters. The collected data is submitted to the California Department of Justice and analyzed by the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory (RIPA) Board, which publishes annual reports with findings and recommendations (oag.ca.gov). As outlined by the California Code of Regulations (11 CCR § 999.224), RIPA stop data must be collected during police contacts matching either of the following criteria: “(1) Any detention, as defined above in these regulations, by a peace officer of a person; or (2) any peace officer interaction with a person in which the officer searches, as defined in these regulations.” The San Rafael Police Department (SRPD) is committed to fostering a culture of trust, accountability, and transparency within our community. We strive to ensure fair, equitable policing practices that uphold the rights of all individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity, or identity. Through continuous training, community collaboration, and data-driven strategies, SRPD is dedicated to reducing biases, improving relationships with the community, and enhancing public safety. DISCUSSION: Historical Context of the Racial Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) The enactment of RIPA in 2015 was in response to growing concerns about racial and identity profiling by law enforcement in California. High-profile incidents and community advocacy highlighted the need for systemic reforms to ensure equitable policing practices. RIPA’s primary objectives include explicitly banning racial and identity profiling in law enforcement activities, requiring agencies to collect and report data on stops to identify and address disparities, and establishing the RIPA board to oversee data analysis and recommend policy changes. Since its implementation, RIPA has served as a tool for assessing law enforcement practices and promoting transparency and accountability. RIPA data for San Rafael The following is a summary of the stop data for San Rafael in 2024. It should also be noted that these recorded stops are combined into one category and do not separate proactive stops from calls for service. Page 2 of 9 In 2024, SRPD recorded 5,353 stops. Of these, 47% were perceived to be Latine(x), 39% were perceived to be White, and 8% were perceived to be Black/African American. In just 2% (108) of these stops, officers reported knowing the individual’s demographics before making the stop. Individuals perceived as African American were stopped at the highest rate based on reasonable suspicion, which occurs when officers have information-either from evidence or a report-that leads them to contact someone. Additionally, individuals perceived as Native American, African American, and White had the highest rates of contraband found. This happens when officers have probable cause to search, when a person is on probation or parole, or when consent to search is given. In response to calls for service, individuals perceived as Native American, Pacific Islander, and African American were stopped at the highest rates. Meanwhile, individuals perceived as White and Native American were arrested at the highest rates following a stop. The chart below illustrates the 2023 SRPD data in comparison to the state of California. 2024 statewide data is not currently available. 5.92% 37.85% 8.50% 2.83% 44.23% 0.35% 0.33% 5.72% 43.07% 12.14% 5.03% 31.96% 0.28% 0.57% ASIAN HISPANIC/LATINE(X) BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN MIDDLE EASTERN OR SOUTH ASIAN WHITE NATIVE AMERICAN PACIFIC ISLANDER Asian Hispanic/Latine (x) Black/African American Middle Eastern or South Asian White Native American Pacific Islander California 5.72%43.07%12.14%5.03%31.96%0.28%0.57% San Rafael 5.92%37.85%8.50%2.83%44.23%0.35%0.33% 2023 California vs. San Rafael RIPA Demographics Page 3 of 9 2025 RIPA Board Recommendations The 2025 RIPA Annual Report analyzes data from 2023 collected by California law enforcement agencies, documenting 4,721,135 stops. The findings reveal that the largest group stopped were individuals perceived as Hispanic/Latine(x) (43.07%), followed by White (31.96%) and Black (12.14%). The report highlights that people perceived as Black were stopped 126.5% more often than their proportion in the census population, while those perceived as Hispanic/Latine(x) were stopped 43.8% more frequently. This report examines over 4.7 million stops and 14,444 civilian complaints from 539 law enforcement agencies to assess the extent and nature of racial and identity profiling in California. The report asserts that racial and identity profiling remains a persistent issue. Based on the collected State of California Stop Data, the RIPA board has made the following recommendations. • Improving Officer Training: Mandating additional training on implicit bias, de-escalation tactics, and cultural competency. Expanding crisis intervention training to reduce the likelihood of escalation in encounters with marginalized communities. o The San Rafael Police Department emphasizes de-escalation in every Use of Force Training and Firearms Training. SRPD Policy 319.5 stipulates that all members of the department receive POST-approved training on hate crime recognition and investigations as provided by Penal Code §13519.6. Training includes: (a) Recognition of bias motivators such as ranges of attitudes and perceptions toward a specific characteristic or group, including disability bias, gender bias, and religion bias. All SRPD personnel also complete Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) training. In addition to DEIB training, SRPD also took part in the following training:  Has contracted with Athena Coaching to help train Sergeants and above in Leadership and Coaching.  Emotional Intelligence training by DB Bedford  Contracted with retired Police Chief Daniel Hahn to give a class on Procedural Justice and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to the leadership team.  Strategic Communications (POST).  Use of Force-De-scalation (In-house as well as Self-Paced POST training)  Tools for Tolerance/Beyond Diversity at the Museum of Tolerance (Los Angeles)  Crisis Intervention Training  Lexipol Daily Training Bulletins (DTBs) officers are required to complete monthly covering topics from policy to de-escalation.  Weekly Briefing Room videos were presented during briefings, covering topics such as de-escalation, best practices, and case law reviews.  Dispatch training that covers bias and de-escalation include: Page 4 of 9 • De-escalation for Dispatchers • Dispatch Priming • Interpersonal Skills for Dispatch • Crisis Negotiations for Dispatchers • Tactical Dispatch Basic Concepts • Enhancing Data Collection and Transparency: Standardizing stop data collection practices across all agencies. Requiring more comprehensive reporting on the context of stops and searches. o The San Rafael Police Department is open to exploring alternative methods for data collection. Some law enforcement agencies also gather information on whether the officer knew the individual's race/gender prior to the stop and if the person stopped is a local resident. • Increasing Community Engagement and Oversight: Encouraging stronger partnerships between police departments and community organizations. Implementing independent boards to review stop data and recommend improvements. o The San Rafael Police Department displays our stop data on our transparency portal on our website and is open to recommendations from the community and the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee (PAAC). Mill Valley Force for Racial Equity and Empowerment (MVFREE) Recommendations The Mill Valley Force for Racial Equity & Empowerment (MVFREE) is a community organization dedicated to eliminating systemic racism, oppression, and identity biases in Mill Valley, California. MVFREE focuses on uniting the community through coalition-building, education on intentional anti-racism, empowerment to confront racism, creating spaces for BIPOC voices, and advocating for policies that dismantle racial barriers. Their initiatives include addressing racial disparities in policing, promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in local governance, and fostering cultural connections between Mill Valley and neighboring communities like Marin City. They released a report on their research on RIPA in 2022. The 2022 MVFREE report on racial disparities in policing provided insights and several detailed recommendations aimed at reducing racial disparities in law enforcement practices: • Elimination of Pretext Stops: MVFREE advocates for the complete elimination of pre • text stops, which involve minor traffic infractions being used as a pretext to investigate other criminal activity. They argue that these stops disproportionately affect communities of color and contribute to racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The report suggests that law enforcement agencies adopt policies restricting the use of pretext stops in situations where public safety is at imminent risk. o The San Rafael Police Department does not support the elimination of Pretext stops. The U.S. Supreme Court (Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) upheld Pretext stops as a lawful tool that allows law enforcement to establish probable cause for an unrelated crime following the initial stop. Eliminating this practice could result in a compromise to community safety. For a comprehensive analysis, please refer to the PORAC review of RIPA and the definition of Pretext Stops provided below. Page 5 of 9 • Strengthening Accountability and Oversight: MVFREE recommends the establishment of independent oversight committees that include community representatives. These committees would be tasked with regularly reviewing stop data and ensuring accountability in law enforcement practices. They also advocate for transparent public reporting of stop data, including detailed breakdowns by race, ethnicity, and outcome of the stop. o The City of San Rafael has established the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee with the goals to enhance transparency and improve trust with the community. The Committee is invited to review SRPD stop data and make recommendations to modify any policies or practices. • Comprehensive Officer Training Programs: MVFREE emphasizes the importance of ongoing, mandatory training on racial bias, cultural competency, and de-escalation techniques. They also recommend scenario-based training that addresses common biases and teaches officers how to mitigate them in real-world encounters. o The San Rafael Police Department conducts regular training sessions on racial bias, cultural competency, and de-escalation techniques. During all scheduled department training courses, scenario-based exercises are utilized. Along with the training already mentioned above, the department recently acquired AXON virtual reality software, enabling more frequent and effective de-escalation training. • Community Engagement and Dialogue: MVFREE underscores the importance of building trust between law enforcement and communities through regular dialogue and public forums. They recommend the development of community advisory boards that actively participate in policymaking and training development to ensure that community concerns are addressed. o The San Rafael Police Department is deeply committed to fostering strong community relationships through various outreach initiatives. A cornerstone of this effort is the Specialized Assistance for Everyone (SAFE) Team, launched in March 2023, which addresses crises related to mental health, addiction, and homelessness by providing emergency and non-emergency responses, as well as proactive outreach. To enhance transparency and public trust, SRPD established the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee (PAAC) in October 2023, comprising diverse community members who offer recommendations on police policies and practices. Additionally, SRPD engages residents through programs like the Citizens Police Academy, offering an inside look at law enforcement operations, and "Coffee with a Cop" events, facilitating open dialogues between officers and community members. SRPD also maintains active communication channels via social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Nixle, and Nextdoor, to keep the public informed about arrests, crime trends, and community outreach efforts. These initiatives reflect SRPD's dedication to building a safer, more connected community. Police Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) Analysis of RIPA The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) has critically examined the methodologies and conclusions presented in the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory (RIPA) Board's annual reports. In their analysis, PORAC identifies several significant flaws that may Page 6 of 9 misrepresent the state of racial profiling in California. • Insufficient Data Collection- PORAC asserts that the current data collection process mandated by RIPA is inadequate for accurately assessing instances of racial profiling. The data lacks essential contextual information, such as the specific circumstances leading to a stop, the behavior of the individual stopped, and detailed environmental factors. Without this context, it's challenging to determine whether a stop was influenced by racial bias or legitimate law enforcement considerations. Dr. Brian L. Withrow, a racial profiling expert, emphasizes that the narrow scope of data collected by the Department of Justice (DOJ) hinders the ability to draw meaningful conclusions about law enforcement behavior. • Misinterpretation of Statistical Data- The RIPA Board's reports often present statistical disparities in stop data as evidence of racial profiling. However, PORAC argues that these analyses frequently overlook alternative explanations for disparities, such as differences in crime rates across communities, varying calls for service, or other situational factors. By not accounting for these variables, the reports may inaccurately attribute disparities solely to officer bias. Dr. Withrow points out that the current analytical constraints make it nearly impossible to determine a causal relationship between an individual's identity and the actions taken by an officer based on the available data. • Impact on Law Enforcement Practices- PORAC expresses concern that the RIPA Board's findings, based on potentially flawed analyses, could lead to policy decisions that adversely affect law enforcement operations. For instance, an overemphasis on reducing statistical disparities might pressure officers to alter their policing strategies in ways that could compromise public safety. Additionally, the administrative burden of complying with current data collection requirements may divert resources from essential policing activities. PORAC advocates for a balanced approach that considers both the need for unbiased policing and the practical realities of law enforcement. Recommendations for Improvement To address these issues, PORAC recommends the following actions: • Enhance Data Collection: Expand the scope of data gathered during stops to include comprehensive contextual information, enabling a more accurate assessment of the factors influencing law enforcement decisions. • Refine Analytical Methods: Incorporate a multifaceted analysis that considers various factors contributing to statistical disparities, moving beyond a singular focus on race or identity. • Collaborative Policy Development: Engage law enforcement professionals in the development of data collection and analysis protocols to ensure they are both effective and practical. By implementing these recommendations, PORAC believes that the RIPA Board can produce more accurate and actionable insights, ultimately fostering fair and effective policing practices in California. Refining Analytical Methods The American Society of Criminology journal Criminology and Public Policy: Analysis of "Testing for Disparities in Traffic Stops: Best Practices from the Connecticut Model" analyzes the challenges in analyzing traffic stops. Page 7 of 9 The 2020 issue of the Criminology & Public Policy Journal analyzes the nuances and disparities of comparing police stop data, specifically against census or population data and time of day. The Connecticut Racial Profiling Prohibition Project (CTRP3) has developed a comprehensive framework for collecting and analyzing traffic stop data to identify and address potential racial disparities. This model is widely regarded as a best practice in the field. The journal article highlights some of the key challenges that occur in law enforcement stop data. Two of which are used by the California RIPA board. One of the key challenges in addressing disparities in traffic stop data lies in the comparison between the general population and the driving population. Traditional approaches often rely on demographic data from the Census or other