Preview
William L. Adams SBN 166027
WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC
P.O. BOX 1050
Windsor, CA 95492-1050
Telephone: (707) 236-2176
Email: bill@wladamspc.com
Attorneys for Defendant
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and consolidated actions
ASTRID SCHMID, SCV-266731 and SCV-270339
11
Plaintiffs,
12 DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK
13 FIRE’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW
TO RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED
14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE VIOLATION OF AUGUST 4, 2021 ORDER
DEPARTMENT,
15 Date: September 8, 2023
Defendant Time: 3:00 p.m.
16 Dept.: 19
Judge: Hon. Oscar Pardo
17 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS.
18
19 I, WILLIAM L. ADAMS, declare:
20 1 Iam an attorney duly licensed to practice before all Courts in the State of California. I
21 am the attorney of record for Defendant TWO ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT, also known as TWO
22 ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT (“Two Rock Fire”). I have been an attorney for 29 years. .3
23 was elected by my peers and served as President of the Sonoma County Bar Association in 2004; and
24 represent multiple fire agencies in several counties throughout the State of California.
25 2 Ihave personal knowledge of the legal, procedural, and factual issues in this matter. I
26 make this Declaration in support of Two Rock Fire’s response to the Order to Show Cause re Contempt
27 for alleged violations of the August 4, 2021 Preliminary Injunction. The information set forth in Two
28 Rock Fire’s response and the following information is true and of my own personal knowledge, and if
-l-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S
RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER.
called as a witness, I would competently testify thereto. Additionally, the Court is respectfully requested
to take judicial notice of the documentary exhibits attached hereto pursuant to Evidence Code sections
451 et seq.; as well as the Court’s own records and files in this case consolidated case and the concurrent
ongoing case of Schmids v, ThompsonGas, LLC, Two Rock Fire, and County of Sonoma, Sonoma
County Superior Court Case No. SCV-270322.
3 This declaration is provided as a protection of Two Rock Fire’s due process rights in light
of criminal character of contempt proceedings (see, e.g. , Ex parte Gould (1893) 99 Cal. 360
(proceeding for contempt of court is in the nature of a criminal prosecution, and the court is not
authorized to compel the defendant to be sworn as a witness in such proceeding against himself, or to
10 adjudge him guilty of contempt for refusal to be sworn as such)), and is provided without any waiver of
11 Two Rock Fire’s rights and opportunities for a full evidentiary hearing to cross-exam Plaintiffs, and to
12 thereafter present a more comprehensive response and defense in light of evidence being considered by
13 the Court, without being compelled to appear via papers akin to a non-contempt law and motion
14 proceeding. (See, e.g., Collins v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1957) 150 Cal. App. 2d 354 (on
15 offer of affidavits as evidence, accused should have right to object to any matter stated therein on any
16 proper ground as to relevancy or competency, and also the right, if evidence be received, to cross-
17 examine affiant).)
18 4 Since 1927, Two Rock Fire has been a Volunteer Fire Company organized and operating
19 pursuant California Health and Safety Code section 14825 and serving as the designated public safety
20 agency in Sonoma County unincorporated areas to provide fire and emergency medical services to its
21 immediate community, as well as regional and Statewide mutual aid as needed. Earlier this year, the
22 Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission approved the reorganization of the Gold Ridge
23 Fire Protection District, organized and operating in the southwestern portion of Sonoma County,
24 pursuant to the California Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (California Health and Safety Code
25 section 13800 et seq.), to include the annexation of Two Rock Fire.
26 5 The 15-page Preliminary Injunction dated August 4, 2021 (“Preliminary Injunction”), is
27 provided as Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’ application for an Order to Show Cause re Contempt, and therefore
28 is not provided again by Two Rock Fire with this declaration. Excerpts and quotations from the
-2-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S
RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER.
Preliminary Injunction are to the document provided by Plaintiff, which is also part of this Court’s own
records and files. Plaintiffs’ contempt application expressly states that after two years of appeals and
modifications, the Remitter from the Court of Appeal became effective July 12, 2023, which constitutes
the first date for any potential violations of the Preliminary Injunction. (See App. page, 8, lines 6-8
(Remittitur of the plaintiffs’ successful appeal of the void modification order issued on July 12, 2023.
Thus, the appellate decision is final, and this Court has jurisdiction to consider this application.”))
6 Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and copy of the six (6) page “Ruling on Motion
to Stay and Motion for Reconsideration” entered February 17, 2022 (“Modification Order”), in this case.
In the context of what the Court describes as “Plaintiff addresses the location of the propane tank and
10 potential fire hazards” (Exhibit “A”, page 4, lines 16-17 (emphasis added)), the Court’s findings and
11 orders authorizing the use of the propane-fueled industrial dehumidifying heater (and thus the propane
12 tank that fuels the heater) are set forth on lines 18-25 on page 4:
13 “Defendant provides a declaration of Nathan Quarles, Deputy Director of
Engineering with the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management
14 Department. Mr. Quarles noted that the permit references the installation and
inspection of the propane heater. He states that the “heater was permitted under
15 the building permit”; that it was installed per code and manufacturing
instructions; and that the heater does not change the occupancy of the structure.
16
The Preliminary Injunction is modified to allow use of the existing
17 propane-fueled industrial heater ....” .
18 This excerpt is highlighted for convenience of review by the Court. While superseded by the
19 Court of Appeal reversing the Modification Order solely on procedural grounds (without address the
20 substantive merits Judge Nadler found concerning the negative operation and public safety impacts
21 created by the Preliminary Injunction, this quotation is provided to demonstrate Court’s admission as
22 evidence and reliance upon the declarations and testimony provided by Battalion Chief Lori Anello,
23 Battalion Chief Darrin DeCarli, and County PRMD Deputy Director of Engineering Nathan Quarles.
24 7
Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and copy of the two (2) page “Declaration of
25 Nathan Quarles Re: Propane Tank at Two Rock Fire Dept. Garage” dated November 5, 2021, filed in
26 this case, which is referenced, relied upon, and quoted by the Court in lines 18-23 on page 4 of Exhibit
27 “A”, Mr. Quarles November 5, 2021 declaration has already been accepted into evidence by the Court
28 in this case. Mr. Quarles is the Deputy Director of Engineering for the County of Sonoma Permit and
-3-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S,
RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER.
Resource Management Department (also referred to as “Permit Sonoma”). Mr. Quarles states he
reviewed the Permit Sonoma records concerning Building Permit 19-2620 “that deal with the
installation and inspection ofthe propane heater. That heater was permitted under the building permit.
It was installed per code and manufacturing instructions. The heater does not change the occupancy of
the structure.” (Exhibit “B”, page 1, lines 24-27.) This excerpt is highlighted for convenience of review
by the Court.
8 Attached hereto as Exhibits “C-1” and “C-2” are a true and correct copies of two (2)
pages of the County of Sonoma Permit Sonoma inspection and approval of gas line plumbing for
Building Permit 19-2620 for the new Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department facility. Exhibit “C-1” is a
10 Correction Notice dated May 15, 2020 identifying corrections for “4. Sediment trap for gas line at
11 heater on wrong side of shut off valve; 5. Paint exposed threads on gas line.” After these corrections
12 were made, Exhibit “C-2” is the Field Inspection Record confirming the final inspection approving and
13 closing Building Permit 19-2620 on June 16, 2020. Consistent with Mr. Quarles statements in Exhibit
14 “B” that the propane-fueled industrial dehumidifying heater was permitted and approved, since the
15 approval of occupancy and more than three years of operations by Two Rock Fire at the subject facility,
16 there have been no code violations or abatement actions taken by the regulatory authority, County of
17 Sonoma, concerning the activities of Two Rock Fire, the gas line plumbing, industrial dehumidifying
18 heater, or propane tank.
