Mayor and City Council
August 2, 2023

June 12, 2023
Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Pg. 1161
How the logistics industry has impacted the economy.

How industrial development has impacted residential and commercial zoning loss.

Why the housing development between 1940-1999 was strong but did not continue into the 2000s and present.

Rent stabilization ordinance capping residents paying more than 40% of their income.

Workshop/meetings to educate tenants on connecting with code enforcement on housing conditions.

A new ordinance in place of the Crime Free Housing Ordinance requires landlords to address housing conditions and accountability.

Rezoning for mix-use developments.

Repealing the anti-camping ordinance.

Adopting an adaptive reuse ordinance.

Making emergency shelter overlay sites visible and accessible and strategically working with the unhoused population and those serving them, often non-paid outreach groups, to ensure the services are best utilized.

A displacement prevention program: emergency assistance for relocation plans to prevent unhoused people.

Second, it is great to see that housing overpayment, housing overcrowding, and housing conditions are acknowledged and studied for both renters and homeowners.

As a community coalition that wishes to address these concerns, we believe it is crucial for the general plan to include recommendations for the following ordinances/policies:

Third, it is crucial for San Bernardino to meet its required RHNA of 8,123 units. In the housing element draft, chapter 4 clearly outlines that there is still a need for 5,092 units to be planned for, nearly half of which are for residents of lower and moderate-income.

In order to meet this need, the city should issue RFPs for the carousel mall project and the Seccombe Lake project to include 25% affordable housing and a community benefits agreement. CBAs create development standards for residential and mixeduse projects. To comply with State law, engaging the community in revising, adopting, and implementing ODDS (objective development and design standards) for residential projects is important and mixed-use projects.

Fourth, to continue to address the ongoing unhoused population crisis. We believe it is vital for the city to work towards:
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
951.315.5940
[email protected]
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405

Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Pg. 1162
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
951.315.5940
[email protected]
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
A transparent evaluation program of the homeless outreach team.

Tax credits to rehabilitate distressed homes in communities with low home values Reforming zoning to allow mixed-income communities
Extend mortgage and business credit to underserved, low-income, and minority homebuyers and communities
Fifth, the consolidated plan received 1,000 survey responses, and the general plan had 186 survey responses. It is necessary to set goals for outreach for planned engagement instead of leaving this as an afterthought to such crucial plans. It is necessary the next time that the community is surveyed, that local nonprofits are provided an opportunity to be contracted to provide community outreach. Time and time again, we see our city contract outside companies that are doing insufficient outreach. It is a better use of our time and money to work with organizations that have built rapport and have proven track records of engaging the community.

Sixth, the City of San Bernardino can continue to address the aftermath of segregation and ongoing discrimination by providing more opportunities to access homeownership. The city can do this by enacting:

1. 2.

3. Finally, the City of San Bernardino conducted a limited analysis of housing conditions, despite reporting that there are indicators of substandard housing. With the increased growth of logistics in the Inland Empire, more communities within the City are now living within 1,000 ft of warehouse development, truck routes, rail lines, and high-traffic freeways than they did twenty years ago. Despite the California Air Resources Board and the California Attorney General’s Office of Environmental Justice recommending a 1,000ft minimum setback between sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, parks, etc, and warehouses and their truck routes- this is rarely followed by the City. Instead, there are thousands of homes in the City that live within 1,000 ft. of a warehouse, truck route, rail line, and/or a high-traffic freeway that experience a disproportionate impact of air pollution, noise pollution, and regular disturbance to the foundation and infrastructure of their homes and neighborhoods.

These same communities are those that have the least income within the City. In order to further fair housing, it is imperative that the City:

Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Pg. 1163
Analyze how the encroachment of industrial development in residential communities affects and creates substandard housing.

Ensure that industrial development is not cited within 1,000 ft. of homes and sensitive receptors.

Require industrial development to mitigate the impact on nearby homes.

Pursue grant opportunities that pair zero-emission development near housing options.

Require mixed-use housing options, such as retail and commercial, and mid-density housing.

Require a relocation plan for any tenants and renters that are displaced by industrial projects.

In conclusion, we would like to see the City move forward in adjusting its draft Housing Element with our recommendations. We are more than willing to schedule a meeting to discuss further the comments in this letter. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to continuing the conversation on housing.

Sincerely,
Rocio Aguayo
Policy Research Associate
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
951.315.5940
[email protected]
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405

Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Pg. 1164
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA 92346
June 12, 2023
City of San Bernardino
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Subject: Public Comment – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element To Whom It May Concern,
The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians are writing to provide public comment on the City of San Bernardino’s proposed draft Housing Element. We would like to express appreciation for the inclusion of San Manuel’s history and philanthropic giving in the report. Recognizing and acknowledging the ancestral territory and contributions of the Tribe is an important recognition in an inclusive community.

However, we would like to bring the City’s attention to a concern regarding the exclusion of the Tribe from Table 2-5 Major Employment Centers in and around San Bernardino 2020, found on page 2-6. The Tribe’s economic activities and employment opportunities have a direct impact on San Bernardino’s growth and prosperity. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians employs roughly 7,500 employees in and near San Bernardino and would fall in the 5,000 to 9,000 employee range on the table.

Additionally, there is concern for expedited permit processing for affordable/infill housing exempting projects from the CEQA process and how that limits San Manuel’s ability to consult on developments across Serrano ancestral territory. In the document, the City of San Bernardino states that their department is robust enough that an expedited process for permitting is not a preferred route. The Tribe should be notified if this were to change and the City finds itself beyond capacity.

Regarding discretionary CEQA projects, such as emergency shelters on page 3-47 of the document, there has been precedent of Martin v. Boise (2018) for a push to create emergency shelters to allow cities, counties, and the state to enforce anti-camping laws on the unhoused. There is a likelihood that the city will exempt these projects to expedite the permitting process due to the discretionary aspect of emergency projects. Regardless of the urgency for emergency shelter, tribal governments need to be consulted on developments within their ancestral territory.

Packet Pg. 1165
Thank you for considering the Tribe’s comments and addressing this mater. San Manuel believes that by incorpora�ng and con�nuing the use of tribal consulta�ons, a more comprehensive and inclusive Housing Element Plan can be created that represents the diverse interests of the community. The Tribe looks forward to consul�ng on other aspects of the General Plan. If San Manuel can be of any assistance as this dra� con�nues to be developed, please do not hesitate to contact me at eric.usta�[email protected].

Sincerely,
Eric Usta�on
Director of Local Intergovernmental Affairs
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Packet Pg. 1166
Public Comments
Planning Commission (July 11, 2023)
Packet Pg. 1167
INLAND EMPIRE OFFICE • 3400 CENTRAL AVE, SUITE 230 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 • T 909.380.7510 • F 951.534.0453 • ACLUSOCAL.ORG July 11, 2023
Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino CA 92401
Via email: [email protected]
[email protected]
RE: Public Comment on Agenda Item #2 – 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element Dear Commissioners:

Please find attached for your consideration our public comment on the City of San Bernardino’s 2021-29 Draft Housing Element, which was previously submitted as a comment to [email protected]. We ask that you direct and authorize staff to make the specific changes to the draft Housing Element described in the attached comment letter.

Sincerely,
Adrienna Wong
Sr. Staff Attorney
cc:

Travis Martin, Associate Planner, [email protected]
Jessica Nametz, Executive Assistant to the Director of Community, Housing, and Economic Development, [email protected]
Packet Pg. 1168
Mayor Helen Tran and City Councilmembers
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
290 North D Street
Third Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401
[email protected]
Charles McNeely, City Manager
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
[email protected]
Via Email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on City of San Bernardino’s Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Dear Mayor Tran and City Councilmembers,
We write on behalf of the ACLU of Southern California to provide public comment on the City of San Bernardino (“City”) Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element (“Housing Element”).

Specifically, we write to correct certain factual and legal misstatements in the draft Housing Element regarding: (1) the Crime Free Multi-Housing (“CFMH”) Program and the City’s compliance with fair housing laws (see pages 1-7, below), and (2) the City’s plans concerning homeless services and enforcement of its anti-camping ordinance (see pages 7-9, below). Given the serious consequences that the CFMH Program and failure to adhere to Housing First best practices approaches will cause to our members and the communities we serve, we call on the City to terminate the CFMH Program and to amend its Homeless Services and anti-camping enforcement plans outlined in the draft Housing Element.

I. THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT SHOULD BE REVISED TO ELIMINATE PROGRAM 3.2 – CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM
The draft Housing Element states that the City’s CFMH Program will be continued in the Housing Element. The sections of the draft Housing Element describing the CFMH Program contain multiple inaccuracies and conflict with the City’s Fair Housing Assessment. Further, the draft Housing Element proposes that the City increase the resources it dedicates to staffing the CFMH Program; these are public resources that could be more appropriately invested in housing Packet Pg. 1169

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA instead, especially given that the draft Housing Element fails to propose sufficient housing to meet the needs of unhoused residents of the City (as discussed further below). For all the reasons discussed below, the draft Housing Element should be revised to eliminate the CFMH Program.

A. The Draft Housing Element Misstates How The CFMH Program Operates The draft Housing Element makes multiple claims about the City’s CFMH Program that are simply false. The draft Housing Element must be revised to remove these factually inaccurate statements so that the City does not provide false information to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and to the people of San Bernardino.

First, the draft Housing Element inaccurately claims: “In implementing the crime-free lease agreement, neither the City nor the Sheriff’s Department is involved in any way in a landlord's decision on whether or not to exercise the rights under the addendum.” However, the reality is that City Code Enforcement encourages law enforcement officers to complete “Crime Free Housing Referrals/Complaints” when “dealing with a tenant causing issues or [who are] not cooperative with law enforcement efforts,” which Code Enforcement then “handles” with landlords. See Attachment A. Additionally, as a condition of certification as a “Crime Free property,” the City requires landlords to “actively pursue the eviction of tenants who violate the terms of the lease and/or crime-free lease addendum.”1
Second, the draft Housing Element incorrectly claims, “Nothing in the City’s program sanctions or in any way condones any actions by a landlord that would violate any law related to fair housing or anti-discrimination, and the requirement applies equally to all tenants regardless of income or other household status.” However, the program only applies to tenants of multi-family rental properties, not tenants of single-family homes, which means it will likely be applied more often to lower-income and minority tenants.2 Moreover, the City’s “Crime-Free Multi-Housing Referral Card” indicates that the program encourages violations of state fair housing law, in that it not only ties potential housing consequences to “arrest information” but also specifically tracks whether the tenant identified is in Section 8 housing.
3 See Attachment B. And the CFMH
ordinance states that certification as a “Crime Free property” may be revoked “if there are 10 or more calls for service in a one-year period" associated with a property.4 By punishing landlords for calls for service originating from their properties, the CFMH ordinance violates the Right to a Safe Home Act, Cal. Gov. Code sec. 53165(b).

Further, the draft Housing Element self-contradictorily states “that neither the City's ordinance, nor the training program nor the City or Sheriff’s Department encourages or discourages property owners to conduct criminal background checks of tenants, although the potential benefits of doing so are discussed in the training.” By admitting that the CFMH Program training focuses on the benefits of criminal background checks, the draft Housing Element also admits that the program effectively encourages such background checks. Our review of the CFMH 1 San Bernardino Municipal Code sec. 15.27.060(a)(1)(d). 2 See Draft Housing Element at p. 5-7 (noting that affordable apartment properties and rent-stabilized mobile home parks are concentrated in an area of City with much higher prevalence of minorities than the rest of the County). 3 2 CCR § 12269(a)(1); 2 CCR § 12141. 4 San Bernardino Municipal Code sec. 15.27.060(b).

Packet Pg. 1170

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA program training has confirmed that it encourages use of criminal history information to deny or encourage self-screening in housing applications, without providing adequate guidance on how such practices may violate fair housing laws.
5 Indeed, the sample rental application provided as
part of that training both describes its purpose as enabling the landlord to “accept potential residents who . . . do not have a criminal background” and specifically states that information about participation in a deferred entry of judgment program is considered as part of the rental application process, in violation of state housing regulations.6 B. Continuing The CFMH Program Conflicts With City Council Intent And Community Input
The draft Housing Element states that the CFMH Program is in effect per the current municipal code. However, at the April 5, 2023 City Council meeting, the Council voted to agendize a motion to repeal the Crime Free Multi Housing ordinance, at the urging of community members giving public comment at that meeting, and in recognition of multiple lawsuits and federal enforcement actions in the region challenging similar ordinances.7 No such motion has been
considered yet at any City Council meeting since. The CFMH Program should be removed from the Housing Element given this pending repeal process.

C. The CFMH Program Conflicts With The Draft Housing Element’s Fair Housing Assessment And With Fair Housing Laws
The draft Housing Element claims that the City complies with fair housing law and is committed to affirmatively furthering fair housing. However, it is well-established that nuisance and crimefree housing programs like the City’s CFMH Program conflict with state and federal fair housing laws.8
Indeed, the City has already been sued for the CFMH Program’s violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Violence Against Women Act. See Gracia v. City of San Bernardino, Case No. CIV SB 2301828 (filed Feb. 10, 2023).9 And the draft Housing Element itself notes that the California Department of Housing and Community and federal agencies have raised concern that the CFMH Program’s crime free lease agreement may violate CCR § 12264 and have a disparate impact on Latinos, African Americans, and other minorities. 5 See, e.g., 2 CCR § 12269(a)(3)-(5), (b); see also U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions (Apr. 4, 2016),
https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/HUD_OGCGUIDAPPFHASTANDCR.PDF. 6 2 CCR § 12269(a)(2). 7 See Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council 4-05-2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_XtKunQkXM&t=9566s, at 2:39:34. 8 See Letter for Attorney General Rob Bonta to All Cities & Counties, Re: Crime-Free Housing Policies (“AG Letter”) (Apr. 21, 2023), https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/pressdocs/Crime%20Free%20Housing%20Guidance_4.21.23.pdf; Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Enforcement of Local Nuisance and Crime-Free Housing Ordinances Against Victims of Domestic Violence, Other Crime Victims, and Others Who Require Police or Emergency Services (Sept. 13, 2016), https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/FINALNUISANCEORDGDNCE.PDF. 9 The draft Housing Element omits any discussion of this litigation in its section on “Findings, Lawsuits, Enforcement Actions, Settlements, or Judgments.”
Packet Pg. 1171

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The draft Housing Element acknowledges that the lease addendum likely violates state and federal fair housing law – yet it proposes continuing the current program even though the proposed timeline for updating the lease addendum is not until the end of 2024.10 For this reason alone – that it proposes continuation of an admittedly illegal program – the draft Housing Element must be revised to provide for termination of the CFMH Program.

Further, the draft Housing Element incorrectly suggests that by revising the lease addendum alone, the City can bring the CFMH Program into compliance with fair housing laws. But the content of the lease addendum is, in part, specified in the municipal code.11 Accordingly, the CFMH ordinance must also be substantially amended or repealed.

Further, the Attorney General’s guidance on Crime-Free Housing Policies and the corresponding state fair housing regulations make clear that it is not merely lease addenda and eviction requirements, but also Crime-Free Housing “ordinances, programs, and training materials” that may raise conflict with fair housing law.12 The Attorney’s General guidance specifically identifies several Crime-Free Housing practices as potentially running afoul of fair housing laws.
13 The City’s CFMH Program includes each of those identified problematic practices as set forth below:

Practice Identified by AG Guidance San Bernardino CFMH Program Practice “Using dehumanizing, derogatory, or racially
charged or coded language in . . . training
materials, manuals, and workbooks on CrimeFree Housing Policies” CFMH training refers to “criminals” as a
“two-legged urban breed of predator”
(emphasis added), compares “criminals” to
“weeds” and a dinosaur that must be killed in
the egg.
“Instructing or encouraging property owners
to adopt screening practices or rental policies
under which landlords broadly deny tenancy
to applicants with a criminal history or
encourage tenants to ‘screen themselves’”
Draft Housing Element states that CFMH
Program training highlights benefits of
conducting criminal background checks.

CFMH Program training states that it is not
illegal to deny housing on the basis of
criminal history. States that if an applicant is
made aware of screening criteria, especially a
thorough check of criminal history, they are
less likely to apply (“self refusal”). Example
of housing application provided in CFMH
training states: “RENTAL POLICIES ARE

GUIDELINES, WHICH ENABLE US TO

ACCEPT AS PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS
THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO . . . DO NOT
10 See City of San Bernardino draft 2021-2029 Housing Element (May 2023) (“Draft Housing Element”) at p. 7-31. 11 See San Bernardino Municipal Code sec. 15.27.050(C). 12 AG Letter at p. 4. 13 Id. at p. 7.

Packet Pg. 1172

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HAVE A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.”
Example of housing application states that
information about participation in a deferred
entry of judgment program will be
considered.
“[I]nducing landlords to evict tenants based
solely on arrests or other interactions with law
enforcement”
“Taking adverse actions against tenants who
seek law enforcement assistance, or
discouraging tenants from seeking such
assistance”
Code Enforcement in cooperation with police
issues “Crime Free Housing
Referrals/Complaints” for law enforcement
interactions with tenants, including tenants
“not cooperati[ng] with law enforcement
efforts.”
CFMH Referral Card specifically documents
“arrest information.”
CFMH Ordinance threatens termination of
Crime-Free Property certification based solely
on calls for service, incentivizing landlords to
impose housing consequences on tenants
responsible for such calls.

Moreover, the CFMH Program is essentially discriminatory, because it ascribes criminality to tenants of multi-unit housing that the City does not attribute to homeowners and residents of single-family homes. This is blatant economic and racial discrimination.14 Data shows Black and Latine residents of San Bernardino are more likely to be renters and are less likely to become homeowners than White residents.15 The discriminatory stereotyping and disparate impact inherent in this program are made further evident by the City’s suggestion that it may expand the program to cover mobile homes – but no other types of homes.16 Because the CFMH Program is an impediment to fair housing for all the reasons stated above, it should be removed from San Bernardino’s draft Housing Element.

D. The Draft Housing Element Makes Unsupported And Inaccurate Claims About The CFMH Program’s Deterrence Of Crime
The draft Housing Element states, without any evidentiary support, that the CFMH Program has been an effective deterrent for crime. Studies show that Crime-Free Rental Housing programs do 14 See supra n. 2. 15 See Race Counts - San Bernardino, https://www.racecounts.org/county/san-bernardino/ (citing US

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY (CHAS) (2014-2018)); San Bernardino County, Housing Affordability, https://indicators.sbcounty.gov/housing/housing-affordability (citing Ford, Carmen. Homeownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity. NAHB Economics and Housing Policy Group. Special Studies March 1, 2018) (“In San Bernardino County, the Black homeownership rate in 2018 was 37.5% compared to 68.1% for White households for a homeownership gap of 30.6 between Black and White households. The Latino homeownership rate in 2018 was

53.7% for a homeownership gap of 14.4 between Latino and White households.”). 16 See supra n.10.

Packet Pg. 1173

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA not achieve the goals they purport to serve, but instead undermine public safety.17 As a matter of common sense, there are at least three ways that the CFMH Program hurts public safety:

1. It deters people from reporting crime. The CFMH Program requires tenants to sign a lease addendum that addresses consequences for criminal activity. The lease addendum links the occurrence of any criminal activity on a multi-housing property with housing consequences (i.e. the possibility of eviction). That lease addendum creates the threat of eviction for a resident when “any member of the resident’s household, a guest, or other person under the resident’s control” is accused of illegal activity.18 Thus, the CFMH Program threatens the housing of innocent residents, by indiscriminately targeting the housing of victims and bystanders as well as perpetrators of alleged criminal activity. The program could threaten a young child with the loss of her home if, for example, a lone member of her household or even a one-time guest caused a disturbance on a single occasion.

This deters crime victims, family members, and concerned neighbors and bystanders from coming forward to report crime or reaching out for help— because doing so could lead to housing consequences for them. The program also places a tenant in a terrible, dangerous dilemma when her safety is threatened by a co-tenant. In order to call the police for help, she may trigger a "Crime-Free Housing Referral” or call for service notice to her landlord, which could be construed as a violation of the lease addendum. If victims or concerned family members know that calling 911 can cause them and/or their children to lose their homes, they may avoid seeking protection from the police and suffer the abuse in silence or take matters into their own hands. In short, the CFMH Program gives criminals greater leeway to harass, control, and torment their victims. Similarly, as discussed, the CFMH Program imposes consequences on landlords for the number of calls for service originating from their property. This deters landlords, property managers, neighbors, and tenants from calling for help.

2. It forces people onto the street. The program encourages and provides a basis for more evictions. Forcing someone onto the street does not ensure that the person will leave town or refrain from engaging in harmful conduct. Rather, eviction destabilizes people’s lives and undermines public health and safety, which is detrimental for the community’s wellbeing.

3. It builds barriers to housing. By encouraging landlords to conduct criminal background checks and to use the results of those background checks to discriminate against or deter prospective tenants, the program encourages greater discrimination against prospective tenants based on information about their pasts.

Permanently increasing the difficulty for people to obtain stable, independent housing only serves to benefit no one. It stands in the way of people’s efforts to 17 See, e.g., Emily Werth, Sargent Shriver Nat. Ctr. On Poverty Law, The Cost of Being “Crime Free”: Legal and Practical Consequences of Crime Free Rental Housing and Nuisance Property Ordinances 4 (2013), http://povertylaw.org/files/docs/cost-of-being-crime-free.pdf. 18 Draft Housing Element at p. 3-32.

Packet Pg. 1174

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA make positive change in their lives as it threatens to drive individuals and families into homelessness.

By deterring people from reporting crimes, forcing people onto the street, and building barriers to housing, the CFMH Program only serves to enable criminal activity and harm public safety.

At the same time, it diverts public resources that could be invested in real public safety supports and affirmatively furthering fair housing. For all of these reasons, the draft Housing Element should be revised to remove the CFMH Program.

II. THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT SHOULD BE REVISED TO AMEND THE SECTIONS ON ANTI-CAMPING ENFORCEMENT AND PROGRAM 5.5 –

HOMELESS SERVICES
A. The Homeless Services Program Is A Bad Faith Effort In Addressing The Needs Of Unhoused Community Members
The City describes its approach to addressing houselessness as a commitment to the implementation of a “housing first” strategy and “provision of a full continuum of housing and services to address homelessness” as outlined in Program 5.5 of the draft Housing Element.19 While the City has done laudable work to secure some initial grant funding to address houselessness, its plan to spend $20 million on “Housing Unsheltered Residents” is not fully committed to a best practices “housing first” model, wherein safe, permanent, adequate and affordable housing is provided to unhoused people as an immediate response to their needs.

Currently, the City’s plan includes some promising permanent supportive housing projects – including the All Star Lodge and U.S. VETS Inland Empire projects.20 The draft Housing Element describes other projects listed in the plan as providing emergency and transitional “shelter beds,” however, and it is unclear whether those will be congregate shelter beds.

Studies have shown that congregate shelters are not an effective solution to houselessness and often do not provide pathways to permanent housing. Congregate shelters subject individuals to higher rates of communicable diseases like COVID-19, due to their tight quarters and requirements that many people share facilities.21 Further, crowding large numbers of people together can lead to social withdrawal, psychological distress, and other mental and physical health conditions, and often do not put residents on a path to obtaining permanent housing.22 Importantly, people do not want to live in congregate settings: in a recent research study of individuals experiencing houselessness in Los Angeles, 70% of individuals surveyed stated they 19 See Housing Element, p. 7-25. 20 Id. 21 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Moving Away from Congregate Shelter, https://nlihc.org/resource/moving-away-congregate-shelter (Jun. 9, 2020). 22 Id. at 8, citing Gove, W., Hughes, M., & Galle, O. (1979). Overcrowding in the home: An empirical investigation of possible pathological consequences. American Sociological Review 44(1), 59-80. See also Ann Oliva, Ending Homelessness: Addressing Local Challenges in Housing the Most Vulnerable, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/ending-homelessness-addressing-local-challengesin-housing-the-most-vulnerable (Feb. 2, 2022).

Packet Pg. 1175

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA would not accept offers to stay in group shelters, citing lack of privacy as a concern, suggesting a limited role for congregate shelters in effectively moving people off the streets.23 We note that “Housing First” is the national best practice for solving houselessness, and that the buildup of temporary or interim placements would create a bottleneck of unhoused community members waiting for permanent and affordable housing. Under the state’s official Housing First policy, placements for unhoused residents should be low-barrier and allow for people to stay with their loved ones, pets, and personal property.24 We ask the City to ensure that all the funds for “Housing Unsheltered Residents” go toward low-barrier, non-congregate, permanent housing solutions based on Housing First principles.

Additionally, the City demonstrates its continued dedication to the criminalization of houselessness through the proposed enforcement of its anti-camping ordinance. As outlined in the draft Housing Element, “City has adopted plans that will result in the development of additional beds that will address 60 percent of the unmet need” (i.e. Program 5.5).25 Based on a flawed interpretation of the settlement agreement for Orange County Catholic Worker v. County of Orange, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247189 (2019), the City has determined that by achieving the 60 percent need threshold as identified in the settlement agreement, the City will then be given free rein to enforce its anti-camping ordinance.26
We note that the Orange County Catholic Worker v. County of Orange settlement is a private agreement that is binding only on the parties involved and does not establish a legal precedent for San Bernardino County or any other jurisdiction to follow. Further, the City misrepresents the nature of this settlement agreement in its Housing Element draft. The Catholic Worker case did not permit Orange County to enforce its anti-camping ordinances upon 60 percent of its unhoused population becoming housed. Rather, the reference to 60 percent in the settlement was a requirement that a county planning area create enough placements for at least 60 percent of its unsheltered population. This requirement was unrelated to the anti-camping code, and there has not been any anti-camping enforcement in the jurisdictions subject to the settlement, despite the opening of shelters.

Importantly, this settlement agreement does nothing to change the binding Ninth Circuit precedent in Martin v. City of Boise, which struck down an anti-camping ordinance and held that that cities may not criminalize people for their unhoused status. 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019). As long as there are more unhoused individuals in the City than housing options available to them, it remains unconstitutional to criminalize individuals for engaging in life-sustaining activities like camping in public. Further, building shelters to enable the City to enforce its anti-camping ordinance is an adversarial policy that does nothing to end houselessness. This strategy also implies that the City can effectively force unhoused community members into shelters, segregating them in what are often unsafe and highly inappropriate places to live long term. The 23 Jason M. Ward, et al. Recent Trends Among the Unsheltered in Three Los Angeles Neighborhoods: An Interim Report on the Los Angeles Longitudinal Enumeration and Demographic Survey (LA LEADS) Project, RAND Corporation, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1890-1.html (last visited Oct. 15, 2022). 24 See SB 1380, Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (Sept. 29, 2016). 25 See Housing Element, p. 3-48. 26 Id.

Packet Pg. 1176

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA City’s goal of enforcing its anti-camping code is misplaced. The goal should not be to criminalize people, but rather to find ways to solve the underlying problem of lack of affordable housing that forces people to live on the street in the first place.

We urge the City to pivot away from carceral and coercive approaches to what is, in essence, a housing affordability crisis. The City should focus instead on meeting the immediate affordable housing and service needs of its unhoused population. Any interim accommodations the City provides while it develops sufficient permanent affordable housing should be non-congregate (e.g., motel vouchers), voluntary, and free from restrictive rules and protocols. The City’s top priority should be to meet the expressed needs and preferences of its unhoused residents while committing maximum resources toward permanent and dignified housing solutions.