population-based metrics, assuming that the demographic composition of the population at large reflects the driving population. However, this comparison can be misleading, as it doesn't account for factors like driving behavior, commuter patterns, or geographic differences in traffic patterns, all of which influence who is on the road at any given time. The other challenge that the California RIPA board uses (or doesn’t account for) to analyze stop data is the "Veil of Darkness" (VoD) method. The VoD method is used to study racial disparities in traffic stops by comparing stops made during the day versus those made at night. The idea is that race is less visible at night, so any disparities in the frequency of stops based on race are less likely to be influenced by racial bias. Separating daytime and nighttime stops allows researchers to more accurately assess whether racial discrimination plays a role in traffic stop decisions, offering a clearer and more unbiased picture of law enforcement practices. In California, the RIPA analysis combines all traffic stops, making it more challenging to measure racial bias accurately, as the effects of darkness—such as the inability to clearly see into a car— can obscure the true nature of the stops. The 2020 Criminal & Public Policy Journal highlights critical challenges in the California RIPA Board analyzing traffic stop data, particularly when comparing it to census or population data and considering the time of day. The California RIPA board’s approach, which doesn’t incorporate the “Veil of Darkness” method, may obscure potential racial biases by combining all stops together. RIPA Impacts on Agencies and Officers Chief Sean Thuilliez, 2nd Vice President of the California Police Chiefs Association and serves as a representative on the current California RIPA Advisory Board, shared his position on RIPA and its impacts in a letter addressed to the San Rafael Police Advisory and Accountability Committee. In summary, Chief Thuilliez acknowledges that RIPA aims to enhance transparency and accountability in policing by ensuring fair and unbiased stops. He further notes the following: While these goals are vital for community trust, implementation challenges exist. Officers face increased reporting burdens, often spending more time documenting stops than conducting them. The interpretation of data lacks contextual nuance, making it difficult to assess bias accurately. Additionally, officers may feel pressured to second-guess decisions, potentially discouraging proactive policing and impacting public safety. Balancing transparency with operational efficiency remains a key challenge for law enforcement agencies. Definitions and Case Law Pretext Stops Pretext stops occur when an officer uses a minor traffic violation as a reason to stop a vehicle while having an unrelated, often investigatory motive. These stops are legally justified by the minor infraction, even if the officer's underlying intent is to investigate other potential criminal Page 8 of 9 activity. Whren v. United States (1996) The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of pretext stops in Whren v. United States, ruling that as long as the officer has an objectively reasonable basis for the stop (e.g., a traffic violation), the subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant. This landmark decision effectively sanctioned the use of pretext stops nationwide, allowing law enforcement to use minor infractions as investigative tools. California's AB 2733 and CVC §2806.5 In response to concerns about the potential for bias in pretext stops, California enacted Assembly Bill 2733, which added California Vehicle Code (CVC) §2806.5. This legislation requires officers to: • Clearly state the reason for the stop to the individual at the outset. • Document the reason for the stop and the outcome, including any searches conducted. • Develop probable cause if they wish to elevate the stop to a search. Bias by Proxy Bias by proxy occurs when individuals rely on indirect factors or stereotypes to form judgments, which can lead to discriminatory outcomes without direct intent. For example, a community member may unknowingly use certain behaviors, appearances, or circumstances (such as a person’s clothing or where they live) as proxies for assumptions about their character or background. As a result, community members may unjustifiably call the police on someone they perceive as suspicious based solely on these assumptions. This type of bias can reinforce stereotypes and perpetuate systemic inequalities by influencing decisions based on perceived associations rather than individual actions, potentially leading to unnecessary police involvement and escalating situations unnecessarily. SRPD addresses bias by proxy through comprehensive training for officers, records staff, and dispatchers. This training emphasizes the importance of asking relevant, objective questions to ensure that decisions are based on observable behavior rather than assumptions or biased perceptions. By focusing on factual information and encouraging objective judgment, the department works to reduce the influence of biased thinking and prevent unjustified actions based on stereotypes or indirect factors. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: San Rafael Police Department is committed to promoting transparency and accountability in all aspects of our operations, particularly in relation to traffic stop data collection and reporting. In alignment with the California Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA), we have taken proactive steps to ensure that our community has access to vital information regarding our practices and procedures. One of the primary ways we ensure transparency is through the RIPA portal on the San Rafael Police Department website. This portal serves as a central resource for sharing data and information related to traffic stop reporting, giving the public easy access to the data we collect and submit in compliance with RIPA requirements. Through the portal, community members can view up-to-date reports, track trends, and gain a deeper understanding of how our department handles traffic stops. Page 9 of 9 FISCAL IMPACT: None Submitted by: Scott Eberle Police Lieutenant Attachment: 1. RIPA PowerPoint Presentation by Kyle Williams, Marin County Sheriff’s Department 1 DATE: May 14, 2025 TO: Police Advisory and Accountability Committee (PAAC) FROM: Teresa Olson, Senior Management Analyst II RE: RIPA Mechanical Citation Data As requested during the March 19, 2025, PAAC meeting, this report provides an analysis of mechanical citation data collected under the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) for the year 2024. The analysis includes a focused breakdown of the following elements: 1. The total number of vehicle stops conducted in 2024. 2. A detailed classification of mechanical violations cited by SRPD officers. 3. The number of warnings versus formal citations issued as outcomes of vehicle stops. 4. The perceived race and ethnicity of individuals who were stopped and cited for mechanical violations as documented by officers at the time of the encounter. Vehicle Stops Cleared with Warning Total Mechanical Violations Expired Registration License Plate Window Tint Lighting Registration Tags Not Displayed or False Registration 3422 1598 603 376 40 126 47 14 % 46.70% 17.62% 62.35% 6.63% 20.90% 7.79% 2.32% Vehicle Stop to Citation Issued 53.48% Mechanical Citations - Perceived Race Total Percentage Latinx 318 54.83% White 187 32.24% Black 37 6.38% Middle Eastern/South Asian 16 2.76% Asian 15 2.59% Multi-racial 5 0.86% Pacific Islander 2 0.34% Total RIPA Mechanical Citation Records 580 This analysis excludes incidents in which an individual was initially stopped for a mechanical violation but was not cited and was instead arrested or detained due to an outstanding warrant or other more serious criminal charges beyond a traffic infraction. It also excludes citations issued following law enforcement responses to vehicle accidents. action@mvfree.org; mvfree.org USING RACIAL & IDENTITY PROFILING ACT DATA TO ACHIEVE EQUITABLE POLICING OBJECTIVES For the May 21, 2025, Meeting of the San Rafael Police Advisory & Accountability Committee Contents I. RIPA: Moving from Division to Common Ground II. MVFREE PowerPoint Presentation III. MVFREE Resource Packet A. Resources for Race-Based Calls for Service 1. MVPD Bias by Proxy Policy 2. MVPD Bias by Proxy Flier B. Pretext Stop Resources 1. Sample Policy (SFPD)—Eliminating Pretext Stops 2. Table of Infractions Included in MVFREE Analysis C. Other Areas of Concern: SRPD In-Detention Disparities D. SRPD Reasons for Stop By Race (Requested by PAAC members) E. RIPA Disparity Calculations & The PORAC Theory 1. 2023 RIPA Stop Disparities—All Marin Agencies 2. Proven Reliability of RIPA Disparity Calculations F. Selected RIPA Best Practice Recommendations 1. Lexipol Policies 2. Calls for Service and Bias by Proxy 3. Pretext Stops 4. Consent Searches 5. Law Enforcement Training 6. Accountability & Performance Metrics 7. Civilian Oversight Bodies May 21, 2025: action@mvfree.org; mvfree.org 1 RIPA: Moving from Division to Common Ground A. A Brief History of RIPA: Division and Resistance Mention racial policing disparities and the battlelines are drawn. Local law enforcement officers and agencies that have dedicated themselves to protect and serve their communities are confldent in their fair and equitable application of the laws. But the individual and collective experience of Black and Latinx people speaks to generations of dangerous and deadly overpolicing that persists at the local, state and national levels. California’s 2015 Racial and Identity Proflling Act (RIPA) sought to bridge this divide by imposing a robust objective system for measuring and addressing racial policing disparities in California. The law enforcement lobbying group PORAC fought hard to prevent the passage of RIPA, framing it as an unwarranted attack on the character and professionalism of California law enforcement agencies and officers. Since the law took effect, PORAC has continued to fund and advance technical concerns about statistical benchmarks to avoid confronting the racial policing disparities refiected in the data. The PORAC theory and the reliability of RIPA disparity calculations are addressed in the MVFREE Resource Packet, Proven Reliability of RIPA Disparity Calculations. The slow rollout of RIPA served to increase the adversarial nature of the conversation. Until recently, RIPA data was only available for the largest California police agencies and had to be viewed one agency at a time. Individual agencies faced with stop disparity flndings felt singled out and were quick to embrace PORAC’s defensiveness. Time and again, the conversation among policy makers and law enforcement leaders got bogged down in theoretical and technical statistical minutiae. The racial policing disparities that RIPA was meant to address, and the RIPA Board’s many equitable policing recommendations, were forgotten or ignored. Meanwhile, Black and Latinx communities felt disrespected and re-traumatized by the continuing official denial of their lived experience. B. RIPA Board’s Watershed Findings: A Foundation for Common Ground This year, for the flrst time, the RIPA Board has analyzed two full years of comprehensive demographic data on every law enforcement stop in the State (more than 4.7 million stops a year by more than 500 police agencies.) That data shows that over 90% of all California law enforcement agencies stop Black and Latinx people at higher rates than they do White people and that all ten Marin County law enforcement agencies have stop disparity rates for Black and Latinx people that are substantially higher than State averages. See MVFREE Resource Packet, 2023 RIPA Stop Disparities—All Marin Agencies. Understanding and acknowledging the systemic nature of the problem can help us overcome the mutual distrust that has stymied efforts to address racial policing disparities . In the face of these systemic disparities, efforts to single out or vilify particular police agencies or police in general are misplaced and unproductive. It is, of course, important to identify and root out bad actors where they exist, but there are many factors that contribute to systemic racial policing disparities, some of which have nothing to do with officer bias. Some of these are discussed in the MVFREE presentation (e.g., race-based calls for service and vehicle equipment stops that fall disproportionately on people of color even when applied in a racially neutral manner due to the racial wealth gap). We all share a common interest in safe, equitable, and effective law enforcement. None of us supports the continuation of unnecessary systemic policing disparities and the harms they infiict on Marin’s communities of color. Nor do we want to deprive the SRPD of tools that are essential to achieve legitimate law enforcement objectives. The question we need to ask—that we hope the PAAC, the SRPD, and the City of San Rafael can all agree on—is this: how can we reduce systemic policing disparities in San Rafael without undermining legitimate law enforcement objectives? MVFREE’s presentation illustrates how San Rafael can use the powerful tools available through RIPA to answer that question. We will offer four RIPA-recommended strategies to make the SRPD a leader in safe and equitable policing. Wednesday, May 21, 2025 Police Advisory & Accountability Commission and San Rafael Police Department Achieving Equitable Policing Objectives With Racial & Identity Profiling Act Resources (RIPA) Identifying Disparity Concerns, Patterns, and Trends Big Picture: Stop Disparities •Comparison to County •Comparison to State •Consistency over time Disparity Causes and Conditions •Calls for service •Pretext stops •In-Detention Factors §Stop Duration §Search §Conditions of detention §Use of force §Location §Time of day §Specific offenses 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.6 4.8 1.5 7.1 10.3 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SRPD Marin Avg State Avg 2022 Stop Rate Disparities 2024 RIPA Board Calculations Appendix Table C.1.3 Asian Latinx Black White Stop Rate 0.6 0.9 0.5 1.8 7.1 1.5 6.4 9.5 2.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SRPD Marin Avg State Avg 2023 Stop Rate Disparities 2025 RIPA Board Calculations Appendix Table E.1.C, and E.1.B Asian Latinx Black White Stop Rate Slide Two Community Members’ Race-Based Calls for Service (Bias by Proxy) The Basics •What is the Concern? o Unwarranted police interference o Contributes to racial policing disparities •What does the RIPA Board Recommend? o Detailed specific policies and training •Should San Rafael be Concerned? Slide Three SRPD Community Members’ Calls for Service: What the 2023 Data Shows San Rafael community members: •Call the police about Latinx people at 1.64 times the rate of Whites •Call the police about Black people at 9.76 times the rate of Whites More than half the time, police find no evidence of criminal conduct. 0.28 1.64 9.76 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Asian Latinx Black 2023 SRPD Calls for Service Disparities White Call Rate Slide Four Recommendation One Adopt 3 RIPA Strategies To Eliminate Bias by Proxy 1.Adopt an Effective Bias by Proxy Policy (MVPD Policy) 2.Align Training With Policy 3.Educate the Community (MVPD and Sausalito PD Campaigns) Slide Five Pretext Stops The Basics •What is a Pretext Stop? o Minor administrative or equipment infractions •What is the Concern? o Proven disparate impact on people of color o Negligible benefits for law enforcement o Burden on law enforcement resources •What does the RIPA Board Recommend? o Eliminate pretext stops •Is this Policy a Good Fit for San Rafael? Slide six SRPD Pretext Stops: What the 2023 Data Shows Latinx people face SRPD pretext stops at 2.6 times the rate of White people. Black people face pretext stops at 15 times the rate of White people. Eliminating pretext stops in San Rafael would reduce SRPD Latinx stops by 14.2% and SRPD Black stops by 17.8%. Pretext stops do not contribute significantly to San Rafael law enforcement objectives. 0.8 2.6 15.