19 9 Attached hereto as Exhibit “D-1” through “D-4” are true and correct copies of the
20 printout of the Sonoma County Permit Sonoma permit history web page for Building Permit 22-1594
21 entitled “Re-installation of propane tank after temporary removal”, for the new Two Rock Fire facility
22 on the subject property; https://parcelsearch.permitsonoma.org/parcelreport?
APN=022-140-
23 017&PN=BLD22-1594&RP=permitSearch. The two pages of Exhibits “D-1” and “D-2” consist of a
24 cover page showing Building Permit 22-1594 was inspected and closed on April 15, 2022 (in the midst
25 of the two-year stay of the Preliminary Injunction), and a one-page site plan document showing the as-
26 installed and approved location for the 500-gallon propane tank. For clarity and ease of review by the
27 Court, an enlarged copy of the site plan is attached as Exhibit “D-3” showing the detail of the National
28 Fire Protection Association 58 diagram documenting setbacks of 10 feet for 500 gallon propane tanks in
-4-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S
RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER.
accordance California Code of Regulations Title 8 section 470-494; and another enlarged copy of the
site plan is attached as Exhibit “D-4” showing the actual setback of the installed propane tank 12 feet
from the property line at the new Two Rock Fire facility.
10.. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct copy of the three (3) page
declaration of Two Rock Fire Battalion Chief Lori Anello dated August 18, 2021, filed in this case,
which is referenced and relied upon throughout the Modification Order. Chief Anello’s August 18,
2021 declaration has already been accepted into evidence by the Court in this case.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F” is a true and correct copy the seven (7) page declaration
of Gold Ridge Fire Protection District Division Chief and Fire Marshal Darrin DeCarli. Exhibit “E”
10 includes a copy of Chief DeCarli’s previous two (2) page declaration dated November 5, 2021, filed in
11 this case, which is referenced and relied upon throughout the Modification Order. Chief DeCarli’s
12 November 5, 2021 declaration has already been accepted into evidence by the Court in this case. Chief
13 DeCarli’s new declaration provides additional information and background, particularly related to his
14 official duties and responsibilities in his position as Fire Marshal of the Gold Ridge Fire Protection
15 District, with responsibilities to inspect, evaluate, and oversee citations and mitigations of fire hazards
16 and threats to property; including the adjacent properties of both Two Rock Fire and Plaintiffs at issue in
17 this case.
18 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit “G” is a true and correct copy of a color photograph showing
19 one of the downward-facing shielded red lights on the front of the building (which is on the opposite
20 side of the building from Plaintiffs’ residence that is 400 feet away and not visible by Plaintiffs). Two
21 Rock Fire makes an offer of proof that Two Rock Fire will so testify during the defense case of the
22 contempt hearing should this particular contempt allegation survive cross-examination, that these red
23 lights have been turned off and not used since the Remittitur became effective on July 12, 2023. (See
24 CCP § 354; Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4" 229.)
25 13. Attached hereto as Exhibits “H-1” and “H-2” are a true and correct copies of color
26 photographs regarding the propane-fueled industrial dehumidifying heater. Exhibit “G-1” shows the
27 disconnected gas line plumbing at the propane tank. Exhibit “H-1” shows the disconnected gas line
28 plumbing at the propane tank. Exhibit “H-2” shows closed valve on the disconnected heater. Two
-5-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S,
RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER.
Rock Fire makes an offer of proof that Two Rock Fire will so testify during the defense case of the
contempt hearing should this particular contempt allegation survive cross-examination, that the County-
approved propane tank has been disconnected from the gas line plumbing and has not been in use since
the Remittitur became effective on July 12, 2023, and that the County-approved industrial
dehumidifying heater has been disconnected and has not been used since the Remittitur became effective
on July 12, 2023. (See CCP § 354; Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4" 229.)
14. With regard to the single incident on July 18, 2023, which Plaintiffs allege violated the
Preliminary Injunction provisions concerning parking and use of the Two Rock Fire building, July 18,
2023 was a fire department volunteer maintenance evening during which volunteers were conducting
10 maintenance on fire equipment and vehicles, as expressly allowed by the Preliminary Injunction. (See
11 PI, page 15, lines 1-2 (“[a]ctivity at the garage project shall be limited to fire equipment maintenance
12 and storage....” Additionally, seven vehicles is less than the maximum of ten vehicles authorized in
13 the parking lot, as expressly allowed by the Preliminary Injunction. (See PI, page 15, lines 6-8 (“the
14 parking lot is limited to a maximum of ten vehicles and may be used only for parking by fire and
15 contractor personnel, for staging of strike teams as required for response to emergencies, or maintenance
16 and storage of equipment.” Two Rock Fire makes an offer of proof that Two Rock Fire will so testify
17 during the defense case of the contempt hearing should this particular contempt allegation survive cross-
18 examination, that volunteers firefighters parked in the lot and took all the trucks out to the Two Rock
19 School yard for training and maintenance — including laying out and inspecting the hose lines, deploying
20 various pieces of equipment, and checking their function, such equipment as Jaws of Life, portable
21 generators and power and hand tools, and that there was no meeting at the building. (See CCP § 354;
22 Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4" 229.)
23 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit “I” is a true and correct copy of an email chain I sent to
24 Plaintiffs on Tuesday, August 22, 2023, and Plaintiffs’ response on Thursday evening August 24, 2023,
25 requesting that Plaintiffs stipulate to coordinate onto a single hearing date on either October 4 or October
26 11, 2023, both the Order to Show Cause re Contempt as well as Two Rock Fire’s Motion to Dissolve the
27 Preliminary Injunction, both pleadings concerning the Preliminary Injunction are being filed and served
28 on August 25, 2023. As shown from the excerpt below, this requested stipulation also notified Plaintiffs
-6-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S,
RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER.
1 that, if Plaintiffs declined to stipulation, Two Rock Fire would make a request for hearing coordination
2 || via the Department 19 ex parte calendar on Monday, August 28, 2023.
3 “The purpose of this email is to request that you stipulate for the coordination of
both these matters to be heard on the same calendar before Judge Pardo in
4 Department 19. Although these matters may be specially set by the Court to
allow for cross-examination regarding the contempt allegations, I suggest that the
parties stipulate to 10/4/23 or 10/11/23 on Judge Pardo’s law and motion
calendar, or the soonest date thereafter at the convenience of the Court.
If this is acceptable, please confirm your preferred date and I will prepare the
stipulation. In the event you do not agree to so stipulate, defendant Two Rock
Fire will bring this request for coordination of the hearing dates for the OSC re
Contempt and Motion to Dissolve before Judge Pardo on his ex parte calendar on
Monday 8/28/25. “
10 As shown on Exhibit “I”, Plaintiffs decline to stipulate to the brief continuance and coordination
11 of the hearing date — and stated they were unavailable on October 11, 2023, the second date proposed.
12 Accordingly, based on Plaintiffs’ availability, the Court is requested to set on October 4, 2023, both the
13 evidentiary hearing on the OSC re Contempt and Two Rock Fire’s Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary
14 Injunction.
15 16. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
16 foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Windsor, California.
anne
17
18 DATED: August 25, 2023
William L. Adams
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S
RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER.