B. The Draft Housing Element Fails To Identify With Specificity The Services That The City Intends to Provide As Part Of Its Homeless Services Program Program 5.5 fails to identify with specificity the exact “health, social, and employment” services that the City is providing.27 Given the City’s intentions in its Homeless Services proposal and its dedication towards the enforcement of its anti-camping ordinance, the ambiguity in what these services entail is concerning.

As such, while the provision of services for unhoused residents is potentially laudable, further clarification of the exact services to be provided is required. ***
The monetary and societal costs of Program 3.2 far outweigh any benefits. In addition, Program

5.5 fails to genuinely address houselessness as it serves to enable the City’s subsequent enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance. Consequently, we urge you to take this opportunity to eliminate the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program and to amend its Homeless Services and anti-camping enforcement plans outlined in the draft Housing Element.

Sincerely,
Adrienna Wong, Senior Staff Attorney Kath Attorney, Staff Attorney CC: Melinda Coy, [email protected]
David Zisser, [email protected]
Cassandra Searcy, [email protected]
27 See Housing Element, p. 7-25.

Packet Pg. 1177

ATTACHMENT A
Packet Pg. 1178
Packet Pg. 1179

ATTACHMENT B
Packet Pg. 1180
Packet Pg. 1181
Riverside, CA
Riverside, CA

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Tessie Solorzano, Esq.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Marvin Powell Jr., President
Erica Alfaro, Esq., Vice
President
Goushia Farook, Esq.,
Secretary
Christina Perez, Treasurer
Daniel Aguilar
Rebecca Eckley, Esq.

Bob Garcia
Xingshuo Liu, Esq.

Andrew R. Morand, Esq.

Julie D. Neal, Esq.

Nithin B. Reddy, Esq.

Elaine S. Rosen, Esq.

Steven R. Weber, Esq.

ICLS is a non-profit
501(c)(3) corporation
IRS Tax ID 95-6124556
Donations are welcome.

Senior Line: 800.977.4257
Toll Free: 888.245.4257
InlandLegal.org
Indio
P.O. Box 10650
Indio, CA
92202-2563
Executive Office
1040 Iowa Ave., #106
Riverside, CA
92507-2106
Ontario
3500 Porsche Way, #200
Ontario, CA
91764-4941
Riverside
1040 Iowa Ave., #109
Riverside, CA
92507-2106
Victorville
15428 Civic Center Drive, Ste 175
Victorville, CA
92392

SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
July 11, 2023
City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino – Community & Economic Development 201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401
RE: City of San Bernardino 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Draft Housing Element
Dear Honorable Commissioners of the Planning Commission for the City of San Bernardino:

Inland Counties Legal Services (ICLS) and The Public Interest Law Project (PILP) submit these comments regarding the City of San Bernardino’s (City) 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Draft Housing Element (Draft). ICLS and PILP attach and incorporate by reference the previous comment letters sent concerning the City’s draft Sixth Cycle chapters on Housing Needs, Analysis of Constraints, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, previously sent on December 28, 2022, and March 9, 2023, respectively, as Exhibits 1 and 2.

As a preliminary matter, the City should proofread the Draft and correct any spelling and statutory citation errors or other errors to avoid confusing and misleading HCD and the public. For instance, the word “dimmish” should be corrected as the word “diminish” (Draft, p. 2-48), and the City should correctly identify how many mobilehome parks are in the City (is it 46 (Draft, p. 3-8) or 48 (Draft, p. 7-19, Program 4.2)?) Additionally, the statutory references to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirement concerning the housing element and the Tenant Protection Act are incorrect. Concerning the statutory reference to the AFFH requirement for assessment of fair housing regarding racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk, the correct citation is Government Code section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii) and not Gov. Code Packet Pg. 1182
2 65583 (10)(A)(ii) (Draft, p. 5-25), and the complete citation for the fair housing regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act is California Code of Regulations, Tit. 2, section 12005, et seq. (Draft, p. 5-41.) Similarly, the City needs to correct the citation to the Tenant Protection Act (Act) to the correct Assembly Bill—AB 1482 (Draft, pp. 5-84; 5-87; 7-19 (Program 4.2)), and when speaking about the Act in the Draft, the City should refer to the codified sections of the Act in the Civil Code—Civil Code section 1947.12 (rent cap) and Civil Code section 1946.2 (just cause eviction protections), and any subsequent legislative amendments to the Act to ensure that the City refers to the correct source of law when speaking about how it will implement the Act in the City.

Further, as set forth below, the Draft, in its current form, does not comply with Housing Element law, and the City will need to substantially revise it to bring it in compliance with the law.

Housing Needs
Government Code section 65583(a)(2) requires an “analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition.” In the Draft, the City states that there is no data available to determine whether housing problems in San Bernardino caused by overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing. (Draft, p. 2.19, Table 2-16). The City states that there is no data available to determine whether the housing problems in San Bernardino are caused by overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing. (Ibid.) However, data exists regarding the overcrowding issues in San Bernardino, which is among the third worst in California1. According to 2021 data as to San Bernardino, 1,201 units lack telephone service, 83 units lack plumbing facilities, and 539 units lack complete kitchen facilities.2 In 2021, San Bernardino met the ACS definition for overcrowding as 2,853 owneroccupied and 6,270 renter-occupied households had more than 1.0 occupants per room.3 Moreover, 724 owner-occupied households and 2,142 renter-occupied households had more than 1.5 occupants per room which meets the definition of 1 California and Urban Cores Dominate Overcrowded Housing, <https://www.newgeography.com/content/006908- california-and-urban-cores-dominate-overcrowded-housing> (as of May 31, 2023). 2 Pre-Certified Local Housing Data for the City of San Bernardino, Southern California Association of Government (April 2021) < https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/san-bernardino-he-0421.pdf?1620769337> at 12 (as of May 31, 2023).
3 Pre-Certified Local Housing Data for the City of San Bernardino, Southern California Association of Government (April 2021) < https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/san-bernardino-he-0421.pdf?1620769337> at 13 (as of May 31, 2023).

Packet Pg. 1183
3 overcrowding.4 Additionally, the City should sample HUD data regarding its emergency voucher assistance program to identify data and help determine tenure, overpayment, or overcrowding among the population in the City who rent subsidized housing units. To ensure compliance with Government Code section 65583(a)(2), the City needs to conduct the necessary analysis regarding household characteristics, housing condition and stock and revise the Draft accordingly.

The Draft fails to fully analyze the unmet needs of lower-income residents in the City, particularly those whose housing stability is threatened by eviction. For instance, the City contends that “there is no comprehensive displacement or eviction data to document its occurrence countywide.” (Draft, p. 2-40). This statement is factually incorrect. A review from data obtained on the Eviction Lab website, link provided here, Eviction data: Eviction Map & Data (Version 2.0) | Eviction Lab - San Bernardino County, shows that in 2018, landlords filed approximately 30.9 eviction filings in San Bernardino County Superior Courts, per day, which threatened the housing for approximately 11,000 households. Because the City has not examined this data from the Eviction Lab, the City has not fully analyzed the impacts of rent burden and the special housing needs presented for residents in the City whose housing is threatened by eviction, especially for those tenants who were and have been unable to pay rent due to loss of income as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, at Table 2-28 (Draft, p. 2- 44), only four agencies in the City provide motel and rental assistance. The City needs to revise its analysis regarding the special housing needs to account for the impact of evictions on those renting in the City, including farmworkers, large families, families with female headed households, people living with disabilities, seniors, as well as families and persons in need of emergency shelter such as motels or temporary housing post-eviction.

Special Housing Needs
Government Code section 65583(a)(7) requires a housing element to analyze special housing needs such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, families with female heads of households, and other categories. The City concedes in the Draft that it has not undertaken a family and children needs assessment to document local unmet needs. (Draft at p. 2-32.)
Persons living with disabilities
As to persons with disabilities, the Draft does not account for state law accessibility 4 Id.

Packet Pg. 1184
codes and does not inform the public of whether services exist in the City for persons living with mental health disabilities. (Draft, pp. 2-37 to 2-38.) If these services do not presently exist in the City, it is an unmet need that the City should account for and include a program within the Draft to address to ensure that the City fully analyzes the special housing needs for people living with disabilities as required under Government Code section 65583(a)(7).

Further, the statement in the Draft that, “The Census Bureau does not count the number of people who are disabled and living in institutionalized settings, (Draft, p. 5-10), is factually inaccurate. People living in group situations, such as group homes and residential treatment centers, are counted by a separate Census Bureau operation called the Group Quarters (GQ) enumeration and the Census staff works with administrators of such group facilities to set a date, time, and preferred method of counting people. As such, if the City is unable to obtain the data from the Census directly, due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City could contact the administrators of the group facilities in their City and obtain the number of people who live there. The City must conduct this analysis to fully assess the housing needs of those in the City living in group home settings as required by Government Code section 65583(a)(7), to be able to provide appropriate housing opportunities, particularly for those in the City who live with co-occurring disabilities. (See also HCD AFFH Guidance Memo (April 2021) Update, p. 38.)
Unhoused Persons
Moreover, as to unhoused persons, the Draft fails to mention the impact of sweeps on the unhoused and needs for the unhoused who live in the City. (Draft, p. 2-39.) The Draft at p. 2-50, fails to analyze the constraint of requiring an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on the development of SROs especially considering the high number of unhoused in the City, which at 1,350 persons, is the highest in San Bernardino County. (Draft, p. 5-24, Table 5-9.) The City’s plan to reinstitute its anti-camping ban, codified in San Bernardino Municipal Code 12.98, conflicts with Goal 5 “to affirmatively further fair housing opportunity for all residents in San Bernardino through policy, outreach and education programs, and funding,” and in particular Policy 5.2 to “initiate and maintain a comprehensive homeless prevention and housing-first approach to address the needs of the City’s homeless residents and enable them to secure the resources needed to integrate back into society.” (Draft, p. 7-6.)
Additionally, the statement in the Draft that “[i]n Orange County, specifically, a judge ruled that Orange County cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances until at least 60 percent of its homeless population has been housed,” (Draft, p. 3-48), is false and the 4 Packet Pg. 1185
City must remove it from the Draft. The O.C. Catholic Worker case did not permit Orange County to enforce its anti-camping ordinances upon 60% of its unhoused population becoming housed. It cannot and does not change the current and binding Ninth Circuit precedent in Martin v. City of Boise, which struck down an anti-camping ordinance and held that that cities may not criminalize people for their unhoused status. (Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2018), amended by 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019) (Martin).); Johnson, et al. v. City of Grant Pass (9th Cir. 2023) (Johnson) Nos. 20-35752, 20-35881, *41- 52 (reh'g denied).

On the contrary, the settlement in the O.C. Catholic Worker case did create rules about outreach, clinical assessment, and appropriate placement, followed by enforcement.

There has not been any anti-camping enforcement in the jurisdictions subject to the settlement, despite the opening of shelters. As such, as long as there are more unhoused individuals in the City than housing options available to them, it remains unconstitutional to criminalize individuals for engaging in life-sustaining activities like camping in public. (Martin, supra, 920 F.3d at p. 589.); Johnson, supra, Nos. 20-35752, 20-35881, at *52. Further, building shelters to enable the City to enforce its anti-camping ordinance is an adversarial policy that does nothing to end houselessness in the City because the City must evaluate whether those shelters are adequate under Martin and Johnson before seeking to reinstitute and enforce an anti-camping ban in the City.

Moreover, the reference to 60 percent in the O.C. Catholic Worker settlement, refers to the Orange County North Special Planning Area creating 200 shelter beds to meet the court’s requirement to provide placement for at least 60 percent of its unsheltered population. (See O.C. Catholic Worker Notice of Settlement Between Plaintiffs and City of Orange, filed November 27, 2018, pp. 4, 5, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.) It is, therefore, disingenuous of the City to inaccurately represent the outcome of the O.C.

Catholic Worker case to support its desire to reinstitute its anti-camping ban that violates the Martin precedent since the City admits that, in the Draft and its subsequent emergency declaration on homelessness adopted on February 2, 2023, it lacks adequate shelter in the City to house its unhoused population.

The City’s goal should not be to criminalize people, but rather to find ways to solve the underlying problem of lack of affordable housing that forces people to live on the street in the first place.

Preservation of At-Risk Housing
The housing element must identify and analyze subsidized and deed-restricted affordable housing at risk of conversion to market-rate housing during the planning 5 Packet Pg. 1186
6 period. (See Gov. Code § 65583(a)(9).) The Draft, at Table 2-31, p. 2-54, inexplicably fails to include the Dorjil Estates I and DORJIL II among the affordable housing developments at risk of conversion during the planning period. In earlier drafts of the Draft, the City represented that the subsidy for Dorjil Estates 1, financed with monies from HCD, will expire in 2034, while the subsidy DORJIL II, financed with CalHFA funds, would expire in 2024. (See Table 3.1-28, pp. 44, 45, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.) Moreover, in February 2023, we met with and subsequently informed the City that the subsidy expiration information for the Dorjil Estates I as represented in Table 3.1-28, was false based on documents and information we received about the subsidy at Dorjil Estates I terminating, following foreclosure and sale of the premises to a new owner, which impacted several tenants who were involuntarily displaced after being unable to pay the sudden increase in their rent. (See Email from Elena Castillo, Esq., to Eydee Jimenez re Dorjil Estates I, dated 2/27/2023, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.) Additionally, at Table 2-31 in the Draft, the City fails to characterize the Kendall Drive Apartments and Kendall Park Apartments as “at-risk”, even though the affordability covenants expire for these apartments expires in 2025, which is less than two years away given that we are beyond the halfway point in 2023. Additionally, the Kendall Drive Apartments and Kendall Park Apartments, along with apartments with subsidies expiring in three and four years (see e.g., Maplewood Homes (subsidy expires 2026), Arrowhead Woods (subsidy expires 2027)) are HUD Project-Based Voucher (PBV) units, comprising an approximate total number of 357 units of the City’s affordable housing stock. Given this high number of affordable housing units at risk and the lowerincome families who rely upon subsidized housing in the City—2,500 tenant-based vouchers and 1,000 project-based vouchers (Draft, p. 5-84), and to comply with Government Code section 65583(a)(9), the Draft must explain how the City will plan to comply with statutory notice requirements under 24 CFR 983.206, which concerns termination of subsidies of PBV units.

Analysis of Constraints
A housing element must also contain an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels and for persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code § 65583(a)(5); Fonseca v.

City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1194.).) Additionally, the City must analyze the potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Packet Pg. 1187
7 Government Code section 65584. (Gov. Code § 65583(a)(6).) As set forth below, the Draft is inadequate because the City has failed to completely analyze the constraints present in the development of affordable housing to meet the City’s lower-income regional needs housing allocation.

Constraints on development of affordable housing opportunities for those in need of emergency, transitional and supportive housing (including SROs)
The Draft fails to: (1) analyze the constraints concerning emergency, transitional and supportive housing, and SROs subject to CUPs (Draft, p. 3-6, Table 3-4); (2) analyze the impact of requiring development permit on construction of multi-family housing (Draft, pp. 3-7, 3-8); (3) set forth adequate emergency shelter provisions pursuant to Government Code section 65583 (Draft, p. 3-12); and (4) set forth information about the City’s RA policy (Draft, pp. 3-13-3-15.) As to development permits, the City states that development permits do not impose a constraint on housing yet sets forth no data for such conclusion. (Draft, pp. 3-35 to 3-36.) The Draft also does not set forth analysis of the constraints that CUPs have on the development of housing. (Draft, pp. 3-37, 3-38.) Moreover, the Draft does not articulate the “menu of options” to remove additional constraints on the development of appropriate accommodations for unhoused residents. (Draft, p. 3-47.)
Additionally, the Draft constrains development of housing of persons living with disabilities. The Draft: (1) requires reasonable accommodation requests to be made in writing (Draft, p. 3-46) where it should state that the reasonable accommodation request can be made in any format; and (2) fails to describe the length of time from the Director’s review and procedural processes described concerning the reasonable accommodation process to see if there are any administrative constraints that can be streamlined or removed. (Ibid.) Additionally, many of the Draft’s proposed timeline under Program 2.8- Constraints to Housing for People with Disabilities (Draft, p. 7-14; 7-30) are far too long, i.e., amendments in mid-2024, and the City has failed to analyze the constraint imposed by their delay in amending the San Bernardino Municipal Code to adhere to current fair housing law definitions on family, dwelling unit, dwelling single, and disability when the definitions on these terms have been in longstanding existence. Indeed, the protections for transitional and supportive housing in section 65583 are not new. They were added to State Housing Element Law in Senate Bill (SB) 2 (Stats. 2007, Ch. 633, § 3). HCD has assisted jurisdictions throughout the state regarding these changes to the law through technical assistance memos dated May 7, 2008; April 10, 2013; and April 24, 2014. (Available at: HCD Memos | California Department of Housing and Community Development, last accessed on June 9, 2023.) Packet Pg. 1188
In addition, HCD provides guidance in the housing element portion of its website, the Building Blocks. (Available at, Building Blocks | California Department of Housing and Community Development), last accessed on June 9, 2023.) Thus, there is no reason, for example, why the City cannot make the changes now to the San Bernardino Municipal Code concerning removing barriers to the siting and operation of group homes and RCFEs in the City when there is recent guidance issued by HCD (see HCD Group Home Technical Advisory, 2022, p. 2, 3; 20-29.) The City’s delay in making these changes present significant barriers that the City has failed to analyze in the Draft pursuant to Gov. Code 65583(a)(6). The delay proposed by the City to make these amendments in mid-2024, moreover, presents impediment to fair housing that the City has not fully assessed in violation of Gov. Code sections 8899.50, 65583(a)(10)(A); see also HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, pp. 26, 38. The City’s substantial delay in updating the San Bernardino Municipal Code concerning the siting and operation of group homes also violates the City’s mandatory duties not to engage in intentional land use discrimination against low-income persons in violation of Government Code section 65008 and 2 Cal.

Code Reg. 12161. It is also inconsistent with Policy Goals Nos. 2 (2.5) (Development Review) (Draft, p. 7-3); and 5, (5.4) (housing for people with disabilities); 5.6 (Municipal Practices) (Draft, p. 7-6).

Environmental Constraints
Government Code section 65583.2(b)(4) requires a general description of any known environmental constraints to the development of housing within the jurisdiction. The Draft, at Section 3.3.1, insufficiently addresses the environmental constraints upon the development of affordable housing in the City because the Draft does not fully analyze the effects of pollution from industrial developments and related tariff congestion caused by industrial development, which is overwhelmingly concentrated in neighborhoods inhabited mostly by Latinos and low-income residents. (See < https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/01/inland-empire-california-warehousedevelopment/ > as of May 31, 2023.) For instance, the PM2.3 concentration in San Bernardino is currently 5.9 times the WHO annual air quality guideline value, for which the Draft does not account. The City should revise its Draft and include these and other environmental constraints related to air pollution and any other contaminants that impact the City’s ability to develop housing in the City, which includes emergency shelter development. Regarding emergency shelter siting as provided for in the Draft and the environmental constraints presented by the proposed siting, several of the site designations within the emergency shelter overlay are located in areas of the City with high hazardous waste and cleanup percentiles (Draft, p. 4-21, Table 4-5.) The City has not identified alternative areas for emergency shelter sites in the City should areas 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 6, end up being environmentally unsuitable for emergency shelter 8 Packet Pg. 1189
9 development. The City should fully analyze the environmental constraints upon these areas and identify alternate sites in the event these areas are unable to contain emergency shelter.

Improper Housing Resources
Chapter 4 of the Draft sets forth various housing resources, however, deficiencies remain that must be remedied.

Gov. Code § 65583(a)(4)(A) provides that a Housing Element must identify one or more zoning designations that allow residential uses, including mixed uses, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit and that are suitable for residential uses. Sufficient sites must be identified in zoning designations to accommodate the need for emergency shelters. (Gov. Code § 65583(a)(4)(A).) There must be sufficient capacity with respect to these emergency shelters. (Gov. Code § 65583(a)(4)(A) and Gov. Code § 65583(a)(4)(I).) The emergency shelter analysis points to emergency shelter sites with high waste or cleanup obligations, and limited to no accessibility to food stores, and the City does not identify alternative sites in the event that sites in areas are inadequate or undevelopable areas to site shelter for people in need of emergency shelter; see e.g., Areas 1, 2A, 3, and 6. (Draft, pp. 4-18- 4-21; Table 4-5, p. 4-21.)
The City Emergency Shelter Overlay Does Not Permit By-Right Development as Required by Gov. Code sections 65583(a)(4) and 65583.2 In the Draft, the City references its Emergency Shelter Overlay Zone which the City contends permits emergency shelters serving up to 60 persons without discretionary review in accordance with an administrative permit. (Draft, p. 4-18.) However, a review of the City’s development standards regarding emergency shelter reveals that the process is not ministerial as required by Government Code sections 65583(a)(4) and 65583.2.

In practice, the Emergency Shelter Overlay Zone does not operate as a by-right use because shelters are permitted as a by-right use, subject t0 an approved Administrative Permit per Chapter 19.10—E.O30(2) of the: San Bernardino Municipal Code (Municipal Code), which is acted upon administratively per Chapter 19.44.030 of the Municipal Code, and subject to review by the Director of Community Development, per Table 3

1.01 of the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code governing Administrative Permits, Chapter 19.44.040, imposes several findings upon uses for developments located in the Emergency Shelter Overlay Zone that are subjective and exceed the scope 0f objective Packet Pg. 1190
10 written standards under Government Code section 65583(a)(4)(B).

For instance, the City requires a finding that “[t]he proposed development would be harmonious and compatible with existing and future developments within the zone and general area, as well as with the land uses presently 0n the subject property,” (City of San Bernardino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.44.040, Finding 3, emphasis added), and “[t]he location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.” (Id., at Finding No. 8.)
These findings constitute discretionary review for an emergency shelter development use in the City, which state law prohibits. Id. at Gov. Code §65583.2. As such, the City proposes a timeline by the City to amend these provisions to come into compliance with Government Code section 65583(a)(4) and 65583.2 within one year of adoption of the Housing Element (see Program 5.5- Homeless Services, pp. 7-25; 7-36). Apart from the updated requirements regarding emergency shelter created by AB 2339, a timeline to bring the City’s emergency shelter ordinance with compliance with Senate Bill 2 within one year of adoption of the Element by the City is unacceptable, especially when one considers that Senate Bill 2 is not new and HCD has had guidance on the by-right requirements for many years. (See HCD SB 2 Memo (updated April 10, 2013), p. 8 (“Most prominently, housing element law now requires the identification of a zone(s) where emergency shelters are permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action.” (Emphasis added.)) The City’s delays present a governmental constraint on the development of this housing type in violation of Government Code section 65583(a)(5) and it is an impediment and a constraint that impedes the City’s mandatory duty to affirmatively further fair housing in violation of Government Code sections 65583(a)(10)(A) and 8899.50. The City should take steps to amend its emergency shelter ordinance within the emergency shelter overlay to truly permit byright development of these shelter types without any further delay.

The Draft Fails to Adequately Analyze the Housing Needs for Disadvantaged Communities
Gov. Code § 65302.10(a)(2) defines a disadvantaged unincorporated community as a fringe, island, or legacy community in which the median household income is 80 percent or less than the statewide median household income. A fringe community is any uninhabited and unincorporated territory that is within a city’s sphere of influence.

Gov. Code § 65302.10(a)(3). An island community is any inhabited and unincorporated territory that is surrounded or substantially surrounded by one or more cities or by one or more cities and a county boundary. Gov. Code § 65302.10(a)(4). Pursuant to Packet Pg. 1191
11 Government Code section 65302.10(b)(2), on or before the next adoption of its housing element, the City must identify DUCs in its land use element and analyze their water, wastewater, stormwater drainage and structural fire protection needs.

The City has failed to address our comments made in our March 9, 2023 letter concerning disadvantaged communities. (See 3/9/23 Comment Letter.) While the Draft identifies seven disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), describes its water, wastewater, stormwater draining, fire protection needs, and identifies potential funding sources that could alleviate these needs (Draft at Section 5.6, pp. 5-51 through 5-60), the Draft fails to analyze how the identified funding sources could extend services specifically to the seven identified DUCs, all of which are designated as residential with regard to their predominant use. The City is required to analyze funding sources that could make the extension of services to its DUCs financially feasible pursuant to Gov.

Code § 65302.10(b) yet fails to undertake the requisite analysis.

The City’s Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
The Draft fails to provide a complete fair housing assessment. For example, the City acknowledges its historic segregative practices and indicates that “they have long ended and remnant patterns gradually diminished.” (Draft, p. 5-5.) The Draft, however, does not state what those segregative practices consisted of or provide any evidence that the remnant patterns have gradually diminished. To ensure compliance with Government Code sections 8899.50(a)-(c) and 65583(c)(10)(A)(iii), the Draft must “address both integration and segregation to holistically evaluate the patterns and practices and better identify and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues.” (HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 30.) Indeed, “a strong analysis would also address segregation and integration of households with lower incomes.” (Ibid.) The City should revise the Draft to include this analysis, and modify its programs accordingly.

Moreover, the Draft’s fair housing assessment does not provide adequate actions to address the fair housing issues within the City. The Draft acknowledges a significant number of R/ECAPs within the City. (Draft, p. 5-7 to 5-9). To address this fair housing issue the City proposes to reinvest in the community with six projects: Infrastructure Improvements, developing a Downtown Specific Plan, Small Business Assistance, Youth Employment, Employment and Training, and an investment tool. (Draft p. 5-81 to 5-

82.) However, the element does not explain how these projects will have a meaningful impact to transform the R/ECAPs into areas of opportunity. For example, the infrastructure improvement project describes that in 2021, the City “repaired and rehabilitated” roadways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and ramps, and will also complete park rehabilitation, and yet there is no indication of what, if any, of the tracts considered Packet Pg. 1192
12 R/ECAPs will be impacted by the City’s rehabilitation project. (Draft, p. 5-82). Rather, the element asserts that this is a “Citywide” project with a timeline of “2021-2027”. (Draft, p. 5-86.) The other projects propose similarly vague description and timelines.

The City also acknowledges a high displacement risk within its central and westside areas, however, none of the actions it proposes target a specific area, instead the targeted areas are listed as “Citywide”, and in one instance “Disadvantaged areas”. (Draft, p. 5-84, 5-87.) The proposed actions are also not specific with timelines and metrics to ensure meaningful impact to address the high displacement risk. (Draft, p. 5-

87.) Accordingly, the Draft should include a complete assessment of its fair housing issues, and modify its current proposed actions to address the fair housing issues it has identified.