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Asian Latinx Black 2023 SRPD Pretext Stop Rates Rate for Whites Slide Seven Outstanding Warrant 1.9% Drugs, DUI, or Unspecified 1.9%Burglary or Theft 0.6% No Criminal Conduct Found 95.7% 2023 SRPD Pretext Stop Productivity 72% are not cited for the infraction that formed the basis for the stop. Recommendation Two Implement a Pilot Program to Test RIPA Strategy of Eliminating SRPD Pretext Stops Eliminate SRPD pretext stops for one year to monitor and confirm the effects on: •SRPD racial stop disparities •SRPD law enforcement outcomes Enlist MVFREE’s assistance in developing a policy tailored to San Rafael’s needs. Slide Eight Recommendation Three Use Performance Metrics To Monitor Progress on Recommended RIPA Strategies For Each Identified Disparity Concern— 1.Current RIPA Disparity Findings = Disparity Baseline 2.Goal = Reduce or Eliminate Disparity 3.Annual Benchmarks = Expected Outcomes from Remedial Strategy •Pretext Stops—Reduce Latinx stops 14.2% and Black stops 17.8% •Bias by Proxy—Reduce call for service disparities 25% Slide Nine Recommendation Four Establish Annual RIPA Equity Assessment To Support Continuous Improvement Annual SRPD Equity Assessment Using RIPA Data 1.Monitor Progress on Existing Strategies 2.Identify Additional Disparity Concerns 3.Target, Assess & Revise Remedial Strategies 4.Establish Performance Metrics (repeat) Slide Ten Summary of Recommendations Two Strategies to Slash San Rafael Black and Latinx Stop Rates 1.Reduce Race-Based Calls for Service—(Adopt RIPA-informed policy, training, and public education-–Mill Valley PD model) 2.End Racially Disparate Pretext Stops—(One year pilot program) Two Strategies to Support Continuous Improvement 1.Establish and Monitor Performance Metrics 2.Conduct an Annual RIPA Equity Assessment Slide Eleven action@mvfree.org; mvfree.org MVFREE RESOURCE PACKET Contents A. Resources for Race-Based Calls for Service 1. MVPD Bias by Proxy Policy 2. MVPD Bias by Proxy Flier B. Pretext Stop Resources 1. Sample Policy (SFPD)—Eliminating Pretext Stops 2. Table of Infractions Included in MVFREE Analysis C. Other Areas of Concern: SRPD In-Detention Disparities D. SRPD Reasons for Stop By Race (Requested by PAAC members) E. RIPA Disparity Calculations & The PORAC Theory 1. 2023 Stop Disparities—All Marin Agencies 2. Proven Reliability of RIPA Disparity Calculations F. Selected RIPA Best Practice Recommendations 1. Lexipol Policies 2. Calls for Service and Bias by Proxy 3. Pretext Stops 4. Consent Searches 5. Law Enforcement Training 6. Accountability & Performance Metrics 7. Civilian Oversight Bodies A. Resources for Race-Based Calls for Service Policy 403 Mill Valley Police Department Mill Valley PD Policy Manual Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/11/17, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Mill Valley Police Department Bias by Proxy - 1 Bias by Proxy 403.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Mill Valley Police Department's commitment to fair and objective policing. The intent of this policy is to increase the department's effectiveness as a law enforcement agency and to build mutual trust with the City and County's diverse individuals and communities. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 403.1.1 DEFINITIONS "Bias by Proxy" refers to when an individuals calls the police and makes false or ill-informed claims of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against (either implicit or explicit bias)." 403.2 POLICY 1.Members should be aware of the potential for bias-based motivations behind calls for service. 2.Members should always aim to build community trust through all actions they take, especially in response to bias-based reports. 3.Members should exhibit critical decision-making, drawing on their training and awareness of implicit and explicit bias, to assess whether there is a legitimate law enforcement purpose before acting. Absent a legal duty to act, no member is obligated to take any discretionary action where bias-based motivation is behind a call for service. 4.For suspected bias-motivated calls, officers may use discretion informing the Dispatcher that a member will not respond to the call without a legitimate basis of there being potentially criminal conduct or when there is no legitimate law enforcement purpose for responding. 5.For suspected bias-motivated calls, when feasible, the officer should attempt to contact the reporting party to obtain further information as to the reason for requesting police assistance, response, or intervention prior to responding. 403.3 PROTOCOLS FOR SUSPECTED BIAS BASED CALLS FOR SERVICE Members should be aware of the potential for bias-based motivations behind calls for service. Where a caller or reporting party reports a suspicion that is not connected to specific criminal activity or need for public safety (for example, a "suspicious person" or "suspicious vehicle") members should determine by further inquiry that there is reason to suspect specific criminal conduct or need for police services prior to responding. Mill Valley Police Department Mill Valley PD Policy Manual Bias by Proxy Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/11/17, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Mill Valley Police Department Bias by Proxy - 2 403.3.1 PROTOCOL FOR SUSPECTED BIAS-BASED CALLERS Any time a caller or a reporting party offers a vague allegation or suspicion without tying it to specific criminal activity or need for public safety ( e.g., "suspicious person or "suspicious vehicle" ) dispatchers and responding officers should be on alert for a possible biased call. The same can be said for an officer who perceives someone as "suspicious" but is unable to point to conduct by the individual related to a specific crime or in need of police services. 403.3.2 PROTOCOL FOR INTERACTING WITH SUBJECT OF A BIAS-BASED CALL Officers should seek to avoid or minimize unwarranted interference with an individual who is the subject of a bias-based call. 403.3.3 SUPERVISOR PROTOCOL FOR BIAS-BASED CALLS When an officer determines that a call for service is bias-based, the shift supervisor should be dispatched to speak with the individual who made the bias-based call. When feasible, the shift supervisor should: 1.Let the caller know that no suspicious or criminal activity was found and advise the caller as to what is and is not an appropriate basis for calling 911 2.Explain that the agency does not respond to calls for service based on an individual's personal characteristics 3.Educate the caller on the agency's bias-free policy and philosophy, as well as explain that officers respond to behaviors and actions of individuals that appear suspicious, threatening, or is illegal, and not to hunches or situations based on an individual's personal characteristics. 403.3.4 PROMOTE A RESTORATIVE JUSTICE APPROACH TO BIAS-BASED CALLS A restorative justice approach that addresses bias-based calls can be a tool to educate the bias-based caller and to reconcile their actions by acknowledging the harm done to the affected community or individual. The approaches can be as simple as an apology. 403.3.5 RECORD KEEPING FOR BIAS-BASED CALLS Officers and shift supervisors shall document and maintain a record of all bias-based calls. The Marin County Sheriff's Office Dispatch Center will maintain a classification titled 'Bias by Proxy" for tracking these types of calls for service. The Department shall periodically assess the record to identify and address any patterns, systemic issues, or repeat bias-based callers. Bias-based calls should be recorded as the appropriate classification Bias by Proxy. If a report is necessary, for documentation purposes, the class code BIAS will be used. 403.4 REQUIRED TRAINING REGARDING BIAS-BASED CALLS Training on fair and objective policing and review of bias by proxy shall be conducted as directed by the Operations Captain and Administrative Lieutenant. Training shall include a discussion of its bias-free policing policy with all sworn members and professional staff on an annual basis. B. Pretext Stop Resources San Francisco Police Department 9.07 GENERAL ORDER Rev 1/11//23 CURTAILING THE USE OF PRETEXT STOPS 9.07.01 PURPOSE The San Francisco Police Department’s traffic enforcement efforts shall focus on ensuring the safety of our sidewalks and roadways. To that end, the goal of this General Order is to curtail the practice of stopping vehicles for low-level traffic offenses as a pretext to investigate hunches that do not amount to reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred. Pretext stops are disproportionately carried out against people of color and return negligible public safety benefits. The fiscal, human, and societal costs they impose on our City are unjustified in light of more effective public safety tools at the Department’s disposal. Reducing the number of stops made for low-level offenses will allow the Department to redirect resources and time to more effective public safety strategies, including prioritizing traffic safety to reduce injuries and fatalities, while also helping to fulfill its obligation to accord every person equal treatment under the law. 9.07.02 DEFINITIONS A. Pretext Stop. A pretext stop occurs when a member conducts a traffic stop as a pretext to investigate whether the person stopped is engaged in criminal activity unrelated to the traffic violation. B. Biased Stop. A stop in which a member inappropriately considers characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, socio-economic status, age, cultural group, or disability, in deciding whether to initiate a stop. (See DGO 5.17 § II.B.). C. Reasonable Suspicion. A set of specific facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur and the person to be stopped is involved in the crime. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on a hunch or instinct. (See DGO 5.03.02(D)). D. Probable Cause. A set of specific facts that would lead a reasonable person to objectively believe and strongly suspect that a person committed a crime. (See DGO 5.03.02(G)). E. Investigatory Question. A question or statement that is intended to elicit, or is reasonably likely to elicit, information relevant to a criminal investigation or criminal activity. Whether a question or statement is investigatory will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Examples. Questions such as 9.07 Rev. 1/11/23 Page 2 of 5 “where are you coming from?” or “where are you going?” are generally investigatory. Conversely, asking “how is your day going?” is not investigatory. F. Criminal Offense. Any misdemeanor or felony. 9.07.03 POLICY A. Pretext Stops Limited. Pretext stops produce little if any public safety benefits, while imposing substantial fiscal and societal costs. They may only be used in a manner that is consistent with this policy. B. Biased Stops Banned. Biased stops are illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to the Department’s values. They are banned under all circumstances. (See DGO 5.17). C. Stops Based on Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause. Except for those specified violations listed in 9.07.04(A), nothing in this DGO prevents members from initiating a stop for any infraction or criminal offense based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. (See DGO 5.03). 9.07.04 LIMITING STOPS FOR LOW-LEVEL OFFENSES A. Except as provided in 9.07.04(B), a member shall not stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle solely based on one or more of the following nine (9) categories of violations: 1. A vehicle that has a rear license plate with the plate number clearly visible. (Cal. Veh. Code §§ 5200(a), 5201(a)). Note: Members may stop vehicles for these violations in all other circumstances, including where a vehicle has no license plates or only has a front license plate and no rear license plate. 2. A vehicle that fails to display registration tags or is driving with expired registration of more than one (1) year. (Cal. Veh. Code §§ 4000(a)(1), 5204(a)). Note: Members may stop vehicles for either of these violations if the vehicle’s registration has been expired for one (1) year or more. 3. A vehicle that fails to illuminate the rear license plate. (Cal. Veh. Code § 24601). 4. A vehicle driving without functioning or illuminated rear taillights. (Cal. Veh. Code § 24600). Note: Members may stop vehicles for this violation if 9.07 Rev. 1/11/23 Page 3 of 5 the vehicle has no functioning or illuminated rear taillights during sundown. 5. A vehicle that is driving without functioning or illuminated rear brake lights. (Cal. Veh. Code § 24603). Note: Members may stop vehicles for this violation if none of the vehicle’s brake lights are functioning or illuminated. 6. A vehicle that has objects affixed to windows or hanging from the rearview mirror, unless the object obstructs the driver’s vision such that it creates a condition that substantially increases the likelihood of a crash. (Cal. Veh. Code § 26708(a)(1)-(2)). Examples: A hanging air freshener or prayer beads from the rear-view mirror will not generally create a condition that substantially increases the likelihood of a crash. Conversely, affixing an electronic GPS device to the windshield that creates a vision-obstructing glare while driving at night (see Cal. Veh. Code § 26708(b)(12)) may create a condition that substantially increases the likelihood of a crash. 7. A vehicle that fails to activate a turn signal continuously for 100 feet before turning. (Cal. Veh. Code § 22108). Note: Members may stop vehicles for unsafe turns or lane changes. (E.g. Cal. Veh. Code § 22107). 8. A vehicle that has a person sleeping in the vehicle. (S.F. Trans. Code § 97). Note: Members may make a stop for this code violation when another City agency (including HSOC, MTA, or Public Health) requests that the Department do so. 9. Any stop of a pedestrian for an infraction in violation of the California Vehicle Code or San Francisco Transportation Code unless there is an immediate danger that the pedestrian will crash with a moving vehicle, scooter, bicycle, or other device moving exclusively by human power. Nothing in section 9.07.04(A) above prohibits a member from taking any of the following actions so long as it does not result in an investigative detention as defined in DGO 5.03: (a) issuing a citation to a parked car, (b) warning an individual that their conduct is in violation of the law, (c) requesting that an individual conform their conduct to the law, or (d) mailing a citation as permitted by state and local law. B. Exceptions. A member may stop, detain, or issue a citation to a person or an operator of a motor vehicle for any violation enumerated in section 9.07.04(A) above if: 9.07 Rev. 1/11/23 Page 4 of 5 1. the member lawfully stopped or detained the person or operator of the motor vehicle for any infraction or criminal offense not specifically enumerated in section 9.07.04(A); or 2. the operator is driving a commercial vehicle; or 3. a person or motor vehicle matching the description of a suspect or suspect vehicle involved in a felony offense where the risk of death or life-threatening injuries is imminent if the suspect is not immediately apprehended, including murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, kidnapping, forcible sex offense, a felony committed against a child. 4. the member is investigating a traffic crash as outlined in Cal. Veh. Code § 40600(a). 9.07.05 LIMITING SEARCHES & QUESTIONING A. During a traffic stop for a violation punishable as an infraction under either the California Vehicle Code or San Francisco Transportation Code, members shall only ask investigatory questions regarding criminal activity if reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a criminal offense arises during the traffic stop. (Example: During a routine traffic stop, officers smell the odor of an alcoholic beverage on the driver’s breath, they may then begin to ask investigatory questions about a potential DUI violation). Nothing in this DGO shall prohibit a member from asking a driver for their license, registration, or proof of insurance. B. During a traffic stop for a violation punishable as an infraction under either the California Vehicle Code or San Francisco Transportation Code, members shall only ask for permission to conduct a consent search of a person or vehicle if reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a criminal offense arises during the stop. C. Exceptions. The above limits on searches and questioning set forth in section 9.07.05(A)-(B) shall not apply to stops made pursuant to section 9.07.04(B)(2)-(B)(4). 