EXHIBIT A
FILED
" SureRIOR
TiGoGe oF rhe COURT or alifornia,
Courtroom 19
3055 Cleveland Avenue \" eety VN A | TP
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 521-6602
o |FReAR STEPHEN scHMOAND
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA
Case No, SoW286226
10
Plaintiffs,
11
Vv. (Hearing Date: February 9, 2022)
12
13 [dceaniwienn
14 Defendants.
15
16 Defendant's Motion for Stay of Action and Motion for Reconsideration came on
17 for hearing on February 9, 2022 before the Hon. Gary Nadler, Judge Presiding. Frear
18 Stephen Schmid was present on behalf of self and Plaintiffs. Counsel Brian Sanders
19 was present on behalf of Defendant, Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department.
20 Upon consideration by the Court of the papers and evidence filed in support of
21 and in opposition to the motion, and having heard and considered oral argument of
22 counsel, the Court makes the following ruling:
23 At the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay the proceedings, the court
24 addressed the pending appeal by Defendant relative to the ability of the court to
25 address the pending motion for modification of the injunction. The court allowed the
26 parties additional time to address that specific issue. Defendant then abandoned its
27 appeal, rendering further briefing moot.
28 /
Defendant's Motion for Stay of Action Pending Determination of TRVFD's
Pending Appeal of Order Granting Preliminary Injunction is denied as moot.
With regard to the pending Motion for Reconsideration, upon considering the
pleadings and argument of the parties, the court modifies the August 4, 2021
| Preliminary Injunction as follows.
A. LIGHTING
In the Preliminary Injunction, the court denied the request for an order requiring
Defendant to cover or paint the roof; to remove the lights which exceed the scope of the
permit; to remove the water tank; and for destruction or removal of the concrete pad.
10 However, the August 4, 2021 Preliminary Injunction required Defendant to keep the
11 lights off when not in use; and that the lights shall be downward facing and located at
12 the lowest possible point to the ground to prevent spillover onto adjacent properties,
13 glare, nighttime light pollution, and unnecessary glow into the rural night sky. The
14 Preliminary Injunction required that two security floodlights in the building’s apexes and
15 eight unshielded red lights on the front of the structure shall be disabled. The
16 Preliminary Injunction required that security lighting shall be put on motion sensors.
17 In support of Defendant's motion for modification, Battalion Chief Lori Anello
18 submitted a declaration addressing potential safety issues arising from the Preliminary
19 Injunction. She testified that relying on motion sensors creates a safety issue for
20 Tesponding firefighters who use the subject facility, as firefighters may not be able to
21 see trip hazards without using a flashlight in an emergency. Further, firefighters would
22 not have adequate light to be able to enter a code in the electronic lock to gain timely
23 entry to the building. Finally, she testified that exterior lights are needed because it
24 would identify what the building is used for, including persons searching for the building
25 in extreme cases. Also, illumination of the exterior lights would add to the security of
26 the station and provide better visual of persons approaching the building while using
27 camera security devices.
28 /
-2.
The court determines that subject to final determination of injunctive relief sought,
exterior lighting is not limited as provided in the Preliminary Injunction and said
restrictions are vacated. Defendant shall, however, use reasonable effort to minimize
the impact of all such exterior lighting on Plaintiffs.
B. Parking
The Preliminary Injunction provided that individual vehicles could be parked at
the building when responding to an emergency call. Further, the order provided that
parking was limited to 10 spaces except to the extent necessary for responding to
emergency calls. The Preliminary Injunction is modified to include parking by fire and
10 contractor personnel for staging of strike teams as required for response to
11 emergencies, and maintenance and storage of equipment.
12 Battalion Chief Lori Anello testified that prohibiting Defendant from using the
13 parking lot except during emergencies poses a danger for firefighters who must park
14 across the street. The example given was a training session involving 11 participants
15 The court modifies the Preliminary Injunction as follows. First, parking at the
16 facility shall not be limited to emergencies. Rather, its use is expanded to include all
17 training and maintenance activities of Defendant. Further, parking may exceed ten
18 vehicles so long as ingress and egress is safely provided and is exceeded only to the
19 extent that is reasonably necessary for emergencies, training, and maintenance and
20 storage of firefighting equipment.
21 C. Heating
22 As expressed by Battalion Chief Anello, it is important to maintain the building in
23 a warm and dry condition to avoid damage to firefighting equipment. This is intended to
24 avoid damage from rodents, mold, or cold climates.
25 In the declaration of Battalion Chief Darrin DeCarli, he described the need to heat
26 the inside of the subject facility “in order to prevent moisture and growth of contaminants
27 on and inside the trucks, personal protective equipment” for the firefighters, “and the
28 other firefighting equipment, apparatus, and supplies that are contained inside the truck
facility.”. Chief DeCarli addressed the relative fire hazards presented by various forms of
heaters as a fuel source at the location of the subject building: he testified that “using
the existing propane-fueled industrial heater mounted at ceiling height and well away
from” potentially combustible materials would best provide the necessary protection for
equipment stored in the facility. He further noted that use of space heaters would
present a far greater fire hazard. Chief DeCarli opined that the safety measures in
place (such as bollards in the parking area preventing contact with the tank) provide
additional protection.
Plaintiff Frear Stephen Schmid provides a declaration which attached “the
10 complete building permit file”. In his declaration, Mr. Schmid opines that “[t]here is no
11 depiction of or any reference to any heater or any electrical or plumbing thereto being
12 submitted for review, approval, inspection or permitting pertaining to the subject TRFD
13 storage garage. Further, there is no indication that a heater or the plumbing or electrical
14 thereto was ever inspected or approved, nor is there any request for inspection of the
15 heater, or the plumbing or electrical thereto.” Plaintiff presents communications and
16 records indicating that the building was to be “unconditioned”. At paragraph 6, Plaintiff
17 addresses the location of the propane tank and potential fire hazards.
18
19 || Engineering with the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department.
20
21
22
23
24
25 industrial
heater mounted at ceiling height and located well away from potentially
26 combustible materials. Further, that heating is utilized for the protection and cleaning of
27 firefighting equipment, including the prevention of moisture and growth of contaminants
28 on and inside the trucks, personal protective equipment for firefighters, and other
A.
1 firefighting equipment, apparatus, and supplies that may be contained inside the truck
2 || facility.
3
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6 || DATED: A haf Z2-
7
7 “GARY NADLER
Judge of the Superior Court
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SCV-266225
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma,
and that my business address is 600 Administration Dr., Room 107-J, Santa Rosa, California,
95403; that I am not a party to this case; that I am over the age of 18; that I am readily familiar
with this office's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the
United States Postal Service; and that on the date shown below I placed a true copy of RULING
ON MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION in an envelope, sealed
and addressed as shown below, for collection and mailing at Santa Rosa, California, first class,
postage fully prepaid, following ordinary business practices.
