Findings: F2, F4, F7 I (we) agree with the findings numbered _______________________________________ I (we) disagree

The absence of a sufficient number of temporary shelters, including support services, is a primary factor in the consistently high number of unsheltered homeless in Sonoma County. We agree with Finding 1.

The boundaries of the SSP area, intended by MTC and ABAG to be within a street or two of a rural transportation corridor – Highway 12 in this case ̶̶ does not logically encompass a neighborhood as far removed as the Donald Street area. The Board of Supervisors wholly or partially disagree with this finding. There is no evidence to indicate that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) intended the Springs Specific Plan boundary to be located entirely within a street or two of Highway 12. All County applications related to the Springs planning area—for designations as a Rural Community Investment Area and as a Priority Development Area, and for grant funds for costs associated with development of a Specific Plan for the Springs area—have included maps clearly showing the inclusion of the Donald Street area in the Springs planning boundary. Additionally, a map showing the inclusion of Donald Street was incorporated into the staff report for ABAG Executive Board Resolution No. 11-12, which adopted and designated Rural Community Investment Areas and Employment Investment Areas, including the Springs planning area, into the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area.

The future sale of the Chanate property makes it necessary to relocate the Coroner’s Office. We disagree wholly or partially with Finding 3. In June 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved the disposal of the Chanate Property in a private market sale, subject to a lease back to County of Sonoma of the 1,100 square foot Public Health Laboratory at 3313 Chanate Road and 8,000 square foot Coroner’s Office/Morgue at 3336 Chanate Road. The necessity to relocate the Coroner’s Office is dependent on the final sale and will require further analysis once the terms are finalized.

Because the Donald Street ̶̶residents ̶̶reasonably ̶̶assumed ̶̶they ̶̶were ̶̶not ̶̶part ̶̶of ̶̶“The ̶̶Springs,” ̶̶and ̶̶ notifications ̶̶did ̶̶not ̶̶mention ̶̶Donald ̶̶Street’s ̶̶involvement ̶̶in ̶̶the ̶̶SSP, ̶̶their ̶̶distress ̶̶and ̶̶surprise ̶̶upon ̶̶ learning of the rezoning of parcels in the neighborhood is understandable. The Board of Supervisors wholly or partially disagree with this finding. The parcels in the Donald Street neighborhood have not been rezoned however, the parcels are currently proposed for redesignation and rezoning. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will consider rezoning, after a public review of a draft EIR and Specific Plan including a public hearing before the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Board. The draft EIR has yet to be published. The Board of Supervisors does not agree that it was reasonable for Donald Street residents to assume that they were not part of the Springs Specific Plan. The community outreach and engagement efforts for the Springs Specific Plan process have significantly exceeded what is legally required. Maps of the proposed Springs Specific Plan boundary were distributed at four community meetings in 2016 and 2017; at a meeting of the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Committee in August 2018; at Community Advisory Team meetings in 2016, 2017, and 2018; at the EIR scoping meeting on July 10, 2018; and on the project website. Maps were also posted at the Springs Specific Plan information table at the Springs Festival on September 10, 2016, and at the Cinco de Mayo celebration on May 6, 2016.

Because the Department of Health Services and the Community Development Commission were not, until January 2020, under single leadership, there was a lack of coordination of housing and supportive services. We disagree wholly or partially with Finding 5 In 2017, the Board of Supervisors directed safety net departments to develop a strategic goal to strengthen the County’s safety net. The Department of Health Services, Community Development Commission, Human Services Department, Department of Child Support Services, the Probation Department, and other criminal justice partners established the ACCESS Initiative. This initiative established the County’s first-ever Interdepartmental Multidisciplinary Team (IMDT) that consists of frontline staff across all of the above-referenced safety net departments. The IMDT developed collaborative care plans for the homeless that includes coordinated services across the safety net services to improve the well-being and self-sufficiency of participants. The ACCESS initiative also established an integrated data hub including data from the homeless and vouchering systems, mental health and substance use data system, the Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and General Assistance systems. Data from these systems is integrated to provide a holistic participant record to support the IMDT. The IMDT currently meets two days a week, every week to develop coordinated care plans for participants. This award-winning initiative is transforming the way the County provides services to the homeless. More information regarding the ACCESS Initiative can be found at the current link http://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Projects/ACCESS-Sonoma/. The ACCESS Initiative is governed by the County’s Safety Net Collaborative which consists of the Directors of the safety net departments and the Court Administrator.

Currently, short-term federal and state block grants provide the majority of funding for homeless programs. We agree with Finding 6.

By not proactively engaging with the Donald Street neighborhood, the County did not live up to its best practices as explicitly set out in MTC Resolution No. 4035. The Board of Supervisors disagree with this finding. As discussed above, the County has engaged in robust public outreach throughout the Specific Plan process, and will continue to do so.