9.07.06 DATA COLLECTION, REPORTING & SUPERVISORY REVIEW A. Nothing in this DGO shall require a member to write an incident report if it is not otherwise required by another Department policy. Any member who requests consent to search an individual or asks an investigatory question unrelated to the purpose of the stop under section 9.07.05(A)-(B) shall document the following in an 9.07 Rev. 1/11/23 Page 5 of 5 incident report and/or chronological report of investigation: (a) the reason for the stop, and (b) the circumstances justifying a request to conduct a consent search and/or asking any investigatory questions. If an incident report is not otherwise required, members shall memorialize (a) and (b) in CAD and on their body-worn camera. B. Members shall enter all stop data into the Stops Data Collection System (SDCS) prior to the end of their shift, unless exigent circumstances prevent entry, in which case, members shall enter data by the end of their next shift. C. Superior officers are responsible for reviewing traffic stop data for members under their direct supervision (PIP Group) on a quarterly basis. D. On a quarterly basis, the Department must transmit to the Commission and to the Department of Police Accountability all raw SDCS data (other than personal identifying information) containing the information that the Department must collect pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 12525.5, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 999.226, and any other related laws governing stop data collection. The Department shall also make this raw data publicly available on its website in a machine-readable format. References DGO 5.03 DGO 5.17 PRETEXT STOPS Tables of Infractions Included and Not Included in MVFREE Analysis Any stop for a minor administrative or equipment infraction qualifies as a pretext stop. To simplify the analysis, MVFREE limited its definition of pretext stops to those involving vehicle registration, license plate and lighting equipment infractions. These are listed in Table A, at left. We note that the SRPD made numerous stops for muffler, window, mirror and fender infractions, shown in Table B, below. Had we included these in the pretext stop calculations, the disparity rates particularly for Latinx people would have been significantly higher. Table A Infractions Included in MVFREE Pretext Stop Analysis (subsections omitted) State Code Section Infraction Vehicle Code 4000 NO REG:VEH/TRAILER/ETC Vehicle Code 4000.4 UNREG CA BASED VEHICLE Vehicle Code 4001 FL REG EXMPT VEH DISP PLT Vehicle Code 4454 NO REGISTRATION IN VEH Vehicle Code 4464 DISPLAY ALTERED LIC PLATE Vehicle Code 5200 DISPLAY LIC PLATES WRONG Vehicle Code 5200 DISPLY ONE LIC PLATE WRNG Vehicle Code 5201 LICENS PLATE POSITION VIO Vehicle Code 5201 TEMP LIC PLATE NOT RPLCED Vehicle Code 5201 UNLAW LIC PLATE COVERING Vehicle Code 5201.1 OPR VEH OBSCURED LIC PLT Vehicle Code 5201.1 ALTER/ETC LIC PLT REFLEC Vehicle Code 5204 EXPIRED TABS/FAIL DISPLAY Vehicle Code 24252 FAIL MAINT VEH LITE EQUIP Vehicle Code 24252 LAMP VOLT:85 PER REQ VOLT Vehicle Code 24400 HEADLMP OPR/AMT/SIZE VIOL Vehicle Code 24403 FOG LAMPS VIOL Vehicle Code 24404 SPOTLAMPS NUM/WATT VIOL Vehicle Code 24411 AUX LMPS NOT COVERD W/DRV Vehicle Code 24600 TAILLAMP VIOLATIONS Vehicle Code 24600 TAILLAMP VIOL 2 LIGHTS Vehicle Code 24600 TAILLAMP VIOL COMBO Vehicle Code 24600 TAILLAMP VIOL COLOR/VISIB Vehicle Code 24601 FAIL MAINT LIC PLATE LAMP Vehicle Code 24602 FOG TAILLAMPS VIOL Vehicle Code 24603 STOPLAMP VIOLATIONS Vehicle Code 24603 STOPLAMPS:VEH MUST HAVE Vehicle Code 24603 STOPLAMPS VIOL:SPEC VEH Vehicle Code 24603 STOPLAMPS:VEH 2 REQUIRED Vehicle Code 24603 STOPLAMPS VIOL:N/VISIBLE Vehicle Code 25400 DIFFUSED LIGHT:NO RED Vehicle Code 25950 VEH LAMPS/ETC COLOR VIOL Vehicle Code 25950 VEH LAMPS/ETC COLOR VIOL Vehicle Code 25950 VEH LMP/ETC REAR CLR VIOL Vehicle Code 38335 HEADLAMP VIOLATION Table B Infractions Not Included In MVFREE Pretext Stop Analysis (subsections omitted) State Code Section Infraction Vehicle Code 26708 OPR VEH:WINDOW OBSTRUCTED Vehicle Code 26708.5 WINDOW INSTAL/ETC MAT VIO Vehicle Code 26709 REARVIEW MIRROR VIOLATION Vehicle Code 27151 ILL MOD EXHAUST SYS:NOISE Vehicle Code 27600 SPEC VEH FENDER/ETC VIOL Vehicle Code 28071 VEHICLE BUMPER VIOLATION C. Other Areas of Concern: SRPD In-Detention Disparities Other Areas of Concern: SRPD In-Detention Disparitis These three examples show the same disparity patterns that we have seen in overall stops, in calls for service, and in pretext stops where Black people in San Raf ael tend to experience the highest and most intrusive levels of policing followed by Latinx people. There are many other in-detention law enforcement practices that San Rafael can and should analyze to see if there are disparities. For example, various forms of use of force (handcuffing, tasers, dogs, etc.) are all tracked in the RIPA data. The first line of defense for these sorts of disparities is knowledge. Once you’ve identified the disparities, SRPD officers should be made aware of their existence. The SRPD should adopt and regularly communicate a policy disfavoring the practices that fuel the disparities , such as: (1) prolonged detentions (2) unnecessary curbside detentions (3) searches in the absence of a reasonable suspicion. These sorts of disparities are simple to test and simple to begin addressing. 11.5% 3.5% 6.2% 10.5% 15.7% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% White Asian Middle East Latinx Black 2023 SRPD Curbside Detentions 5.9% 2.1%2.3% 8.6% 12.4% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% White Asian Middle East Latinx Black 2023 SRPD Request for Consent to Search Person 27.23 15.69 15.28 37.66 40.71 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 White Asian Middle East Latinx Black 2023 Detention Duration by Race (excluding 24-hour holds) Median SRPD stop time for Black people (19 min.) and Latinx people (18 min.) is nearly double that for Whites (10 min.) SRPD Black and White consent searches are equally unlikely to result in an arrest (80%) Most SRPD curbside detentions, including 87% of Black curbside detentions, do not result in arrest. D. SRPD Reasons for Stops By Race SRPD Top Reasons for Stop by Race 2023 RIPA Data Pretext Stops Highlighted in Yellow Offenses with Fewer than 8 Stops Omitted 2023 SRPD LATINX STOPS 1727 Latinx stops in 2023 = 39.5% of total stops Latinx people = 32.5% of SR population # Stops State Code Section Offense 102 Vehicle Code 22350 UNSAFE SPEED:PREVAIL COND 101 Penal Code 647(F) DISORD CONDUCT:ALCOHOL 99 Vehicle Code 4000(A) NO REG:VEH/TRAILER/ETC 77 Vehicle Code 24252(A) FAIL MAINT VEH LITE EQUIP 68 Vehicle Code 22450(A) FAIL STOP VEH:XWALK/ETC 52 Vehicle Code 26708(A)(1) OPR VEH:WINDOW OBSTRUCTED 51 Vehicle Code 21453(A) FAIL STOP LINE/ETC AT RED 44 Vehicle Code 23123.5(A) NO HND HLD DEVICE W/DRIVE 41 Vehicle Code 24250 DRIVE WITHOUT LIGHTS:DARK 39 Vehicle Code 23152(A) DUI ALCOHOL 39 Penal Code 490.5(A) PETTY THEFT RETAIL/ETC 31 Vehicle Code 5200(A) DISPLAY LIC PLATES WRONG 31 Vehicle Code 27151(A) ILL MOD EXHAUST SYS:NOISE 30 Health & Safety 11550 UNDER INFLUENCE CNTL SUB 27 Vehicle Code 23123(A) USE CELLPH W/DRIV W/O HFD 26 Vehicle Code 21461(A) DRIVER FAIL OBEY SIGN/ETC 26 Penal Code 243(E)(1) BAT:SPOUSE/EX SP/DATE/ETC 23 Vehicle Code 22107 UNSAF TURN &/OR NO SIGNAL 23 Penal Code 273.5 INFLICT CRPL INJ SP/COHAB 21 Business & Prof. 25620 POSS OPEN ALCOHOL:PUBLIC 20 Vehicle Code 22101(D) FAIL TO OBEY TURN SIGNS 18 Vehicle Code 21201(D) BIKE HEADLIGHT/ETC VIOL 16 Vehicle Code 22100(A) IMPROPER RIGHT HAND TURN 14 Penal Code 647(H) LOITER/ETC PRIVATE PROP 14 Penal Code 273.5(A) CRPL INJ:SPOUS/COHAB/DATE 13 Vehicle Code 26708.5 WINDOW INSTAL/ETC MAT VIO 13 Penal Code 211 ROBBERY 13 Penal Code 459.5(A) SHOPLIFTING 12 Vehicle Code 24601 FAIL MAINT LIC PLATE LAMP 11 Vehicle Code 22107 UNSAF TURN &/OR NO SIGNAL 11 Penal Code 459 BURGLARY 10 Penal Code 242 BATTERY 9 Vehicle Code 27315 SEATBELT VIOLATION 9 Penal Code 245(A)(1) ADW NOT FIREARM 8 Penal Code 602(M) TRESPASS:OCC PROP W/O CON 8 Penal Code 602(O) TRESPAS:REFUSE LEAVE PROP 8 Penal Code 647(E) DIS CON:LODGE W/O CONSENT 8 Penal Code 417(A)(1) EXHIBIT DEADWPN:NOT F/ARM 2 2023 SRPD ASIAN STOPS 142 Asian Stops in 2023 = 3.2% of total stops Asian people = 6.3% of SR population # Stops State Code Section Offense 17 Vehicle Code 22350 UNSAFE SPEED:PREVAIL COND 16 Vehicle Code 23123.5(A) NO HND HLD DEVICE W/DRIVE 10 Vehicle Code 21453(A) FAIL STOP LINE/ETC AT RED 10 Vehicle Code 22450(A) FAIL STOP VEH:XWALK/ETC 8 Vehicle Code 21461(A) DRIVER FAIL OBEY SIGN/ETC 2023 SRPD MIDDLE EASTERN STOPS 129 Middle Eastern Stops in 2023 = 2.9% of total stops SR population data not available # Stops State Code Section Offense 18 Vehicle Code 22350 UNSAFE SPEED:PREVAIL COND 14 Vehicle Code 22450(A) FAIL STOP VEH:XWALK/ETC 8 Vehicle Code 22452(B) BUS/ETC FAIL STOP RR XING 2023 SRPD BLACK STOPS 388 Black stops in 2023 = 8.9% of total stops Black people = 1.6% of SR Population # Stops State Code Section Offense 44 Vehicle Code 4000(A) NO REG:VEH/TRAILER/ETC 21 Vehicle Code 22350 UNSAFE SPEED:PREVAIL COND 13 Vehicle Code 22450(A) FAIL STOP VEH:XWALK/ETC 13 Vehicle Code 5200(A) DISPLAY LIC PLATES WRONG 12 Penal Code 647(F) DISORD CONDUCT:ALCOHOL 10 Penal Code 243(E)(1) BAT:SPOUSE/EX SP/DATE/ETC 10 Penal Code 490.5(A) PETTY THEFT RETAIL/ETC 9 Vehicle Code 22350 UNSAFE SPEED:PREVAIL COND 8 Penal Code 459.5(A) SHOPLIFTING 8 Penal Code 211 ROBBERY 8 Vehicle Code 23123.5(A) NO HND HLD DEVICE W/DRIVE 3 2023 SRPD WHITE STOPS 1493 White stops in 2023 = 34.1% of total stops White people = 62.4% of SR population # Stops State Code Section Offense 207 Vehicle Code 22350 UNSAFE SPEED:PREVAIL COND 161 Vehicle Code 23123.5(A) NO HND HLD DEVICE W/DRIVE 128 Vehicle Code 22450(A) FAIL STOP VEH:XWALK/ETC 109 Vehicle Code 23123(A) USE CELLPH W/DRIV W/O HFD 101 Vehicle Code 4000(A) NO REG:VEH/TRAILER/ETC 65 Vehicle Code 21453(A) FAIL STOP LINE/ETC AT RED 57 Penal Code 647(F) DISORD CONDUCT:ALCOHOL 49 Health & Safety 11550 UNDER INFLUENCE CNTL SUB 38 Penal Code 490.5(A) PETTY THEFT RETAIL/ETC 35 Vehicle Code 22101(D) FAIL TO OBEY TURN SIGNS 34 Vehicle Code 21461(A) DRIVER FAIL OBEY SIGN/ETC 27 Vehicle Code 22107 UNSAF TURN &/OR NO SIGNAL 26 Vehicle Code 24250 DRIVE WITHOUT LIGHTS:DARK 25 Vehicle Code 5200(A) DISPLAY LIC PLATES WRONG 24 Penal Code 602(L)(1) TRESP REF LEAVE BY ORDER 24 Vehicle Code 23152(A) DUI ALCOHOL 23 Vehicle Code 22100(A) IMPROPER RIGHT HAND TURN 22 Penal Code 244.5(C) ASLT PO W/STUN GUN/TASER 19 Penal Code 602(O) TRESPAS:REFUSE LEAVE PROP 18 Penal Code 459 BURGLARY 18 Penal Code 273.5 INFLICT CRPL INJ SP/COHAB 18 Vehicle Code 24252(A) FAIL MAINT VEH LITE EQUIP 17 Penal Code 243(E)(1) BAT:SPOUSE/EX SP/DATE/ETC 17 Penal Code 602 TRESPASSING 17 Vehicle Code 27315 SEATBELT VIOLATION 15 Penal Code 647(H) LOITER/ETC PRIVATE PROP 15 Penal Code 602(M) TRESPASS:OCC PROP W/O CON 15 Penal Code 647(E) DIS CON:LODGE W/O CONSENT 14 Vehicle Code 21950(A) FAIL YIELD TO PED:XWALKS 11 Penal Code 422(A) THRTN CRIME:INT:TERRORIZE 11 Penal Code 459.5(A) SHOPLIFTING 10 Vehicle Code 21657 DISOBEY TRAFFIC DIRECTION 10 Vehicle Code 26708(A)(1) OPR VEH:WINDOW OBSTRUCTED 10 Vehicle Code 24252(A)(1) FAIL MAINT VEH LITE EQUIP 9 Vehicle Code 21201(D) BIKE HEADLIGHT/ETC VIOL 8 Vehicle Code 21801(A) FT/YIELD BE4 LEFT/U-TURN 8 Vehicle Code 22100(B) LEFT TURN INTERSECTN VIOL E. RIPA Disparity Calculations & The PORAC Theory 1.3 0.9 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 9.0 2.2 4.3 18.5 2.3 13.2 1.8 5.1 11.2 3.3 7.1 1.5 7.7 6.9 3.1 3.8 2.5 3.4 6.4 36.0 14.4 10.7 9.5 2.4 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 Belvedere PD Central Marin PD Fairfax PD Mill Valley PD Novato PD Ross PD San Rafael PD Sausalito PD Tiburon PD Marin Sheriff Average Average Ma r i n St a t e 2023 Marin Police Agency Stop Rates By Race 2025 RIPA Appendix Table E.1.B Black Latinx Asian Stop Rates for Whites May 21, 2025: action@mvfree.org; mvfree.org 1 Proven Reliability of RIPA Disparity Calculations A. RIPA Methodology Every year, the RIPA Board calculates and publishes racial stop disparity rates for every law enforcement agency whose data has been reported. As of 2024, that includes every law enforcement agency in the State. The Board uses a ratio of disparity formula to quantify and contextualize an agency’s stop rates for different racial groups relative to Whites. The formula allows us to pinpoint disparity causes and conditions, to identify and implement targeted remedial strategies, and to measure and monitor progress to goals. Stop disparity calculations necessarily include a comparison of law enforcement stop demographics to population demographics in the jurisdiction in question. If, for example, we learned that 10% of the people stopped in a given jurisdiction were Asian, this would tell us nothing about the existence or extent of any racial policing disparity. But if we also learned that Asians made up just 2% of the population, the disparity would be evident. When analyzing annual stop disparities, we want to compare annual stop demographics with average year-round population demographics in each law enforcement jurisdiction. The RIPA Board uses the best available benchmark for this purpose: the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual ACS estimates of resident population demographics. This provides a standardized measure from a reliable source that updated annually and is readily available for virtually all California law enforcement jurisdictions. Use of this standardized benchmark enables the Board to identify and compare disparity patterns and relationships in and among jurisdictions. B. The PORAC Theory Since the passage of RIPA, the law enforcement lobbying group PORAC has challenged the RIPA Board’s use of the benchmark of resident population demographics on the ground that not everyone stopped by law enforcement is a resident of the jurisdiction. It is possible, they argue, that the demographics of visitors to a given jurisdiction might be so substantially and consistently different from the resident demographics that it co uld shift the average year-round demographics sufficiently to nullify the Board’s disparity flndings. On this basis, PORAC appears to suggest that it is impossible to measure and monitor racial policing disparities. This facially appealing but untested theory has been embraced by many law enforcement agencies including, apparently, the SRPD, whose March Staff Report and PowerPoint completely ignored the RIPA Board’s disparity calculations for the SRPD, Marin County and California.1 Instead, they confoundingly presented SRPD and California stop demographics side by side without reference to state or local population demographics, a comparison that provides no relevant information about the existence or extent of SRPD or California stop disparities.2 As shown below, the PORAC theory: (1) is factually unsupported and inconsistent with what we know about resident and visitor demographics; (2) is disproven by the watershed flndings in the latest RIPA Report; and (3) does not stand up to the most basic statistical analysis. In short: The RIPA Board findings are a demonstrably strong and reliable measure of policing disparities. 1. The PORAC Theory Lacks Evidentiary Support Although it has been promoting this theory for eight years, PORAC and its allies have presented no evidence of a measurable demographic shift in average year-round demographics caused by visitors in any jurisdictions, much less a demographic shift sufficient to nullify the Board’s disparity flndings. This is not surprising. Resident demographics are far more determinative of average year-round demographics than visitor demographics which makes them a strong and reliable benchmark. Resident demographics are present and consistent in the jurisdiction year-round. Residents might visit other jurisdictions, but every trip begins and ends in the jurisdiction of their residence. By contrast, visitors repre sent 1 RIPA Board calculations show that In 2022 and 2023, the SRPD stopped Latinx people between 1.6 and 1.8 times the rate of Whites and stopped Black people between 6.4 and 7.1 times the rate of Whites. These disparities were higher than average California stop disparities, and lower than average Marin County stop disparities. 2 The Staff Report showed, for example, that Black people made up 12.14% of SRPD stops and 8.5% of California stops. These percentages told us nothing about the existence or extent of SRPD or California stop disparities. In San Rafael , where Black people make up 12.14% of SRPD stops, the disparity only becomes apparent when we learn that Black people comprise just 1.6% of the population. The statewide Black stop rate of 8.5% similarly tells us nothing about statewide stop disparities wit hout reference to the fact that Black people make up 7.3% of the State population. May 21, 2025: action@mvfree.org; mvfree.org 2 a highly variable population whose identities and demographics change on a daily and even hourly basis. It would be highly unusual to say the least for a jurisdiction to consistently attract a concentration of visitors of a particular race sufficie nt to substantially alter the average year-round population demographic. The PORAC theory is not only unsupported and illogical but, as shown below, the theory is facially insupportable in light of the pervasive Black and Latinx disparities shown in the latest RIPA flndings (part 2) and fails to stand up under the most basic statistical analysis (parts 3-5). 