Date: February 17, 2022
Arlene Junior
Clerk of the Court
By: LuceGongaley
Luce Gonzalez, Deputy Clerk
-ADDRESSEES-
FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID MICHAEL ALCOCK KING
7585 VALLEY FORD ROAD DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
PETALUMA CA 94952 COUNTY OF SONOMA
575 ADMINISTRATION DR.# 105A
SANTA ROSA CA 95403
JOSEPH JONATHAN MINIOZA
ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT
2300 CLAYTON RD STE 350 BRIAN MURRAY SANDERS
CONCORD CA 94520 ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT
2300 CLAYTON ROAD #350
CONCORD CA 94520
EXHIBIT B
ROBERT H. PITTMAN, State Bar No. 172154
County Counsel
MICHAEL A. KING, State Bar No. 077014
Deputy County Counsel
575 Administration Drive, Room 105A.
Santa Rosa, Califomia 95403-2815
Telephone: (707) 565-2421
Facsimile: (707) 565-2624
Attomeys for Defendant
COUNTY OF SONOMA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA.
10
FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND ASTRID Case No.: SCV-266225 and consolidated action
11 SCHMID,
12 SCV-266731
Plaintiffs
a
13
14
15 WO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
aka TWO ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT, Trial Date: TBD
16
17 Defendant.
18
AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION
19
20
I, NATHAN QUARLES, hereby declare:
21
1 lam Deputy Director of Engineering with the Permit and Resource Management
Department, County of Sonoma. Part of my duties involved supervising
the Building Division. Iam
23
competent to testify to these matters from my personal knowledge:
2. T have reviewed the Permit Sonoma building penmit records for 7599 Valley Ford Road,
25
26
Petaluma, pemitno, BLD 19-2620; that deal with the installation and inspection ofthe propane heater,
27
| That heater was permitted under the building permit. It was installed per oode and manufacturing
| instructions. The heater does not change the oocupancy of the structure.
Declaration of Nathan Quarles
3. These documents I reviewed are business records of Permit Sonoma, maintained
in the
ordinary course
of business. I am familiar with the manner that they are prepared and retained.
I declare
under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of Califomia
that the foregoing is
true and comrect. Executed at Santa Rosa, Califomia, on November 5, 2021.
NATHAN QUARLES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
25
26
27
Declaration of Nathan Quarles
EXHIBIT C
“We ale ap RB,
<= permit
SS SONOMA’ Shier
CNI-005
Owner
Inspection Code 144
Job Address 75M Volley fod Pd VEY
Other Foundation Underfloor ’ Shear/Roof Nailing O Close-in O Final O
c
( have inspected work under the above permit and have observed the following code violations: ph un
Gn at Yi LAC\ “A Kt “A 3!7
a WW
hea
5 o™
LH BA
L@s,
BIT ot
Dassemder Side
é) Repair _c\ectrival Patel? i wu Ae) Lib
fv sh ee Ve Bee @ Olen
Make corrections before proceeding with other work, When corrections have been made, call
(707) 565-3551 or (707) 565-1679 for reinspection. = e
O This Correction Notice must be brought into Permit Sonoma with requested revisions.
iapiate ide Pula,
White - Job Canary - Permit Canary - Office
Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department
2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa CA 95403-2859 (707)565-1900 Fax (707)565-1972
www.PermitSonoma.org
M005 vases Exhibit C-1
“WAS
FIELD INSPECTION RECORD
permit
I SONORA MMlbnoma County Permit and Resource Management Department
2590 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rasa, CA 95403
Telephone (707) 565-1900 *
Owner: TWO ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT ET AL
[TWO] AUTOMATED INSPECTION REQUEST SYSTEM
By phone: (707) 565-3554
Job Address: 7599 VALLEY FORD, PETALUMA Online: https://prmd.sonomacounty.ca,gov/CitizenAccess
Contractor Central Mobile App: iOS and Android
Permit ta Expire’ 8/25/2022
Cantractar: For next business day inspections
inspector. Larry Macchia call between the hours of 6:00 AM te midnight
You must have your permit number, jab site address
NEW 5400 SQ FT FIREHOUSE BLDG - and the inspection code listed below
OBSETption UTILITY BLDG FOR STORAGE OF FIRE
VEHICLES
THIS JOB CARD MUST BE AVAILABLE AT THME OF INSPECTION
CODE INSPECTION TYPE CODE INSPECTION TYPE
101 | BUILDING PAD ROUGH _166_| ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE
121 | FIRE SAFE STANDARUS 144 | WATER TANKS.
[193 [FOUNDATION [©.L1<[ CB} SLABS
FORMS/SETBACK WALLS.
FOOTING 174 ELECTRIC METER AUTHORIZATION
52 PANEL BOARDS/SERVICE
106 TEL GROuNG CE plaad dass [ak -2020 f 189 SEPTIC ELECTRIC FINAL
404 |CAISSONS/PIERS 175 GAS METER AUTHORIZATION
10! SLAB Ta Par) 153 GAS PRESSURE TEST
107_|U/G UTHITIES HOUSE
110_| MASONRY YARD
109 | RETAINING WALLS 190 MANUFACTURED HOME FOUNDATION.
11. FIREPLACE 191 MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLATION
FOOTING CONTINUITY
HEARTH/PROTECTION STAIRS/SKIRTS.
THROAT RIDGE BOLTING
134 | CHIMNEY 193 MANUFACTURED NOME COND, FINAL
120 {UNDERFLOOR/UNDERSLAB,ALL SWIMMING POOLS
115_| HYDRONICS ~ 197 VINYL/FIBERGLASS POOL EXCAVATION
216 |U/F ELECTRICAL 194 PRE-GUNITE
41? |U/F MECHANICAL 195 PRE-DECK
118 |U/F PLUMBING 196 PRE-PLASTER/FENCE
119 | U/F FRAMING STORM WATER
139_|U/F INSULATION 650. SUSMP INSPECTION
peennee
125 | HOLD DOWNS 651 STORM WATER PRE-CONSTRUCTION
652 STORM WATER BMPs VERIFICATION
653 STORM WATER FINAL,
EXTERIOR
127 | DIAPHRAGMS, 102 BUILDING PAD FINAL
ROOF NAILING 176 ELECTRICAL FINAL
FLOOR NAILING 177 MECHANICAL FINAL
134 | SIDING/ SHEATHING 278 PLUMBING FINAL
135 | STUCCO/PLASTER 149 PROGRESS
LATH CLEARANCES
130
SCRATCH
| TUB/SHOWER PAW
| FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
bes
136 | VENEER ZONING
132 { CLOSE-IN
122
123
| ROUGH ELECTRICAL
| ROUGH MECHANICAL
Lys 2g2p fale Wi R
124 | ROUGH PLUMBING SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES/SEPARATE PERMIT REQ'D
128 | ROUGH FRAME LIS 2020 RE 170 TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY
a4 FERAOMRARY FIFCTRICAL
Exhibit C-2._
EXHIBIT D
BLD22-1594 - Building Permit
Two Rock Fire Department, Re-installation of propane tank after temporary
removal.
Permit Number:
BLD22.1594
Permit Type:
Building Permit
Applicant:
TWO ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT
Primary Address:
7599 VALLEY FORD RD, PETALUMA, CA 94952
Permit Description:
Two Rock Fire Department, Re-installation of propane tank after temporary removal.