Fair Housing Complaints, Compliance, Findings, Lawsuits, Enforcement Actions or Judgments, Draft, pp. 5-39 to 5-42
Additionally, the Draft at p. 5-42, fails to inform the public of the pending lawsuit Gracia, et al. v. City of San Bernardino, CIV SB 2301818 (filed February 10, 2023), a lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of low-income residents regarding statutory violations of the housing element, laws requiring zoning and siting for emergency shelters, density bonus law, and statutory and fair housing violations regarding its maintenance of the crime-free ordinance and multi-housing program. Further, the City should amend the Draft at p. 5-40 and include how the City will comply with the additional following fair housing and land use laws, including without limitation, the Housing Crisis Act (Gov. Code section 66300); California Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code section 33400 et seq.), California Relocation Assistance Act (Gov. Code section 7260, et seq.; 25 Cal. Code. Reg. 6000, et seq.); Government Code section 11135; Surplus Lands Act (Gov. Code 54220, et seq.); Government Code section 65008 (prohibiting discrimination in land use decisions based on lower-income status, race, and other protected characteristics); 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq (Fair Housing Act); and 2000d (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act) (prohibiting discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal assistance).

The City’s Site Inventory Perpetuates Segregation in Violation of its Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
The identified sites in the existing zones that the City proposes to use to meet its lowerincome RHNA are exclusively in areas designated as "low resource" or "high segregation/poverty" areas on CA Tax Credit Allocation/CA HCD's opportunity map.

Out of the 811 units accommodated for, 88 of them (10.9%) are in low resource areas; Packet Pg. 1193
13 the remaining 723 (89.1%) are in high segregation/poverty areas. There is also a high concentration of low-income sites in the Downtown area, which has high unemployment. (Draft, pp. 5-74 through 5-79, Table 5-16.) There are very few sites in the Verdemont and West Districts, and the sites set forth are located in environmentally deprived areas. (Id.) Also, the vacant sites for the lower income category appear to be in areas designated as “low resource” and “high segregation/poverty” areas on the HCD opportunity map. Accordingly, the failure to diversify the location of sites throughout the City, including zoning for and locating those sites in high-opportunity areas in the City during the 2021-2029 Planning Period violates the City's duties to affirmatively further fair housing under Government Code sections 8899.50, 65583.2, 65583(c)(10)(A). (See also Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 64, 126-131; HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, pp. 45-48 [“AB 686 requires a jurisdiction’s site inventory “…shall be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with…” its duty to affirmatively further fair housing.”] Sites must be identified and evaluated relative to the full scope of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, access to opportunity.”]; HCD Site Inventory Guidebook (May 2020), p. 8, 9.) Additionally, “where the analysis of the inventory indicates that the community has insufficient sites appropriately zoned and located to accommodate its lower income RHNA in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, the housing element must include a program to address this inconsistency, such as making additional sites available to accommodate its lower income RHNA in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. To this end, the Draft must revise proposed Program 1.1 (Draft, pp. 7-7, 7-27) to comply with this requirement.

Further, the City’s site inventory chart also lacks the following information: (1) whether a site is publicly owned or leased; (2) whether a parcel has available or planned/accessible infrastructure; and (3) if a parcel was identified in a previous planning period site inventory, as required by Government Code section 65583.2. (Draft, 4-36-4-48.) Lastly, the low-income sites are not delineated by low-income and very low-income as required by Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3). (Draft, p. 4-

36.)
The Housing Element Relies on Sites Previously Identified in Two Consecutive Prior Planning Periods Without Adequate Compliance with Government Code section 65583.2
The Draft, at page 4-35, identifies ten sites to meet the lower-income housing RHNA that were identified in both the City’s Fifth Cycle Housing Element and the City’s Fourth Cycle Housing Element for the same purpose. The sites, identified by City zone and APN Packet Pg. 1194
14 number, are as follows:

RMH:
013631118
013630207
013631126
013631109
014135216
015515124
028115164
RH:
015044104
015044130
015515120
The site inventory in the Draft fails to indicate that the City used these parcels in prior housing element planning periods—in this case, the Fourth and Fifth Cycles, nor does the Draft include a Program to require rezoning at the City’s specific default density of 30 units per acre where at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code §65583.2(i); see also HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, May 2020, p. 11, 12), and the Draft fails to provide how the City will comply with the No Net Loss requirements under Government Code section 65863, in the event of a shortfall. (Id. at p. 12.) Because the City has used these sites in two or more successive planning periods to meet its lower-income RNHA, the City must revise the Draft and analyze these sites' viability for low-income housing, as well as include a Program that provides for adequate sites for lower-income households on nonvacant and vacant sites previously identified to accommodate for the lower-income RHNA. (Gov. Code §§ 65583; 65583.2; see also HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, supra, pp. 11-14.) Rezoning requirements under Gov. Code 65583; 65583.2(h) The City has informed us that it plans to rezone sites to accommodate about 300 units Packet Pg. 1195
15 for its lower-income RHNA; however, the Draft does not include a rezone program, and to the extent that the City contemplates Program 1.1 RHNA Site Inventory (Draft, p. 7-7; 7-27), to serve as its proposed rezone program, it is inadequate because it fails to provide any mechanism to effectuate the minimum densities and affordability mandates required under Government Code sections 65583(c)(1) and 65583.2(h) and (i), in the event that its housing projects result in a shortfall to meet the RHNA. Thus, if the City does plan to rezone sites, the Housing Element must have a program that accomplishes that rezoning, and the City must follow the guidelines of Government Code section 65583.2, as well as the No Net Loss requirements under Government Code section 65863; see also HCD Guidance Memo No Net Loss Memo (SB 166), October 2, 2019, p. 1, 4 (“A jurisdiction must ensure their Housing Element sites inventory continues to have capacity at all times to accommodate the RHNA by income group throughout the planning period.”) Given the City’s proposal to zone for 864 units, including ADUs, (Draft, p. 5-65), or 56% of its lower-income RHNA in the Downtown area (see Draft at Table 5-16, p. 5-75), which is predominantly made up of areas listed in the “high segregation and poverty” category on the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Map, any sites that the City rezones to accommodate the lower-income RHNA should be placed in different areas of the City.

Further, rather than continue to concentrate sites in existing impacted areas, the City should zone for lower-income housing in the Verdemont district, near the University, which has the highest scores on the opportunity index for education and employment in the City. (Draft at Table 5-16, pp. 5-76, 5-77). The City could also zone for more than 541 units, or 39% of 1,387 units of lower-income housing in the East district (Draft, p. 5-75; Table 5-16), specifically the northern area near Northpark Boulevard, which is considered a “moderate” or “high” resource area on the Opportunity Area Map. (Draft, at pp. 5-69-5-73; Tables 5-15; 5-16; 5-30-5-32). Zoning for lower-income RHNA in these areas would diversify the housing opportunity sites to meet the lower-income RHNA as required under Government Code sections 8899.50 and 65583(c)(10)(A).

City’s Pipeline Projects for Development Contains Major Discrepancies We reviewed the projects in the City’s pipeline for development which is posted on-line here: https://www.sbcity.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=17442546&pageId=18197247 Our initial review of the City's development pipeline projects reveals several issues regarding its claim in the Draft to have a significant number of lower-income unit housing projects in the pipeline. The City claims to have 917 lower-income RHNA Pipeline projects since July 2021 (Draft, p. 4-29, Table 4-6.) However, there are only Packet Pg. 1196
two projects explicitly listed as multi-family residential developments, totaling 47 units.

City of San Bernardino Development Projects, located at https://www.sbcity.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=17442546&pageId=18197247.

Additionally, the Draft only reflects a few RHNA lower-income pipeline sites and none of which correspond with projects in the pipeline referenced in the Draft. (Draft, p. 4- 30; Figure 4-5.) The City will need to correct these apparent discrepancies in the Draft to come into compliance with Gov. Code sections 65583 and 65584. Additionally, if the Draft continues to rely on hundreds of lower income units in the City’s development pipeline, the City must state in the Draft how those units will be affordable. This information is required by law in the Housing Element (see HCD Sites Inventory Guidebook, p. 5.)
The City Has Not Demonstrated That it Has Realistic Site Capacity to Accommodate the RHNA
For all sites in the City’s inventory, the City must determine how many units “that can be realistically accommodated” for lower-, moderate- or above-moderate income housing. (§ 65583.2(c).) AB 1397 made clear that the jurisdiction cannot assume development capacity for housing at a particular level of affordability based solely on land use controls and site development requirements; it must now also analyze:
• The realistic development capacity of the site.
• Typical densities of existing or approved developments at a similar affordability level. • The “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer and dry utilities.” (§ 65583.2(c)(2).)
Here, the City claims that it plans to construct 1,200 ADUs in the next five years (Draft, p. 4-11; see also Program 1.5, Draft, p. 7-9). However, this plan is unrealistic when the Draft demonstrates that the City only permitted eight one-bedroom and onebathroom ADUs for those with lower incomes in the City in the last planning period. (Draft, p. 4-12; Table 4-3.) Further, the City has orally stated that it estimates a shortfall of approximately 300 units, but Table 4-6, at page 4-29 of the Draft does not reflect this shortfall, and the Draft does not currently contain an adequate rezone program that explains how the City will make up for this shortfall, as well as comply with the No Net Loss provisions of Government Code section 65863. The City must revise the Draft and analyze the amount of housing it can realistically accommodate to meet the RHNA.

Reliance on Sites with Allowable Densities of Less than 30 Dwelling Units per Acre
16 Packet Pg. 1197
17 Regarding the site inventory for sites to meet the lower-income RHNA, the Draft relies on at least 10 proposed sites where the Estimated Density is only 29 du/acre, less than the City’s default density of 30 du/acre, to accommodate the 2,512 units of lowerincome RHNA without “an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need. This analysis shall include, but is not limited to factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households.” (§ 65583.2(c)(3)(A).) These sites cannot be counted toward the lower-income RHNA without the requisite analysis.

Reliance on Mixed-Use Sites without Analysis of MUA Development Standards
Fifty-three percent of the sites identified in the Draft to accommodate the County’s lower-income RHNA are mixed-use sites. (Draft, p. 4-35; Table 4-9.) The Draft does not describe other development requirements for these sites, nor analyze whether those requirements might constrain development or limit site capacity. E.g., is 100% residential development allowed? What development and design standards apply? How often do mixed-use developments include affordable housing? The City cannot rely on these sites to accommodate its lower-income RHNA without more information and analysis.

The City Fails to Appropriately Analyze its Prior Programs Government Code § 65588(a) mandates that each local government shall review its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate: (1) the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal; (2) the effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives; (3) the progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the housing element; and (4) the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s needs.

A city is required to undertake a detailed analysis pertaining to the review and evaluation of its housing element. Concerning effectiveness of the housing element, a city must describe “the actual results or outcomes of the prior housing-element’s goals (what happened), objectives, policies, and programs. The results should be quantified where possible . . . and may be qualitative where necessary.” (See HCD Building Blocks, available at <https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks/review-and-revise> as of June 6, 2023.) As to the progress in implementing the housing element, a city “should compare significant differences between what was projected or planned in the earlier housing element and what was Packet Pg. 1198
18 achieved” and should perform an analysis of “the differences to determine where the previous housing element met, exceeded, or fell short of what was anticipated.” (Id.) Pertaining to appropriateness, the city should articulate “what has been learned based on the analysis of the progress and effectiveness of the previous housing element” and must include a “description of how the goals, objectives, policies, and programs in the updated housing element are being changed or adjusted to incorporate what has been learned from the results of the previous element.” (Id.) The Sixth Cycle Draft Housing Element does not meet the requirements set forth in Gov.

Code § 65588. While purporting to evaluate its programs (Draft at pp. 6-8 through 6- 14), the City has only provided a conclusory description of the appropriateness of its programs (Draft at pp. 6-8 through 6-14.) Conclusory statements will not suffice in meeting the City’s obligation to evaluate the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal pursuant to Gov. Code § 65588(a)(1). The Sixth Cycle Draft Housing Element does not articulate: (1) what has been learned based on the analysis of the progress and effectiveness of the previous housing element; or (2) a description of how the goals, objectives, policies, and programs in the updated housing element are being changed or adjusted to incorporate what has been learned from the previous element, as required by HCD. (Id.) Thus, the City’s analysis of the appropriateness of its programs provides no more than a cursory review and therefore fails to meet the requirements of Gov. Code § 65588(a)(1).

The City has also failed to sufficiently evaluate the effectiveness of its programs as required by Gov. Code § 65588(a)(2). The only programs in which the Draft references effectiveness is in connection with Programs 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.5.1; however, even where effectiveness if referenced, the description of effectiveness is a cursory and conclusory reference. Outside of the aforementioned programs, the City makes no analysis or reference as to the effectiveness of such programs. (Draft at pp. 6-8 through 6-14.) The City is required to set forth “the actual results or outcomes of the prior housing-element’s goals (what happened), objectives, policies, and programs. The results should be quantified where possible . . . and may be qualitative where necessary.” The City has failed to provide a sufficient quantitative or qualitative assessment on how the housing element has been effective in attaining the City’s housing goals and obligations. (Draft at pp. 6-8 through 6-14.) Thus, the City’s analysis of effectiveness is deficient and therefore fails to meet the requirements of Gov. Code § 65588(a)(2).

Additionally, as to the progress requirement that a housing element must analyze and provide, the City has failed to meaningfully articulate its progress as required by Gov.

Code § 65588(a)(3). The City has failed to sufficiently: (1) compare what was projected Packet Pg. 1199
19 or planned and what was achieved; and (2) analyze the differences to determine where the previous housing element met, exceeded, or fell short of what was anticipated. (See Draft at pp. 6-8 through 6-14.) For instance, in discussing the Critical Repair Program in connection with Program 3.2.6, the Draft does not analyze why the program to assist 10 lower-income households to make critical exterior repairs failed. (See Draft at p. 6-11.) The Draft merely states that the “program is inactive and is duplicated by existing home repair programs.” (Id.) This neither addresses whether any achievement was made toward the goal specific to that program nor analyzes why the previous housing element did not achieve such goal. This is one of many examples where the City falls short of its duty under Gov. Code § 65588(a)(3). Therefore, the City’s evaluation of the progress of its programs do not comply with the requirements of Gov. Code § 65588(a)(3).

The City’s Programs Fail to Result in Beneficially Impacting Housing Needs and do not Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
As noted in our comments below, the City needs to revise many of its programs to ensure compliance with applicable state and federal law, as well as include more detail concerning the stated goals and objectives for the programs noted below. Notably, the Draft lacks a mobilehome preservation program. In light of the large number of mobilehomes—4000 at 46 mobilehome parks in the City (Draft, p. 3-8), the City needs to include a program in the Draft that has quantifiable goals and objectives to preserve these mobilehomes for lower-income residents who rely upon them for shelter in the City and provide proper legal protections in the event of a mobilehome park closure and conversion as required by Government Code sections 65863.7, 65863.8 and 66427.4.

Program 1.1 - RHNA Site inventory, Draft, pp. 7-7, 7-27. The City needs to revise this Program to provide objectives and milestones that comply with Government Code section Government Code sections 65583(c)(1) and 65583.2(h) and (i) in the event that the identified sites to meet the RNHA are inadequate and result in a shortfall. These sections are missing from the Program, making it statutorily deficient. Additionally, because the City’s current site inventory contains insufficient sites that are “appropriately zoned and located to accommodate its lower income RHNA in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing,” this Program must be revised to address this deficiency, such as making additional sites available to accommodate its lower income RHNA in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. (HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 45.) Accordingly, the City must revise this Program to address these statutory requirements.

Program 1.2, Downtown Housing, Draft, pp. 7-7; 7-27. In light of prior Surplus Land Act (SLA) violations associated with the demolition and prior disposition of the Carousel Packet Pg. 1200
Mall Revise as noticed by HCD to the City in HCD Notice of Violation dated March 16, 2023, the City should revise this Program and flesh out how it will comply with the SLA, rooting its compliance within Government Code section 54220-54234, as amended and HCD guidance interpreting the legal provisions under the SLA. Additionally, the City should include an objective to connect with local community and advocacy groups involved in affordable housing efforts in the City and knowledgeable about the affordable housing needs of the community during the RFP process, which would be consistent with Policy 4.2, to “participate in and support collaborative partnerships that provide funding and assistance for the development, improvement, and preservation of housing.” (Draft, p. 7-6.)
Program 1.4 - Infill Housing Development, Draft, pp. 7-8; 7-27. Because the City has the objective to dispose of former RDA sites through this Program, the City must, in addition to stating compliance with the SLA requirements, revise this program to include compliance with the law that governs the former RDA sites in the City—the Community Redevelopment Law, Health & Safety Code section 33000 et seq., the California Relocation Assistance Act, Gov. Code 7260, et seq., and 25 Cal Code Reg. 6000, et seq., and the Housing Crisis Act, Gov. Code 66300, to ensure that any disposition and development agreement concerning the former RDA sites contain the requisite affordability covenants and replacement housing plans pursuant to Health & Safety Code sections 33413(c) (long-term affordability covenants) and 33413.5 (replacement housing plan), and the Housing Crisis Act. As such, the City needs to rewrite the objective as follows: “Dispose former RDA sites in compliance with the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code 33000 et seq.), California Relocation Assistance Act (Gov. Code 7260, et seq., and 25 CCR 6000, et seq.) and Housing Crisis Act (Gov. Code 66300), advertise surplus land for sale on the City’s website for residential development; and consider bids in compliance with SLA requirements.”
Program 2.2- Density Bonus Provisions, Draft, pp. 7-11; 7-29. The City has not updated its local density bonus provisions since 2013 (Draft, p. 5-40, emphasis added), representing a huge constraint on the development of affordable multi-family housing in the City by affordable housing developers eligible for statutory concession and waivers under the Density Bonus Law. In this Program, while the City states that it will revise its density bonus to bring its ordinance in compliance with Government Code section 65915, it will not do so until July 2024, (Draft, p. 7-29), which is unacceptable given the length of years that the City has been out-of-compliance with state law. The City has failed to provide any justifiable reason why it must wait until July 2024 to come into compliance with the law.
20 Packet Pg. 1201
Program 2.7 - Constraints to a Variety of Housing, Draft, pp. 7-14; 7-30. The City proposes to remove constraints on housing—and specifically emergency shelters by mid2024, which is far too long of a wait in light of the City’s failure to comply with the requirement to identify one or more zones for by-right siting of emergency shelters as required by Government Code sections 65583(a)(4)(A), 65583.2(c) 65589.5; see also HCD SB 2 Memo (May 7, 2008; updated April 10, 2023).) Additionally, the City should include an objective in this Program that the City will identify alternate sites, and conduct the appropriate zoning changes where current site location for emergency shelters are unusable or turn out to be undevelopable.

Programs 2.8 - Constraints to Housing for People with Disabilities, Draft, pp. 7-14; 7-30;

5.3- Housing Services for Disabled Residents, Draft, pp. 7-24, 7-35. The timelines proposed to bring the San Bernardino Municipal Code within compliance with laws prohibiting land use discrimination on the basis of a protected classification, in this case, disability, by mid-2024 or within one year of adoption of the housing Element (Program 5.3), is too long. The City should be able to revise its municipal code now to remove constraints on the development of affordable housing for residents living with disabilities in the City.

Program 3.2—the Crime-Free Ordinance and Multi-Housing Program, Draft pp. 7-15; 7-

31. In addition to the previous comments we have made concerning the City’s Crime FreeOrdinance and Multi-Housing Program, we provide these additional comments to support our request that the City revise this Program to discontinue and repeal the Ordinance and end the Multi-Housing Program because of the glaring fair housing violations presented by the Ordinance and the Multi-Housing Program. Further, the City, in desiring to expand the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program to the City’s estimated 4000 mobilehomes, has failed to analyze the governmental constraint as required by Government Code section 65583(a)(5) on the ability to provide housing to persons exiting incarceration to find housing in the City. The housing instability experienced by this population is well documented – one study concluded that formerly incarcerated people are almost 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general public — in California, 70% of people experiencing homelessness have a history of incarceration. (Nowhere to Go: Homelessness Among Formerly Incarcerated People, Lucius Couloute, Prison Policy Institute, August 2018, available at <https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html>, last accessed on June 7, 2023.) The City’s insistence on maintaining the Ordinance and the Multi-Housing Program as set forth in this Program, including a proposal to expand it to the City’s mobilehome housing stock, presents an impediment to affirmatively furthering fair housing that the 21 Packet Pg. 1202
22 City has failed to analyze and remedy as required by Gov. Code section 8899.50(a)(1); HCD AFFH Guidance Memo (April 2021 update), pp. 14, 16 (requirement of cities and public agencies to foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws), 19 (cultivate values of inclusion), and represents a barrier and an action inconsistent with the City’s AFFH duty under state law. (Gov. Code 65583(c)(5), (10); HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 21, 26.)
Government Code section 8899.50, subd.(a) provides that the City has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing which requires the City to take actions that combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. Pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50, subd.(a), the City must “foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.” The City has the duty to affirmatively further fair housing in all programs related to housing and community development pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50, subd.(a). Moreover, the City is mandated to “administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing” pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50, subd. (a). Government Code section 12955.8, subd. (b) prohibits housing policies and programs that have a discriminatory effect. Facially neutral policies or programs will be deemed discriminatory if such policies or programs, regardless of intent, unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race or color pursuant to Government Code section 12955.8, subd. (b). FEHA is substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act and its amendments. (Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1420.)
The Office of Attorney General has issued statewide guidance concerning crime-free policies. (<Crime Free Housing Guidance_4.21.23.pdf (ca.gov)> (as of June 5, 2023).) A policy or program will be deemed to have a discriminatory effect where it actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of individuals, or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns, based on membership in a protected class. (2 CCR 12060, subd. (b); see also id.) Requiring the initiation of eviction proceedings against tenants or occupants who are arrested, suspected of crimes, or convicted of crimes violates state law. (<Crime Free Housing Guidance_4.21.23.pdf (ca.gov)> at p. 7 (as of June 5, 2023); see also 2 CCR 12062, subd. (a) - (d).) It is unlawful for a person to seek, consider, use, or take an adverse action in the context of housing-related decisions where: (1) an arrest did not result in a conviction; (2) where a person was referred to or participated in a pre-trial or post-trial diversion program or a deferred entry of judgment program; (3) an infraction or conviction is no longer operative by judicial action or statute; or (4) there was an adjudication in the juvenile Packet Pg. 1203
23 system. (Id.; see also 2 CCR 12162, subds. (a) - (d).) The City’s Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element provides that mandatory participation in the City’s Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program is required “as a condition of obtaining and maintaining a valid business license.” (Draft at p. 3-32.) The purported purpose of the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Ordinance is to “reduce crime, drugs, and gang activities at rental properties.” (Ibid.) The Crime-Free Multi-Housing Ordinance consists of two components: (1) a training seminar; and (2) a crime-free lease addendum. (Id.) See also crime-free lease addendum for the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. The crime-free lease addendum used by the City of San Bernardino provides that, “residents, any member of the resident’s household, or a guest or other person under the resident’s control cannot engage in illegal activity.” (Id.) While the Draft states that the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program neither sanctions nor condones actions by a landlord that would violate fair housing or antidiscrimination laws, the City explicitly acknowledges concerns that state and federal agencies have articulated concerns about the legality of its crime-free lease addendum. (Id.) The Draft states that HCD and federal agencies have raised concerns that the crime-free lease addendum “may violate CCR § 12264 and have a disparate impact on Latinos, African Americans, and other minorities.” (Id.) In its discussion of programs, the Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element purports to expand the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program to mobile home projects in Program

3.2. (Draft at p. 7-15 and 7-31.) Additionally, the City acknowledges that the crime-free lease addendum does not comply with fair housing law as it indicates that “the City will . . . modify the lease addendum to comply with fair housing law.” (Id.) The City’s Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program does not comply with state or federal fair housing laws and, in fact, encourages fair housing violations. We have raised such concerns in our December 28, 2022 and March 9, 2023 comment letters as to the issues with the City’s Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program. Pursuant to a PRA request, we received e-mail correspondence encouraging Code Enforcement officers to complete referral cards given that there had only been three referrals pertaining to the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program. (See January 16, 2023 E-Mail at Exhibit 7.) The e-mail provides that an “officer just needs to complete the cards and turn them in, and the Code Enforcement Officers will handle the rest” where a tenant is “causing issues or not cooperative with law enforcement efforts.” (Id.) The Crime-Free Multi-Housing Referral Card allows a law enforcement officer to report the name of a party allegedly engaged in criminal activity, their association with a particular residence, whether such person was arrested, and the type of call, among other items. (See Crime Free MultiHousing Referral Card at Exhibit 8.) Additionally, the Landlord Training Program Packet Pg. 1204
Manual concerning the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program pejoratively refers to people who commit or who have committed crimes as “weeds,” encourages managers to illegally implement blanket bans (rejecting tenants with a single conviction) and consider case dispositions such as plea bargains without considering mitigating evidence, and references attracting the “right applicants” to a property (see Landlord Training Program Manual, attached as Ex. 9, at pp. 1, 33-36; 51), which as noted in these comments, violates state law and federal and state guidance concerning housing for persons with criminal history.

Here, the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program abrogates the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The City must foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws and can take no action that is inconsistent with such obligation; however, the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program is inconsistent with such duty. The use of the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Referral Card allows for contact with law enforcement—such as a tenant summonsing emergency assistance or a victim of domestic violence —to be used in order to evict a tenant in violation of federal and state law. (See Violence Against Women’s Reauthorization Act of 2022, §§ 603, 41415, S. 3623, 117th Congress (2021-2022); Civ. Code § 1946.8; Code Civ. Proc. § 1161.3; Gov.

Code § 53165.)
Moreover, the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program is complicit in the use of criminal history information in housing-related decisions. This runs afoul of the City’s duty to remove barriers to housing and affirmatively further fair housing. The Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program—while stating that the City nor Sheriff’s Department encourages or discourages background checks—references that a property owner can obtain background checks, and that the potential benefits of such background checks are discussed during the training seminar concerning the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program. (Draft at p. 3-32.) Although the City seeks to absolve itself of any connection to the criminal background checks that can be obtained by property owners, the City is perpetuating the use of criminal history information in housing-related decisions in violation of 2 CCR 12162, subds. (a) - (d).

Additionally, the City's statement that a landlord is the ultimate decisionmaker as to whether to evict a tenant who violates the crime-free lease addendum (See Draft at p. 3- 32) does not mean the City is affirmatively further fair housing. In fact, the City’s lease addendum is contrary to this statement. The Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program mandates the use of the crime-free lease addendum. (Id.) The addendum is broad and scope and calls for the immediate termination of tenancy. (See Landlord Training Program Manual at p. 45, Exhibit 9.) Therefore, the existence of the Crime-Free MultiHousing Program violates the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. 24 Packet Pg. 1205
25 The Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program also has a discriminatory effect. According to the Sixth Cycle Draft Housing Element, the City’s population is 66.2 percent Hispanic and 12.1 percent Black. (Draft at Table 5-2, p. 5-5.) The Draft acknowledges that Hispanics are the dominant racial/ethnic group in the City. (Draft at p. 5-5.) Given that the majority of the City’s racial and ethnic composition is composed of minority groups, it follows that the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program has a discriminatory effect.

The City’s stated future attempts to remedy its Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program are futile as no action can bring such program into compliance but-for striking this program. While alleging that its purpose is crime prevention, the true intent is clear: the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program effectuates barriers to housing by denying persons of color housing while penalizing those experiencing violence. Since the program: (1) allows for the prohibited use of information pertaining to criminal history; (2) has a discriminatory effect on minority populations; and (3) creates barriers to housing, the program violates state and federal laws, the City must repeal the Crime-Free MultiHousing Program and Ordinance and indicate how it will do so in the Draft.