2. The PORAC Theory is Insupportable in Light of Overwhelming Evidence Of Pervasive Statewide Black and Latinx Stop Disparities The pervasive, consistent pattern of systemic statewide Black and Latinx policing disparities shown in this year’s RIPA Report disproves the PORAC theory that the high Black and Latinx stop rates in San Rafael —or any other Marin County jurisdiction—are the product of a year-round disproportionate infiux of Black and Latinx people from nearby jurisdictions. There could not be such a substantial, persistent and disproportionate infiux of Black and Latinx visitors to one or more jurisdictions without a corresponding disproportionate outfiow of Black and Latinx residents from neighboring jurisdictions. If that were occurring, we would expect to see low Black and Latinx stop rates in the jurisdictions from which the exodus was occurring. But all jurisdictions in Marin County and the greater Bay Area, and all but a handful across the State, have high Black and Latinx stop rates. Where, under the PORAC theory, could all of those Black and Latinx visitors be coming from? 3. An Analysis of Resident-Only Stop Data in Marin Confirms the Reliability of RIPA Disparity Findings As part of its RIPA data collection, the Marin County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) has been collecting data on whether or not each person stopped was a resident of the County. This made it possible for MVFREE to conduct a resident -only disparity analysis to test whether the disparities shown in the RIPA Board’s analysis were a product of visitors to the jurisdiction as PORAC postulates. MVFREE’s one-year analysis of MCSO stops (4/1/22 - 3/31/23) showed that the resident-only stop disparities (8.28 times the rate of Whites for Black people; 2.37 times the rate of Whites for Latinx people) were substantially similar to stop disparities shown when visitor stops were included in the analysis (9.22 times the rate of Whites for Black people; 2.79 times the rate of Whites for Latinx people). Contrary to the PORAC theory, this demonstrates that the presence or absence of visitors did not significantly affect the disparity findings using the RIPA Board’s ratio of disparity analysis. 4. A Comparison on Stop Disparities in Mill Valley at High and Low Visitation Periods also Confirms the Reliability of RIPA Disparity Findings Conducting a separate analysis of stop disparities for high and low visitation periods (day vs. night) provides another means of assessing the impact of visitor traffic in a jurisdiction on the RIPA Board’s disparity findings. MVFREE did a one- year analysis of day vs. night stop disparities for Mill Valley and again found little difference in stop disparity rates in the two time periods (the daytime disparity rate for Blacks was 6.55 times the rate of Whites, compared with 6.32 time the rate of Whites at night; the daytime disparity rate for Latinx people was 2.73 times the rate of Whites, compared with 3.45 times the rate of Whites at night.) This again proved that the presence or absence of visitors did not significantly affect the disparity rates shown using the RIPA Board’s analysis. 5. The Visitor Demographic Necessary to Negate Marin County Disparity Findings Under the PORAC Theory is Utterly Implausible PORAC has fixated on the unknown quantity of visitor demographics to urge the complete disregard of the RIPA Board’s disparity findings. As we have discussed, the reliability of those findings is easily tested and confirmed. It is also possible to reverse-calculate the visitor demographic equation to determine the quantity and demographics of visitors necessary to nullify the Board’s disparity findings in the way PORAC postulates. This calculation further demonstrates the fallacy of the PORAC theory. Take the example of the MCSO 2023 stop disparity for Black people calculated by the RIPA Board (10.7 times the rate of Whites). Even if 100% of visitors to Marin County in 2023 had been Black, those visitors would need to have outnumbered Marin’s Black residents ten to one (increasing the Black population from 2.4% to 24%) to shift the County’s year-round demographics enough to nullify the Board’s disparity finding. This proposition is facially incredible. F. Selected RIPA Best Practice Recommendations May 21, 2025: action@mvfree.org; mvfree.org 1 RIPA BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS Select Provisions from the 2020-2025 RIPA Reports Lexipol Policies MVFREE Comment: Like many California law enforcement agencies, the SRPD uses standard form Lexipol policies that have been disfavored by the RIPA Board. The PAAC and SRPD should consider exploring and amending these policies to conform to RIPA recommendations. RIPA Board Recommendations: • Law enforcement agencies that use Lexipol policies should take a proactive role to ensure that their policies meet the [RIPA] Board’s and other best practice recommendations by critically reviewing the Lexipol policy provided to the agency and making revisions that best refiect the agency’s values and incorporate community needs and input. • Require LEAs to adopt a policy to prohibit racial and identity proflling that includes accountability and consequences of non-compliance (e.g. Senate Bill 2 (SB 2)) based on the POST guidelines. See also, RIPA Model Bias-Free Policing Policy. 2020 RIPA Report, Best Practice Recommendations. • [R]equire … law enforcement agencies throughout California to modify their disciplinary policies deflning serious misconduct to align with the categories in Penal Code section 13510.8, subdivision (b) [SB 2]. Calls for Service and Bias by Proxy MVFREE Comment: There is no policy in the SRPD Lexipol manual regarding race -based calls for service and the SRPD has not previously undertaken to evaluate or address the effect of these calls on its SRPD racial stop disparities. The bias by proxy strategies in MVFREE’s presentation would align SRPD practices with RIPA recommendations. RIPA Board Recommendations: • The Board recommends that all law enforcement agencies adopt a policy to prevent bias by proxy or bias - based calls… [A] policy regarding bias by proxy should include: o How officers can identify a bias-based call for service; o How sworn personnel and dispatchers should interact with the community member who has made a bias-based call for service; o How an officer should interact with a community member who is the subject of a bias -based call; o How the shift supervisor should interact with the caller; o How the shift supervisor should “close out the call” and inform the bias -based caller that no suspicious or criminal activity was found, as well as educate the caller on what is or is not an appropriate basis for calling 911; o Required training for officers and dispatchers that covers responding to bias-based calls for service; and o Departments should include and develop guidelines for how to implement a restorative justice approach to address bias-based incidents in their communities. • Law enforcement agencies, local policymakers, and advocates should make information on alternatives to police services easily accessible to community members. Pretext Stops MVFREE Comment: The SRPD has not analyzed or sought to address the racially disparate impacts of its pretext stops demonstrated in the MVFREE presentation. The pilot program recommended in MVFREE’s presentation to eliminate SRPD pretext stops would be an important step toward implementing RIPA’s best practice recommendations. May 21, 2025: action@mvfree.org; mvfree.org 2 RIPA Board Recommendations: • Eliminate all pretextual stops and subsequent searches and ensure that a stop or search is based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, respectively. • Identify and take action to limit enforcement of traffic laws and minor offenses that pose a low risk to public safety and show signiflcant disparities in the rate of enforcement. • Limit armed law enforcement responses to traffic enforcement by allowing for stops only if there is a concern for public safety. • Develop policies that prescribe the speciflc types of prohibited stops and, thus, limit the discretion officers have to determine what can be characterized as a public safety stop. Consent Searches MVFREE Comment: MVFREE’s analysis shown in this Resource Packet under “Other Areas of Concern” revealed significant racial disparities in the SRPD’s application of consent searches (as well as other in -detention police practices). You will find suggestions for addressing these disparities at that section. With respect to consent search disparities, the RIPA Board recommends eliminating any searches unsupported by probable cause. RIPA Board Recommendation: • Ban certain searches, such as consent searches or supervision searches, during traffic stops and instead require probable cause for any search. Law Enforcement Training MVFREE Comment: The SRPD Lexipol Training Policy (Policy 402.7) requires just one “refresher course” on bias-free policing every 5 years, a lengthy delay specifically disfavored by the RIPA Board. The Board also provides detailed best practice recommendations regarding training quantity, quality, content and methodology. Just so me of these are excerpted below. MVFREE has worked with the Mill Valley Police Department to develop a RIPA -compliant training policy and a program of annual electives on bias -free policing and officer wellness. We would be happy to work with San Rafael on similar initiatives. RIPA Board recommendations: • Require more frequent, evaluated and evidence-based training on racial and identity proflling more than once every flve years, and at a minimum of every three years. • Require law enforcement supervisors and fleld training officers receive specialized training on eliminating racial and identity proflling within their departments. • Require body-worn camera footage when available or highly publicized incidents to be used in the racial and identity proflling training in addition to staged scenarios. • Emphasize … using RIPA data to identify trends and patterns that may indicate racial and identity proflling at the agency or individual officer level. • Include the topic of agencies ensuring data accuracy and integrity. Accountability and Performance Metrics MVFREE Comment: The SRPD has not yet utilized its RIPA data to inform the development of policies, training, remedial measures, or performance metrics targeted to the disparities shown in the data. By adopting the recommendation in MVFREE’s presentation to conduct an annual RIPA equity assessment, the PAAC and SRPD can begin to leverage the tools and resources RIPA has to offer to achieve their common objectives for safe and equitable policing. May 21, 2025: action@mvfree.org; mvfree.org 3 RIPA Board Recommendations: • Analyze stop data, including body-worn camera footage, to evaluate policies, identify performance issues, and inform both individual and department-wide training. • Analyze stop data longitudinally and in relation to the introduction and implementation of reform measures, which will necessitate time stamping new directives, policies, and trainings. Agencies should then evaluate those reform measures for effectiveness. • Work in partnership with an academic or research institution to support analysis of patterns and trends in stop data. • Implement annual review by supervisors of information about officers’ individualized stop data with each officer along with benchmarks, regardless of how they perform. • Identify officers with outlier trends in data regarding stops and searches and review this in conjunction with other performance metrics for the officers. • Systematically audit stop data records to minimize the possibility of recording inaccurate or incomplete information. • Assess outlier patterns in the agency’s stop data for validation purposes and follow up with focused audits to determine the causes for the patterns. Civilian Oversight Bodies MVFREE Comment: We commend the City of San Rafael for creating the PAAC to provide civilian input and oversight of the SRPD. However, it appears to us from our review of PAAC’s 2024 annual report and our own experience that the PAAC might benefit from an exploration of its own systems and practices to ensure that has the necessary independence from the SRPD to effectively carry out its functions. We notice that the lion’s share of presenters to the PAAC last year were representatives from the SRPD or from a law firm that specializes in representing law enforcement agencies and officers against misconduct complaints. It is, of course, important for the PAAC to hear from the SRPD, particularly when it regards the agency’s internal operations. But as a countywide community organization and a leading voice on local policing issues, MVFREE can attest that the community tends to have very different interests and perspectives from law enforcement. It is critical that the PAAC hear and understand those perspectives. RIPA Board Recommendations: • [A civilian oversight body] should be independent from real or perceived infiuence from special interests, including law enforcement and political actors. An oversight board must be able to act impartially, fairly, and in a manner that maintains community and stakeholder trust. • [A civilian oversight body] should be transparent and be able to regularly report to the public in a manner free from infiuence by political actors or pressure from law enforcement. • [A civilian oversight body] should have data-driven and evidence-based analyses of law enforcement policies and patterns, which may address systemic issues and result in recommendations that may improve community relations. • [A civilian oversight body] should have community and stakeholder input about how civilian oversight should function and how the issues it should address will lead to the best flt oversight system to meet the particular community’s needs and expectations. • Provide members [of the civilian oversight body] with technical knowledge necessary to weigh in on policy matters. Page 1 of 2 POLICE ADVISORY AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT May 21, 2025 Item 2b TITLE: SAN RAFAEL’S RESPONSE TO HOMELESSNESS - UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: Accept the informational report. BACKGROUND: At its October 16, 2024, meeting, the PAAC received an initial staff report and presentation outlining the City of San Rafael’s approach to addressing homelessness. The presentation provided an overview of current strategies, services, and partnerships aimed at supporting individuals experiencing h omelessness within the community. During the Special Meeting held on January 11, 2025, the PAAC developed its 2025 work plan. As part of that process, the Committee identified homelessness as a priority issue, specifically requesting a follow -up update to further examine the City’s ongoing efforts, progress, and areas for continued improvement in addressing this complex challenge. Homelessness remains a significant challenge across the United States, and San Rafael is no exception. On August 19, 2024, the City Council received a report from the City Manager’s Office regarding proposed amendments to the City’s Camping Ordinance , an informational report to the City Council on homelessness, including the authorization of grants and contracts to establish a Sanctioned Camping Program (Attachment 1). According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, approximately 653,104 individuals nationwide were affected by homelessness. Among these, 143,105 were chronically homeless, marking a 65% increase since 2017. California alone accounts for more than 180,000 homeless individual s, with 67,510 being chronically homeless, reflecting an 88% rise over the same period. Alarmingly, two -thirds of California's homeless population were unsheltered, comprising half of all unsheltered homeless individuals nationwide. In Marin County, the 2024 Point-in-Time Count revealed a count of 1,090 individuals experiencing homelessness, 788 of whom are unsheltered and 217 chronically homeless. The total count showed a 2.77% decrease from the 2022 count of 1,121. While local data for San Rafael from the 2024 count is still unavailable, the City reported 348 homeless individuals during the 2022 Point- in-Time Count. According to a December 2023 survey of homeless individuals residing in the Mahon Creek Path area encampment, 90% of en campment residents have lived in the area for more than a year, and almost two-thirds have resided in San Rafael for more than a decade. Several factors contribute to homelessness in San Rafael and beyond. The lack of affordable housing, coupled with stagnant wages, means that 42% of Marin renters spend more than 35% of their income on rent. The availability of shelter beds in Marin County is consistently limited , as there are approximately 291 beds available for 1,090 individuals. However, there have been significant strides in addressing homelessness: since 2017 , the County of Marin has housed 737 chronically homeless individuals. 