Status:
Permit Timeline
PNe) elites lated)
Cra PAUrs va7
nowy se
Canes
etme
Cram PAUe
fas) ox-raulela)
LARP
(ellots-re)
AR EAs
Show Timeline ® Hide Documents ¥
Document Name: 2 -017 - D22-1594 RESUBMITTAL.PDF
Category: SITE PLAN
Address: 7599 VALLEY FORD RD PETALUMA, CA 94952
Exhibit D-1
a
oa sg0 bd adog, Wy)
mans Vii) onde SETS ay
a
pa |e
Hy oy
it ii
Wh te
|
|i
| i i i if
/# |
i} fill
} iff Hl Hl li
ilWL
—
[anid
eH Ey pee
il (i |
i
Li 5
Lg yt a # \, i
{ i, iy
Py
Li g
|
it i Hi
il i
Hi 4 i! i li ae ae
A
it
ae
&) |
{I
\ly
4 tei
\|
||
; | \
XE h
it
r »
Preview
William L. Adams SBN 166027 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC P.O. BOX 1050 Windsor, CA 95492-1050 Telephone: (707) 236-2176 Email: bill@wladamspc.com Attorneys for Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and consolidated actions ASTRID SCHMID, SCV-266731 and SCV-270339 11 Plaintiffs, 12 DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK 13 FIRE’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW TO RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED 14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE VIOLATION OF AUGUST 4, 2021 ORDER DEPARTMENT, 15 Date: September 8, 2023 Defendant Time: 3:00 p.m. 16 Dept.: 19 Judge: Hon. Oscar Pardo 17 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS. 18 19 I, WILLIAM L. ADAMS, declare: 20 1 Iam an attorney duly licensed to practice before all Courts in the State of California. I 21 am the attorney of record for Defendant TWO ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT, also known as TWO 22 ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT (“Two Rock Fire”). I have been an attorney for 29 years. .3 23 was elected by my peers and served as President of the Sonoma County Bar Association in 2004; and 24 represent multiple fire agencies in several counties throughout the State of California. 25 2 Ihave personal knowledge of the legal, procedural, and factual issues in this matter. I 26 make this Declaration in support of Two Rock Fire’s response to the Order to Show Cause re Contempt 27 for alleged violations of the August 4, 2021 Preliminary Injunction. The information set forth in Two 28 Rock Fire’s response and the following information is true and of my own personal knowledge, and if -l- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER. called as a witness, I would competently testify thereto. Additionally, the Court is respectfully requested to take judicial notice of the documentary exhibits attached hereto pursuant to Evidence Code sections 451 et seq.; as well as the Court’s own records and files in this case consolidated case and the concurrent ongoing case of Schmids v, ThompsonGas, LLC, Two Rock Fire, and County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-270322. 3 This declaration is provided as a protection of Two Rock Fire’s due process rights in light of criminal character of contempt proceedings (see, e.g. , Ex parte Gould (1893) 99 Cal. 360 (proceeding for contempt of court is in the nature of a criminal prosecution, and the court is not authorized to compel the defendant to be sworn as a witness in such proceeding against himself, or to 10 adjudge him guilty of contempt for refusal to be sworn as such)), and is provided without any waiver of 11 Two Rock Fire’s rights and opportunities for a full evidentiary hearing to cross-exam Plaintiffs, and to 12 thereafter present a more comprehensive response and defense in light of evidence being considered by 13 the Court, without being compelled to appear via papers akin to a non-contempt law and motion 14 proceeding. (See, e.g., Collins v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1957) 150 Cal. App. 2d 354 (on 15 offer of affidavits as evidence, accused should have right to object to any matter stated therein on any 16 proper ground as to relevancy or competency, and also the right, if evidence be received, to cross- 17 examine affiant).) 18 4 Since 1927, Two Rock Fire has been a Volunteer Fire Company organized and operating 19 pursuant California Health and Safety Code section 14825 and serving as the designated public safety 20 agency in Sonoma County unincorporated areas to provide fire and emergency medical services to its 21 immediate community, as well as regional and Statewide mutual aid as needed. Earlier this year, the 22 Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission approved the reorganization of the Gold Ridge 23 Fire Protection District, organized and operating in the southwestern portion of Sonoma County, 24 pursuant to the California Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (California Health and Safety Code 25 section 13800 et seq.), to include the annexation of Two Rock Fire. 26 5 The 15-page Preliminary Injunction dated August 4, 2021 (“Preliminary Injunction”), is 27 provided as Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’ application for an Order to Show Cause re Contempt, and therefore 28 is not provided again by Two Rock Fire with this declaration. Excerpts and quotations from the -2- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER. Preliminary Injunction are to the document provided by Plaintiff, which is also part of this Court’s own records and files. Plaintiffs’ contempt application expressly states that after two years of appeals and modifications, the Remitter from the Court of Appeal became effective July 12, 2023, which constitutes the first date for any potential violations of the Preliminary Injunction. (See App. page, 8, lines 6-8 (Remittitur of the plaintiffs’ successful appeal of the void modification order issued on July 12, 2023. Thus, the appellate decision is final, and this Court has jurisdiction to consider this application.”)) 6 Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and copy of the six (6) page “Ruling on Motion to Stay and Motion for Reconsideration” entered February 17, 2022 (“Modification Order”), in this case. In the context of what the Court describes as “Plaintiff addresses the location of the propane tank and 10 potential fire hazards” (Exhibit “A”, page 4, lines 16-17 (emphasis added)), the Court’s findings and 11 orders authorizing the use of the propane-fueled industrial dehumidifying heater (and thus the propane 12 tank that fuels the heater) are set forth on lines 18-25 on page 4: 13 “Defendant provides a declaration of Nathan Quarles, Deputy Director of Engineering with the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management 14 Department. Mr. Quarles noted that the permit references the installation and inspection of the propane heater. He states that the “heater was permitted under 15 the building permit”; that it was installed per code and manufacturing instructions; and that the heater does not change the occupancy of the structure. 16 The Preliminary Injunction is modified to allow use of the existing 17 propane-fueled industrial heater ....” . 18 This excerpt is highlighted for convenience of review by the Court. While superseded by the 19 Court of Appeal reversing the Modification Order solely on procedural grounds (without address the 20 substantive merits Judge Nadler found concerning the negative operation and public safety impacts 21 created by the Preliminary Injunction, this quotation is provided to demonstrate Court’s admission as 22 evidence and reliance upon the declarations and testimony provided by Battalion Chief Lori Anello, 23 Battalion Chief Darrin DeCarli, and County PRMD Deputy Director of Engineering Nathan Quarles. 24 7 Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and copy of the two (2) page “Declaration of 25 Nathan Quarles Re: Propane Tank at Two Rock Fire Dept. Garage” dated November 5, 2021, filed in 26 this case, which is referenced, relied upon, and quoted by the Court in lines 18-23 on page 4 of Exhibit 27 “A”, Mr. Quarles November 5, 2021 declaration has already been accepted into evidence by the Court 28 in this case. Mr. Quarles is the Deputy Director of Engineering for the County of Sonoma Permit and -3- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S, RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER. Resource Management Department (also referred to as “Permit Sonoma”). Mr. Quarles states he reviewed the Permit Sonoma records concerning Building Permit 19-2620 “that deal with the installation and inspection ofthe propane heater. That heater was permitted under the building permit. It was installed per code and manufacturing instructions. The heater does not change the occupancy of the structure.” (Exhibit “B”, page 1, lines 24-27.) This excerpt is highlighted for convenience of review by the Court. 