Program 3.4- Multi-Family Housing Inspection Program, Draft, pp. 7-16; 7-31. The City needs to revise this Program to specifically state how and by when it will comply with Final Rule 2023-09693.pdf (federalregister.gov) re NSPIRE protocols for HUD-funded properties (Public Housing – July 1 2023; October 2023- Housing Choice voucher properties).

Program 3.5 - Violence Prevention/Intervention, Draft, pp. 7-17; 7-31. Given the violations of state and federal law presented by the City’s maintenance of its crime-free ordinance and multi-housing program as we have outlined in numerous communications with the City and again in this letter, we are extremely concerned by the proposal contained in this Program to “examine the feasibility of a Citywide neighborhood watch program.” Following the multitude of racialized murders across the nation of Black and Latinx people (see e.g., Trayvon Martin (Florida); Atatiana Koquice Jefferson (Texas)) by individuals who were members of their neighborhood watches or using neighborhood watch applications such as Nextdoor and coordinating with law enforcement, purportedly acting under the guise of public safety, these neighborhood watch policies and programs have encouraged implicit bias, racial profiling, and vigilantism to persist, thereby threatening spaces where people of color can exist and live. (See How the Nextdoor App Modernized Racial Profiling - Anti-Racism Daily (theard.com), Andrew Lee, January 31, 2022, last accessed on June 3, 2023.) The City must not use its resources to aid, abet, or facilitate civil and fair housing rights violations of its residents of color through land use practices that have discriminatory effects, which are prohibited under California law. (2 CCR 12161 (a), (b)).

Packet Pg. 1206
26 Moreover, the Draft sets forth no parameters of its proposed Citywide neighborhood watch program; however, even without definitive guidelines or structure as a proposed citywide neighborhood watch program, the City should not implement such a program due to the inherent and implicit biases that exist in such programs. (See Neighborhood Watch: Invading the Community, Evading Constitutional Limits (upenn.edu), Adeoye Johnson, May 11, 2016, pp. 465-466, last accessed on June 6, 2023.) Neighborhood watch programs have the effect of excluding those of minority status or those who are experiencing poverty. (Id. at p. 467.) Given that the City is a majority-minority community, it follows that the inherent and implicit biases would be targeted towards those who make up a majority of the City’s population. The implementation of a Citywide neighborhood watch program would be contrary to the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing and to take actions that combat discrimination pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50, subd.(a). Thus, the City must strike this objective from this Program.

Program 4.1 - Preservation of Assisted Multi-Family Housing, Draft, pp. 7-19; 7-33. As mentioned previously in this letter, information is missing from Table 2-31 regarding covenants that are set to expire during the planning period, which calls into question the validity of City representations that only nine projects have subsidies expiring by 2031.

Additionally, because tenants often do not receive information about their subsidies expiring until it is too late (see e.g., Dorjil I Estates), the City should revise the following objective as follows: “work with tenants and contact specialists to provide education regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures.” Further, the City should not wait to conduct the education when the projects come due as proposed (see Draft, p. 7-31) because there may be a large number of units and households impacted by an expiring subsidy. Rather, the City should concurrently provide community education at the three-, six- and 12-month periods when the landlords subject to Government Code 65863.10 et seq., issue their notices, and the City should also amend this Program to provide community education to tenants living in federally subsidized HUD buildings in the City so they understand their rights in the event of a subsidy expiration. Further, the City should make clear in this Program that the education that the City provides will be accessible for tenants living with disabilities and provided in multiple languages to account for tenants who are limited English proficient.

Program 4.2 - Rent Control/Stabilization, Draft, pp. 7-19; 7-33.

The City needs to revise this Program to specifically state how its existing mobilehome rent stabilization program will protect residents living in mobile home parks who are not covered by the Mobile Home Park Residency Law. The City should include (1) Rent control for mobile home park residents who live in parks constructed after January 1, Packet Pg. 1207
27 1990; and (2) Rent control and just cause eviction rights for tenants who rent both the mobile home and the space. (SB 940, Stats. 2022, Ch. 666) Additionally, the City should revise the following sentence to make it clearer for tenants whose tenancies fall under the Tenant Protection Act: It also imposes “just cause” eviction requirements that apply after residents have occupied the unit for tenants who have either continuously and lawfully occupied the residential rental unit for 12 months or more, or in the case of the addition of an adult tenant, where one or more of the tenants have continuously and lawfully occupied the residential rental unit for 24 months or more. Additionally, given the impacts of evictions on lower-income residents in the City, generally and during the COVID-19 pandemic and the millions of dollars given to the City to aid tenants in need of emergency rental assistance as identified in the Draft (see Draft, p. 5-84; Program 4.4, Draft p. 7-20), the City should include an objective to enact a rent stabilization ordinance in the City and identify a timeline for implementation of same.

Program 4.3- Housing Choice Voucher, Draft, pp. 7-20; 7-33. Given the high number of people who rely upon a Section 8 voucher to subsidize their rent (Draft, p. 5-84), the City should revise the following objective regarding voucher utilization rates as follows:

Improve utilization of vouchers by providing adequate marketing and educational materials to residents, tenants, landlords, and property managers, including without limitation, information on inspection times/requests for tenancy approval/portability requests; and providing information source of income protections under Government Code section 12955(p) and 2 Cal. Code Reg. 12140 et seq., and Small Area Fair Market Rents.

Program 4.4- Emergency Rental Assistance, Draft, pp. 7-20, 7-33. As outlined in the Draft, the City stated that COVID-19 severely impacted its residents. Additionally, the City stated that it secured “$6 million in Emergency Rental Assistance funding for residents unable to pay rent or utilities due to the impact of COVID-19. Through Resolution No. 2021-224, the City entered into a contract with the State of California to participate in the State Rental Assistance program and receive the above grant through September 2025.” (Draft p. 5-84). Yet, the City states that it will plan to phase out this program by the end of 2023 (Draft, p. 7-33). This is concerning, given the extremely high percentage of the City’s residents who receive emergency rental assistance—90% of Hispanic or African Americans with one to five members of their households. (Draft, p. 7-20). This Program should commit the City to establish permanent funding for this Program, identify a clear amount of funding which will be allocated, and commit to permanent implementation of this program to address the ongoing housing needs of the City. The City should not wait until they close out the 6,950 tenants currently assisted Packet Pg. 1208
through the City’s emergency rental assistance program. That should be developed now or while that existing program is ongoing.

Program 5.5-Homeless Services, Draft, pp. 7-25, 7-36. As noted in the Draft, 1,350 persons unhoused, is the highest in the County. This high statistic of unhoused persons necessitated an emergency declaration of homelessness, which allowed the City to avail itself in resources, including $25 million in ARPA funds to help tackle the houselessness crisis in the City. Accordingly, it is unacceptable for the City to place a “TBD” on a convening of a homelessness task force that should have already happened and been meeting on a regular basis to develop and implement best practices concerning chronic houselessness in the City. There are nonprofit entities, including the ACLU, churches, and local legal aid agencies ready to work with the City on its policies that concern the unhoused to ensure they are humane and conform to the law. Accordingly, the City should revise the timeline and provide a definitive timeframe when it will convene the task force during the planning period.

The City Has Failed to Meaningfully Engage the Public as Required by Government Code 65583(c)(8)
The City has failed to meaningfully engage the public in this Housing Element process.

Under Government Code section 65583(c)(8), the City “shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element shall describe this effort.” For many months through 2021 and 2022, attorneys from ICLS and PILP attended general plan amendment meetings, and through telephonic and written correspondence, requested that the City produce a draft Element for review and comment by the public.

Not only did the City fail to comply with this request, it did not hold any substantive meetings to educate the public about the contents of the Element as contained in this Draft. Indeed, the City only released this Draft after being sued for failing to adopt a timely Sixth Cycle Housing Element Revision. Before that, the City for many months, only had rough drafts of two chapters—Housing Needs, the AFFH Chapter, and a rough site inventory on the website, all of which were lacking in the required legal analysis under the Housing Element Law. Additionally, the City cancelled at least two community meetings requested by members of the faith-based community and nonprofit entities to learn more about the Housing Element and City proposals. The only meeting that the City held related to the Draft for the Sixth Cycle occurred in February 2023, and it was extremely cursory and tangential in nature as the overall meeting purpose was related to the General Plan Amendments. The meeting in February 2023, lacked any substantial detail about the proposed programs of the Housing Element (i.e., full objectives and timelines for implementation), and it only provided 28 Packet Pg. 1209
29 basic information about the areas where the City was thinking about proposing sites to meet its RHNA for which the public has had no input. Prior to today's meeting, the City has not previously held any meetings to educate the community about the Housing Element and received detailed feedback on its contents to include in this Draft, which is inexplicable and inexcusable. As it goes through this process, the City must demonstrate how it has complied with Government Code section 65583(c)(8), including how it has involved the public and incorporated, as well as addressed comments received from members of the public about the Draft.

CONCLUSION
San Bernardino’s Draft Housing Element does not substantially comply with the requirements of Housing Element Law and we urge the City to revise the Draft in compliance with Housing Element law. If you have any questions or would like to discuss our comments, please contact Anthony Kim at 951-248-4725 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Anthony Kim, Staff Attorney

INLAND COUNTIES LEGAL SERVICES
/s/ Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson
Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson

PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT
Packet Pg. 1210
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg. 1211
ICLS is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation; IRS Tax ID 95-6124556 Donations are welcome.

Senior Line: 800.977.4257 Toll Free: 888.245.4257 InlandLegal.org

SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
December 28, 2022
David Murray ([email protected])
Deputy Director/City Planner
City of San Bernardino
Community and Economic Development Department
201B North E St.

San Bernardino, CA 92401
Re: City of San Bernardino’s Draft Chapters for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Dear Mr. Murray:

Inland Counties Legal Services, Inc. (ICLS) and the Public Interest Law Project (PILP) write to provide comments on the City of San Bernardino’s (City) initial two chapters that the City has drafted for its Sixth Cycle Housing Element (Draft): Housing Needs and Analysis of Constraints.

We base our comments on a preliminary review of these draft chapters. Given the extreme tardiness in submittal of a Draft for public and HCD review, which the City has acknowledged, and because of the urgency associated with adopting an HCD-compliant draft, we appreciate the City reviewing and addressing the issues presented by our comments on these two chapters. This review is also incomplete because there are not yet any programs in the Draft, and the needs and constraints must be addressed in programs, so these comments are preliminary.

Housing Needs
I. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
At the outset, although the City has placed the AFFH section in a different part of the Draft, the Housing Needs section as drafted is incomplete because it does not discuss and analyze the fair housing issues as required by Government Code sections 65583, subds. (c)(9), (c)(10), 8899.50, subds. (a), (b), (c), which require jurisdictions to include an assessment of fair housing (AFH) in their housing elements. The needs assessment should therefore “include an analysis of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction including existing segregation and inclusion trends and current fair housing practices.”1It generally includes a summary and assessment of the fair housing 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (April 2021 Update) (HCD AFFH Guidance Memo), p.

Packet Pg. 1212
2 issues in the jurisdiction, housing enforcement and outreach capacity, using available federal, state, and local data and knowledge. Further, the law requires that the analysis include a variety of factors, such as trends and patterns within the locality and as compared to the broader region, and the analysis must address the following:
• Integration and segregation;
• Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs); • Disparities in access to opportunity, including for persons with disabilities; and • Disproportionate housing needs (this may include things like overpayment, overcrowding, housing conditions disproportionately affecting protected classes), including displacement risk.2
Here, in the Housing Needs section of the Draft, the City has not identified, analyzed, or prioritized the factors contributing to fair housing issues and factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights in the City.3 For instance, the City has not identified and analyzed the impacts of segregation in the City, the disparities in access to opportunity, particularly for its residents who live in lowerincome communities. Indeed, recently several lower-income tenants who are largely people of color, persons with disabilities, and single mothers with children were recently displaced from single room occupancy units that the City Code Enforcement red-tagged and deemed uninhabitable.
4 Yet, there is no mention of this displacing activity as well as its impacts on the affected community discussed anywhere in the current draft of the Housing Needs section. Nor does the needs assessment analyze or discuss the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on the ability of renters of color and those who living in lower-income communities in the City to pay rent to remain housed or the impacts of illegal source of income discrimination for renters living in housing subsidized by HUD. As such, to adequately assess the housing needs in the City, the City should contact local fair housing organizations such as the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board for any available data to complement readily available state or federal data to the City regarding fair housing issues, so that the City may inform the public how it will plan to improve access to opportunities, transform the R/ECAP areas of the City into areas of higher opportunity, and address the disproportionate housing needs of its residents.

II. Population, Employment, and Household Characteristics Government Code section 65583(a) requires an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. This assessment includes an analysis of population and employment trends (Gov. Code §65583(a)(1)) and household characteristics (Gov. Code §65583(a)(2)).
8, available at https://hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing, last accessed on December 20, 2022.
2 Id. at pp. 25, 27.
3 Id. at p. 12, citing Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)(iv). 4 Tenants at a Low-Income Housing Building Call Out Poor Living Conditions, Tony Shin, October 4, 2022, available at https://www.nbclosangeles.com/local/tenants-at-a-low-income-housing-building-call-out-poor-livingconditions/, last accessed on December 20, 2022.

Packet Pg. 1213
3 While the Draft provides data regarding population growth, age trends, race and ethnic composition, household types, employment, household income, and household tenure and vacancy rates, it would be more effective if the City uses the most recent data from the U.S.

Census for 2020 to analyze these categories, rather than using data from the 2000 and 2010 U.S.

Censuses. The City relies largely on older data from the American Community Survey (“ACS”) for much of its assessment. The City relies on ACS data from 2015-2019, rather than using the most recent data from 2020-2021, which is readily available from the U.S. Census Bureau.5 Draft, 2-2 to 2-9, 2-13.

Additionally, the City has failed to discuss or analyze educational and economic opportunities and how the lack thereof has impacted access to housing opportunities in the City for its most vulnerable residents.
6 III. Housing Stock Characteristics
Government Code Section 65583(a) requires an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code §65583(a)(2)).

Although the Draft briefly discusses housing age and housing and neighborhood conditions within the City, it does not provide an adequate estimate of the total number of substandard units that need rehabilitation or replacement. Draft 2-14, 2-22 to 2-23. In fact, the estimates provided do not account for any interior housing conditions. Even if it is difficult to do a detailed interior survey, the Draft should include information from other sources, such as the local building department, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, non-profit housing developers or organizations, or even from the residents themselves. The Draft states that estimates of building conditions can only be inferred from older windshield surveys. Draft 2-23. HCD’s guidance does permit jurisdictions to estimate its number of housing stock that needs rehabilitation or replacement from windshield surveys, which assess the current condition of the housing within the City. HCD allows the jurisdiction to sample or estimate from local conditions, building department, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.7If the City uses U.S. Census data for the estimate of the housing stock needing rehabilitation or replacement, HCD underscores census data is an estimate and the jurisdiction needs to supplement it with local data.8
Additionally, while the Draft provides a description on housing costs and affordability, it fails to include a discussion on housing construction prices and trends. Moreover, the table provided on 5 United States Census Bureau, QuickFacts, San Bernardino city, California, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanbernardinocitycalifornia, last accessed on December 20, 2022. 6 See HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 25.
7 HCD Building Blocks, Housing Stock Characteristics, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-andcommunity-development/housing-elements/building-blocks/housing-stock-characteristics, last visited on December 21, 2022.
8 Ibid.

Packet Pg. 1214
4 vacancy rates is incomplete and inadequate because it only provides numbers for general home and rental vacancy rates. Draft 2-13.

IV. Overpayment and Overcrowding
Government Code Section 65583(a) requires “…an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition,” (Gov. Code §65583(a)(2)).

In the Draft, while the City identifies housing overpayment and overcrowding as prevalent housing issues impacting residents in the City, it fails to identify households most significantly impacted by these cost burdens, such as large families and seniors, among others. Therefore, the analysis is incomplete without a discussion of the impact of these cost burdens. The data provided in this section is also not the most recent data available. The City should cite to the 2021 ACS estimates for overpayment and overcrowding.9
V. Special Housing Needs
Government Code section 65583(a)(7)) requires “An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter…” A. Seniors
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed that seniors are experiencing the highest levels of housing insecurity. Estimates place over 15 million adults aged 65 or older as economically insecure, with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level.10 While the Draft describes the various housing challenges faced by seniors, such as disabilities, income, housing characteristics, and overpayment, it fails to provide an assessment of unmet needs and fails to identify the number of seniors living at or under the poverty level. The data for the number of senior households is also 9 See the most recent data on overpayment and overcrowding at:
https://data.census.gov/table?q=american+community+survey+san+bernardino+city+2021+housing&tid=ACSDT1 Y2021.B25070;
https://data.census.gov/table?q=american+community+survey+san+bernardino+city+2021+housing&tid=ACSDT1 Y2021.B25091;
https://data.census.gov/table?q=american+community+survey+san+bernardino+city+2021+housing&tid=ACSDT1 Y2021.B25014.
10 See Get the Facts on Economic Security for Seniors, available at https://www.ncoa.org/article/get-the-facts-oneconomic-security-for-seniors, last accessed on December 21, 2022.

Packet Pg. 1215
5 not the most recent data available. The City should cite to the 2021 ACS estimates for senior households.11 Draft 2-24.

B. Family Households
While the Draft provides data on the number of large households, single parents and femaleheaded households, it does not provide the number of such households with incomes below poverty level or a description of changes in the percentage or number of female-headed households as identified in the prior housing element update. The Draft also fails to provide an assessment of unmet needs and available resources for large households or female headed households.

C. People With Disabilities
While the Draft lists and describes the different resources, including existing housing and services for people with disabilities, it does not analyze the potential housing needs and problems faced by this group. Instead, it just lists the different resources available without any analysis on how these resources can address their housing needs. The obligation under Housing Element Law to analyze the need of people living with disabilities includes a specific requirement to analyze the needs of people living with developmental disabilities.12 Regarding these persons, HCD specifically requires jurisdictions to include “an estimate of the number of persons with developmental disabilities, an assessment of the housing need, and discussion of housing resources.” To help jurisdictions with this requirement that has existed under Section 65583 for Housing Elements adopted after March 31, 2011, HCD included a definition of developmental disabilities, available resources, and provided sample analyses on its Building Blocks website.13 The City has not availed itself of these resources, and consequently, has inadequately documented the need of this population in the Draft. The Draft does not fully analyze the threats presented to the housing needs for these households and what the City proposes to do about them such as lack of accessibility and segregation.
11 See the most recent data on senior households at:
https://data.census.gov/table?q=american+community+survey+san+bernardino+city+2021+housing&tid=ACSDT1 Y2021.B11006;
https://data.census.gov/table?q=american+community+survey+san+bernardino+city+2021+housing&tid=ACSDT1 Y2021.B11007;
https://data.census.gov/table?q=american+community+survey+san+bernardino+city+2021+housing&tid=ACSDT1 Y2021.B25007;
https://data.census.gov/table?q=american+community+survey+san+bernardino+city+2021&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0 101.
12 Gov. Code §65583(e); See also HCD Memorandum, SB 812, People with Developmental Disabilities, June 12, 2012, Interpreting the Requirement to Analyze Housing Needs of Persons with Developmental Disabilities, available at https://www.hcd-ca-gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos, last accessed on December 21, 2022.

13 See Building Blocks, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks, last accessed on December 21, 2022.

Packet Pg. 1216
6 D. Unhoused People
Similarly, the Draft only lists and describes the different resources available for unhoused people but does not assess how these resources will address the housing needs of these individuals.

There is no assessment of their unmet needs. While the Draft lists some of the main causes of homelessness, such as mental illness, substance abuse, and prison release, it fails to analyze other causes of homelessness that have led to displacement, such as eviction, which has exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as recent raids on unhoused encampments with people who have been looking for safe places to sleep that have led to the towing of vehicles belonging to the City’s unhoused residents. Recently, legal aid advocates informed City officials about recent illegal conduct where law enforcement illegally seized and tossed property, and ticketed unhoused persons located in encampments in the City. The ACLU has been in communication with the City about the need for safe places to park for the City’s unhoused residents free of law enforcement harassment.

E. Farmworkers
As noted in the HCD memorandum California’s Deepening Crisis, “employment in California agriculture increased 22 percent between 1985 and 2000. As of September 2000, California farm employment peaked at 486,000. California’s total farmworker population (including family members) is estimated to exceed 900,000. Approximately 60 percent of farmworkers are accompanied by a spouse, child or parent. The median number of children in families of farmworker parents is two.”14 HCD notes further that farmworkers and their families cope with substandard housing, sanitation conditions, and tenant harassment, and that to avoid this harassment, many of them have self-evicted into underdeveloped canyons, fields, squatter camps, and back houses.15 The City has provided an extremely limited analysis on this population. The Draft does not provide any estimate of the number of farmworkers in the City or assess their housing needs. All the draft does is acknowledge that as of 2020, the City does not have any housing for farmworkers. Draft 2-38. This is inadequate. To comply with Section 65583(a)(7), the City must include estimates of permanent and migrant farmworkers in the Draft along with an analysis of the threats presented to the housing needs of these workers. If the City is struggling with locating this information, it should check with state and local agencies that work with farmworkers, including legal aid services and health care providers for the data, so that the City can properly analyze and include data regarding the need for housing resources for farmworkers.

VI. Extremely Low-Income Households
Government Code section 65583(a) requires “Documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households.” (Gov. Code §65583 (a)(1))
14 HCD Memorandum, California’s Deepening Crisis, May 2006, p. 5. 15 Ibid.

Packet Pg. 1217
7 While the Draft provides an estimate of the number of existing extremely low-income households and discusses a few types of suitable housing available, such as the tenant and project-based vouchers, it does not address additional types of housing, such as housing with supportive services, or whether existing zoning allows those housing types. The City has not analyzed local conditions that have impacted the need of housing for low-income households, such as COVID-19 and its impact on ability of renters to pay rent, as well as SRO displacement.

This analysis is especially critical since the RNHA for the 6th Cycle has almost doubled to 8,123. The City needs to identify and analyze why that is so. The Draft also does not provide an estimate of the number of projected extremely low-income households. Draft 2-41.

Constraints
I. Governmental Constraints
Government Code section 65583(a)(5) requires an analysis of “potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, … and for persons with disabilities, … including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.” The Draft relies on the City’s 2005 Land Use Element, from the 2005 General Plan, for its constraints analysis. Draft, 3-2. While the Draft indicates that the City is currently undergoing a comprehensive update to its General Plan and Land Use Element, there is no indication of the extent to which the 2005 Land Use Element serves as an adequate basis for the City’s current constraints analysis. For example, the 2005 Land Use Element does not reflect any revisions made, including 2021 revisions, to the City’s Development Code since 2005, as well as the impact of such revisions on the development of housing for all income levels.

While the Draft highlights the City’s Downtown Specific Plan, which envisions 15,000+ housing units, it cites to information last accessed in December 2021 and therefore should provide an updated discussion and analysis of the plan’s current status, feasibility, and potential AFFH issues arising from the overconcentration of affordable housing in the downtown area. Draft, 3-5.

A. Restrictions on Development of Multi-Family Housing
The Draft has inadequately analyzed the restrictions on the development of multi-family housing in the City. As noted in the Draft, for 12 or more units, the City requires a Development Permit (P) as approved by the City’s Planning Commission. Draft 3-8. In the last planning cycle, 2013- 2021, the City has made very little progress towards its RHNA, reporting that it only constructed a total of 409 very low-, low- and moderate-income units to meet the RNHA of 4,384 units allocated during that planning cycle. Now, we are in the Sixth Cycle, and the City’s RHNA is Packet Pg. 1218
8 demonstrably larger – 8,123. Housing Element Law requires the City to analyze all governmental constraints on the development and maintenance of a variety of housing types of housing “including multifamily rental housing. . .” (See Gov. Code §§ 65583(a)(5); 65583(c)(1).

In its Municipal Code, the City requires a development permit in the following circumstances:

1. For residential projects with five to 11 dwelling units;

2. For a new non-residential use or structure or an expanded non-residential use or structure over 5,000 square feet; and

3. Adult businesses, in accordance with Section 19.06.030(2)(A) of this Development Code. 16 SBMC 19.44 also requires Planning Commission approval for residential projects or projects that abut a residential use in a residential land use district.

SBMC 19.44.040 requires all of the following findings to be made before a development permit is approved:

1. The proposed development is one permitted within the subject zoning district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code, including prescribed development/site standards and any/all applicable design guidelines;

2. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan;

3. The proposed development would be harmonious and compatible with existing and future developments within the zone and general area, as well as with the land uses presently on the subject property;

4. The approval of the Administrative or Development Permit for the proposed development is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6) of the Development Code;

5. There will be no potential significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored;

6. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed;

7. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety; and

8. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
16 San Bernardino Mun. Code §19.44.

Packet Pg. 1219
9 In the Draft, the City extends these development permit requirements to multifamily housing, described as units as 12 or more, which is a huge constraint on the development of housing for individuals and families who need this housing in the City. These onerous requirements only make it more difficult for developers to engage in the development of multifamily housing. The City has inadequately analyzed how its permit process has hindered the development of multifamily housing in the City.

B. Land-Use Controls
While the Draft describes the City’s current zoning districts, overlay and special zones, specific plans, and permitted housing types, it should discuss and analyze the impact of such land-use controls on the cost, development, and supply of housing of different types and for all income levels. Draft, 3-3 to 3-13. In addition, it should analyze locally adopted ordinances and policies to determine whether or not they directly impact the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels.
i. Development Standards
While the Draft provides a table that shows the City’s residential development standards, the Draft should also address unit size and floor area coverage. Draft, 3-17 to 3-18. While the table itself is essential, the Draft should discuss and analyze the development standards within it and their impact on the development of housing for all income levels and/or achieving maximum densities. For example, height limitations in multifamily districts can serve as constraints.

Although the Draft shows height limits of 3 stories in RM and RMH zones and 4 stories in RH zones, these limits are reduced to 2.5 stories for projects within 75 feet of an RS zone. The Draft should also analyze the cumulative effect of development standards on the development of housing and/or achieving densities after considering how all standards relate to one another. ii. Parking Standards
While the Draft provides a table that shows the City’s parking standards by housing type, it should provide an analysis of the City’s parking standards by zone. Draft, 3-19. Excessive parking standards that are not reflective of actual parking demand can pose a significant constraint to housing development by increasing development costs and reducing the potential land available for project amenities or additional units. Therefore, the Draft should examine whether the parking standards impede a developer’s ability to achieve maximum densities, and if the provisions that provide parking reductions, where less need is demonstrated, apply to persons with disabilities, the elderly, affordable housing, and infill and transit-oriented development.

Recent guidance from HCD identifies parking standards as a barrier to meeting the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.17 The Draft should verify that the density bonus ordinance complies with parking requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65915. 17 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 26.

Packet Pg. 1220
10 iii. Realistic Capacity
While the Draft mentions realistic development capacity, it indicates that discussion of this topic will be found in the Housing Resources chapter (not yet drafted). Draft, 3-21. The Draft should describe where residential development is allowed and how density requirements found within the general plan are incorporated. It should also describe the methodology (involving density assumptions, development standards, buildings types, and use requirements) used to estimate a reasonable residential capacity within the planning period.