94% of t hese individuals have remained housed due to ongoing support services and rental subsidies. Efforts to house veterans have also been significant, with 111 veterans housed during this period. Page 2 of 2 Since 2017, the City of San Rafael has partnered with Marin County Health and Human Services and the many community-based organizations that serve individuals experiencing homelessness . These agencies include Homeward Bound of Marin, Ritter Center, St. Vincent de Paul, Community Action Marin, Downtown Streets Team, Adopt A Family of Marin, North Marin Community Services, Center for Domestic Peace, Buckelew Programs, Episcopal Community Services, Catholic Charities, Side by Side , and the Marin Housing Authority. This collaboration is called MASH, the Marin Alliance to Solve Homelessness . Using the guiding principle of “Housing First” and the guidelines of Coordinated Entry, the goal is to address every individual’s unique needs and guide each person on their pathway to permanent supportive housing . Ten individuals are placed in permanent supportive housing (PSH) monthly through this unified and collaborative approach. Not only is the City housing people, but it is also helping them stay in housing through ongoing case management, which has led to a housing retention rate of 94%. DISCUSSION: Following the initial presentation in October 2024, staff from the SRPD, in coordination with other City departments, are now returning to the PAAC to provide an update on the City’s ongoing efforts to address homelessness. This update serves as a continuation of the previous report, offering new insights into current initiatives, recent developments, interdepartmental collaboration, and opportunities for community engagement. The presentation will also highlight progress made since the last briefing and outline potential areas where the PAAC’s input and involvement could support broader City goals. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Submitted by: Teresa Olson Teresa Olson Senior Management Analyst II ATTACHMENTS: 1. April 7, 2025, City Council Staff Report and Presentation ____________________________________________________________________________________ FOR CITY CLERK ONLY Council Meeting: 04/07/2025 Disposition: Introduced the Ordinance, waive further reading of the Ordinance, and refer to it by title only. (Ordinance 2046) Agenda Item No: 6.b Meeting Date: April 7, 2025 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: City Manager Prepared by: John Stefanski, Assistant City Manager Daniel Cooperman, Community Services Division Director City Manager Approval: ______________ TOPIC: EVALUATION OF EXISTING CAMPING REGULATIONS, SANCTIONED CAMPING AREA INFORMATIONAL UPDATE, AND CHAPTER 19.50 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY SUBJECT: EXISTING CAMPING REGULATION EVALUATION, SANCTIONED CAMPING AREA UPDATE, AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 19.50 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED “CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY” TO PROHIBIT CAMPING IN PARKS; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES 15061(b)(3), 15307 AND 15308 RECOMMENDATION: Receive an update on homelessness and the Sanctioned Camping Area and introduce the Ordinance, waive further reading of the Ordinance, and refer to it by title only. BACKGROUND: City Camping Regulations (Chapter 19.50 of the San Rafael Municipal Code) In July 2023, the City Council voted1 to adopt Ordinance 2030 amend the City’s longstanding camping regulations to govern camping on public property in a manner that complied with the then-governing Martin v. Boise decision. Shortly after the City adopted the amendments to Chapter 19.50, a group of plaintiffs (Shaleeta Boyd, et al.) sued the City in federal court based on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims and other legal theories, in particular that Chapter 19.50 constituted a “state created danger”. In response, the court entered a temporary restraining order and, later, a preliminary injunction that effectively blocked the City’s ability to enforce its local camping regulations. 1 https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2023/07/4.a-Regulating-Camping-on-Public- Property-Ordinance.pdf SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 In May 20242, the City amended Chapter 19.50 (Ordinance 2035) in an attempt to address the federal court’s concerns, and, consequently, seek dismissal of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Ordinance 2035 modified the size and spacing restrictions in Ordinance 2030 in a manner to address the Court’s concerns. It also required, among other things, that campsites be set back from private property lines. In June 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Grants Pass v. Johnson. Since 2018, Martin v. Boise (a prior Ninth Circuit decision upon which Grants Pass was based) had significantly limited local government’s ability to regulate homeless encampments and created a slew of lawsuits brought upon local government agencies. Applying Martin, the Ninth Circuit had held that the City of Grants Pass violated the “Cruel and Unusual Punishments” clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution by prohibiting camping on public property when the City could not establish that there was enough alternative shelter available to accommodate the number of individuals experiencing homelessness in the community. The Supreme Court rejected this Eighth Amendment theory. The Federal District Court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and dissolved the injunction on August 7, 2024. The Court held that the City’s amendments to Chapter 19.50 adequately addressed the legal concerns raised by the plaintiff’s lawsuit and the Court. In August 2024,3 following the dismissal of the Boyd lawsuit, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2040 which revised the camping ordinance following Grants Pass decision to provide the City greater flexibility to prohibit camping or set time, place, or manner conditions on camping on public property. The ordinance clarified a prohibition on occupying, constructing, or affixing structures made of building materials on public property and required campsites be at least five feet from the edge of roadway pavement to ensure safety and prevent obstruction of traffic. At that time the City Council also directed staff to return in Spring 2025 with an evaluation and any proposed changes for the camping regulations. Ordinance 2040 took effect on October 3, 2024. Enforcement of the Camping Regulations Once Ordinance 2040 took effect in October, the City began a regular cadence of enforcement, as described below: • Enforcement activities of Chapter 19.50 of the SRMC relating to violations of the campsite size maximums, setback requirements, and/or unpermitted structures and building materials take place each week on Tuesdays and Thursdays, as described in Table 1 below. However, when there are significant health and safety exigent circumstances, the City will abate immediately outside of the regular enforcement schedule. • Enforcement activities relating to violations of camping prohibitions (i.e. camping in a prohibited area) take place on Tuesdays and Wednesdays of each week as described in Table 2 below. 2 https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/2024/04/6.b-Ordinance-Regulating-Camping-on-Public-Property.pdf 3 https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/2024/08/5.a-Proposed-Camping-Ordinance-Amendments-Report-on- Homelessness-Including-Sanctioned-Camping-Program-Homeless-Program-Contracts-Appropration-of-Funds.pdf SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 Table 1: Violations of campsite size maximums, setbacks, and illegal structures Tuesday (AM) Activities Thursday (AM) Activities • San Rafael Police Department (SRPD) and City Staff conduct a weekly review of known hotspots and other sites with reported encampments. • SRPD Special Operations Unit (SOU) issues notices to those campsites out of compliance with SRMC 19.50. • SRPD to dedicate 2 hours every Tuesday for area assessments and noticing. • Debris collection will occur on Thursday mornings, 48 hours after notices have been issued. • SRPD to staff approximately 2-3 hours every Thursday for presence during clean ups. • Additional clean-up actions beyond the 2-3 hours to take place as needed on Thursdays, as directed by SRPD or City Staff. Table 2: Camping in prohibited area violations Tuesday (AM) Activities Wednesday (AM) Activities • SRPD and City Staff conduct a weekly review of problem prohibited properties (e.g. South Mahon) and other sites as reported • SRPD SOU issues notices to those campsites out of compliance with SRMC 19.50. • SRPD to dedicate 2 hours every Tuesday for area assessments and noticing (same as above) • Debris collection will occur on Wednesday mornings, 24 hours after notices have been issued. • SRPD to staff as needed for presence during clean ups. In addition, the City budgets for 1.5 full time equivalent park rangers who work for the San Rafael Police Department who assist with patrolling open space areas (where camping is currently prohibited) to enforce Chapter 19.50 and remove ignition sources in those areas specifically. Based on the aforementioned enforcement activities, staff have found that there are no individuals camping in City parks as of April 2nd 2025. Sanctioned Camping Area (SCA) The California lnter-agency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH) established the Encampment Resolution Funding, Third Round (ERF3) Program to increase collaboration between itself, local jurisdictions, and continuums of care for the purposes of: • Assisting local jurisdictions in ensuring the wellness and safety of people experiencing homelessness in encampments, including short-term needs arising from their unsheltered homelessness and their long-term needs through a path to safe and stable housing; and • Providing grants to local jurisdictions and continuums of care to support innovative and replicable efforts to resolve critical encampment concerns, and to support individuals in accessing safe and stable housing, using Housing First approaches; and SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 • Encouraging a data-informed, coordinated approach to addressing unsheltered homelessness at encampments. The City and County of Marin collaborated on an ERF3 grant application, and in April 2024, Cal ICH announced its intention to award a total of $5,999,241 in funding to both the County of Marin and the City. This funding is specifically aimed at jointly addressing the Mahon Creek Path Area Encampment in San Rafael. The grant represents the largest award the City of San Rafael has received for addressing homelessness, following a renewed effort by City and County staff to enhance collaboration in tackling this issue. Furthermore, since August 2024, City and County staff have held four comprehensive partnership meetings, which have helped streamline response efforts and set clear goals for serving San Rafael’s unhoused community as it relates to the ERF3 grant. A SCA has several elements that differentiate it from other camping areas. The City's SCA addresses safety and security, through gates, fencing, security guards and fire prevention (e.g., placement of fire extinguishers and regular inspections); living and meeting spaces, through specified tent sizes, temporary and housing/outreach staff storage units, and meeting space canopies; and sanitation, though portable restrooms with handwashing stations, garbage pick up and designated smoking and pet use areas. In addition, the City's SCA receives housing and case management and outreach services, weekly showers, SAFE Team and has a code of conduct. Further information can be found in the City Council Agenda Report for Item No. 5a at its August 19, 20244 meeting. Before the launch of the SCA in October 2024, City and County staff, in collaboration with nonprofit partners, reviewed lists of identified individuals who had been or were presently residing within the Mahon Creek Area encampment as of early 2024, when the ERF3 grant application was submitted. In the weeks leading up to the SCA opening, staff conducted outreach to inform prospective participants about the site’s code of conduct and assist them with completing the necessary intake forms. ANALYSIS: Evaluation of Current Camping Regulations Since Ordinance 2040 took effect in October 2024, staff have been tracking metrics to determine the Camping Ordinance’s effectiveness and overall impact on the City’s ability to regulate encampments on public property. The City tracks potential violations of the camping ordinance through “Calls for Service” which take place when a resident reports to SRPD or via the email address, endhomelessness@cityofsanrafael.org. These reports are classified as “Municipal Code Violations” related to camping within San Rafael, and capture violations such as, obstructing sidewalks, camping within designated open space lands, and other violations. These reports are all sent directly to the SRPD Special Operations Unit who responds to check the reported location. Since October 2024, staff have informed and encouraged the public to report potential camping ordinance violations via the email address, endhomelessness@cityofsanrafael.org. During the evaluation period of October 2024 to February 2025, staff received 115 inquiries through this account, 35 of which were reports of potential camping ordinance violations. This is in addition to the numerous phone calls and other interactions staff have had with the community at various meetings. In addition, the City engages in proactive enforcement of Chapter 19.50, as described above. These activities are captured through “Campsite Warning Police Reports” whereby the Special Operations Unit 4 https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/2024/08/5.a-Proposed-Camping-Ordinance-Amendments-Report-on- Homelessness-Including-Sanctioned-Camping-Program-Homeless-Program-Contracts-Appropration-of-Funds.pdf SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 visits a non-compliant campsite, issues a warning, and returns 48 -hours later to check on compliance/coordinate with the City’s encampment clean-up contractor. Staff reviewed the number of Calls for Service (CFS) to the Police Department during the five-month period preceding the implementation of Ordinance 2040 (May to September 2024) and compared it to the five-month evaluation period following its implementation (October 2024 to February 2025). Table 3 below shows the period preceding implementation of the ordinance with 161 CFS, and a 38.51% increase during the evaluation period, resulting in a total of 223 CFS. This increase is most likely attributable to the community’s increased awareness of how to report camping ordinance violations. With the opening of the SCA and the related prohibition of camping along the northern portion of the Mahon Creek Path, the City has seen a significant decline in the number of Campsite Warning Reports, which have decreased by nearly 20% when compared to the five month period prior to October 2024 when both the Sanctioned Camping Area and the current camping regulations took effect. While understandable—less campsites equaling fewer potential violations—this data point also underscores how the SCA is a crucial tool in the City’s ability to manage camping on public property. Table 3: Citywide Calls for Services & Campsite Warning Police Reports Category May 2024 – September 2024 October 2024 – February 2025 Trend Calls for Service 161 223 +38.51% Campsite Warning Police Reports 84 69 -17.86% Sanctioned Camping Area (SCA) Evaluation The SCA opened on October 4, 2024, with a total site capacity of 50 individuals to reside in 50 , 10’x10’ tents. The program is currently at full capacity with 50 participants. The program is working as intended as the City recently celebrated its first participant securing and moving into permanent housing last month. Another participant has received a housing voucher and is actively searching for an apartment. Outreach, case management, and the on-site program management team with FS Global all continue to support the participants, ensuring they are gaining all necessary documentation to be ready to apply for housing as soon as additional vouchers are released or project-based units become available. The Encampment Resolution Funding Round 3 (ERF3) grant, which the SCA is a part of, operates in partnership with the County of Marin’s Health and Human Services Division (HHS). Marin County contracted for the staffing of the ERF3 program, and the contract is through St. Vincent de Paul Society for housing-based case management personnel. The first case manager dedicated to the ERF3 program began in late March, increasing the percentage of site participants receiving housing-based case management to 60%. The HHS will present a contract for two additional case managers to support the remaining site participants and one outreach worker to the Marin County Board of Supervisors on April 15, 2025. The total cost of these three-year contracts will be approximately $1.5 million. Since the SCA began operations, 10 individuals have exited the site – some due to code of conduct violations, others for extended absences without providing prior notice, and one so far who has transitioned into