Author: Gregory Fearon

Seven Years of Collected Articles on Homless Housing by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development

In 2019, I began posting the weekly compilation of links to California’s local newspaper articles on homeless housing, published by the staff of the California Department of Housing and Community Development in a Google Blog (Homeless Housing News). Two years later, Google staff froze the use of the blog, deciding that information being posted belonged only to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Last week, Google re-examined their decision, and gave me permission to resume its use. In the meantime, HCD has continued its weekly notices, which I stored in a folder on a personal drive. I plan on posting the links to articles they identified to update the blog. Creating for researchers and activists the 250 posts from some of the smartest housing and community development staff in the nation, drawing from California’s last five years of local newspaper articles, will be quite a challenge. I hope to have it completed by April of 2026. HEAPA has found it a valuable source of timely homeless housing journalism all these years, and wants to publish and preserve it for our better understanding of how we are meeting the challenges of keeping up with the needs of the unhoused.

March 3rd, 2026 Agenda – Annual Report/Integrated Plan Committee

The California Brown Act, “shall not be construed as preventing a member of the legislative body from engaging in separate conversations or communications on an internet-based social media platform to answer questions, provide information to the public, or to solicit information from the public regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body provided that a majority of the members of the legislative body do not use the internet-based social media platform to discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. A member of the legislative body shall not respond directly to any communication on an internet-based social media platform regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body that is made, posted, or shared by any other member of the legislative body.”

This post, supplied by Gregory Fearon, a member of the legislative body of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board), is provided in support of an agenda topic on a legally-noticed meeting of that legislative body on March 3rd, 2026.

The Specific Powers and Duties of the Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board are:

a. Review and evaluate on the community’s behavioral health needs, services, facilities
and special problems.
b. Review any County agreements entered into pursuant to Section 5650 of the Code or
any subsequent amendments.
c. Advise the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the local behavioral health
director as to any aspect of the local behavioral health and substance use disorder
programs.
d. Review and approve the procedures used to ensure citizen and professional
involvement at all stage of the planning process.
e. Submit an annual report to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on the needs and
performance of the County’s behavioral health system.
f. Review and make recommendations on applicants for the appointment of a local
director of behavioral health services. The Board shall be included in the selection
process prior to the vote of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
g. Review and comment on the County’s performance outcome data and communicate
it’s findings to the State Behavioral Health Planning Council.
h. Review and assess the impact of the realignment of services from the State to the
County, on services delivered to clients, and on the local community.
i. Any additional duties or authority the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors may
transfer to the Board.

The Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board has established a standing committee known as the “Annual Report/Integrated Plan Committee (AR/IP Committee)” for the purpose of 1) fulfilling its reviewing responsibilities in sections a,b,d,f,g & h; 2) submitting an annual report in compliance with section c; and 3) advising the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the local behavioral health director as to any aspect of the local behavioral health and substance use disorder programs.

Agenda Items for the AR/IP Committee are:

1) Review responsibilities associated with the bolded section of our duties:

a. Review and evaluate on the community’s behavioral health needs, services, facilities
and special problems.
b. Review any County agreements entered into pursuant to Section 5650 of the Code or
any subsequent amendments.
c. Advise the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the local behavioral health
director as to any aspect of the local behavioral health and substance use disorder
programs.
d. Review and approve the procedures used to ensure citizen and professional
involvement at all stage of the planning process.
e. Submit an annual report to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on the needs and
performance of the County’s behavioral health system.
f. Review and make recommendations on applicants for the appointment of a local
director of behavioral health services. The Board shall be included in the selection
process prior to the vote of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
g. Review and comment on the County’s performance outcome data and communicate
it’s findings to the State Behavioral Health Planning Council.
h. Review and assess the impact of the realignment of services from the State to the
County, on services delivered to clients, and on the local community.
i. Any additional duties or authority the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors may
transfer to the Board.

2) Determine the contents, and develop a workplan, for the annual report.

3) Review and discuss the information we have been provided concerning the Draft FY26-29 Integrated Plan.

Preserving Affordable Housing Essential to Sustainable Neighborhoods

A recent article, highlighted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, brings to our attention the growing number of older, scattered-site affordable housing resources which are being sold to new owners. In the last six months, the Santa Rosa Housing Authority (I’m a newly-appointed member) has authorized the sale of six key low income housing properties built and previously operated by Community Action Partnership of Sonoma County and Community Housing Sonoma County. The reasons for the sales were stated as the lack of available operating revenue from rents for maintenance and tenant support.

The article provides the background for what it expects to be a greatly expanded pattern of such sales, describes its broader impact, and poses some solutions. I would encourage comments to this post, and to the County and City housing authorities.

Measure O-HHAP Grants

At tomorrow’s Sonoma County Board of Supervisors meeting, the awrding of $12,400,000 in combined County Measure O and State HHAP funds will be approved (Regular calendar, first Item #15 -sometime between 10-11am). Here is the detail of what was submitted and what’s being approved.

Measure O – List of Applications ReceivedDownload
Measure O-HHAP Funding RecommendationsDownload
Measure O-HHAP Summary ReportDownload

Brown Act Compliance and Website Accessibility

Last Friday, Feb 6th, I spent 30 minutes with Jan Cobaleda-Kegler, Sonoma County Behavioral Health Director, at her invitation. I had emailed both her boss (Nolan Sullivan, Director of the Health Services Department), and Christina Rivera (County Executive Officer), advising them that I had plans to utilize a new permanent authority of the Updated Brown Act which allowed members of legislative bodies to communicate with the public (wsee an earlier post on this website). Christina asked Nolan to ask Jan to get together with me, after consulting the Sonoma County Counsel. All were interested in convincing me to let the County facilitate public input on the Draft FY26-29 Proposition One Integrated Plan only on the County website.

Dr. Cobaleda-Kegler was well aware of my frustration over receiving the Draft Plan so late in this fiscal year, and finding ourselves with four months left before its required approval by the Board of Supervisors. Though frequently used by cities, I told her that the kind of direct document public comment needed in such a detailed plan has never been attempted by the County. She countered that she thought the Department’s website capabilities were improving, and that she wanted me to let the County try before implementing my solution. I agreed, and she said she would be meeting with the Department and County IT staff soon.

Brown_Act_Compliance_and_Website_AccessibilityDownload

Legislative Town Hall at the S.R. Library

Yesterday morning, State Senator Mike McGuire and State Assemblyman Chris Rogers, two who represent the City of Santa Rosa in the California Legislature held a Town Hall meeting in the Central Santa Rosa Downtown Library. The summary and transcripts of the meeting is posted below, and reports a conversation that I led the meeting off (10:54;00) asking for state funding support from them to allow our County’s behavioral health programs to meet the needs of its residents.

Santa_Rosa_Town_Hall_on_State_PolicyDownload