C. Constraints for People with Disabilities
While the Draft describes several types of housing suitable for people living with a disability and addresses the procedures for permit and processing as well as reasonable accommodation, it should discuss and analyze the impact of the City’s zoning and land-use polices and practices, permit and processing procedures, building codes, and reasonable accommodation procedure on the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. Draft, 3-14, 3-24.

D. Building Codes and Enforcement
While the Draft identifies the current Uniform Building Code adopted and enforced by the City, it should describe how the building code is implemented and whether the process optimizes predictability for developers. The Draft should identify and analyze any local amendments to the state housing law or uniform building code. Draft, 3-25 to 3-28.

While the Draft states that the City’s Code Enforcement program operates through “objective enforcement of laws and codes” whereby staff “inspect existing structures and properties and respond to public complaints regarding housing, property, infrastructure, and other conditions,” it should discuss how exactly this program works as well as what types and degrees of enforcement are involved. Draft, 3-26. It should be noted that the City recently carried out code enforcement at the unpermitted housing complex on 340 West 4th Street, which resulted in hundreds of low-income residents being displaced without relocation. Therefore, the Draft should also describe efforts to link code enforcement activities to housing rehabilitation programs, as well as compliance with Health and Safety Code section 17980(c)(2).

The Draft states that the program is supplemented by three focused programs, one of which is the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program, which covers larger multi-family residential developments with 5 or more units, pursuant to the City’s Crime Fee Multi-Housing ordinance.

This program consists of property owner training and a crime-free lease addendum establishing that a resident, household member, guest, or anyone under the resident’s control “cannot engage in illegal activity.” Draft, 3-26 to 3-27. Although the Draft asserts that this program does not sanction or condone “any actions by a landlord that would violate any law related to fair housing or anti-discrimination,” the Draft also acknowledges that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and federal agencies have already raised concerns regarding the lease addendum and its potential violation of Title 2 section 12264 of the Code of Packet Pg. 1221
11 Regulations, as well as its disparate impact on specific minority populations. In addition, the Draft states that properties are subject to citations and penalties if residents call law enforcement or fire prevention more than 20 times. Draft, 3-26. This policy is a huge constraint as it imposes an unreasonable choice upon survivors of domestic violence and other crimes by forcing them to choose between seeking assistance or keeping a roof over their heads. It also violates federal and California law.18 Under recent reauthorization to the Violence Against Women’s Act, Congress provides that “landlords, homeowners, tenants, residents, occupants, Landlords, homeowners, tenants, residents, occupants, and guests of, and applicants for, housing— “(A) shall have the right to seek law enforcement or emergency assistance on their own behalf or on behalf of another person in need of assistance; and
(B) shall not be penalized based on their requests for assistance or based on criminal activity of which they are a victim or otherwise not at fault under statutes, ordinances, regulations, or policies adopted or enforced by covered governmental entities.”19 (Emphasis added).

Furthermore, as HUD observed in its 2016 guidance on the topic, jurisdictions may not distinguish between perpetrating acts of domestic violence and being the victim of such violence when identifying “nuisance” conduct; or, overly broad nuisance and crime-free ordinances may include “conduct such as disturbing the peace, excessive noise, [or] disorderly conduct,” which in turn can cover domestic violence incidents.20
Likewise, California law prohibits eviction of tenants who seek seeking emergency assistance.21 In prohibiting this practice, California recognized the devastating and destabilizing impacts these nuisance type ordinances have upon tenants, especially those who are impacted by domestic violence.

This crime-free ordinance is also problematic because of the disproportionate impact it has on communities of color who are incarcerated at far higher rates than white people.22 Accordingly, the Draft should discuss how the City will phase out the Crime-Free Program to comply with state and federal fair housing laws. Indeed, upon seeing what occurred in the City of Hesperia 18 Violence Against Women’s Reauthorization Act of 2022, §§603, 41415, S. 3623, 117th Congress (2021-2022).

Civ. Code §1946.8; Code Civ. Proc. §1161.3; Gov. Code §53165. 19Violence Against Women’s Reauthorization Act of 2022, §§603, 41415, S. 3623, 117th Congress (2021-2022). 20 HUD Issues Fair Housing Act Guidance to Help Domestic Violence Victims, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/hud-issues-fair-housing-act-guidance-help-domestic-violence-victims, November 21, 2016, last accessed on December 21, 2022.
21 Civ. Code §1946.8.
22 U.S. Criminal Justice Data, The Sentencing Project, available at https://www.sentencingproject.org/research-uscriminal-justice-data, last accessed on December 20, 2022, showing a Black/White incarceration disparity of 9.2:1, and a Latinx/White incarceration disparity of 2.0:1.

Packet Pg. 1222
12 with the United States Department of Justice, the neighboring city of Adelanto decided to end its crime reduction plan.23 The City must do the same.

D. Processing and Permitting Procedures
While the Draft describes the permitting processes for different types of permits for residential developments, by zoning district and housing type, it should discuss this topic in the Permit Processing section instead of addressing it primarily in the Housing Opportunities section. Draft, 3-7 to 3-8; 3-29 to 3-31. Likewise, the Draft should discuss the permitting processes for emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, and farmworker housing in the Permit Processing section instead of in the Housing Opportunities section. Draft, 3-9; 3-12 to 3-13.

The Draft should describe and analyze the total permit and entitlement process for a typical single-family unit, subdivision, and multifamily project. It should describe the permit requirements and processes for single-room occupancy units. In addition, it should also analyze the ways in which the permitting processes potentially serve as constraints on residential development.

The Draft indicates that a development permit, required for residential projects of 5 to 11 units, must undergo a review by the Development Environmental Review Committee (DERC) or the City’s Planning Commission. For residential projects with more than 11 units, the development permit is acted upon by the Planning Commission. Draft, 3-29. The Draft should describe how the standards of decision-making by DERC and the Planning Commission promote development certainty.

E. Fees and Exactions
While the Draft summarizes the City’s current residential development fees, residential planning division fees, and development impact fees, it should discuss and analyze how these fees have been established relative to the statutory requirements of Government Code sections 66000 et seq. and 66020. Draft, 3-38 to 3-41. It should identify exactions such as land dedication requirements (e.g. streets, public utility and other right-of-ways, easements, etc.) and other exactions imposed on development. In addition, the Draft should analyze how the City’s current fees serve as constraints on residential development, how fees are collected, and whether there are any efforts or policies to mitigate the fee impact on lower-income households.

II. Non-Governmental Constraints
Government Code section 65583(a)(6) requires the City to analyze potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of 23 Venturi, Seeing Hesperia’s Fate, Adelanto Ends its Crime Reduction Plan, San Bernardino County Sentinel, (January 17, 2020), available at https://sbcsentinel.com/2020/01/adelanto-pulls-plug-on-crime-free-housingprogram/, last accessed December 20, 2022.

Packet Pg. 1223
13 construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing.” A. Land Costs
While the Draft addresses land costs in the City, it relies on information “derived from Redfin based on a sample of 200 residential, commercial, and industrial sites” and does not indicate when this information was obtained or where in the City these samples are located. Draft, 3-35.

The Draft should address the average cost or range of costs per acre for single-family and multifamily-zoned developable parcels.

B. Construction Costs
While the Draft addresses construction costs for single-family development, multifamily development, and manufactured housing, it should address typical total construction costs, including materials and labor. Draft, 3-36.

C. Availability of Financing
While the Draft lists five financing programs that “help to ease the constraint of limited finance accessibility for homebuyers,” it should address the general availability of housing financing, including private financing, in the City. Draft, 3-37.

D. Local Efforts to Address Non-Governmental Constraints Finally, Government Code section 65583(a)(6) requires that jurisdictions analyze potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels. This includes, without limitation, the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. However, the Draft as presented has failed to adequately document this analysis. The Draft should address any local efforts to remove the above non-governmental constraints that create a gap between planning for housing development for all income levels and the construction of that housing.

Packet Pg. 1224
14 Conclusion
Based on our preliminary review of the draft Housing Needs and Constraints chapters, we find that there is insufficient analysis overall, especially under the Special Needs section.

Additionally, the crime-free ordinance is extremely problematic for the reasons referenced above and needs to comply with state and federal housing law. Finally, these chapters lack any fair housing analysis and for the most part do not rely on the most recent data available.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss our comments, you may contact Iris Vasquez by phone at 951-320-7509 or by email at [email protected], or Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson by phone at 510-891-9794 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Iris Vasquez
INLAND COUNTIES LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
/s/ Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson
Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson

PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT
CC: Reid Miller, HCD Analyst ([email protected])
Packet Pg. 1225
Exhibit 2
Packet Pg. 1226
Riverside, CA
Riverside, CA

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Tessie Solorzano, Esq.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Marvin Powell Jr., President
Erica Alfaro, Esq., Vice
President
Goushia Farook, Esq.,
Secretary
Christina Perez, Treasurer
Daniel Aguilar
Rebecca Eckley, Esq.

Bob Garcia
Xingshuo Liu, Esq.

Andrew R. Morand, Esq.

Julie D. Neal, Esq.

Nithin B. Reddy, Esq.

Elaine S. Rosen, Esq.

Steven R. Weber, Esq.

ICLS is a non-profit
501(c)(3) corporation
IRS Tax ID 95-6124556
Donations are welcome.

Senior Line: 800.977.4257
Toll Free: 888.245.4257
InlandLegal.org
Indio
P.O. Box 10650
Indio, CA
92202-2563
Executive Office
1040 Iowa Ave., #106
Riverside, CA
92507-2106
Ontario
3500 Porsche Way, #200
Ontario, CA
91764-4941
Riverside
1040 Iowa Ave., #109
Riverside, CA
92507-2106
Victorville
15428 Civic Center Drive, Ste 175
Victorville, CA
92392

SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
March 9, 2023
David Murray ([email protected])
Deputy Director/City Planner
City of San Bernardino
Community and Economic Development Department
201B North E St.

San Bernardino, CA 92401
Re: City of San Bernardino’s Fair Housing Chapter (6th
Cycle Housing Element)
Dear Mr. Murray:

Inland Counties Legal Services, Inc. (ICLS) and the Public Interest Law Project (PILP) write to provide comments on the City of San Bernardino’s (City) fair housing chapter in the December 2022 Housing Technical Report—which is an incomplete draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element (Draft). In addition to the prior comments about the Draft that we sent to the City on December 28, 2022, concerning housing needs and analysis of constraints, this letter provides comments based on a preliminary review of the draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) draft chapter. Our comments are preliminary because the City has not yet provided a complete Draft describing the programs, among other things, to address fair housing issues as required under Government Code section 65583(c)(10)(A)-(C), and a complete site inventory for the Sixth Cycle. Given the extreme tardiness in submittal of a Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element for public and HCD review, which the City has acknowledged, and because of the urgency associated with adopting a substantially compliant Draft, we appreciate the City reviewing and addressing the issues presented by our comments on this chapter.

I. Outreach
Government Code section 65583(c)(9) requires a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element.

The Draft should describe and incorporate meaningful, frequent, and ongoing public engagement with key stakeholders. Id. Such stakeholders should include lower-income and special-needs members of the Packet Pg. 1227
2 community, members of protected classes, advocacy groups, public housing authorities, fair housing agencies, homeless service agencies, independent living centers, regional centers, and housing and community development providers. The Draft should describe outreach activities and methods designed to reach a broad audience, including language access and accessibility for persons with disabilities. The Draft should provide a list of the stakeholders contacted and consulted through outreach by the City, a summary of these stakeholders’ comments, and a discussion of how these comments have been considered and incorporated (or not) into the housing element. (Gov. Code §65583(c)(9)). The Draft should also provide a summary of the issues contributing to any lack of participation in the housing element process by all economic segments, particularly people with protected characteristics. (See HCD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, April 2021 (“HCD AFFH Guidance”), pp. 21-22).

However, the Draft does not discuss the City’s efforts regarding public participation for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. The Draft relies on inadequate outreach for the “2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing” and “outreach for the 2050 General Plan Update”. Draft, 5-49.

II. Assessment of Fair Housing

1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity
Government Code section 65583(c)(10)(A)(i) requires a summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity. Although the Draft addresses the City’s compliance with various existing fair housing laws and regulations, it should also discuss the City’s compliance with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12955 et seq. (Housing Discrimination), including the fair housing regulatory authority that implements FEHA (California Code of Regulations, title 2, §12005 et seq). Draft, 5-40 to 5-41. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, pp. 29-30).

2. Integration and Segregation
Government Code section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(ii) requires an analysis of integration and segregation for race and ethnicity, income, familial status, persons with disabilities, and identify the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation. The Draft identifies ongoing segregation for income. According to the Draft, the City’s median of $45,834 household income falls far below the County’s at $61,291. Draft, 5-2; Table 5-1. The Draft also describes moderate levels of segregation for race and ethnicity, and asserts that integration has improved from 1980 to 2020. Draft 5-5; Table 5-3. However, the Draft fails to identify the groups that experience the highest level of segregation. The Draft recognizes that it has the second highest percentage of persons with disability in the region, with a high concentration in the northeastern region of the city due to the Patton State Hospital. Draft, 5-10; Table 5-4. Finally, the Draft acknowledges it has the highest percentage in of single-parent and female-headed household in the region. In addition to analyzing the impacts of these segregative effects in the City which the City has not done, the Draft needs to include programs to address these issues relative to its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).

Packet Pg. 1228
3 3. Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) The fair housing analysis must also include an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty. Gov. Code section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(ii). The Draft identifies high segregation and poverty in the central areas, and provides a map with general R/ECAP areas at a local level. Draft, 5-7. However, it does not include an analysis to address the trends, patterns, policies, practices, and conditions within these areas. For example, the Draft could analyze why poverty is so prevalent, particularly in the City’s Central Core, which contains all of the City’s R/ECAP tracts. Draft, 5-7 to 5-8. The Draft also fails to provide an analysis of R/ECAPs relative to the region. The City should revise this section to discuss how the poverty tracts located in the City’s Central Core compare with other jurisdictions within the region as well as how this concentration of poverty has impacted employment and educational opportunities for protected classes living in the City. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, pp. 30-32; 35).

4. Access to Opportunity
In addition to requiring jurisdictions to analyze integration and segregation patterns and trends, Government Code section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(ii) requires jurisdictions to analyze significant disparities in access to opportunity. The Draft fails to analyze disparities in access to opportunity for members of protected classes who reside in the City. For instance, the City should revise the Draft and discuss the opportunities available to persons living with disabilities, including the reasonable accommodation ordinance, as well as the obstacles and threats that they face to accessing and securing housing opportunities in the City. Other than mentioning group homes in the Draft at p. 2-49 in the context of Section 202/811 federally-subsidized housing, the Draft does not provide any information about City policies or practices concerning group homes and whether those policies comply with AFFH obligations or are constraining and discriminatory on the basis of disability in violation of federal and state fair housing laws. (See HCD Group Home Technical Advisory, December 2022, pp. 8-12; 12-20). Because group homes can provide persons living with disabilities stable housing communities, the City should revise the Draft to discuss and analyze this housing type and inform the public how the City will comply with its AFFH duty regarding group homes in the City.

Furthermore, the Draft should also discuss the factors impacting access to opportunities for extremely low- and very low-income subsidized households (such as source of income discrimination and its effects on Section 8). The City estimates that approximately 70-90% of persons and households living at extremely low and very low incomes in the City rely on housing choice vouchers. Draft, 2-43. Although the Draft states that the widespread use of housing choice vouchers throughout the City “suggests that discrimination based on source of income is less prevalent than in other communities,” it does not cite to any comparative data to support this conclusory statement to verify whether the City is not experiencing source of income discrimination among voucher holders. Draft, 5-32. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, pp. 34-35).

Additionally, the City needs to analyze access to opportunities for individuals and families who live in disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs). Government Code section 65302.10(b) requires a jurisdiction, on or before the next adoption of its housing element, Packet Pg. 1229
4 to identify DUCs in its land use element and analyze their water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire protection needs. Since the median household income in a DUC is 80 percent or less than the statewide median household income, the needs of DUCs raise fair housing issues to the extent that the City has not addressed significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replaced segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transformed racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostered and maintained compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws as required by Government Code section 8899.50. A jurisdiction must provide an analysis of funding sources that could make the extension of services to its DUCs financially feasible. (Gov. Code §65302.10(b)(3)). The Draft identifies seven DUCs, describes its water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, fire protection needs, and identifies potential funding sources that could alleviate these needs. Draft, 5-55 to 5-65. However, the City should analyze how the identified funding sources could extend services specifically to the seven identified DUCs, all of which are designated as residential with regard to their predominant land use. i. Economic Development
The Draft should elaborate on how economic development has fared for protected classes living in the City. Draft, 5-27 to 5-28. The Draft mentions changes in local and regional job opportunities, but it does not discuss employment opportunities for protected groups. The Draft should also describe any disparities in access to jobs by protected groups; address where protected groups live and how that affects their ability to obtain jobs; and evaluate employment trends by protected groups. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, p. 35). ii. Educational Opportunity
Although the Draft presents comparative data showing academic performance in English language arts and math proficiency in the City versus the County, it should describe any differences among schools within a jurisdiction and whether access to more proficient schools shows any patterns across protected characteristics (e.g., race and ethnicity, familial status, disability); analyze the proximity of proficient and less proficient schools to areas of segregation and racial and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty; and evaluate the presence or lack of policies, practices, and investment to promote access to more proficient schools. Draft, 5-29 to 5-31. The Draft should also include school discipline rates (suspensions, expulsions) by protected classes (e.g., race, disability); analyze how discipline rates negatively impact educational attainment in the City and discuss examples of whether the City’s schools use alternative disciplinary methods and, if so, how this has impacted educational attainment in the City. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, p. 35).
iii. Transportation
While the Draft states the City has generally good performance scores with regard to transit mobility, the City acknowledges that its lowest scores have been in areas that were unpopulated, rural, or sparsely populated. Draft, 5-34 to 5-35. The Draft does not explain why those scores are low and whether there are people who are members of protected classes living in that part of the city lacking access to transit that impacts their ability to move about the City. The Draft should also compare concentrations of protected groups with access to transportation Packet Pg. 1230
5 options, assess any disproportionate transportation needs for members of protected classes, and analyze combined housing and transportation cost impacts on protected groups. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, p. 35).
iv. Environmental Conditions
Although the Draft considers available statewide data, it does not describe any disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected classes. Draft, 5-36 to 5-37.

The Draft only provides statistics regarding persons who are in environmentally polluted areas of the City. The Draft does not discuss consistency with the environment justice element, nor does it discuss policies, practices, and investments that impact access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, p. 35).

5. Disproportionate Need and Displacement Risk
Government Code section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(ii) requires an analysis of disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. The Draft acknowledges that overcrowding and overpayment are two significant issues within the City. Draft, 5-16. The Draft should discuss the impact that COVID-19, the inability to pay rent, and increases in rent have had on overcrowding.

Draft, 5-20. The Draft should also discuss the factors contributing to overcrowding as they affect people with protected characteristics, e.g. race and ethnicity, familial status, and disabilities. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, pp. 39-40).

The Draft should include a full analysis of displacing activity in the City, address the groups at risk of displacement, and discuss ways in which the City might combat such displacement risk. Draft, 5-22. It should analyze why displacement risk is higher in the downtown and central areas of the City as compared with the northern and southern areas. The Draft’s homeless statistics should include persons who are Black and other people of color who are experiencing homelessness. Draft, 5-24. The Draft should also analyze the impact of domestic violence upon homelessness and discuss how homeless sweeps have contributed to displacement and fair housing issues in the City. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, p. 40). The Draft should address the impact of the City’s crime-free ordinance, codified in Chapter 15.27 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code and Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program on displacing activity.

The Draft needs to analyze its crime-free law and program as it relates to disproportionate enforcement and displacement risk, since the crime-free ordinance can have a significant impact on protected groups.

In addition, the Draft should address any displacement risks faced by farmworkers.

Although the Draft indicates that the City has few farmworkers and has no farmworker housing, it acknowledges that as of 2017 there were 409 farms in the County, employing 2,246 farmworkers, and as of 2021 there were 445 people working full-time in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and farming in the City. Draft, 2-38. The Draft also notes that migrant workers depending on agricultural work likely have more difficulty finding affordable housing. Draft, 2- 38, but the Draft does not include any information about the housing needs associated with this group, notwithstanding the resources that are available to the City to obtain the data it needs to complete its analysis. (See HCD Building Blocks- Farmworkers, available at Packet Pg. 1231
6 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/buildingblocks/farmworkers, last accessed on January 27, 2023.) III. Site Inventory
To satisfy the County’s RHNA, the housing element’s site inventory must include sites for all-income levels distributed throughout the community, consistent with the requirement that the housing element affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to Government Code sections 65583.2(a) and 65583(c)(10). The housing element must evaluate the sites relative to all components of the AFFH and discuss how sites are identified to improve fair housing conditions, as well as how actions included in the housing element mitigate any fair housing barriers associated with the sites. This analysis must be supported by local data and knowledge. Although the City has provided a site inventory in its draft Housing Resources chapter, it is incomplete. In addition to identifying the number of units, location, and assumed affordability of identified sites throughout the community (i.e., lower, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA), the Draft should evaluate this information relative to all components of the assessment of fair housing. The Draft’s Summary of Findings at p. 5-79 is sparse, especially when taken in context with the 5th Cycle RHNA Progress, Table 6-1. Draft, 6-2. The Draft should also analyze identified sites related to improving or exacerbating conditions for each of the fair housing areas, e.g. integration and segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, areas of opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, including displacement. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, pp. 45-49).

IV. Identification of Contributing Factors
Government Code section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iii) requires an analysis of the contributing factors, including local and regional historical origins and current policies and practices, which have an impact on fair housing issues. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, p. 51 (describing contributing factors such as public and private actions that contribute to patterns of segregation, R/ECAPs, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs)). Currently, the Draft does not prioritize those factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance. The Draft needs to include actions of public or private actors or other conditions that contribute to fair housing issues. Draft 5-49 to 5-

54. The Draft identifies the following five contributing factors to housing issues: poverty and disproportionate need, educational attainment, employment opportunity, housing displacement concerns, and environmental quality. Draft, 5-49-54. The Draft should also analyze how urban decline and lack of revitalization/disinvestment have impacted protected classes, particularly in the City’s downtown area, which the City acknowledges has the highest level of poverty. The Draft should discuss what the City plans to do address these factors that perpetuate segregation.

The Draft at page 5-55 provides a blank table, Table 5-13 (Fair housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Actions) along with the statement, “pending completion of housing element”, that shows an incomplete analysis and plan of action. Further, the City should complete the “summary matrix” it references at page 5-49 that will include “future programs, actions, timeline, and metrics for each program initiative.” Draft, 5-49, as this summary matrix appears to be the blank table: Table 5-13 (Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Actions). Draft, 5-

55. Packet Pg. 1232
7 V. Goals and Actions
Government Code section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(iv) requires an identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance, and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved. Government Code section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(v) requires a discussion of strategies and actions to implement the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals. In its current form, the Draft only cursorily addresses a number of goals, policies, and actions based on the previously identified contributing factors relating to fair housing issues. Draft, 5-49 to 5-54.

The Draft should discuss goals and policies that have a specific connection to outreach, the assessment of fair housing, the analysis of the site inventory, and the prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. Such goals and policies must be created with the intent of having a significant impact, well beyond a continuation of past actions, and of providing direction and guidance for meaningful action. The Draft should discuss meaningful actions that consist of concrete steps, timelines, and measurable outcomes. These actions can address enhancing housing mobility; developing new affordable housing in high resource areas; improving place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization; and protecting residents from displacement. Such actions must address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity; replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns; transform R/ECAPs into areas of opportunity; and foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. (See HCD AFFH Guidance, pp. 51- 54).

Conclusion
Based on our preliminary review of the draft fair housing chapter, the City must provide additional analysis, as described above, to comply with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss our comments, you may contact Anthony Kim by phone at 951-248-4725, or by email at [email protected] or Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson by phone at 510-891-9794, x 626, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Anthony Kim
INLAND COUNTIES LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson

PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT
CC: Reid Miller, HCD Analyst ([email protected])
Packet Pg. 1233
Exhibit 3
Packet Pg. 1234
18 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:3045 Packet Pg. 1235
18 18
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:3046 Packet Pg. 1236
18 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:3047 Packet Pg. 1237
18 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:3048 Packet Pg. 1238
18 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:3049 Packet Pg. 1239
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:3050 Packet Pg. 1240
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:3051 Packet Pg. 1241
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:3052 Packet Pg. 1242
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:3053 Packet Pg. 1243
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:3054
Packet Pg. 1244
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:3055
Packet Pg. 1245
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:3056
Packet Pg. 1246
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:3057
Packet Pg. 1247
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:3058
Packet Pg. 1248
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:3059
Packet Pg. 1249
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:3060
Packet Pg. 1250
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:3061
Packet Pg. 1251
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:3062
Packet Pg. 1252
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 19 of 22 Page ID #:3063
Packet Pg. 1253
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:3064
Packet Pg. 1254
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:3065
Packet Pg. 1255
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 284 Filed 11/27/18 Page 22 of 22 Page ID #:3066
Packet Pg. 1256
Exhibit 4
Packet Pg. 1257
Housing Needs Assessment
44 Spring 2021
Table 3.1-28 San Bernardino Subsidized Multiple-Family Housing Development Name
Target
Residents
Project
Financing
Total
Units
Afford.

Units
Earliest Date
of Covenant
Expiration
At Risk
Status
PROJECTS NOT AT RISK OF CONVERSION BY 2031
Sterling Village Large Family LIHTC 80 79 2036 Not At-Risk Magnolia at Highland Senior LIHTC 80 79 2041 Not At-Risk Lugo Apartments Senior LIHTC 119 118 2044 Not At-Risk
Vintage at Kendall Senior LIHTC 178 176 2043 Not At-Risk Arrowhead Vista Senior LIHTC 40 39 2069 Not At-Risk
New Zion Manor Family LIHTC 125 125 2071 Not At-Risk
Beautiful Light Inn Seniors LIHTC 100 99 2072 Not At-Risk Pioneer Park Plaza All Ages LIHTC 161 159 2073 Not At-Risk Foothill Villas Large Family LIHTC 239 237 2075 Not At-Risk Baseline Coop Senior 202/811 75 74 Permanent Not At-Risk St. Bernardine Plaza Senior 202/811 150 148 2037 Not At Risk Telacu - Monte Vista Senior 202/811 75 74 2057 Not At-Risk Telacu -San Bern. V Senior 202/811 75 74 2065 Not At-Risk Telacu - Buena Vista Senior 202/811 75 74 2058 Not At-Risk Telacu - Sierra Vista Senior 202/811 75 74 2057 Not At-Risk Telacu La Amistad Senior 202/811 89 89 2064 Not At-Risk Telacu - Hacienda Senior 202/811 75 74 2064 Not At-Risk AHEPA 3002 Senior 202/811 90 90 2047 Not At-Risk
Meadowbrook Park Family HAP/HOME 267 210 2033 Not At-Risk Creekside Apartments Family Bonds 304 2049 Not At Risk
All Star Lodge Spc Need HOMEKEY 75 75 N/A Not At Risk
Valencia Vista Large Family LIHTC 76 75 2068 Not At-Risk Olive Meadow Large Family LIHTC 62 42 2073 Not At Risk
Crestview Terrace Large Family LIHTC 184 182 2076 Not At Risk Tuscany/Silverwood Family Bond 328 66 2057 Not At Risk
Eastpointe Village Family RDA/NSP 52 52 2046 Not At-Risk Phoenix Apartments Transitional N/A 9 9 2033 Not At-Risk Golden Apartments PSH HOME 39 38 2057 Not At-Risk
San Bernardino Senior Senior 202/811 80 79 2042 Not At-Risk Pacific Village All Ages HCD -- 28 2033 Not At-Risk
Dorjil Estates I All Ages HCD 36 36 2034 Not At-Risk
Packet Pg. 1258
Housing Needs Assessment
City of San Bernardino General Plan – Existing Conditions Report 45 Table 3.1-28 San Bernardino Subsidized Multiple-Family Housing Development Name
Target
Residents
Project
Financing
Total
Units
Afford.