permanent housing. Additionally, since moving into the SCA, five participants have successfully gained employment, demonstrating the stability and opportunities the program can help SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 foster. Many participants are thriving with improved social health, benefiting from a safe, stable place to sleep and store personal belongings. Through this supportive environment many participants have reconnected with medical services, improved connection with service providers, and are rebuilding practices that are important for housing stability and transitioning back into housing. Proposed Amendments to Chapter 19.50 Concerns about the unhoused population camping in parks and the sensitivity to encampment-related fires in San Rafael has grown. Over 90% of all wildfires in this country are human caused; although not all of these fires were intentionally set by individuals, this data supports the City’s recommendation to ban camping in parks to protect the safety of the community. In Marin, given the low lightening frequency, that number is likely closer to 99%. Reducing potential ignition sources is a key wildfire risk reduction activity. Campfires and open flames, including those for warming and cooking, and discarded smoking materials can easily ignite dry grasses and brush in open space and parks. These ignitions can lead to wildfires that threaten both the individuals camping and the surrounding community. Unsanctioned encampments lack the resources to detect and safely manage fires, making the risk even greater. Recent fire incidents elsewhere in the state and public awareness have heightened public sensitivity to these risks, leading to calls for action from residents across the City. As the rainy season ends, peak wildfire season in Marin County is quickly approaching. On February 24 2025, Cal Fire released its updated Fire Hazard Severity Zones map, which for San Rafael, designated a number of City Park properties within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, including but not limited to, Gerstle, Sun Valley, Peacock Gap, Victor Jones, Santa Margarita, Jerry Russom Memorial and Terra Linda parks. The Fire Hazard Severity Zones measure hazard, not risk. Hazard is based on the physical conditions that create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30 to 50-year period without considering mitigation measures. Risk looks at how these hazards interact with people, development, and other infrastructure, including City parks. In accordance with Government Code Section 51176, the purpose of Fire Hazard Severity Zones map is to classify lands in the state in accordance with whether a very high fire hazard is present so that public officials are able to identify measures that will retard the rate of spread and reduce the potential intensity of uncontrolled wildfires that threaten to destroy resources, life, or property, and to require that those measures be taken. Given the community’s concerns and heightened sensitivity to wildfire risks due to the January 2025 wildfires in Southern California, such as the Palisades Fire burning 23,707 acres and destroying over 6,800 structures and the Eaton Fire burning 14,021 acres and destroying over 9,400 structures, and in light of the release of the Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, staff evaluated amending Chapter 19.50 to prohibit camping within these areas to mitigate the hazards associated with camping in a higher hazard severity areas. When factoring in existing camping prohibitions at Albert Park, Boyd Park, and at the Falkirk Cultural Center, camping would be prohibited in a majority of City Parks. Including all City Parks in the Camping Regulations offers clarity for parks that may fall partially within a hazard zone, includes parks in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) but not hazard zone, and assures that the few potentially excluded parks do not become areas for encampments. For example, Oleander Park and the playground at Terra Linda Park are outside of the hazard zone, but only a residential road away from being in the designated Wildland Urban Interface. Given the behavior of embers and their ability to quickly spread fire, any ignition within these example parks could quickly result in a fire in the Wildland Urban Interface or Fire Hazard Severity Zone. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 Staff is not proposing to prohibit camping in all of the hazard severity zones due to mitigating factors, reporting and response times, and land ownership. The City has an active roadside vegetation clearing program that mitigates risk of encampment fires along roadways. The camping regulations also prohibit camping within 5 feet of roadway pavement. In these highly traveled areas, any ignition is likely to be quickly reported and prove an easy initial response for firefighters. Developed areas in the hazard zones, , do not pose the same risk due to having well maintained defensible space, nearby fire suppression and alerting tools, and a reduced likelihood of ignition based on human behaviors and ground covering. A camp stove on the pavement poses a much lower risk than a campfire in the leaves, grasses and shrubs of parks such as Los Ranchitos or Peacock Gap Park. Lastly, the City has and enforces Citywide Vegetation standards (SRMC 4.12) to mitigate wildfire risk in all privately owned areas of the hazard zones and WUI. Temporary Administrative Order On March 27, 2025, the City Manager issued a temporary administrative order (Attachment 2) prohibiting camping in all City parks. The purpose of this order was to preserve the then current condition at City parks where no individuals experiencing homelessness were camping, to minimize the risk of displacement should the City Council enact a prohibition of camping in parks, and to ensure the entire community, including individuals experiencing homelessness, would still have the ability to utilize public parks during regular hours of operation which are sunrise to sunset. The term of the Administrative Order coincides with the timeframe for an ordinance amending Chapter 19.50 to become effective if the City Council decides to adopt an ordinance. Should the City Council decide not to adopt the staff recommendation, the City Manager would rescind the Administrative Order. According, based on the foregoing, staff is recommending the City Council amend the camping ordinance to prohibit camping in all City parks. The proposed ordinance accomplishes this prohibition by replacing “open space property” with “parks” as defined in SRMC Section 19.20.020(I) since that definition of parks includes both parks and open space. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed ordinance does not constitute a project for purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and is exempt from review under CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3) because adoption of the proposed ordinance is not expected to have any change in the environment. Further, the proposed ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308 as an action by a regulatory agency taken to protect the environment and natural resources. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Last fall, the City established the Homelessness Solutions Working Group to bring concerned residents and business owners together to discuss their concerns around Homelessness in San Rafael, brainstorm ideas around the potential solutions to the issue and to ultimately have participants become trusted messengers who will communicate with their colleagues and neighbors about what they’ve learned and what the City and the County are doing together to respond to homelessness in San Rafael . This group of 30 residents, who self-selected to participate, participated in three meetings over the last six months. While the first meeting provided an opportunity for participants to learn about the City’s work responding to homelessness as well as provide “blue sky” or ideal solutions to homelessness, the latter SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8 two meetings were overwhelmingly focused on the Camping Ordinance,at the request of the working group members. The topic of the City’s camping ordinance was brought up early and often throughout the working group meetings, including the final meeting which focused solely on potential changes and implications of the ordinance. At the final meeting, the group provided feedback on potential changes to the camping ordinance via an anonymous survey with three potential options. The majority of attendees supported prohibiting camping in City parks either entirely or just in parks within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Table 5: Homelessness Solutions Working Group Survey Results Survey Option Votes Prohibit camping in all San Rafael parks 7 Prohibit camping only in parks located within the Fire Hazard Severity Zones 4 No changes to the current camping ordinance 3 Other 2 The survey results align with the hundreds of inquiries and comments City staff has received via phone, in-person meetings, and responses to the “endhomelessness@cityofsanrafael.org” email account. Information regarding the City Manager’s temporary administrative order and this agenda item was shared with our local non-profit service providers, as well as with members of the Homelessness Solutions Working Group (which includes individuals with lived experience). Information regarding this agenda item was also shared via the City’s Homelessness Update Monthly E-Newsletter. In addition to the feedback received from the Homelessness Solutions Working Group, staff have had many discussions with residents and business owners regarding the City’s camping regulations over the last nine months. The majority of those individuals indicated a preference for the City to prohibit camping all together. Staff are not recommending an outright ban on camping in San Rafael. Staff’s focus is on working collaboratively with unhoused residents, local non-profit service providers, and the County of Marin to connect unhoused residents with the resources, services, and housing opportunities they need to achieve long-term stability. Such a focus is based on a regional, compassionate, and trauma-informed approach to addressing homelessness, and is indicative of the believe that every person in San Rafael, regardless of housing status, deserves dignity, respect, and a safe place to call home. Staff will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the camping regulations and will bring further recommendations for changes back to the City Council should conditions, laws, or other circumstances warrant them. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the staff recommendation contained in this agenda item. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter: 1. Approve the staff recommendation and introduce the Ordinance waive further reading of the Ordinance and refer to it by title only SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9 2. Direct staff to return with substantive changes to the Ordinance and whether the City Manager should rescind, extend or otherwise modify the Administrative Order dated March 27, 2025 3. Take no action and provide direction whether the City Manager should rescind, extend or otherwise modify the Administrative Order dated March 27, 2025. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Introduce the Ordinance, waive further reading of the Ordinance, and refer to it by title only. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Administrative Order dated March 27, 2025 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 19.50 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED “CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY” TO PROHIBIT CAMPING IN PARKS SECTION 1. FINDINGS The City Council having reviewed and taken into consideration all written and oral information submitted in this matter and after a properly noticed public hearing makes the following findings in support of this Ordinance: WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael has implemented a Sanctioned Camping Area on City public property as part of its comprehensive approach to address homelessness within the City; and WHEREAS, the SCA addresses safety and security, through gates, fencing, security guards and fire prevention (e.g., placement of fire extinguishers and regular inspections); living and meeting spaces, through specified tent sizes, temporary and housing/outreach staff s torage units, and meeting space canopies; and sanitation, though portable restrooms with handwashing stations, garbage pick up and designated smoking and pet use areas; and WHEREAS, residents of the SCA receive housing and case management and outreach services, weekly showers, and other services and have to abide by to a code of conduct; and WHEREAS, in less than six months since the SCA began operations, at least one individual has secured permanent housing and another five individuals have secured employment; and WHEREAS, the Sanctioned Camping Area is regulated and structured in a manner not only to mitigate public health and safety risks to both its residents and the community at large, but also to promote the well-being of its residents; and WHEREAS, over 90% of all wildfires in this country are human caused. In Marin, given the low lightening frequency, that number is likely closer to 99%. Reducing potential ignition sources is a key wildfire risk reduction activity. Campfires and open flames, including those for warming and cooking, and discarded smoking materials can easily ignite dry grasses and brush in open space and parks. These ignitions can lead to wildfires that threaten both the individuals and the surrounding community: and WHEREAS, camping in parks creates heightened fire risks due to the use of open flames for cooking and warmth, and the potential for improperly discarded smoking materials, particularly in areas with dry vegetation or brush that could easily ignite and lead to wildf ires threatening both unhoused individuals and the surrounding community; and WHEREAS, unregulated encampments typically lack the resources and facilities to safely manage fires, further increasing the associated risks; and WHEREAS, recent fire incidents elsewhere in the state, such as the January 2025 fires in Southern California, with the Palisades Fire burning 23,707 acres and the Eaton Fire burning 14,021 acres, have heightened public awareness and sensitivity to these risks; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2025, Cal Fire released its updated Fire Hazard Severity Zones map, which designated City parks within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, including but not limited to Gerstle, Sun Valley, Peacock Gap, Victor Jones, Santa Margarita, Jerry Russom Memorial, and Terra Linda parks; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 51179 requires the City to adopt an ordinance designating moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days of the release of the aforementioned map released by Cal Fire; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 51176, the purpose of Fire Hazard Severity Zones map is to classify lands in the state in accordance with whether a very high fire hazard is present so that public officials are able to identify measures that will retard the rate of spread, and reduce the potential intensity, of uncontrolled fires that threaten to destroy resources, life, or property, and to require that those measures be taken ; and. WHEREAS, upon evaluating potential amendments to Chapter 19.50 to prohibit camping within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, staff determined that, when combined with existing camping prohibitions at Albert Park, Boyd Park, and the Falkirk Cultural Center/Menzies Lot, su ch amendments would effectively prohibit camping in a majority of City parks; and WHEREAS, including all city parks in a camping prohibition offers clarity for parks that may fall partially within a hazard zone, includes parks in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) but not hazard zone, and assures that the few potentially excluded parks do not become areas for encampments. Given the behavior of embers and their ability to quickly spread fire, ignition could quickly result in a fire in the WUI or Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and WHEREAS, the City Council declines to prohibit camping in all of the hazard severity zones due to mitigating factors, reporting and response times, and land ownership; and. WHEREAS, the City regularly patrols its parks and based on those patrols, finds that as of the date of the Administrative Order dated March 27, 2025, there were no individuals camping in its parks; and WHEREAS, by amending the City’s camping regulations, the City’s goal is to effectively regulate and enforce camping laws for the health and safety of all the public, including residents who are experiencing homelessness, and to mitigate the risk of displacement of individuals by undertaking such an amendment when there has been no camping in the parks; and WHEREAS, for the reasons set forth above, this Ordinance is declared by the City Council to be necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare; preserve public property for the enjoyment and safety of all members of the public; enhance and preserve the orde rly administration and management of public property; and preserve, protect, and prevent damage to public resources, and the recitals above taken together constitute the City Council’s statement of the reasons for adopting this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS TO SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.50 Chapter 19.50 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, entitled “Camping of Public Property” is hereby amended as follows, with addition shown in underlined and deletions shown with strikethrough: Chapter 19.50 - CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY 19.50.010. - Purpose. The purposes of this chapter include but are not limited to: protecting public health, safety, and welfare; preserving public property for the enjoyment and safety of all members of the public; enhancing and preserving the orderly administration and management of public property; and preserving, protecting, and preventing damage to public resources. This chapter prohibits conduct that unreasonably interferes with the administration and lawful uses of public property by establishing reasonable time, place, and manner conditions related to camping on public property. 