8 Attached hereto as Exhibits “C-1” and “C-2” are a true and correct copies of two (2) pages of the County of Sonoma Permit Sonoma inspection and approval of gas line plumbing for Building Permit 19-2620 for the new Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department facility. Exhibit “C-1” is a 10 Correction Notice dated May 15, 2020 identifying corrections for “4. Sediment trap for gas line at 11 heater on wrong side of shut off valve; 5. Paint exposed threads on gas line.” After these corrections 12 were made, Exhibit “C-2” is the Field Inspection Record confirming the final inspection approving and 13 closing Building Permit 19-2620 on June 16, 2020. Consistent with Mr. Quarles statements in Exhibit 14 “B” that the propane-fueled industrial dehumidifying heater was permitted and approved, since the 15 approval of occupancy and more than three years of operations by Two Rock Fire at the subject facility, 16 there have been no code violations or abatement actions taken by the regulatory authority, County of 17 Sonoma, concerning the activities of Two Rock Fire, the gas line plumbing, industrial dehumidifying 18 heater, or propane tank. 19 9 Attached hereto as Exhibit “D-1” through “D-4” are true and correct copies of the 20 printout of the Sonoma County Permit Sonoma permit history web page for Building Permit 22-1594 21 entitled “Re-installation of propane tank after temporary removal”, for the new Two Rock Fire facility 22 on the subject property; https://parcelsearch.permitsonoma.org/parcelreport? APN=022-140- 23 017&PN=BLD22-1594&RP=permitSearch. The two pages of Exhibits “D-1” and “D-2” consist of a 24 cover page showing Building Permit 22-1594 was inspected and closed on April 15, 2022 (in the midst 25 of the two-year stay of the Preliminary Injunction), and a one-page site plan document showing the as- 26 installed and approved location for the 500-gallon propane tank. For clarity and ease of review by the 27 Court, an enlarged copy of the site plan is attached as Exhibit “D-3” showing the detail of the National 28 Fire Protection Association 58 diagram documenting setbacks of 10 feet for 500 gallon propane tanks in -4- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER. accordance California Code of Regulations Title 8 section 470-494; and another enlarged copy of the site plan is attached as Exhibit “D-4” showing the actual setback of the installed propane tank 12 feet from the property line at the new Two Rock Fire facility. 10.. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct copy of the three (3) page declaration of Two Rock Fire Battalion Chief Lori Anello dated August 18, 2021, filed in this case, which is referenced and relied upon throughout the Modification Order. Chief Anello’s August 18, 2021 declaration has already been accepted into evidence by the Court in this case. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F” is a true and correct copy the seven (7) page declaration of Gold Ridge Fire Protection District Division Chief and Fire Marshal Darrin DeCarli. Exhibit “E” 10 includes a copy of Chief DeCarli’s previous two (2) page declaration dated November 5, 2021, filed in 11 this case, which is referenced and relied upon throughout the Modification Order. Chief DeCarli’s 12 November 5, 2021 declaration has already been accepted into evidence by the Court in this case. Chief 13 DeCarli’s new declaration provides additional information and background, particularly related to his 14 official duties and responsibilities in his position as Fire Marshal of the Gold Ridge Fire Protection 15 District, with responsibilities to inspect, evaluate, and oversee citations and mitigations of fire hazards 16 and threats to property; including the adjacent properties of both Two Rock Fire and Plaintiffs at issue in 17 this case. 18 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit “G” is a true and correct copy of a color photograph showing 19 one of the downward-facing shielded red lights on the front of the building (which is on the opposite 20 side of the building from Plaintiffs’ residence that is 400 feet away and not visible by Plaintiffs). Two 21 Rock Fire makes an offer of proof that Two Rock Fire will so testify during the defense case of the 22 contempt hearing should this particular contempt allegation survive cross-examination, that these red 23 lights have been turned off and not used since the Remittitur became effective on July 12, 2023. (See 24 CCP § 354; Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4" 229.) 25 13. Attached hereto as Exhibits “H-1” and “H-2” are a true and correct copies of color 26 photographs regarding the propane-fueled industrial dehumidifying heater. Exhibit “G-1” shows the 27 disconnected gas line plumbing at the propane tank. Exhibit “H-1” shows the disconnected gas line 28 plumbing at the propane tank. Exhibit “H-2” shows closed valve on the disconnected heater. Two -5- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S, RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER. Rock Fire makes an offer of proof that Two Rock Fire will so testify during the defense case of the contempt hearing should this particular contempt allegation survive cross-examination, that the County- approved propane tank has been disconnected from the gas line plumbing and has not been in use since the Remittitur became effective on July 12, 2023, and that the County-approved industrial dehumidifying heater has been disconnected and has not been used since the Remittitur became effective on July 12, 2023. (See CCP § 354; Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4" 229.) 14. With regard to the single incident on July 18, 2023, which Plaintiffs allege violated the Preliminary Injunction provisions concerning parking and use of the Two Rock Fire building, July 18, 2023 was a fire department volunteer maintenance evening during which volunteers were conducting 10 maintenance on fire equipment and vehicles, as expressly allowed by the Preliminary Injunction. (See 11 PI, page 15, lines 1-2 (“[a]ctivity at the garage project shall be limited to fire equipment maintenance 12 and storage....” Additionally, seven vehicles is less than the maximum of ten vehicles authorized in 13 the parking lot, as expressly allowed by the Preliminary Injunction. (See PI, page 15, lines 6-8 (“the 14 parking lot is limited to a maximum of ten vehicles and may be used only for parking by fire and 15 contractor personnel, for staging of strike teams as required for response to emergencies, or maintenance 16 and storage of equipment.” Two Rock Fire makes an offer of proof that Two Rock Fire will so testify 17 during the defense case of the contempt hearing should this particular contempt allegation survive cross- 18 examination, that volunteers firefighters parked in the lot and took all the trucks out to the Two Rock 19 School yard for training and maintenance — including laying out and inspecting the hose lines, deploying 20 various pieces of equipment, and checking their function, such equipment as Jaws of Life, portable 21 generators and power and hand tools, and that there was no meeting at the building. (See CCP § 354; 22 Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4" 229.) 23 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit “I” is a true and correct copy of an email chain I sent to 24 Plaintiffs on Tuesday, August 22, 2023, and Plaintiffs’ response on Thursday evening August 24, 2023, 25 requesting that Plaintiffs stipulate to coordinate onto a single hearing date on either October 4 or October 26 11, 2023, both the Order to Show Cause re Contempt as well as Two Rock Fire’s Motion to Dissolve the 27 Preliminary Injunction, both pleadings concerning the Preliminary Injunction are being filed and served 28 on August 25, 2023. As shown from the excerpt below, this requested stipulation also notified Plaintiffs -6- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S, RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER. 1 that, if Plaintiffs declined to stipulation, Two Rock Fire would make a request for hearing coordination 2 || via the Department 19 ex parte calendar on Monday, August 28, 2023. 