Units
Earliest Date
of Covenant
Expiration
At Risk
Status

PROJECTS AT RISK OF CONVERSION
Ramona Sr. Project Senior LIHTC/MRB 44 43 2024 High Risk The Waterman Large Family LIHTC 128 127 2030 Low Risk
Village Green All Ages LIHTC 184 181 2029 Low Risk
Autumnwood All Ages LIHTC 160 158 2030 Low Risk
Maplewood Homes Family PBV 296 296 2026 Low Risk
Arrowhead Woods Senior PBV 51 51 2027 Low Risk
Kendall Drive Apts. Family PBV 37 6 2025 Low Risk
Kendall Park Apts Family PBV 52 4 2025 Low Risk
DORJIL II Family CalHFA 79 16 2024 High Risk
Subtotal By Type Total
Units
Afford
Units
Percent At
Risk
At Risk
Units
Senior Projects 1,471 1,455 6% 94
Family/All Ages Projects 2,878 2,079 39% 788
Special Needs Projects 123 122 >1% 1
Total (All Affordable Units) 4,472 3,656 XX% 883
Notes:

PBV: Federal project-based rental housing vouchers provided by the Housing Authority of San Bernardino County CALHFA: Financing provided through the California Housing Finance Agency HCD: Financing provided through HCD’s Rental Housing Construction Program LIHTC: California low income housing tax credits
RDA: Former redevelopment agency of the City of San Bernardino SECTION 202/811: federal program for funding housing earmarked for seniors and people with disabilities HOME: federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program
HAP: federal Housing Assistance Plan for allocating project-based vouchers HOMEKEY: California Department of Housing and Community Development program for converting motels As noted above, a limited number of senior housing units (less than 6 percent of all units) is at risk of conversion to market rate over the next 10 years. In contrast, more than one-third (39 percent) of the affordable multiple-family housing units in San Bernardino are at risk of conversion, most of which are subsidized through project-based rental housing vouchers issued by the HASCB. Because of the funding sources involved, the California Housing Partnership Corporation rates only two of the nine at-risk projects as “high risk” of conversion to market-rate rents.

Packet Pg. 1259
Housing Needs Assessment
46 Spring 2021

PRESERVATION ANALYSIS
The City of San Bernardino has nine affordable housing projects in which affordability covenants will expire on 882 housing units by 2031 and which are considered at risk within the next 10 years. Projects with units at risk are:

At-Risk LIHTC Projects
x Ramona Senior Apartments
x The Waterman Apartments
x Village Green Apartments
x Autumnwood Apartments
At-Risk Project Based Vouchers
x Maplewood Homes
x Arrowhead Woods Apartments
x Kendall Drive Apartments
x Kendall Park Apartments
Available options to preserve projects fall into four categories. The primary incentive for preservation is typically financial. Property owners are more likely to consider options for conversion when they have insufficient funding to maintain operations.
x New Construction. National studies show that median total development costs per unit for affordable apartments in California are $389,458 (land included) and $284,568 (without land) based on a sample of LIHTC projects. However, there is considerable variation between metropolitan areas. Under this scenario, replacing the 882 at-risk affordable units would cost between $251 million (without the land) and $343 million (inclusive of land).
x Acquisition/Rehabilitation (A/R). Acquisition and rehabilitation costs are difficult to estimate since it depends on the condition of the property and level of deferred maintenance. Based on a survey of acquisition and rehabilitation projects in California, the average rehabilitation cost (including land acquisition and construction costs ) is $197,686 per unit. Under this scenario, replacing the at-risk units in San Bernardino would cost an estimated $174 million. x Rehabilitation. There is no industry standard for estimating rehabilitation costs for multiple-family housing since the cost depends on the improvements (e.g., energy conservation, roofing, or deferred maintenance). Based on a survey of recent LIHTC-funded projects in California, the average cost of rehabilitation is $106,910 per unit. Therefore, the cost of preserving units (assuming deed restrictions were extended) would translate to $94 million.
x Extend Rent Subsidies. The cost depends on the difference between the market rent and subsidized rent and length of affordability control. Table 3.1-29 outlines the affordable housing rate for ELI, VLI, and LI households compared to the current market rate for different size units. The difference between what is affordable to various households and market rate cost is considered the subsidy, and this is calculated per year in Table 3.1-29. The subsidy per year is multiplied by 882 (the total number of units Packet Pg. 1260
Exhibit 5
Packet Pg. 1261
From: Elena Castillo
To: Eydee Jimenez
Cc: Anthony Kim; Maria Delgado; Iris Vasquez; Craig Castellanet; Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson Subject: Dorjil Estates
Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 2:57:51 PM
Attachments: 2023.2.7_Regulatory Agreement.pdf
2023.2.7_CHFA regulatory agreement.pdf
Good afternoon Ms. Jimenez,
Thank you for the information you shared at the meeting last Friday regarding Dorjil Estates as it concerns our questions regarding the attached regulatory agreements. Regarding the expiring subsidies, we noted that the current version of the Housing Technical Report represents subsidy on Dorjil I, expiring in 2034, and “Not-At-Risk” (December 2022 Draft, Table, 2-29, p. 2-45 to 46), which based on the information we received about the regulatory agreements is inaccurate. Additionally, the City has not provided enough information or analysis about plans to preserve housing with soon to expire subsidies, see e.g., Dorjil II with subsidy to expire in 2024, as required by Government Code section 65583(a)(9).

Regarding the subsidy on Dorjil I, we understood from you that HCD released the regulatory agreements due to a mistake in recording. Notwithstanding, we believe that the residents should have been provided with the required notices of Owner’s Intent to Prepay or Terminate under Government Code section 65863.10 (Notices). We further informed the City that the affected tenants we have met with did not receive the Notices before evictions or attempts to evict began.

Accordingly, I have some follow up questions regarding the preservation notices required under Government Code section 65863.10, et seq. Who tracks these notices at the City? How does the City handle these notices once they are received, including notifying the local government and HCD of the proposed intent to prepay or termination of the subsidy? Is there a separate department or person assigned who communicates with HCD about these notices?” Thank you,
Elena Castillo, Esq. | she/her/hers
Practice Group Director – Systemic Impact Litigation
3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200 | Ontario, CA 91764
951.248.4723 | FREE: 888.245.4257 | FAX: 951.398.4945
[email protected] | InlandLegal.org
LinkedIn | Twitter | Instagram | Facebook
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom or which it is addressed. If you have received it in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Please do not copy it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. To do so could violate state and federal privacy laws.

Packet Pg. 1262
Packet Pg. 1263
Exhibit 6
Packet Pg. 1264
Revised November 2016
HACSB Crime Free Addendum
The Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB) requires all family members ages 18 and over to sign the Crime Free Addendum to ensure compliance with all HACSB family obligations.

Any person violating the terms of this Crime Free Addendum may be subject to termination of housing assistance.

Each person who signs this addendum acknowledges that the Head of Household, other members of the household, guests or any other person under the participant’s control will comply with program requirements including:

1. No engagement in any violent or drug related offenses. This includes any conviction, arrest or outstanding warrant for, or reasonable belief of engagement in any violent or drug-related offenses. Examples of violent or drug related offenses include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Homicide, murder, voluntary manslaughter;
b. Rape, sexual battery, or other aggravated sex-related crimes; c. Child molestation, child sexual exploitation;
d. Possessing, transporting or receiving explosives or destructive devises with or without the intent to kill, injure, intimidate or destroy;
e. Assault and battery;
f. Trafficking, distribution, manufacture, sale, use or possession of illegal firearms; g. Threatening or intimidating assault including but not limited to the unlawful discharge of firearms at any location;
h. Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime involving violence; i. Engagement in drug manufacture (including synthetic drugs), sale, distribution, use or possession with or without intent to manufacture, sell, distribute or use that pose a threat to public health and safety; j. Other violent or drug-related offenses that may pose a threat to public health and safety, including involvement in criminal street gang.

2. No engagement in any other criminal offenses. This includes any conviction, arrest or outstanding warrant for, or reasonable belief of engagement in any other criminal offenses, including but not limited to the following:
a. Child neglect;
b. Disorderly conduct;
c. Abuse or pattern of abuse of alcohol and drugs that may pose a risk to public health and safety; d. Fraud to obtain assistance; Perjury, Grand Theft Housing; e. Prostitution and solicitation of prostitution that may pose a risk to public health and safety; f. Abusive behavior towards HACSB personnel, neighbors or landlords; (physical and/or verbal) that may pose a threat to health and safety;
g. Other criminal or drug related offenses that may pose a threat to public health and safety, including involvement in criminal street gang activity.

3. Engagement in any act intended to facilitate criminal or drug-related activity.

4. The dwelling unit shall not be used for or to facilitate criminal or drug-related activity.

5. In case of conflict between the provisions of this addendum and any other provisions of the Housing Choice Voucher, the provisions of the addendum shall govern.

Violation of the above provisions shall be a material and irreparable violation of the household’s obligations under the HACSB Housing Choice Voucher program and good cause for termination of housing assistance. A single violation of any of the provisions of this addendum shall be deemed a serious violation and a material and irreparable non-compliance. It is understood that a single violation shall be good cause for immediate termination of housing assistance unless otherwise prohibited by law. Proof of violation shall not require criminal conviction but shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.

WARNING: Title 18, Section 1001 of the United States Code, states that a person is guilty of a felony for knowingly and willingly making false or fraudulent statements to any Department or Agency of the United States. Making false statements is a felony under California State Law (Penal Code Sections: 115, 118, 487i and 532) and may result in criminal charges including Perjury, Grand Theft, Filing False Documents with a Public Office and Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses.

Packet Pg. 1265
Revised November 2016
Signature of Head of Household ________________________________________________ Date ________________________________________________
Signature of Other Family Member 18 or over ________________________________________________ Date ________________________________________________
Signature of Other Family Member 18 or over ________________________________________________ Date ________________________________________________
Signature of Other Family Member 18 or over ________________________________________________ Date ________________________________________________
Signature of Other Family Member 18 or over ________________________________________________ Date ________________________________________________
Signature of Other Family Member 18 or over ________________________________________________ Date ________________________________________________
Packet Pg. 1266
Exhibit 7
Packet Pg. 1267
Packet Pg. 1268
Exhibit 8
Packet Pg. 1269
Packet Pg. 1270
Exhibit 9
Packet Pg. 1271

THE LANDLORD TRAINING PROGRAM

KEEPING ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OUT OF RENTAL PROPERTY
A Practical guide for Landlords and Property Managers
A project sponsored by the City of San Bernardino Code Enforcement Division in conjunction with the City of San Bernardino Police Department and the City of San Bernardino Fire Department.

John Valdivia, Mayor
Theodore Sanchez, Council Member Ward 1
Sandra Ibarra, Council Member Ward 2
Juan Figueroa, Council Member Ward 3
Fred Shorett, Council Member Ward 4
Ben Reynoso, Council Member Ward 5
Kimberly Calvin, Council Member Ward 6
Damon Alexander, Council Member Ward 7
Edited for the City of San Bernardino, by
San Bernardino Code Enforcement Division, San Bernardino Fire Department, San Bernardino Police Department for the
Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
Packet Pg. 1272

FORWARD
The City of San Bernardino Community Department Director is pleased to announce the implementation of the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM. This program has proven to be successful internationally because it approaches the problem of crime on many fronts. Police cannot solve crime alone. Neither can the management or residents of rental properties. However, combining the efforts of Code Enforcement, the Police and Fire Departments the result has been the most successful approach to combating crime in rental properties. Through community evolvement and public education, we can change the outer appearance and improve the quality of life for our residents and property owners.

There are three ways criminal activity comes into a rental community: a criminal life there, they visit or come to the property to commit crimes.

The CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM addresses all three of these possibilities.

By not renting to people with criminal intent, they not only reduce the likelihood of crime in the community, but they also reduce the number of visitors who come to the property with criminal intent (i.e., to purchase or sell drugs).

For the opportunistic criminal, the implementation of C.P.T.E.D (Crime Prevention through Environmental design) has been used to combat crimes that might occur in common areas.

This includes assaults, robberies, graffiti, drug dealing, and auto thefts.

If city staff, property managers and residents make a dedicated effort to crime prevention and the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM, the outlook for success is extremely high. Good luck and thank you for your contribution to making your community a safe place to live, work and play.

City of San Bernardino Community Development
Code Enforcement Division
Packet Pg. 1273
Table of Contents
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................

PART ONE - Crime Prevention
Does It Work? ................................................................................................................ 1 Understanding Crime Prevention ................................................................................... 2 Managing Your Risks. . ................................................................................................. 3 Set Rules ....................................................................................................................... 4 Target Hardening ........................................................................................................... 6 PART TWO - What Is The CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM? Where It Began .............................................................................................................. 7 How It Works.................................................................................................................. 7 Who Should Attend ........................................................................................................ 8 Phase One: Training ...................................................................................................... 8 Phase Two: C.P.T.E.D. Inspection ................................................................................. 8 Phase Three: Safety Social............................................................................................ 9 Full Certification ............................................................................................................. 9 Phone In Requests....................................................................................................... 10 Maintaining Crime Free Signs ...................................................................................... 10 Certificates & Crime Free Sign..................................................................................... 10 PART THREE - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design C.P.T.E.D. Elements .................................................................................................... 11 Improve Surveillance.................................................................................................... 11 Improve Access Control ............................................................................................... 13 Improve Territoriality..................................................................................................... 14 Improve Activity Support .............................................................................................. 16 The 3-D Concept of C.P.T.E.D..................................................................................... 17 Solving Conflicts With C.P.T.E.D. Concepts................................................................. 18 C.P.T.E.D. Lighting....................................................................................................... 19 Types of Outdoor Lighting ............................................................................................ 21 Light and Lamp Comparison ........................................................................................ 26 San Bernardino Code requirements overview
PART FOUR - The Application Process
It’s Worth The Effort ..................................................................................................... 32 Protected Classes ........................................................................................................ 32 Non-Protected Classes ................................................................................................ 33 Criminal Behavior......................................................................................................... 33 Making A Commitment ................................................................................................. 34 Disclosure. ................................................................................................................... 34 The Application Form. . . . . .......................................................................................... 35 Refusing An Application ............................................................................................... 39 Packet Pg. 1274
PART FIVE - Common Sense Self Defense
Awareness Is The Key ................................................................................................. 47 Working After Dark....................................................................................................... 47 Employee Training Programs....................................................................................... 48 Stay In Touch............................................................................................................... 48 Armed Robbery Prevention .......................................................................................... 48 PART SIX - Community Rules and Lease Agreements
Use of the Crime Free Lease Addendum ..................................................................... 44 City of SB Crime Free Lease Addendum...................................................................... 45 Occupancy Restrictions................................................................................................ 46 PART SEVEN - Communities, Not Complexes!
Not A Complex ............................................................................................................. 48 Not A Police Problem ................................................................................................... 48 How to Begin................................................................................................................ 50 The Next Step .............................................................................................................. 51 Closing The Deal.......................................................................................................... 52 Keep It Going ............................................................................................................... 52 PART EIGHT - Active Property Management
Taking A Complaint...................................................................................................... 53 Routine Property Inspections ....................................................................................... 53 Good Property Maintenance ........................................................................................ 54 PART NINE - Combating Crime Problems
Whose Job Is It? .......................................................................................................... 55 The Displacement Theory ............................................................................................ 55 Civil Laws vs. Criminal Laws ........................................................................................ 57 Taking Action ............................................................................................................... 57 He’s Got A Gun! ........................................................................................................... 58 Gang Membership........................................................................................................ 58 Drugs In Apartments .................................................................................................... 59 General Disturbances................................................................................................... 59 Who Has The Power? .................................................................................................. 59 Trespassing.................................................................................................................. 60 Attempted Murder ........................................................................................................ 60 Management’s Responsibility....................................................................................... 62 Resident’s Responsibility ............................................................................................. 63 Packet Pg. 1275
PART TEN - To Serve and Protect?
The Police Won’t Talk To Us ........................................................................................ 64 Privacy Laws ................................................................................................................ 65 How To Approach The Officer...................................................................................... 65 Establishing More......................................................................................................... 65 Requesting Extra Patrol ............................................................................................... 66 Narcotics Surveillance.................................................................................................. 66 Management Surveillance............................................................................................ 67 But I’m Scared!............................................................................................................. 68 PART ELEVEN - Dealing With Non-Compliance
First Things First .......................................................................................................... 69 Set Your Policies.......................................................................................................... 69 Don’t Be Complacent ................................................................................................... 69 Know Your Responsibilities.......................................................................................... 70 Personal Service .......................................................................................................... 71 Certified Or Registered Mail ......................................................................................... 71 Post And Mail............................................................................................................... 71 What You Need............................................................................................................ 72 PART TWELVE - Partnership With The Fire Department
Smoke Detectors.......................................................................................................... 75 Carbon Monoxide Devices ........................................................................................... 77 Exiting Systems............................................................................................................ 78 Address........................................................................................................................ 79 Fire Alarm Systems...................................................................................................... 79 Fire Sprinkler Systems ................................................................................................. 80 Fire Extinguishers ........................................................................................................ 80 Fire Hydrants................................................................................................................ 81 Fire Lanes .................................................................................................................... 81 Emergency Medical Services ....................................................................................... 81 Pool Safety................................................................................................................... 82 Chemical Storage/Flammable and Combustible Liquids Storage................................. 83 Locks/Lock Boxes ........................................................................................................ 83 Heating and Ventilation Units ....................................................................................... 84 Laundry Rooms............................................................................................................ 84 Dumpsters.................................................................................................................... 84 Electrical ...................................................................................................................... 84 Barbecue Grills............................................................................................................. 85 LPG/Natural Gas.......................................................................................................... 86 Working with the Fire Department ................................................................................ 86 Conducting Property Inspections.................................................................................. 87 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PHONE DIRECTORY ............................................................

Packet Pg. 1276
Overview
Rental properties present a unique challenge for law enforcement. The typical Block Watch approach to residents in single family homes is not easily adapted to rental communities. In single family homes, owners generally have a large cash investment in the purchase of their home. This motivates owners to a greater concern about crime in their neighborhoods. With rising crime rates come lowering property values.

An owner of a single-family home might also be looking at a long term of residency. Typically, homeowners have a thirty-year mortgage for their property. Home is where they come each day and perhaps, to raise a family. There tends to be a lot of pride and ownership of their property. When crime problems begin to appear, owners are very likely to organize Block Watch activities to protect the long-term interests of their families.

In rental properties, the communities tend to be much more transient. Most often, residents sign a six-month, nine-month, or a twelve-month lease for a rental property. In many cases, owners don’t even require leases, and residency is based on a month-to-month agreement. This allows for an occupant to move very easily if they feel crime has reached a level they will not tolerate. It is easier to move away from crime than to confront it.

The police have historically fought a losing battle with Block Watch in multi-family rental properties. In January of 1992, the Mesa Police Department was faced with a difficult decision. To no longer offer Block Watch training in rental properties, or to develop a new concept for crime prevention in the rental communities.

The result was the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM. This bold, new program had no precedent. The program’s concept was to take a multi-faceted approach to crime prevention. A unique coalition of police, property managers and residents of rental properties, the program was to be an on-going program with a three-phase approach to address all of the opportunities of crime in rental property.

The program was designed to include a certification process, never before offered by a police department. The incentives of police issued signs, certificates, and advertising privileges provided immediate interest in the program.

The development of the Crime Free Lease Addendum proved to be the backbone of the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM. This addendum to the lease agreement lists specific criminal acts that, if committed on the property, will result in the immediate termination of the resident’s lease.

The CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM achieved almost instant success. In rental properties with the highest crime rates, the immediate results showed up to a 90% reduction in police calls for service. Even in the best properties reductions of 15% to 20% were not uncommon.

The CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM began to spread nationally after the first year, and internationally after the second year. The CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM has been a success all across the United States and Canada. There are very few Cities where Code Enforcement is the driving force behind the program; however, we believe through education we can make this program successful.

Packet Pg. 1277
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 1

PART ONE

CRIME PREVENTION
DOES IT WORK?
Many people feel helpless against crime, because too often crime is seen as an inevitable part of our society. It has been said, “If a criminal WANTS to get you, he’ll get you!” This belief leads to helplessness, fear and apathy. Apathy is one of the most dangerous elements in society today. When law-abiding citizens refuse to go outside after dark, they have voluntarily turned over their neighborhoods to the ones perpetrating crimes.

Criminals Are Like Weeds
Many times, a community will not battle crime because they feel they cannot be successful.

Often, people view dangerous criminals like a large rock that cannot be moved, or even be budged. Dangerous criminals are NOT like rocks; they are more like plants. Unlike an inanimate rock, a plant will grow. A weed
can best illustrate this. As a weed grows, it
roots, it sprouts, and it chokes out healthy
plants. A single weed quickly overtakes an
entire garden. When criminal activity is
allowed to flourish the effect is the same.

The typical police approach to crime is REACTIVE. Once a crime has been committed, the police officer responds, writes a police report and begins the preliminary investigation. It is certainly more humane and cost effective to prevent a crime from ever occurring. Crime Prevention is the PROACTIVE side of law enforcement. Crime Prevention is more desirable because is addresses the potential for crime before it becomes a serious problem.

Unfortunately, many people don’t address crime situations until it is too late. A good example is the victim of a burglary that suddenly becomes interested in buying a security system.

Once a crime problem has gotten too large, it is often easier to run away than face it. Equate the crime problem to killing a dinosaur.

The easiest way to kill a dinosaur is while it is still in the egg.

Once the dinosaur is given the opportunity to grow, it will progressively become bigger, stronger and harder to defeat. The same is true regarding criminal activity.

Packet Pg. 1278
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 2

UNDERSTANDING CRIME PREVENTION
To prevent crime, you need to understand crime,
and you need to understand the criminal mind.

When you think of criminals, think of predators. Most
criminals are like predators, looking for easy victims.

When you think of predators you might think of the
lion. When the lion is
hungry, she will go out to
stalk her prey. The lion
knows the watering hole is
a good place to find food,
as this is where all the
animals come to get water.

The lion is a skilled hunter.

She knows the best
approach is from
downwind. This way she can smell the herd, but they cannot smell her. The lion is also careful to approach slowly, staying low in the tall grass to avoid detection.

At just the right moment, the lion pounces into the herd. The lion does not run past the injured, the diseased or slowest ones in favor of the strongest one at the lead of the pack. In fact, it usually is the one that is injured, sick or simply NOT PAYING ATTENTION that gets attacked. This is called survival of the fittest or thinning the herd.

The two-legged urban breed of predator, the criminal, works the same way. They stalk their victims, looking for the easy prey. To be successful against an attack, you don’t necessarily have to be the strongest one, but you don’t want to be the weakest! Lions only hunt when hungry; but criminals are always a danger. This is why crime prevention is so important. Crime prevention is a shared responsibility. Crime is a community problem -- crime prevention must be a community effort.

Packet Pg. 1279
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 3

RISK (LOSS) MANAGEMENT
When assessing the potential for crime, it is important to decide whether to accept the risk (risk acceptance), without investing in counter measures, or to take sometimes costly steps to reduce the risk (risk transference). Transferring the risk may involve spending a little money now to save more money later.

There are other less expensive ways to prevent crime. This includes the removal of the elements necessary for a crime to occur (risk avoidance). There are also ways to reduce the risk or spread the risk to reduce losses. The following page demonstrates the types of risk management.

Packet Pg. 1280
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 4

SCENARIO ONE
(Eliminate TARGET)
If a car thief comes to an
apartment community to
steal a Corvette, the
DESIRE is there. If all of
the residents are inside
their rental units, now the
OPPORTUNITY is there.

But if there is not a
Corvette on the property,
you will not have a crime
because there is no
TARGET.

SCENARIO TWO
(Eliminate DESIRE)
If a person sees a
Corvette, the TARGET,
and all of the residents
are in their apartments,
allowing the OPPORTUNITY for crime, but the
person who sees the
Corvette has no DESIRE
to steal the car, again,
you will have no crime.

SCENARIO THREE
(Eliminate OPPORTUNITY)
If a person comes to the
property with the DESIRE
to steal the Corvette, and
sees the perfect
TARGET, but the
residents of the
apartment community are
out in the recreational
and common areas, this
will reduce or eliminate
the OPPORTUNITY.

The CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM is effective because it addresses all three (3) elements: TARGET, DESIRE AND OPPORTUNITY. To eliminate the TARGET, we teach how to “target harden”. To eliminate OPPORTUNITY, we train residents to be the “eyes and ears” of the community, and to eliminate the DESIRE, a concerted effort is made to keep those with criminal intent from trespassing, visiting or living at the property.

SET RULES
If a person knows that rules are clearly stated and enforced, they are less likely to move into a community to commit criminal activity. Have a back-up plan to discourage the more determined individuals.

By careful screening and active management principles addressed in the CRIME FREE MUTLI-HOUSING PROGRAM, the criminal activity among residents and visitors can be virtually eliminated.

Safety Socials, which incorporate the principles of Block Watch, will encourage residents to become an organized group of eyes and ears for the property.

It is not uncommon to see once distressed properties show a 70% - 90% decrease in police calls for service, as a result of the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM.

In the City of San Bernardino there are over 860 rental properties with more than 17,000 rental units. The managers of these rental properties all have one thing in common...they all Packet Pg. 1281
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 5
want more police patrol.

Even if the San Bernardino Police Department turned off their police radios and never answered a single 911 call for help, we would not have enough patrol cars to provide adequate security patrols for every rental property.

They also want more police patrols up and down their streets and alleyways. Then there are the grocery store managers that want more police patrol because a customer got a purse stolen, or an automobile in the parking lot was stolen. Consider all the strip malls, flower shops, and movie theaters.

Everybody wants more police patrol, but there just aren’t enough officers. Therefore, managers must take their own precautions. Residents of rental properties must also be aware of their role in Crime Prevention.

Packet Pg. 1282
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 6

TARGET HARDENING
Sometimes you cannot remove a target. But you can harden the target. Target hardening involves the use of locks, electronic devices, or other hardware that will DETECT, DENY, DELAY and DETER the criminal (away from the intended target). Target hardening is directed to all structures, vehicles and personal property within the rental community.

DETECT:

By utilizing good security techniques, you can cause the person to make more noise, which will increase the risk of detection. This may also persuade the person not to commit the crime.