19.50.020 - Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: A. "Camp" or "Camping" means use of space on public property for living accommodation purposes such as sleeping activities, or making preparations to sleep (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping), or storing personal belongings, or using any tents or shelter or other structure or vehicle for sleeping. The above -listed activities constitute camping when it reasonably appears, in light of all the circumstances, that the participants, in conducting these activities, are using the area as a living accommodation regardless of the nature of any other activities in which they may also be engaging. B. "Camp paraphernalia" means implements and equipment used for camping, including tents, cots, beds, hammocks, vehicles, other temporary physical shelters, tarpaulins, mattresses, sleeping bags, bedrolls, blankets, sheets, pillows, and cookware or cooking equipment. C. "Campsite" means the primary physical area of occupation of one person camping or up to four persons camping together, inclusive of camp facilities, camp paraphernalia, and personal property. D. "Open space property" means any area described in San Rafael Municipal Code Section 19.10.020. The city will maintain on its public website and in hard copy at the City Clerk's office a map of all open space property meeting this definition. “Park” means any area described in area described in San Rafael Municipal Code Section 19.20.020(I). The city will maintain on its public website and in hard copy at the City Clerk’s office a map of all parks meeting this definition. E. "Playground" means an improved outdoor area designed, equipped, and set aside for children's play in a park or school that is not intended for use as an athletic playing field or athletic court, and also includes any playground equipment, fall zones, surface materials, access ramps, and all areas within and including any designated enclosure and barriers. F. "Public facility" means any building or structure on public property, whether secured, unsecured, locked, unlocked, open, or enclosed, as well as any area of public property enclosed by a locked fence. G. "Public property" means any real property within the jurisdiction of the City of San Rafael, which is owned, managed, or controlled by the City of San Rafael. H. "Public right-of-way" means land which by written instrument, usage or process of law is owned by, reserved for or dedicated to the public use for street or highway purposes, or other transportation purposes, whether or not such land is actually being used or developed specifically for those purposes. I. "Public utility infrastructure" means public bathrooms or infrastructure and equipment used to provide public utility services, including electricity, gas, water, stormwater, telecommunications, and sanitation services. J. "School" means any public or private institution of educational learning up to and including grade 12. K. "Sidewalk" means any area in the city provided for the use of pedestrians, including planting areas, driveway approaches, and parking strips, between the public vehicular roadway and the edge of public right-of-way bordering, fronting, or adjacent to private real property. L. "Store" means to put aside or accumulate for use when needed, to put for safekeeping, or to place or leave in a location. M. "Vehicle" means any wheeled conveyance, whether motor-powered or self- propelled, and includes any trailer in tow of any size, kind, or description. 19.50.030 - Prohibited Camping on Certain Public Property. A. Prohibited Camping 1. Open space property Park. No person or persons shall camp in or on any open space property park, or portion thereof. 2. Parking garages. No person or persons shall camp in or on the premises of any parking garage, or portion thereof, owned or operated by the city. 3. Public facilities. No person or persons shall camp in or on any public facility, or portion thereof, or in a manner that obstructs, blocks, or otherwise interferes with access to a public facility or private real property. 4. Playgrounds. No person or persons shall camp within 100 feet of any playground. 5. Schools. No person or persons shall camp within 250 feet of the property boundary of any school. 6. Public right-of-way and sidewalks. No person or persons shall camp in or on any public right-of-way or sidewalk, or portion thereof, or in a manner that obstructs, blocks, or otherwise interferes with use of or access to a public right-of-way or sidewalk. B. The city council or city manager may, by resolution or administrative order, absolutely prohibit camping, or adopt time, place, or manner conditions on camping, at any time in or on one or more public properties, or portion thereof. C. The city shall maintain on its public website and in hard copy at the city clerk's office a current citywide map of all public property parcels prohibited to camping by subsections (A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(4), (A)(5), and (B) of this section 19.50.030. 19.50.040 - Prohibited Camping on Other Public Property; Exception. A. As to public property not listed as prohibited for camping under Section 19.50.030, no person shall camp on such other public property, except as set forth below. B. Time, place, and manner conditions: 1. Campsite size and occupancy. a. No campsite occupied by one person shall exceed an area of 200 sq. ft., inclusive camp paraphernalia, and personal property. b. No campsite occupied by more than one person shall i) exceed an occupancy of four persons or ii) exceed an area of 400 sq. ft., inclusive of camp paraphernalia, and personal property. c. All camp paraphernalia, and other personal property shall be stored and kept within the maximum permitted campsite area. d. Items stored or discarded outside of the maximum permitted campsite area shall be presumed to be unattended personal property or trash or debris and may be stored or discarded by the city. e. No person shall establish or occupy more than one campsite. 2. Clearance and setbacks. a. A minimum clearance of 10 feet around all sides of any campsite allowed under this section shall be maintained free and clear of trash, debris, and personal property, including but not limited to camp facilities and camp paraphernalia. Items stored or discarded within the 10-foot clearance area shall be presumed to be unattended personal property or trash or debris and may be stored or discarded by the city. b. No campsite may be established or occupied within 10 feet of any other campsite allowed by this section, public utility infrastructure, or private real property, including a fence of such property. c. No campsite may be established or occupied within 5 feet of the edge of pavement of a roadway open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic. 3. Unpermitted structures and building materials. No person shall occupy, construct, or erect on public property, or affix or tie to public or private property, any building, shed, shack, fence, or other structure made of building material, or store any building material on public property for camping. For purposes of this paragraph, “building material” includes wood, steel, concrete, stone, brick, masonry, plastic, cement composites, glass, sand, or other similar material of a type and quantity normally used for construction purposes. a. Exception: Fabric tents, fabric tarps, or other similar non-permanent, removable items may be used for temporary shelter within a campsite, provided they are not affixed or tied to any public property, private real property, vegetation, or infrastructure, except for the use of removable stakes to secure the item to unimproved ground on public property. b. Exception: Removable plastic pallets or sandbags may be used to temporarily raise a tent or other camp facility off of the ground, provided that such items are not affixed or tied to any public property, private real property, vegetation, or infrastructure. 19.50.050 - Violations; Enforcement. A. In addition to enforcement as described below, the City may enforce this chapter pursuant to chapters 1.42, 1.44, and 1.46; provided, however, that no person shall be charged with a criminal violation unless their unlawful conduct is knowing or willful. B. The city manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcement of this chapter. C. For a violation of section 19.50.030(A)-(B), the city manager or their designee may require the person in violation to immediately cease the prohibited camping. D. For violation of section 19.50.040(B)(1)-(2), related to the size, occupancy, and clearance or setbacks of a campsite, the person camping shall be given 48 hours to come into compliance with this chapter. The city manager or their designee shall provide upon request a physical demarcation of the allowed boundary to assist the person camping to comply with this chapter. E. Unpermitted structure. For a violation of section 19.50.040(B)(3), related to an unpermitted structure, the structure shall be tagged with a notice to remove the structure from public property within 48 hours. If the noticed structure is not removed from public property within 48 hours of notice, the city manager or their designee may immediately remove such structure and restore the public property. F. Exigent Circumstances. For a violation of section 19.50.040(B)(1)-(2) whereby there is an imminent threat to life, health, safety or infrastructure such that exigent circumstances require immediate action, the City Manager or their designee may require the person in violation to immediately cure the violation. The City Manager or their designee shall provide as much advance notice as reasonable under the circumstances. 19.50.060 - Conflict with Other Regulations. To the extent that there is any conflict with any other provisions of this code, the standards and regulations of this chapter shall prevail. SECTION 3. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA This Ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the city. The City Council hereby finds that under section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It also finds the Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308 as an action by a regulatory agency taken to protect the environment and natural resources. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY Every section, paragraph, clause, and phrase of this Ordinance is hereby declared to be severable. If for any reason, any section, paragraph, clause, or phrase is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, clauses or phrases, and the remaining portions or this Ordinance shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the city. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION This Ordinance shall be published once, in full or in summary form, before its final passage, in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of San Rafael and shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its adoption. If published in summary form, the summary shall also be published within fifteen (15) days after the adoption, together with the names of those Councilmembers voting for or against same, in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of San Rafael, County of Marin, State of California. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall also post in the office of the City Clerk, a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was first read and introduced at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council on the 7th day of April 2025, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council on the 21st of April 2025, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ________________________ Kate Colin, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Lindsay Lara, City Clerk Homelessness Update: Camping Ordinance and Sanctioned Camping Area April 7, 2025 Presentation Overview 1.Six-month evaluation of Camping Ordinance (effective October 2024) 2.Update on Sanctioned Camping Area (SCA) progress 3.Proposed amendment to Camping Ordinance Enforcement of the Camping Regulations Violation of setbacks, size maximums, and illegal structures Every Tuesday: San Rafael Police Officers review known encampment areas, issue 48- hour notice for violations 48-Hours later, Thursday: Debris removal by City’s contractors and in cases of non- compliance, citation may be issued by SRPD Camping in a prohibited area violation, e.g. South Mahon Path Every Tuesday and other times as reported: San Rafael Police Officers review reported sites, issue 24-hour notice to vacate the area 24-Hours later: Debris removal by City’s contractors and in cases of non- compliance,citation may be issued Evaluation of Current Camping Regulations Category May – Sept 2024 Oct 2024 – Feb 2025 Change Calls for Service 161 223 +38.51% Campsite Warning Police Reports 84 69 -17.86% •Increased community awareness of reporting channels •Reduced Campsite violations associated with SCA Implementation •No individuals camping in City Parks, as of April 4th, 2025 Sanctioned Camping Area (SCA) Evaluation Opening Date: October 4, 2024 | Capacity: Full at 50 participants Housing Progress: •1 participant moved into permanent housing •1 participant received housing voucher, actively searching for housing Case Management Services: •March 2025: 60% of participants working with case managers •April 2025: 2 additional case managers and 1 outreach worker to be added Participant Success & Impact: •5 participants have gained employment •Improved stability & gaining housing readiness •Increased access to medical & social services Constraints of Shelter Availability Proposed Amendments to Chapter 19.50 •Growing concern for unhoused individuals camping in parks due to the safety hazard posed by fires, especially in areas near dry vegetation. •February 24, 2025, Cal Fire released its updated Fire Hazard Severity Zones map •San Rafael Parks within the FHSZ: •Gerstle, Sun Valley, Peacock Gap, Victor Jones, Santa Margarita, Jerry Russom Memorial, and Terra Linda Proposed Amendments to Chapter 19.50 •Due to heightened fire risks and community concerns, staff recommends amending Chapter 19.50 to prohibit camping in Fire Hazard Severity Zones •Existing camping prohibitions in Albert Park, Boyd Park, and Falkirk Cultural Center already limit camping in city parks. •Staff recommend amending Chapter 19.50 to prohibit camping in all San Rafael City parks. Community Outreach Downtown Businesses •Early in 2025, Community Services Division Staff and the Chamber of Commerce visited businesses in Downtown San Rafael to listen to concerns regarding homelessness. Homelessness Solutions Working Group •Group of 30 Residents who self-selected to participate for three meetings over six months. •Provided feedback on potential changes to Chapter 19.50 •Majority supported prohibiting camping in parks, either entirely or within the FHSZ locations. Public Inquiry & Comment •City staff have received hundreds of inquiries and comments from members of the public via email, phone, or in-person. •Majority of feedback received is in alignment with the change to prohibit camping in San Rafael parks. Recommended Action 1.Introduce the Ordinance, waive further reading of the Ordinance, and refer to it by title only. Thank you! April 7, 2025