3 “The purpose of this email is to request that you stipulate for the coordination of both these matters to be heard on the same calendar before Judge Pardo in 4 Department 19. Although these matters may be specially set by the Court to allow for cross-examination regarding the contempt allegations, I suggest that the parties stipulate to 10/4/23 or 10/11/23 on Judge Pardo’s law and motion calendar, or the soonest date thereafter at the convenience of the Court. If this is acceptable, please confirm your preferred date and I will prepare the stipulation. In the event you do not agree to so stipulate, defendant Two Rock Fire will bring this request for coordination of the hearing dates for the OSC re Contempt and Motion to Dissolve before Judge Pardo on his ex parte calendar on Monday 8/28/25. “ 10 As shown on Exhibit “I”, Plaintiffs decline to stipulate to the brief continuance and coordination 11 of the hearing date — and stated they were unavailable on October 11, 2023, the second date proposed. 12 Accordingly, based on Plaintiffs’ availability, the Court is requested to set on October 4, 2023, both the 13 evidentiary hearing on the OSC re Contempt and Two Rock Fire’s Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary 14 Injunction. 15 16. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 16 foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Windsor, California. anne 17 18 DATED: August 25, 2023 William L. Adams 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO ROCK FIRE’S RESPONSE TO OSC RE CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8/4/21 ORDER. EXHIBIT A FILED " SureRIOR TiGoGe oF rhe COURT or alifornia, Courtroom 19 3055 Cleveland Avenue \" eety VN A | TP Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 521-6602 o |FReAR STEPHEN scHMOAND SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA Case No, SoW286226 10 Plaintiffs, 11 Vv. (Hearing Date: February 9, 2022) 12 13 [dceaniwienn 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendant's Motion for Stay of Action and Motion for Reconsideration came on 17 for hearing on February 9, 2022 before the Hon. Gary Nadler, Judge Presiding. Frear 18 Stephen Schmid was present on behalf of self and Plaintiffs. Counsel Brian Sanders 19 was present on behalf of Defendant, Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department. 20 Upon consideration by the Court of the papers and evidence filed in support of 21 and in opposition to the motion, and having heard and considered oral argument of 22 counsel, the Court makes the following ruling: 23 At the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay the proceedings, the court 24 addressed the pending appeal by Defendant relative to the ability of the court to 25 address the pending motion for modification of the injunction. The court allowed the 26 parties additional time to address that specific issue. Defendant then abandoned its 27 appeal, rendering further briefing moot. 28 / Defendant's Motion for Stay of Action Pending Determination of TRVFD's Pending Appeal of Order Granting Preliminary Injunction is denied as moot. With regard to the pending Motion for Reconsideration, upon considering the pleadings and argument of the parties, the court modifies the August 4, 2021 | Preliminary Injunction as follows. A. LIGHTING In the Preliminary Injunction, the court denied the request for an order requiring Defendant to cover or paint the roof; to remove the lights which exceed the scope of the permit; to remove the water tank; and for destruction or removal of the concrete pad. 10 However, the August 4, 2021 Preliminary Injunction required Defendant to keep the 11 lights off when not in use; and that the lights shall be downward facing and located at 12 the lowest possible point to the ground to prevent spillover onto adjacent properties, 13 glare, nighttime light pollution, and unnecessary glow into the rural night sky. The 14 Preliminary Injunction required that two security floodlights in the building’s apexes and 15 eight unshielded red lights on the front of the structure shall be disabled. The 16 Preliminary Injunction required that security lighting shall be put on motion sensors. 17 In support of Defendant's motion for modification, Battalion Chief Lori Anello 18 submitted a declaration addressing potential safety issues arising from the Preliminary 19 Injunction. She testified that relying on motion sensors creates a safety issue for 20 Tesponding firefighters who use the subject facility, as firefighters may not be able to 21 see trip hazards without using a flashlight in an emergency. Further, firefighters would 22 not have adequate light to be able to enter a code in the electronic lock to gain timely 23 entry to the building. Finally, she testified that exterior lights are needed because it 24 would identify what the building is used for, including persons searching for the building 25 in extreme cases. Also, illumination of the exterior lights would add to the security of 26 the station and provide better visual of persons approaching the building while using 27 camera security devices. 28 / -2. The court determines that subject to final determination of injunctive relief sought, exterior lighting is not limited as provided in the Preliminary Injunction and said restrictions are vacated. Defendant shall, however, use reasonable effort to minimize the impact of all such exterior lighting on Plaintiffs. B. Parking The Preliminary Injunction provided that individual vehicles could be parked at the building when responding to an emergency call. Further, the order provided that parking was limited to 10 spaces except to the extent necessary for responding to emergency calls. The Preliminary Injunction is modified to include parking by fire and 10 contractor personnel for staging of strike teams as required for response to 11 emergencies, and maintenance and storage of equipment. 12 Battalion Chief Lori Anello testified that prohibiting Defendant from using the 13 parking lot except during emergencies poses a danger for firefighters who must park 14 across the street. The example given was a training session involving 11 participants 15 The court modifies the Preliminary Injunction as follows. First, parking at the 16 facility shall not be limited to emergencies. Rather, its use is expanded to include all 17 training and maintenance activities of Defendant. Further, parking may exceed ten 18 vehicles so long as ingress and egress is safely provided and is exceeded only to the 19 extent that is reasonably necessary for emergencies, training, and maintenance and 20 storage of firefighting equipment. 21 C. Heating 22 As expressed by Battalion Chief Anello, it is important to maintain the building in 23 a warm and dry condition to avoid damage to firefighting equipment. This is intended to 24 avoid damage from rodents, mold, or cold climates. 25 In the declaration of Battalion Chief Darrin DeCarli, he described the need to heat 26 the inside of the subject facility “in order to prevent moisture and growth of contaminants 27 on and inside the trucks, personal protective equipment” for the firefighters, “and the 28 other firefighting equipment, apparatus, and supplies that are contained inside the truck facility.”. Chief DeCarli addressed the relative fire hazards presented by various forms of heaters as a fuel source at the location of the subject building: he testified that “using the existing propane-fueled industrial heater mounted at ceiling height and well away from” potentially combustible materials would best provide the necessary protection for equipment stored in the facility. He further noted that use of space heaters would present a far greater fire hazard. Chief DeCarli opined that the safety measures in place (such as bollards in the parking area preventing contact with the tank) provide additional protection. Plaintiff Frear Stephen Schmid provides a declaration which attached “the 10 complete building permit file”. In his declaration, Mr. Schmid opines that “[t]here is no 11 depiction of or any reference to any heater or any electrical or plumbing thereto being 12 submitted for review, approval, inspection or permitting pertaining to the subject TRFD 13 storage garage. Further, there is no indication that a heater or the plumbing or electrical 14 thereto was ever inspected or approved, nor is there any request for inspection of the 15 heater, or the plumbing or electrical thereto.” Plaintiff presents communications and 16 records indicating that the building was to be “unconditioned”. At paragraph 6, Plaintiff 17 addresses the location of the propane tank and potential fire hazards. 