DENY:

By engraving valuables, using security electronic equipment, or by moving other valuables out of view, you can remove the rewards received from a crime opportunity. If the rewards are not there, this may persuade the person not to commit the crime.

DELAY:

Many times, crimes are committed because of an easy opportunity. By using good crime prevention techniques, you can increase the time and effort needed to commit the crime. This may persuade the person not to commit the crime.

DETER:

By utilizing the previous three techniques, you may prevent a crime from happening by deterring the criminal from the property to an easier target elsewhere.

Packet Pg. 1283
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 7

PART TWO

WHAT IS THE
CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM?

WHERE IT BEGAN
The CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM began in Mesa, Arizona in July 1992. It soon spread across the United States and to Canada in a very short time.

HOW IT WORKS
The CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM is a unique, three-phase certification program for rental properties of all sizes, including single family rental homes. The first phase is the completion of an eight-hour program taught by attorneys, police, fire personnel and code enforcement personal. Frequently, guest speakers will also attend to address specific topics relating to rental properties. This code-sponsored program is designed to be very easy, yet extremely effective, at reducing criminal activity in rental properties.

The CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM addresses these topics:

Understanding Crime Prevention
C.P.T.E.D. Concepts
The Application Process
Common Sense Self Defense
Community Rules/Leases
Apartment Communities/Not Complexes
Active Property Management
Combating Crime Problems
Police: To Serve and Protect?
Partnership with the Fire Department/Code Enforcement
Dealing with Non-Compliance
Typically, the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM is taught during a single eighthour day. The program is designed to be flexible; many communities have different needs.

Packet Pg. 1284
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 8

WHO SHOULD ATTEND
Property owners, managers, leasing staff, maintenance personnel and others in the management team should attend the entire 8-hour training program. It is also recommended that police officers attend the training to understand the civil nature of rental communities, and to establish a rapport with managers of rental properties.

PHASE ONE: TRAINING
After completion of the eight-hour training program, each participant will receive a certificate which has been signed by the Community Development Director. The certificate is also signed by the program coordinator of the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM, who sponsors the training.

This green certificate is to be immediately framed and displayed in the leasing office or in a prominent place where applicants are sure to see it. Prospective residents should be told as soon as possible that the property management is working with the police/code to keep the community healthy. If there is no leasing office, a certificate can be displayed in a 3-ring notebook with other materials used in the CRIME FREE MULTIHOUSING PROGRAM. The manager or owner should show the notebook to prospective residents.

Participating managers should also begin immediate implementation of the Crime Free Lease Addendum, which is the backbone of the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM. This addendum to the lease cites specific actions that will be taken by management if a resident, or somebody under the resident’s control, is involved in illegal or dangerous activity on or near the rental property.

If the management is conducting a background check that includes credit and criminal information, the applicant should be informed before they turn in the application or pay any fees or deposits. Every prospective resident must be treated exactly the same as the others. It is important to develop office policies to ensure this.

PHASE TWO: C.P.T.E.D. INSPECTION
In the second phase of the program a representative of the Code Enforcement Division will inspect the rental property to assess physical security and general appearance of the property. If the property meets the agency’s requirements, they will be given a second certificate signed by the Community Development Director. In order to meet the requirements of phase two the property owner shall have no unresolved City code violations within the past year.

This red certificate will certify the property has met the minimum-security requirements of the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM. The minimum-security requirements are:

Packet Pg. 1285
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 9
MANDATORY C.P.T.E.D. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS:
• DEAD BOLTS ON ALL ENTRY DOORS
• 180-190 DEGREE EYE VIEWERS ON ENTRY DOORS
• ANTI-LIFT/SLIDE DEVICES ON SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS
• 2”-3” SCREWS IN STRIKE PLATES
• PROPER TRIMMING OF TREES AND BUSHES
• ADEQUATE SECURITY LIGHTING

In some rare cases, one or more of these standards may not apply to your property. In these cases, some exceptions can be made depending on the overall security of the complex.

PHASE THREE: SAFETY SOCIAL
In the third and final phase of the program, the sponsoring Code Enforcement agency will conduct a Safety Social for residents at the rental property. This will include information about general safety principles and crime prevention, including Neighborhood Watch information. This will also give law enforcement the opportunity to explain the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM to the residents of the rental community.

Management is responsible for providing food, non-alcoholic drinks and entertainment for this event. It is also recommended that property managers raffle door prizes as an added incentive to draw residents to the meeting. It is necessary to conduct at least one (1) meeting per year to maintain membership in the CRIME FREE MULTIHOUSING PROGRAM.

FULL CERTIFICATION
Once fully certified, the property manager will receive a gold certificate. (This certificate is the only certificate that has an expiration date. It is renewed each year after the subsequent Safety Social has been conducted.)
After completion of the first safety social, the management can post the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM signs on the property. It is recommended that one sign be posted at each entrance to the property where prospective residents will see them.

Packet Pg. 1286
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 10

SIGN REGISTRATION
The first two signs are free and must be placed in the designated areas as follows: The first sign must be displayed in the front landscaped area or on the security gate nearest to the entrance; the second must be posted on the building visible to the public. Additional signage may be purchased at owner’s expense. Contact Program Officer for replacement signs if stolen or damaged, there may be a cost.

The sign is the property of the sponsoring agency and permission to display the sign can be revoked if the property is sold.

Carefully consider how each sign is installed to prevent easy removal. Though bolts can be bent or stripped to prevent removal. Signs can be attached with liquid nails and/or bolted to a building at a height that cannot be reached.

Replacement/additional signs $20.00 each
An added incentive to reach full certification is the use of the CRIME FREE MULTIHOUSING PROGRAM logo in all appropriate advertisements, as well as on company letterheads, business cards and associated paperwork.

This logo has achieved a very high level of recognition in the United States and Canada. It has proven very effective in attracting honest residents looking for safe housing. It has worked equally well to discourage those looking for an apartment unit for conducting criminal activities.

PHONE-IN REQUESTS
An additional advantage to being fully certified is that people can call in 909-384-CRIME 7233 or email for a list of fully certified properties. [email protected]
Packet Pg. 1287
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 11

PART THREE

CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
C.P.T.E.D. ELEMENTS
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (C.P.T.E.D.) is comprised of four (4) key elements: Surveillance, Access Control, Territoriality, and Activity Support. Using C.P.T.E.D., you can eliminate virtually any property crime.

IMPROVE SURVEILLANCE
SURVEILLANCE is the first element of C.P.T.E.D. Surveillance is the ability to look into an area, and the ability to look back out. It can be formal or informal. Formal surveillance is generally organized, while informal surveillance is naturally occurring.

NOTE: You should observe your property from all locations, keeping in mind whether you can see into and out of the property. Keep in mind that residents and staff are formal surveillance partners, and that neighbors or visitors to your property will conduct informal surveillance of your property. Remove anything that hinders surveillance. There are three types of surveillance to consider.: Natural, Mechanical and Organized. The best plan will involve some combination of all three types of surveillance.

Natural Surveillance is naturally occurring. As people are moving around an area, they will be able to observe what is going on around them, provided the area is open and well lighted. Natural Surveillance is typically free of cost, but observers may choose not to get involved in any situation that may pose a potential threat to themselves or others.

When considering surveillance of your
property, remember that casual
observers from neighboring properties
might be willing to report suspicious
activity. All you need to do is ask! It is a
great idea to ask them to join your Block
Watch meeting and safety socials.

Mechanical Surveillance employs the
use of cameras, mirrors and other
equipment that allows an individual to
monitor a remote area. Mechanical
Packet Pg. 1288
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 12
Packet Pg. 1289
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 13
Surveillance usually involves the purchase of moderately inexpensive mirrors to the more expensive electronic devices, such as closed-circuit television (CCTV).

NOTE: Once the equipment is purchased, maintenance of the devices must be considered.

Organized Surveillance includes security patrols and other people who are organized to watch a targeted area. While this is the most effective deterrent to crime, it is also the least cost effective. While it may be necessary to employ security patrols or off-duty police officers, once the patrols are discontinued there is generally nothing left to show for your investment.

IMPROVE ACCESS CONTROL
ACCESS CONTROL is the second element in C.P.T.E.D. Because many criminals look for an easy escape, limiting access into an area and back out again is a great way to deter criminal activity. Access Control can be demonstrated by having one way into and out of a location, such as a security post or the use of mechanical gates. Others, who use alternative methods to enter an area look suspicious, risk detection and sense an increased risk of apprehension.

It is important to assess how the intended users are entering the property. It is equally important to assess how the non-intended users are entering the property as well. Look at perimeter fencing for damage. Look for footprints in the dirt and gravel. Check for wear patterns in grassy areas. Determining the weak points will be the first step to correcting the problem.

There are three (3) types of Access Controls to considers: Natural (or Environmental), Mechanical, and Organized.

Natural/Environmental Access Control
involves the use of the environment. To
keep trespassers from climbing over
walls for instance, you could plant a
hearty cactus in the area where it will be
highly visible. The use of dirt berms or
large rocks can also keep unwanted
visitors from entering onto private
property and vacant lots.

Mechanical Access Control includes
the use of security gates, which have
proven very effective at reducing auto
thefts, burglaries and drive-by shootings.

Most perpetrators of these

crimes do not want to exit the way they entered as it gives witnesses the opportunity to record license plates and obtain suspect information.

Packet Pg. 1290
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 14
Organized Access Control entails the use of security or courtesy patrol to monitor those entering the property. Distribution of parking permits, affixed to registered vehicles, will identify which vehicles belong to the residents. Vehicles should not be allowed to back into parking spaces, so that parking permits will be always visible.

IMPROVE TERRITORIALITY
TERRITORIALITY is the third element in C.P.T.E.D. Territoriality is a psychological impression that people get when they look at the property. If management displays good territoriality, it will influence the community to respect the property as well. Good territoriality demonstrates a sense of ownership, alerting potential offenders that they don’t belong there, and they will be seen and reported, because undesirable behavior will not be tolerated. It has two (2) principal components: Defensible Space and Maintenance.

Defensible Space is divided into four (4) categories: Public, Semi-public, Semi-private, and Private.

1. Public areas are typically the least defensible. A car driving on a public street would not automatically arouse suspicion.

2. Semi-public areas might include a cul-de-sac. If there are only five homes in the circle, a driver would be expected to stop at one of the five homes or leave the area.

3. Semi-private areas might include sidewalks or common areas around residential areas.

While most people may not confront a stranger in a common area, they are likely to call the police if the person does not appear to belong there.

4. Private areas are different in rental
communities than in single-family home
neighborhoods. In a typical apartment the
private area may not begin until you
actually enter into the unit. This is
especially true if several units share a
common balcony or stairways. In a singlefamily home neighborhood, many owners consider their front yard to be private or
defensible space.

There are many ways to establish defensible
space. By planting low growing hedges or
bushes, you will show a defined property line.

By posting signs such as “No Trespassing” or
“No Soliciting”, you have established the area
as defensible space.

Packet Pg. 1291
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 15
Packet Pg. 1292
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 16
Maintenance is another key issue for Territoriality. Properties that are clean and well maintained are more likely to attract residents who take pride in their community. This also promotes confidence in the management team.

If you and a resident agree to improvements or repairs on the rental unit, make sure the details are in writing and signed by both parties. The landlord must approve all improvements to the property ahead of time. Especially if the tenant expects to be reimbursed for materials and/or labor. Keep receipts and records of the time and money spent.

IMPROVE ACTIVITY SUPPORT
ACTIVITY SUPPORT is the fourth element in C.P.T.E.D. This involves the appropriate use of recreational facilities and common areas. The objective is to fill the area with legitimate users so the abusers will leave.

It may be difficult to believe that filling an area with legitimate users will cause the deviant users, or abusers, to leave. But the opposite is also true. If you fill an area with deviant users, the legitimate users will withdraw.

To promote Activity Support, utilize
common areas effectively. By incorporating ramadas, picnic areas and other amenities into open areas, the
legitimate users will maintain ownership
of the property.

In recreational areas, utilize proper
lighting techniques and establish
community rules to encourage the
proper and safe use of the facilities. For
laundry facilities, exercise and game
rooms, maintain unobscured visibility for
the intended users.

Packet Pg. 1293
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 17
THE 3 “D” CONCEPT OF C.P.T.E.D.

1. D

2. D

3. D
Packet Pg. 1294
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 18
CONFLICTS WITH C.P.T.E.D. CONCEPTS

SURVEILLANCE ACCESS CONTROL
Concept:

Conflict:

Solutions:

Concept:

Conflict:

Solutions:

TERRITORIALITY ACTIVITY SUPPORT
Concept:

Conflict:

Solutions:

Concept:

Conflict:

Solutions:

Packet Pg. 1295
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 19
Lighting by itself does not prevent crime. Many times, cars are burglarized while parked under a light. Lighting provides the opportunity for choice; the choice to walk forward because you can see clearly that the path is clear AND free of danger. IF the user can see a potential danger (person hiding, a gang of kids at the corner), they may choose to walk a different way. Lighting can illuminate a target as easily as it provides a legitimate user to see a potential threat or criminal.

Lighting is a powerful tool the management and residents can use to control and reduce the fear and opportunity of crime.

Unless you have formal or informal surveillance of an area, lighting may not always prevent crime. In fact, good lighting without surveillance may actually encourage criminal activity in some cases.

Packet Pg. 1296
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 20

GOALS OF LIGHTING
UNIT LIGHTING SHOULD BE:
❑ Energy efficient (used consistently)
❑ Non-tamperable (use special screws)
❑ Break Resistant Lens (Polycarbonate-Lexan)
BUILDING LIGHTING SHOULD:
❑ Illuminate building numbers
❑ Illuminate building accesses
❑ Illuminate front and back areas
❑ Illuminate porch lights under control of building,
not apartment user.

GROUNDS LIGHTING SHOULD:
❑ Provide a cone of light downward to walkways
❑ Provide a level of lighting between buildings
to distinguish forms and movement.

Packet Pg. 1297
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 21

TYPES OF OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Energy-efficient lighting fixtures help you cut your
electric bill. Plus, most products are easy to install
because many models come pre-wired and preassembled. Each style comes with a lamp, and you can also choose to add a photocell on some
designs.

Dusk-To-Dawn
High-Pressure Sodium
150 watts
High-Pressure
Sodium Flood
150 watts
High-Pressure
Sodium Wall Light
70 watts
Quartz Light Metal
Halide
500 watts

TYPES OF LAMPS
High Pressure Sodium, Metal Halide, Mercury
Vapor and Self-Ballasted Mercury Lamps are all
high intensity electric discharge lamps. Except for
self-ballasted lamps, auxiliary equipment such as
ballasts and starters must be provided for proper
starting and operation of each type, in accordance
with American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
specifications.

Low Pressure Sodium lamps, although technically not high intensity discharge lamps are used in many similar applications. As with HID lamps
they require auxiliary equipment for proper starting
and operation. These lamps, which have efficacies
up to 200L/W, have a mixture of neon and argon
gas plus sodium metal in the arc tube and an
evacuated outer bulb. When voltage is applied to
the lamp the arc discharge is through the neon and
argon gas. As the sodium metal in the arc tube
heats up and vaporizes, the characteristic yellow
amber color of sodium is achieved.

Nominal Wattage of Lamps
Lamp wattage varies during life, because of
ballast and lamp characteristics. Ballast data should
be reviewed for actual wattage levels.

Voltage Control
An interruption in the power supply or a sudden
voltage drop may extinguish the arc. Before the
lamp will relight, it must cool sufficiently, reducing
the vapor pressure to a point where the arc will
restrike with available voltage. Instant restrike
lamps restrike immediately with the resumption of
power providing approximately 5% of steady state
lumens and a rapid warm-up. Other lamps require
approximately one minute cooling before relighting.

Still other HID types take 3 to 20 minutes,
depending on type of lamp and luminaire.

Packet Pg. 1298
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 22
Incandescent Bulbs
Supreme incandescent
bulbs are rated at 5000
hours compared to 750
for regular bulbs. Cooler
burn has 85% longer
lamp life. Withstands
voltage fluctuations, and
its brass base offers
reduced socket freezing.

Frosted or clear, available in watt varieties.

Flood Light
One-piece weatherproof
construction with a brass
base to reduce socket
freezing. Cooler burn.

High Pressure Sodium
Hermetically sealed, this highpressure sodium lamp offers 24,000 hours of dependable
life. Built for outdoor uses, it
absorbs wind and vibration, is
insulated against high voltage
pulses and has minimal
freezing or rusting in the
socket. Clear or coated. (For
use in high pressure sodium
fixtures
only.)

COLOR RENDERING
Another key performance characteristic, color
rendering, is the ability of a light source to
represent colors in objects. The relative measure of
this ability is color rendering index or CRI which
rates lights sources on a scale of 0 to 100.

The higher the CRI, the more vibrant or close to
natural the colors of objects appear. For example,
a CRI of 0 would come from a source that provides
light without color, much like a black and white
television. A CRI of 100 would represent a source
that has the rendering capabilities of incandescent
light (for sources below 5000K) or “daylight” (for
sources above 5000K). CRI is especially important
when evaluating fluorescent and HID sources
because they have a wide range of CRIs.

Fluorescent Tubes
Cast cool, bright, economical light
for indoor use.

Pictured: Circular, one of the many
fluorescent tubes available.

Packet Pg. 1299
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
23 Packet Pg. 1300
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
24 SECURITY LIGHTING

1. Purposes of lighting.

2. Lighting terminology.

3. Three types of lighting.

Packet Pg. 1301
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
25 PROS AND CONS

1. Type One:

2. Type Two:

3. Type Three:

Packet Pg. 1302
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
26 LIGHT and LAMP COMPARISON
While many lamps will offer varying degrees of efficiency and effectiveness, this is a general guide to discuss advantages and disadvantages with certain lamps. Contact a professional lighting consultant if you have any questions.

Performance and costs may vary greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer.

These charts are provided to show there are more considerations than just the cost of lighting.

Packet Pg. 1303
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 27
Packet Pg. 1304
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 28
The City of San Bernardino Code Requirements: an Overview Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code of San Bernardino and the International Property Maintenance Code sets standards for interior and exterior building maintenance. In addition, California Civil Code 1941 describes basic standards to be met to ensure a dwelling is tenantable. Other parts of City and State code address fire hazards, building security, zoning, construction requirements, plumbing and electrical installation. The overall intent of the codes is to ensure that the interior and exterior of a building, and its landscape, are kept in a good state of repair as a service to all citizens.

The following is a general summary of the maintenance requirements in residential property of all types:

Premise
Identification
IPMC § 304.3 Premise Identification
Buildings shall have approved address numbers placed
in a position to be plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall
be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters. Numbers shall
be not less than 4 inches (102mm) in height with a
minimum stroke width of 0.5inch (12.7mm).

Lack of
Landscaping
SBMC §

15.24.040A1
Lack of Landscaping
All required setbacks abutting a public right-of-way and front and visible side yards shall be landscaped (except for improved surfaces including, but not limited to walks and driveways) with trees, shrubs, ground cover,
decorative rock, redwood bark and/or grass.

Unmaintained
Landscaping
SBMC §

15.24.040A2
Unmaintained Landscaping
Trees, shrubs, lawns and other planted vegetation shall be maintained, including regular irrigation, pruning of trees, trimming of shrubs and cutting of lawns.

Weeds, Dry Brush
and Overgrown
Vegetation
SBMC §

15.24.040A3
Weeds, Dry Brush and Overgrown Vegetation
Property shall be free of overgrown or dead vegetation, including, but not limited to weeds, trees or limbs, bushes and other planted vegetation. Weeds include sage brush, dry grass, chaparral, and any other brush or vegetation which attains extensive growth and becomes a fire
menace when dry.

Trash, Debris and
Improper Storage
SBMC §

15.24.040A4
Trash, Debris and Improper Storage
Property shall be free of trash, litter, debris, packing boxes, lumber, junk, salvage materials (except where
otherwise permitted by this code), broken or inoperative furniture, appliances, machinery, equipment, any
furniture (except for furniture specifically designed for outdoor use) including, but not limited to furniture on porches, balconies, sun decks and in front yards, and
any other improperly stored personal property causing an unsightly appearance.

Vehicle and
Recreational
SBMC §

15.24.040A5
Vehicle and Recreational Vehicle Storage
All operable vehicles, recreational vehicles, motor
Packet Pg. 1305
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 29
Vehicle Storage homes, trailers, campers or camper shells, and boats shall be parked or stored in designated, screened areas, a garage, carport or on an improved surface. None of the above shall be occupied. “Recreational Vehicle” means
any vehicles towed or self-propelled on its own chassis or attached to the chassis of another vehicle and
designed or used for recreational or sporting purposes or exclusively for hauling personal property. The term
“recreational vehicle” includes, but is not limited to motor homes, fifth-wheels, campers, camp trailers, trailers,
boats, watercraft, and all-terrain vehicles.

Inoperable and
Abandoned
Vehicles
SBMC §

15.24.040A6
Inoperable and Abandoned Vehicles
Property shall be free of inoperable or abandoned
vehicles and parts of vehicles unless they are safely
stored in a garage or other enclosed storage area.

Licensed automobile dismantlers or vehicle dealers shall be exempt from this requirement. - "Inoperable or
Abandoned Vehicle” means any vehicle, operative or
inoperative that is: (a) mechanically incapable of being driven; or (b) prohibited from being operated on a public street or highway pursuant to the provisions of the
California Vehicle Code concerning license plates,
registration, equipment, safety and related matters; or (c) has been left by the owner or responsible person for over seventy-two hours and has indicia of being inoperable,
including but not limited to, flat or deflated tires, cobwebs, and accumulated dirt, trash or debris in and on the
vehicle; or (d) wrecked and/or dismantled.

Condition of
Structures
SBMC §

15.24.040A7
Condition of Structures
All improvements on the property, including, but not
limited to buildings, garages, carports, porches, gates, fences, doors, windows, roofs, gutters, signs, permanent or temporary structures, stairs, handrails, retaining walls and trash enclosures shall be painted/preserved and
maintained in good repair and condition. Paint or
preservatives shall not be worn, peeling or cracking.

Improved SurfacesSBMC §

15.24.040A8
Improved Surfaces
Walkways on private property, driveways, parking areas
and all improved surfaces shall be maintained in good
repair and safe condition. Parking lot striping and
handicap markings shall be maintained in good condition.

Graffiti SBMC §

15.24.040A9
Graffiti
Buildings, structures, sidewalks, driveways, other
improved surfaces and any other personal property
placed on real property, including vehicles, shall be free of graffiti. - “Graffiti” means any inscription, word, figure, mark or design that is written, marked, etched, scratched, drawn or painted on real property, buildings, structures (permanent or temporary), or other fixtures thereon, or on any personal property placed on such real property,
Packet Pg. 1306
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 30
including vehicles.

Rodent and
Vermin Control
SBMC §

15.24.040A10
Rodent and Vermin Control
Property shall be free from infestation of termites,
insects, vermin or rodents. – Please take all necessary measures to remove or abate the infestation. Submit
copies of all receipts/invoices from a certified
extermination company to the Code Enforcement Officer.

They may be faxed to 909-384-5247, please make the
fax to the attention of the Officer and provide the case number.

Sewage SBMC §

15.24.040A11
Sewage
Improved property shall be properly connected to a
sewage disposal system or a sanitary sewer and free
from sewage seepage. – Please contact a certified
plumber to repair or replace any damaged systems.

Permits may be required, and all sewage, gray water or
other material must be cleaned and removed from the
property or properly disposed of within 72-Hours.

Pools and Spas SBMC §

15.24.040A12
Pools and Spas
Pools and spas shall be securely fenced and adequately
maintained in accordance with the Development Code
and other applicable laws.

Construction SBMC §

15.24.040A13
Construction
All buildings or structures in a state of partial
construction, repair or rehabilitation shall have an
active/valid permit and shall be completed during the
term of an active/valid building permit or other time frame ordered by the City. The owner or responsible person
shall be progressing diligently to complete the repair, construction or rehabilitation of the building or structure.

Fencing SBMC §

15.24.040A14
Fencing
All fencing shall be constructed in compliance with the Development Code and other applicable laws with
acceptable fencing materials such as wood, vinyl,
masonry or wrought iron. – Chain link is not permitted in front set-backs, please contact Development Services at (909) 384-5071 for permitting information.

Rental Property
Registration
Required
SBMC §

5.04.005
Rental Property Registration Required
It is unlawful for any person… to commence or carry on
any business, show, exhibition or game, … without first having procured a registration certificate from the City and without complying with any and all regulations of
such business, show, exhibition or game… shall
constitute a separate violation of this Article for each and every day that such business, show, exhibition or game
is so carried on. – Please contact the Development
Services Department at (909) 384-7272 for information
on specific requirements and obtain a Rental Business
registration. Call Business Registration at (909) 384-5302 for details.

Packet Pg. 1307
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 31
Storage &
OwnershipRefuse Containers
SBMC §

8.24.060(A)
Storage & Ownership- Refuse Containers
Except on days established for collection, all garbage, rubbish, recyclable discards, and green waste
receptacles shall be placed out of sight from any public right-of-way. - Move all trash receptacles to the side or rear yard and out of public view.

Illegal
Construction
CBC App. Ch.
1 § 105.1
Illegal Construction
Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the
occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the
installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. - The property owner shall obtain all necessary permits from
the Development Services Department for the nonpermitted construction. Please contact Development Services at (909) 384-5071 for obtaining building permit information and permitting requirements. All required
permits must be obtained, inspected and approved by
Development Services.

For a more detailed list of all City of San Bernardino municipal codes please visit our city website at www.sbcity.org.

Packet Pg. 1308
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 32

PART FOUR

THE APPLICATION PROCESS
IT’S WORTH THE EFFORT
Property managers have differing views on how, or if, they should screen prospective residents. Some property managers have rigid guidelines established by their Management Company or owners. Other property managers may feel that calling references or checking prospective residents is not worth the effort. It is important to understand the application process and Fair Housing Laws.

WHAT ARE PROTECTED CLASSES?
Federal Fair Housing Laws strictly prohibit any discrimination against protected classes. Those protected classes may
include these and others:

Federal
• race
• color
• religion
• sex
• handicap
• familial status
• national origin
• source of income
• sexual preference
State of California (same as Federal-Plus)
• Ancestry
• Marital Status
• Source of Income (Legal and verifiable source)
• Sexual Orientation
• Arbitrary Discrimination
Age, Body Shape, Clothing or any other characteristic of the applicant In some cases, property managers may have to comply with other protected classes which may include age, sexual preference or source of income. What most people may not be aware of is that EVERYONE is in a protected class! Everyone has a race, a color, a sex and a national origin.

Packet Pg. 1309
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 33
No one can discriminate against an applicant based on their color, regardless of what color they are. No one can be denied residency based on their national origin, regardless of where they were born.

NOTE: You should keep an “Equal Opportunity Housing” sign in the office to remind prospective residents that you do not discriminate against the Fair Housing Laws.

WHAT ABOUT NON-PROTECTED CLASSES?
While discrimination against non-protected classes is not necessarily illegal, it may not be profitable either. For example, a property manager may discriminate against pet owners (provided that the applicant is not dependent upon the animal for a particular disability), but not allowing pets may turn away many applicants. Another example is the property manager who chooses to rent to only non-smokers. Here again, it may be legal, but it may not be profitable.