The Leadership Council played no role in developing policies or procedures to respond to the Joe Rodota Trail crisis. We agree with Finding 8

̶̶The ̶̶majority ̶̶of ̶̶the ̶̶County’s ̶̶efforts ̶̶related ̶̶to ̶̶the ̶̶homeless ̶̶youth ̶̶population ̶̶focus ̶̶on ̶̶providing ̶̶ programs ̶̶and ̶̶services ̶̶to ̶̶young ̶̶people ̶̶already ̶̶living ̶̶on ̶̶the ̶̶streets, ̶̶rather ̶̶than ̶̶programs ̶̶to ̶̶prevent ̶̶ homelessness ̶̶in ̶̶the ̶̶first ̶̶place. We disagree wholly or partially with Finding 9. The Board of Supervisors do not agree that behavioral health services are focused on individuals who are homeless. Mental health services are available and utilized by young adults who are at-risk of homelessness, but are not homeless. Reducing transition to homelessness is one of the primary targets of the Department of Health Services’ Full Service Partnership and outpatient service programs. The Board of Supervisors recognize the importance of providing services to prevent homelessness, however, we have found that the most effective results are from investing in rapid rehousing for youth homelessness. The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) identifies diversion as the best method of reducing homelessness in communities. NAEH indicate that there are very few evidence based predictors of homelessness and therefore a comprehensive diversion program is the best way of ensuring reduced entries to shelter or services (https://endhomelessness.org/use-esg-cv-to-help-those- currently-experiencing-homelessness-first-prevention-as-a-back-up-strategy/). Unfortunately, funding for TAY programs and services has gone down in Fiscal Year 2020-2021 due a decrease in State funding from $11.5 million in Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) funds to $6.7 million in Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention funding. The CDC is committed to programs that are youth-centered, youth-informed, and grounded in permanent housing solutions with trauma informed care and is recommending establishing a Youth Action Board in 20-21.

̶̶The ̶̶County ̶̶does ̶̶not ̶̶currently ̶̶track ̶̶housing ̶̶status ̶̶in ̶̶a ̶̶way ̶̶that ̶̶permits ̶̶a ̶̶determination ̶̶of ̶̶how ̶̶ many ̶̶homeless ̶̶people ̶̶it ̶̶serves ̶̶and ̶̶the ̶̶cost ̶̶of ̶̶those ̶̶services. We disagree wholly or partially with Finding 11. The County has an online dashboard on the CDC website. The primary site is located at: https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CDC/Homeless-Services/Performance/ and includes dashboards for the following:  Home Sonoma County Performance  Coordinated Entry  Point in Time County Data  Utilization in Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing  In-Flow and Out-Flow in Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing programs The website tracks real-time Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) performance data and tracks all HUD System Performance Measures at a universal level (all projects) and by individual permanent supportive housing projects, rapid rehousing projects, emergency shelter projects, and transitional housing projects. It also tracks Coordinated Entry System data. Performance Measures Include: 1. Length of time persons remain homeless; 2. The extent to which persons who exit homelessness to permanent housing destinations return to homelessness; 3. Number of homeless persons; 4. Jobs and income growth for homeless persons in CoC Program-funded projects; 5. Number of persons who become homeless for the first time; 6. Homelessness prevention and housing placement of persons defined by Category 3 of HUD’s homeless definition in CoC Program-funded projects; 7. Successful housing placement. We understand that the website does not currently track funding but the CDC plans on reporting this data by February 2021.

̶̶Due ̶̶to ̶̶state ̶̶and ̶̶federal ̶̶funding ̶̶cuts, ̶̶the ̶̶Leadership ̶̶Council ̶̶has ̶̶announced ̶̶a ̶̶34% ̶̶reduction ̶̶for ̶̶ 2020-2021 ̶̶that ̶̶will ̶̶severely ̶̶affect ̶̶the ̶̶County’s ̶̶homeless ̶̶programs ̶̶and ̶̶services ̶̶across ̶̶the ̶̶board. We disagree wholly or partially with Finding 12. The funding reduction does not represent a budget reduction. In 2019, the Governor approved a one- time appropriation of $12.1 Million of the State Emergency Aid Program (HEAP). At the time of this appropriation, it was uncertain whether there would be additional ongoing, annual appropriations. In 2020, the Governor’s budget included an additional appropriation of funding with an allocation for the County and an appropriation for the Leadership Council. The Appropriation to the Leadership Council was $6.5 million approximately $5.6 million less than the 2019 allocation. This is not a reduction in budget but rather the CoC received less one-time funding from the State of California. Even with this reduction in State appropriation, the amounts received in both 2019 and 2020 are triple what the Leadership Council has received in years prior to 2018, before the State started sending direct allocations to Counties.