18 19 || Engineering with the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department. 20 21 22 23 24 25 industrial heater mounted at ceiling height and located well away from potentially 26 combustible materials. Further, that heating is utilized for the protection and cleaning of 27 firefighting equipment, including the prevention of moisture and growth of contaminants 28 on and inside the trucks, personal protective equipment for firefighters, and other A. 1 firefighting equipment, apparatus, and supplies that may be contained inside the truck 2 || facility. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || DATED: A haf Z2- 7 7 “GARY NADLER Judge of the Superior Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SCV-266225 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, and that my business address is 600 Administration Dr., Room 107-J, Santa Rosa, California, 95403; that I am not a party to this case; that I am over the age of 18; that I am readily familiar with this office's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; and that on the date shown below I placed a true copy of RULING ON MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION in an envelope, sealed and addressed as shown below, for collection and mailing at Santa Rosa, California, first class, postage fully prepaid, following ordinary business practices. Date: February 17, 2022 Arlene Junior Clerk of the Court By: LuceGongaley Luce Gonzalez, Deputy Clerk -ADDRESSEES- FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID MICHAEL ALCOCK KING 7585 VALLEY FORD ROAD DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL PETALUMA CA 94952 COUNTY OF SONOMA 575 ADMINISTRATION DR.# 105A SANTA ROSA CA 95403 JOSEPH JONATHAN MINIOZA ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT 2300 CLAYTON RD STE 350 BRIAN MURRAY SANDERS CONCORD CA 94520 ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT 2300 CLAYTON ROAD #350 CONCORD CA 94520 EXHIBIT B ROBERT H. PITTMAN, State Bar No. 172154 County Counsel MICHAEL A. KING, State Bar No. 077014 Deputy County Counsel 575 Administration Drive, Room 105A. Santa Rosa, Califomia 95403-2815 Telephone: (707) 565-2421 Facsimile: (707) 565-2624 Attomeys for Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA. 10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND ASTRID Case No.: SCV-266225 and consolidated action 11 SCHMID, 12 SCV-266731 Plaintiffs a 13 14 15 WO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT aka TWO ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT, Trial Date: TBD 16 17 Defendant. 18 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION 19 20 I, NATHAN QUARLES, hereby declare: 21 1 lam Deputy Director of Engineering with the Permit and Resource Management Department, County of Sonoma. Part of my duties involved supervising the Building Division. Iam 23 competent to testify to these matters from my personal knowledge: 2. T have reviewed the Permit Sonoma building penmit records for 7599 Valley Ford Road, 25 26 Petaluma, pemitno, BLD 19-2620; that deal with the installation and inspection ofthe propane heater, 27 | That heater was permitted under the building permit. It was installed per oode and manufacturing | instructions. The heater does not change the oocupancy of the structure. Declaration of Nathan Quarles 3. These documents I reviewed are business records of Permit Sonoma, maintained in the ordinary course of business. I am familiar with the manner that they are prepared and retained. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and comrect. Executed at Santa Rosa, Califomia, on November 5, 2021. NATHAN QUARLES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 26 27 Declaration of Nathan Quarles EXHIBIT C “We ale ap RB, <= permit SS SONOMA’ Shier CNI-005 Owner Inspection Code 144 Job Address 75M Volley fod Pd VEY Other Foundation Underfloor ’ Shear/Roof Nailing O Close-in O Final O c ( have inspected work under the above permit and have observed the following code violations: ph un Gn at Yi LAC\ “A Kt “A 3!7 a WW hea 5 o™ LH BA L@s, BIT ot Dassemder Side é) Repair _c\ectrival Patel? i wu Ae) Lib fv sh ee Ve Bee @ Olen Make corrections before proceeding with other work, When corrections have been made, call (707) 565-3551 or (707) 565-1679 for reinspection. = e O This Correction Notice must be brought into Permit Sonoma with requested revisions. iapiate ide Pula, White - Job Canary - Permit Canary - Office Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department 2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa CA 95403-2859 (707)565-1900 Fax (707)565-1972 www.PermitSonoma.org M005 vases Exhibit C-1 “WAS FIELD INSPECTION RECORD permit I SONORA MMlbnoma County Permit and Resource Management Department 2590 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rasa, CA 95403 Telephone (707) 565-1900 * Owner: TWO ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT ET AL [TWO] AUTOMATED INSPECTION REQUEST SYSTEM By phone: (707) 565-3554 Job Address: 7599 VALLEY FORD, PETALUMA Online: https://prmd.sonomacounty.ca,gov/CitizenAccess Contractor Central Mobile App: iOS and Android Permit ta Expire’ 8/25/2022 Cantractar: For next business day inspections inspector. Larry Macchia call between the hours of 6:00 AM te midnight You must have your permit number, jab site address NEW 5400 SQ FT FIREHOUSE BLDG - and the inspection code listed below OBSETption UTILITY BLDG FOR STORAGE OF FIRE VEHICLES THIS JOB CARD MUST BE AVAILABLE AT THME OF INSPECTION CODE INSPECTION TYPE CODE INSPECTION TYPE 101 | BUILDING PAD ROUGH _166_| ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE 121 | FIRE SAFE STANDARUS 144 | WATER TANKS. [193 [FOUNDATION [©.L1<[ CB} SLABS FORMS/SETBACK WALLS. FOOTING 174 ELECTRIC METER AUTHORIZATION 52 PANEL BOARDS/SERVICE 106 TEL GROuNG CE plaad dass [ak -2020 f 189 SEPTIC ELECTRIC FINAL 404 |CAISSONS/PIERS 175 GAS METER AUTHORIZATION 10! SLAB Ta Par) 153 GAS PRESSURE TEST 107_|U/G UTHITIES HOUSE 110_| MASONRY YARD 109 | RETAINING WALLS 190 MANUFACTURED HOME FOUNDATION. 11. FIREPLACE 191 MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLATION FOOTING CONTINUITY HEARTH/PROTECTION STAIRS/SKIRTS. THROAT RIDGE BOLTING 134 | CHIMNEY 193 MANUFACTURED NOME COND, FINAL 120 {UNDERFLOOR/UNDERSLAB,ALL SWIMMING POOLS 115_| HYDRONICS ~ 197 VINYL/FIBERGLASS POOL EXCAVATION 216 |U/F ELECTRICAL 194 PRE-GUNITE 41? |U/F MECHANICAL 195 PRE-DECK 118 |U/F PLUMBING 196 PRE-PLASTER/FENCE 119 | U/F FRAMING STORM WATER 139_|U/F INSULATION 650. SUSMP INSPECTION peennee 125 | HOLD DOWNS 651 STORM WATER PRE-CONSTRUCTION 652 STORM WATER BMPs VERIFICATION 653 STORM WATER FINAL, EXTERIOR 127 | DIAPHRAGMS, 102 BUILDING PAD FINAL ROOF NAILING 176 ELECTRICAL FINAL FLOOR NAILING 177 MECHANICAL FINAL 134 | SIDING/ SHEATHING 278 PLUMBING FINAL 135 | STUCCO/PLASTER 149 PROGRESS LATH CLEARANCES 130 SCRATCH | TUB/SHOWER PAW | FIRE DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT bes 136 | VENEER ZONING 132 { CLOSE-IN 122 123 | ROUGH ELECTRICAL | ROUGH MECHANICAL Lys 2g2p fale Wi R 124 | ROUGH PLUMBING SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES/SEPARATE PERMIT REQ'D 128 | ROUGH FRAME LIS 2020 RE 170 TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY a4 FERAOMRARY FIFCTRICAL Exhibit C-2._ EXHIBIT D BLD22-1594 - Building Permit Two Rock Fire Department, Re-installation of propane tank after temporary removal. Permit Number: BLD22.1594 Permit Type: Building Permit Applicant: TWO ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT Primary Address: 7599 VALLEY FORD RD, PETALUMA, CA 94952 Permit Description: Two Rock Fire Department, Re-installation of propane tank after temporary removal. Status: Permit Timeline PNe) elites lated) Cra PAUrs va7 nowy se Canes etme Cram PAUe fas) ox-raulela) LARP (ellots-re) AR EAs Show Timeline ® Hide Documents ¥ Document Name: 2 -017 - D22-1594 RESUBMITTAL.PDF Category: SITE PLAN Address: 7599 VALLEY FORD RD PETALUMA, CA 94952 Exhibit D-1 a oa sg0 bd adog, Wy) mans Vii) onde SETS ay a pa |e Hy oy it ii Wh te | |i | i i i if /# | i} fill } iff Hl Hl li ilWL — [anid eH Ey pee il (i | i Li 5 Lg yt a # \, i { i, iy Py Li g | it i Hi il i Hi 4 i! i li ae ae A it ae &) | {I \ly 4 tei \| || ; | \ XE h it r »