WHAT ABOUT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR?
At this time, it is not illegal to deny residency to an applicant based on their criminal history.

Keep in mind; you should not discriminate based on an arrest; but only on a conviction. If an applicant says they were not convicted, but they made a plea bargain instead, it is still a conviction.

Behavior is not one of the federally
protected classes. An applicant can be
denied residency for behaviors at
previous rental properties. For example,
you could refuse residency to an
applicant who has repeatedly disturbed
or threatened previous neighbors, sold
or manufactured drugs, or damaged
properties they previously rented.

When looking at criminal history of
prospective residents, ask yourself, “Is
this a crime that poses a threat to my
residents?” A felony embezzlement charge may not be a threat, but a misdemeanor charge for assault may constitute a threat.

Packet Pg. 1310
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 34
MAKE CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING A COMMITMENT!
It is important to convey to all perspective residents your intentions to participate in the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. Some property managers will attach a copy of the Crime Free Addendum to each application, while other property managers will display a poster-sized copy of the addendum in an area where prospective residents fill out their application.

Be certain to treat all applicants equally and fairly. Also be certain to tell them about your participation in the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program before they fill out the application. This gives them the opportunity to continue looking for other options.

NOTE: If an applicant refuses to live in a Crime Free Community, you won’t have to deny their application!

DISCLOSURE
If an applicant discloses previous criminal history of convictions on the application, you should decide whether or not to accept the application immediately. If you accept the application, you may lose the right to deny the application later for any information they have disclosed.

Check with your management company and/or attorney to be certain of your company’s policy in this regard.

Bottom line...check each application thoroughly before accepting it or any processing fees.

SELF REFUSAL
If an applicant is aware of the screening criteria, they are less likely to apply, knowing they will be turned down. This is especially true if you charge an application fee or use a credit reporting agency that thoroughly checks credit and criminal history.

Packet Pg. 1311
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 35

THE APPLICATION FORM
(EXAMPLE ONLY)
PROPERTY:

APPLICATION FOR RESIDENCY
NAME SOCIAL SECURITY #

DATE OF BIRTH PLACE OF BIRTH
SPOUSE’S NAME SOCIAL SECURITY #

DATE OF BIRTH PLACE OF BIRTH

TOTAL NUMBER OF MINORS TO OCCUPY UNIT LIST AGES

CURRENT ADDRESS SINCE

CITY STATE ZIP PHONE
LANDLORD’S NAME PHONE

PREVIOUS ADDRESS SINCE

CITY STATE ZIP
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN EVICTED OR HAD A FORCIBLE DETAINER FILED AGAINST YOU? REASON
DRIVERS LICENSE # STATE EXP. DATE
SPOUSE’S DR.LIC. # STATE EXP. DATE
VEHICLES - YOU OWN, ARE BUYING, AND/OR WOULD BE PARKING ON THE PROPERTY:

MAKE/MODEL/YEAR/COLOR/LICENSE PLATE #/EXP. DATE/STATE

EMPLOYER’S NAME _______________________________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS CITY PHONE

DATED STARTED POSITION SUPERVISOR

GROSS INCOME PER

SECOND/FORMER EMPLOYER

ADDRESS CITY PHONE

EMPLOYED FROM TO POSITION

GROSS INCOME PER SUPERVISOR
SPOUSE’S EMPLOYER

ADDRESS CITY PHONE

DATED STARTED POSITION SUPERVISOR

GROSS INCOME PER

ANY ADDITIONAL INCOME (STATE SOURCE AND AMOUNT)
Application for Residency - Page 2

NAME OF BANK BRANCH/ADDRESS TYPE OF ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NUMBER

Packet Pg. 1312
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 36
CREDIT REFERENCES:

CREDITOR’S NAME TYPE OF ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NUMBER MONTHLY PMT. IN WHO’S NAME

TWO PERSONAL REFERENCES:

NAME

ADDRESS
________________________________________________________________________________________________ CITY
PHONE
RELATIONSHIP _
Have you ever been convicted of a crime, placed on probation/parole, is there a current warrant for your arrest, or are you currently involved in any criminal activity? Explain:

All information furnished on this application is to the best of my knowledge, complete and accurate. Discovery of false or omitted information constitutes grounds for rejection of this application. You or any agent of your choice may verify any and all information from whatever source that you choose. I authorize all persons/or firms named in this application to freely provide any requested information concerning me and hereby waive all right of action for any consequence resulting from such information.

I acknowledge payment of $ as a nonrefundable fee for the purpose of processing this application.

Applicant Date
Spouse Date
Packet Pg. 1313
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 37
(EXAMPLE ONLY)

STATEMENT OF RENTAL POLICY

THIS COMMUNITY WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY PERSON BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, FAMILIAL STATUS, OR DISABILITY.

OCCUPANCY STANDARD: TWO (2) PERSON MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY PER BEDROOM RENTAL APPLICATION EVALUATION GUIDELINES:
▪ Age Requirement: Lease holder(s) must be 18 years or older. All occupants 18 years or older will be required to complete an application (even if living with parent or guardian). Co-signers are not accepted. ▪ Income Requirement: The gross monthly income of all lease holder(s) will be considered jointly and must equal times the rental amount on the apartment. All income must be verifiable. ▪ Employment Verification: *Lease holder(s) must be currently employed or provide written evidence of regular income sufficient to at least times the rental amount on the apartment, for the lease term. ▪ Self Employment: Must provide the previous year’s personal income tax return and the previous two (2) months personal bank statements as evidence of sufficient income. Persons who hold jobs that are commission only, or base salary plus commission, or tips, bonuses will be considered self-employed. ▪ Residency: Up to two (2) years residency history will be reviewed and must exhibit no derogatory references. Any debt owed to a Concierge property must be paid before lease can be approved. ▪ Credit Requirements: The credit history will be reviewed and no more than % of the total accounts reported can be over 60 days past due or charged to collection in the past two years. ▪ Pets: All pets are subject to property policy.
▪ Application Fee: A $ non-refundable application fee is required per application. ▪ Criminal History: Must exhibit no criminal conviction involving violence, firearms, illegal drugs, theft, crimes involving theft, or destruction of property, or any crime involving a minor.

This will include person(s) who have received deferred adjudication and/or have not yet satisfied the probationary period of a deferred adjudication for any of the above-mentioned offenses.

ADDENDUM TO THE APPLICATION:

Are you a current illegal abuser of a controlled substance? Have you ever been convicted of the illegal use, manufacture, sale or distribution of a controlled substance?

I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THESE QUALIFYING STANDARDS AND HAVE TRUTHFULLY ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS. FURTHER, I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSIFICATION OF RENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION WILL LEAD TO DENIAL OF RENTAL. CONCIERGE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION’S RENTAL POLICIES ARE GUIDELINES, WHICH ENABLE US TO ACCEPT AS

PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CREDITWORTHY AND DO NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND. THIS RENTAL POLICY DOES NOT ENSURE THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS RESIDING ON OR VISITING THE PROPERTY CONFORM TO THESE GUIDELINES. / /
Prospective Resident Date Prospective Resident Date
/ /
Prospective Resident Date Agent For Owner Date
Packet Pg. 1314
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
39 REFUSING AN APPLICATION
Try to resolve the applicant’s questions by using as few of these techniques as possible.

Note: This is derived from an article that appeared in Property Management Magazine October 1992 BOTTOM LINE:

PLAN YOUR WORDS VERY

CAREFULLY --

DISCRIMINATION SUITS ARE

FILED WHEN MANAGERS SAY
TOO MUCH!
Packet Pg. 1315
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
40 PART FIVE

COMMON SENSE SELF DEFENSE

AWARENESS IS THE KEY
Most crimes can be prevented if there is careful consideration given to measures proven to reduce the likelihood of criminal activity. It is important to assess the types of crimes that have occurred on the property, as well as crimes that have been committed on similar properties. To discount the possibility of crime because “It has never happened before” is not using good sense.

It is imperative to understand the potential for many crimes to exists and that steps to prevent those crimes should be taken before they occur. Many times, crime prevention involves keen awareness of the surrounding area, and that doesn’t cost a lot of money. Using a buddy system after hours is one inexpensive way to reduce the likelihood of an attack.

WORKING AFTER DARK
When working late, it is a good idea to have another person in the office or nearby. A person walking to a car alone is much more likely to be attacked than a person who is walking with somebody else is. There is strength in numbers! If a person must walk out to their car alone, it is a good idea to have the car as close to the office as possible, reducing the walking distance. Whenever possible, employees (especially employees who may leave after dark) should be given assigned parking spaces closest to the office area or be allowed to move their vehicles closer before it gets dark.

If this is not possible, assign an area as close as possible which has excellent security lighting that cannot be easily disabled. It is also essential, when trimming bushes or trees, to keep in mind the casual observers who may live or be visiting in the general area. Keeping bushes and trees trimmed and/or removing any objects that may block surveillance of the area or offer a hiding place for an attacker will also allow the casual observer an open field of vision into the area.

Packet Pg. 1316
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
41 EMPLOYEE TRAINING PROGRAMS
Employees should receive training to prepare themselves for all types of crime situations. Typically, police departments will offer free classes that deal with common sense self defense. There are also private firms that can take the training one step further, even offering chemical sprays or other devices to discourage an attack.

When working alone in an office an employee should be
certain that all doors and windows have been secured. It is a good practice to notify another person when working late as well. There should be a telephone nearby, should they need to call the police or another person for assistance.

STAY IN TOUCH
Cellular telephones and two-way radios are another good way to stay in touch, not only when someone is in the office, but when they have to step out for a moment as well. Pagers are another good way to summon help from maintenance people or grounds keepers. Many property managers have established special codes that can be entered into digital pagers to quickly identify problem situations that may occur.

ARMED ROBBERY PREVENTION
Armed robbery is a serious concern not often recognized by property managers or leasing staff. It is not uncommon for managers to collect thousands of dollars during the first part of the month. Keep in mind, an armed robber will kill a convenience store clerk for $50.00 in cash. Many property managers keep much more than this available in the form of petty cash alone.

Earlier, we addressed Risk Management and the option of Risk Acceptance or accepting the risk. In this case, Risk Transference would involve transferring that risk by purchasing a good safe with a special courier service.

Risk Spreading is a third option in risk management. This involves keeping money in different locations, so even if one safe area is found, the money in other safe areas may go undetected. Another way to spread the risk is to make frequent deposits with smaller amounts per deposit.

Risk Avoidance is a fourth option. Make a “No Cash Accepted” policy in the office. This can also help to prevent internal theft and embezzlement, by avoiding a situation entirely.

Packet Pg. 1317
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 42
At the very least, property managers should place signs in highly visible areas that say the management will not accept cash and they keep no cash on the premises. Recommended areas are at the front door and at reception or desk areas.

The potential for an armed robbery is not only in the office, but at the night drop as well, and everywhere in between. The potential for the money to be left behind, dropped or stolen is considerably high. The risk to employees who carry the money may be even higher.

Packet Pg. 1318
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 43

CRIME FREE ACRES
Apartment Community
TO: All Employees
FROM: Kristy Manager
RE: Safety Policy
All applicants shall be required to show a state issued or military photo identification card. This card shall be photocopied and placed in a secure place while the applicant looks at the unit. The identification will be returned immediately afterwards.

Property managers and agents shall require the applicant to complete a Guest Information Card in the applicant’s own handwriting. This should include their current address and phone number. (This policy should be posted as well.) Property managers and agents shall notify another person about the showing before you go and tell them what time you expect to return. If, for whatever reason, you feel in danger, do not take any risks! Trust your instincts! Reschedule the showing for another time when you are more comfortable.

When showing an apartment to a prospective resident, allow them to enter first.

Position yourself by the nearest exit. Leave the door open wide until you leave but be aware for suspicious people lurking outside the unit. NEVER follow the prospect into another room. If you feel threatened, leave immediately and call for help.

Always keep vacant apartments or model units well secured. When entering vacant units by yourself, lock the door behind you. It is a good idea to carry a radio or cellular phone with you. If possible, have a staff member accompany you when you make your appointed rounds.

At the very least, agents should consider carrying a whistle, personal alarm or self-defense spray, and know the hazards and limitations of whichever method they choose. Self-defense classes may be another option to consider. Firearms are generally not a good option for many people.

Report all suspicious activity to police and management immediately! (It is a good idea to have a written policy posted where all applicants will see it.) Packet Pg. 1319
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 44

PART SIX

COMMUNITY RULES AND LEASE AGREEMENTS

USE A CURRENT LEASE AGREEMENT
Many property managers are using
rental agreements that are either
outdated or in some cases illegal.

Rental agreements should
frequently be reviewed by an
attorney or a person very familiar
with landlord-tenant laws.

Frequently, State of California
Landlord-Tenant laws will change,
and a lease agreement may have
to be revised to keep up with those
changes. Rental agreements that
are outdated often do not hold up
in court. The Apartment Owners Association may be able to provide an updated lease agreement, as well as other management forms.

ITEMS THAT MAY BE IN THE LEASE:
o Cleaning/Redecorating Fees
o Utilities Costs
o Maintenance of the Premises
o Pet Policies
o No Business Clause
o Key Control
o Security Deposits
o Alterations and Improvements
o Use and Occupancy Restrictions
o Rules and Regulations
o Parking Restrictions
o Cancellation Fees
o Late or Partial Payment Fees
NOTE: Laws may vary considerably from state to state. Make sure your rental agreement is appropriate for current California laws. Always consult with an attorney or somebody very familiar with landlord-tenant laws, before enacting new lease agreements.

USE OF THE CRIME FREE LEASE ADDENDUM
The Crime Free Lease Addendum was developed to give reasonable notice to new residents (at the time they enter into the rental agreement) about activities or behaviors that contradict property rules, regulations, lease agreements or state statutes.

Packet Pg. 1320
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 45

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM

CRIME-FREE LEASE ADDENDUM
In consideration of the execution or renewal of a lease of the dwelling unit identified in the lease, Owner and Resident agree as follows:

1. Resident, any members of the resident’s household or a guest or other person under the resident’s control shall not engage in criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity, on or near the said premises. “Drug-related criminal activity” means the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to manufacture, sell, distribute, or use of a controlled substance (as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act [21 U.S.C. 802]).

2. Resident, any member of the resident’s household or a guest or other person under the resident’s control shall not engage in any act intended to facilitate criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity, on or near the said premises.

3. Resident or members of the household will not permit the dwelling unit to be used for, or to facilitate criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity, regardless of whether the individual engaging in such activity is a member of the household, or a guest.

4. Resident, any member of the resident’s household or a guest, or another person under the resident’s control shall not engage in the unlawful manufacturing, selling, using, storing, keeping, or giving of a controlled substance as defined in Health & Safety Code §11350, et seq., at any locations, whether on or near the dwelling unit premises or otherwise.

5. Resident, any member of the resident’s household, or a guest or another person under the resident’s control shall not engage in any illegal activity, including: prostitution as defined in Penal Code §647(b); criminal street gang activity, as defined in Penal Code §186.20 et seq.; criminal threats, as prohibited in Penal Code §422 PC; assault and battery, as prohibited in Penal Code §240; burglary, as prohibited in Penal Code §459; the unlawful use and discharge of firearms, as prohibited in Penal Code §245; sexual offenses, as prohibited in Penal Code §269 and 288, or any breach of the lease agreement that otherwise jeopardizes the health, safety and welfare of the landlord, his agent or other tenant or involving imminent or actual serious property damage.

6. VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS SHALL BE A MATERIAL AND IRREPARABLE VIOLATION OF THE LEASE AND GOOD CAUSE FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OF TENANCY. A single violation of any of the provisions of this added addendum shall be deemed a serious violation and a material and irreparable non-compliance. It is understood that a single violation shall be good cause for termination of the lease. Unless otherwise provided by law, proof of violation shall not require criminal conviction, but shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.

7. In case of conflict between the provisions of this addendum and any other provisions of the lease, the provisions of the addendum shall govern.

8. This LEASE ADDENDUM is incorporated into the lease executed or renewed this day between Owner and Resident.

Property Name/ Address: Unit #
Resident Signature: Date:

Resident Signature: Date:

Owner or Agent Signature: Date:

Packet Pg. 1321
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 46
The Crime Free Lease Addendum should be applied equally and fairly to all residents of an apartment community. The Crime Free Lease Addendum should be signed by all NEW residents.

If a rental agreement is involved rather than a lease, the Crime Free Addendum can be applied to both new and existing tenants.

COMMUNICATION IS THE KEY
Be very certain to communicate your policy against subletting. The tenant should NOT be allowed to sublet, transfer or assign a lease agreement, the premises, or any part thereof without the management’s prior written consent. If the management gives written consent to sublet, such consent may include a provision that does not release the tenant from any liability.

Only persons listed on the lease, and the tenant’s temporary guest, shall be allowed to occupy the premises or any part thereof, without the management’s prior written consent. A temporary guest shall be construed as someone who resides with the tenant for a short period of time (usually no longer than 10-14 days).

Any type of drug activity or other illegal activity committed on or near the rental property will not be tolerated, and management will take reasonable and appropriate action against residents who violate the Crime Free Lease Addendum.

Residents are responsible for members of the resident’s household and guests (under their control) when it comes to illegal or non-compliant behavior on the property. It is important to stress to new residents that they should accompany their guests whenever possible to be certain they follow community rules. Guests should not be allowed into recreational or common areas unless they are with a resident of the property.

Residents, members of the resident’s household or a guest (under the resident’s control), shall not disturb the other resident’s peaceful enjoyment of the premises. If complaints are received, the management should carefully document the information and serve the appropriate notice. Even if the property manager did not witness the disturbance, notice should still be served if the complainant is willing to testify in court. Let the judge decide.

Inspection policies should be clearly stated. Typically, a move-in inspection is conducted before the resident takes possession of the unit, and other inspection is completed when the resident returns possession of the unit back to the property management. In addition, property managers or maintenance should conduct quarterly or bi-annual inspections of all units to be sure the property is not being abused and all appliances are being maintained.

Packet Pg. 1322
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 47

NO BUSINESS CLAUSE
Residents should not be permitted to conduct any business, legal or otherwise, on the property. This causes a lot of foot traffic in and out of rental units, visitors who park in “assigned” spaces, and excessive traffic in the parking lots. This business may also be a “front” for illegal activity. If management desires to allow enterprising, the manager should approve each request and keep an agreement in the resident’s file.

Resident will agree to:
• limited hours
• limited noise
• limited foot traffic
• responsibility for all visitors.

Packet Pg. 1323
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 48

PART SEVEN

BUILDING APARTMENT COMMUNITIES

NOT A COMPLEX
Rental properties are not complexes. Complexes are disorders! Rental properties are small communities where people live, and many raise a family.

It is important to view each property as a community within a community. Residents need to feel they are a vital part of a healthy community. When residents feel at home, they are more apt to take pride and ownership of the area.

If residents of a rental property are fearful or not familiar with others in that community, many problems can result. Residents will be less likely to report suspicious or illegal activity, and that causes apathy.

When apathy pervades, soon drug dealers and other undesirables will begin to take over the area. The only thing necessary for these activities to flourish is for good residents to do nothing to stop it. It does not take long for those who perpetrate illegal activity to realize no one is going to report them.

NOT A POLICE PROBLEM
Crime is NOT a police problem. It is a COMMUNITY
problem. The police ARE a part of the community, so
this does not exclude the police. It certainly is the
police department's role to arrest people involved in
illegal activity, but if the management re-rents to
others committing criminal acts, the problem does not
go away.

For example, if neighbors complain that various types
of illegal activity are making a park unsafe for
children to play in, this is not necessarily a police
problem. The police can remove the persons
committing crimes in the park, but if the residents do
not follow-up by using the park, other illegal activities will soon begin again.

Packet Pg. 1324
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 49

PROBLEM SOLVING
1 2
3 4
5 6
Packet Pg. 1325
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 50

HOW TO BEGIN
To build an apartment community you need to start with residents that care about their environment. Frequently property managers will say that residents are aware of illegal activity occurring on the property, but they are unwilling to give their names or make a written report.

In strong apartment communities, residents will not tolerate illegal activity, and are even willing to testify in court about abhorrent behavior among other residents. Remember that criminals are like predators, seeking the easy target. If they are able to scare residents into silence, they can perpetrate the crimes.

As previously stated, one of the most violent elements in society today is apathy. Ignoring a crime problem will allow it to flourish more rapidly. It works the same way as weeds.

Ignoring a problem will not make it go away. Usually, it will get worse.

Residents need to understand that they are a vital part of the community's health and well-being. The SAN BERNARDINO CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM teaches residents how to be effective eyes and ears of the community.

To attract conscientious residents, you must have a clean property. Properties that have fallen into disrepair will not attract responsible residents. A property that is clean and well maintained will. It begins with curb appeal; how your property looks.

FORM VS FUNCTION
While a small sports car may be very attractive, it does not offer much protection in an accident. The 1955 sedan that weighs twice as much (or more) will offer better protection. The point is it does not matter how pretty something is. If it is not safe, it is not practical.

Property management will spend tens of thousands of dollars to beautify a property, but they will not invest in security lighting. A person looking for a safe place to live may shy away from a property that is too dark, however, a drug criminal may choose a property for that very reason.

Attracting good residents is the first step to building an apartment community. You need to begin by cleaning house...literally. It does not cost a lot of money to pick up litter or other garbage and broken glass. Trimming trees and bushes does not have to be expensive either. Responsible applicants will come if they feel responsible management is running the property.

Packet Pg. 1326
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 51
It is difficult to attract good residents if you have
current residents loitering in the parking lots or
common areas drinking alcohol or using drugs.

People who conduct this kind of behavior will not
only prevent good residents from moving in; they will
influence your best residents not to renew their
lease.

You cannot build an apartment community if you do
not remove all the obstacles that stand in your way.

It is a good idea to visit the property at all times of the day and night to see how the residents behave.

This is especially important for properties with off-site management or absentee landlords. Do not rely on
independent management companies that contract
their services. Many times, they are chiefly
concerned only with collecting the rent.

THE NEXT STEP
Once you have attracted the right applicants, be sure to sell them on the benefits of your particular property. It is a great idea to highlight the best features of the property. But keep in mind many properties have great amenities. You need to appeal to their concerns about safety and security.

While no property manager can guarantee a resident will not be affected by crime, a resident will take great comfort in knowing the property has established a good rapport with the local police. Good prospects will be happy to hear management is a member of the SAN BERNARDINO CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM. Prospects with a history of drug or other illegal activity may simply say, “Thank you, there is one other place I want to look at first.”
Be fair but be firm in your residency requirements. It is your right. One property manager notorious for her strict guidelines was reported to the Attorney General's office for possible discrimination. People from various classes were sent to the property to audit the manager.

The report concluded the manager was equally rude to everyone; there was no discrimination, she was just very strict.

Once a resident shows interest in the property, let them know that all residents at the property have been required to sign the Crime Free Lease Addendum and pass a criminal background check. While this is no guarantee, it does show that management is doing everything they can legally do to reduce the likelihood of criminal activity on the property.

Packet Pg. 1327
52 San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program

CLOSING THE DEAL
Once an applicant has been approved for residency, they will come into the office to review community rules and sign the rental agreements. This is a good time to explain management and resident responsibilities.

Property managers should reiterate their responsibilities, and the responsibilities of the residents. This is a great way to establish a professional, yet personal, rapport with the new residents.

KEEP IT GOING
It is a great idea to sponsor community activities at
least quarterly. These activities should appeal to all
age groups. Try to plan various activities that are
sure to draw as many residents as possible. When
residents withdraw into their units and do not
socialize with neighbors, this leads to apathy and
sometimes hostility among residents.

When residents feel they are a part of a community,
they are more likely to work out differences with
neighbors. Residents who do not associate with
neighbors are much more likely to make complaints
to management. People who use rental properties to
promote illegal activity prefer to live in properties
where residents keep to themselves, and community
activities are less frequent.

To attract younger residents, it may be necessary to invite a band, disc jockey, or sponsor a night of karaoke. This is likely to draw a lot of residents, especially if you have free food, drinks and giveaways to raffle off. By having functions that include all ages, residents begin to put names with faces, and faces with unit numbers. Younger residents will be less likely to cause problems in an area where they are well known.

Packet Pg. 1328
53 San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program

PART EIGHT

ACTIVE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

TAKING A COMPLAINT
An apartment community needs active management to deal with the daily problems that can arise among residents and guests. A manager should always be fair and impartial when hearing about resident complaints. It is good management to hear both sides of the story whenever possible. Calling both residents into the office may be one way of resolving small problems between residents.

In cases where there is a potential for violence, it may be necessary to call the police, or at the very least try to keep the residents apart. If the complaint amounts to a breach of the rental agreement or the Crime Free Lease Addendum, and one or several residents are willing to write a complaint and testify in court, you may want to serve the notice even though you were not an eyewitness to the event. Let the judge decide.

When property managers show a genuine interest in the residents’ concerns, it encourages the residents to take ownership of the community. If residents feel their concerns will fall on deaf ears, they will stop bringing issues to management. This is not a good thing, as small problems will progress to larger ones, and those problems can lead to catastrophes.

ROUTINE PROPERTY INSPECTIONS
Pursuant to Civil Code §1954, the landlord must serve a 24-hour notice to gain access to the property. If a manager or agent of the property enters the unit without legal notice, the resident may be entitled to monetary damages.

In some larger properties it may not be possible to inspect every unit on a quarterly or semiannual basis, but for smaller rental properties it could be a valuable use of time. Routine property inspections should be conducted for all residents equally and fairly.

Routine inspections may be conducted for the purpose of replacing air conditioning filters or inspecting a property for damage, when reasonable grounds exist that a problem has occurred (such as roach infestation or water damage).

Packet Pg. 1329
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 54
Inspections should never be conducted for the purpose of singling out a particular resident without cause. It should never be done for personal reasons or for retaliation on the part of the management.

If residents refuse to allow the manager or an agent
to inspect the unit or any part of the unit, the
manager may serve a three-day notice for noncompliance. Residents cannot install interior dead bolts or refuse an inspection of a part of the unit. If a resident does refuse access such refusal is
sufficient grounds for eviction.

In an emergency situation, such as fire or water
damage, a manager may enter the unit without
serving notice to protect the property from excessive
damage. If the manager has reason to believe a
resident may be injured or ill, they may enter the unit to check the welfare of the resident if other attempts
do not work.

GOOD PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
Building Maintenance - The building should have a light-colored paint to reflect ambient light. Keep it looking cared for.

Stairs/Balconies - Stairs & balconies should not have a cluttered appearance. They should appear clean and safe.

Courtyards - Keep trees and bushes trimmed. Maintain good lighting and litter control.

Common Areas - Laundry and recreational areas should be clean, well lit and promote a sense of safety.

Parking Lots - Maintain lighting, asphalt and signage. Paint speed bumps and fire lanes as necessary.

Perimeter Fencing - Inspect for damage to structures and repair immediately. Paint over graffiti ASAP.

Litter Control - All members of the management team should pick up litter or debris whenever they see it. Encourage residents to help keep “their community” clean.

Packet Pg. 1330
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 55

PART NINE

COMBATING CRIME PROBLEMS
WHO'S JOB IS IT?
Property managers get frustrated very quickly when trying to report crime problems to the police. It just seems the police don’t show enough interest. If they cared, they would arrest the troublemakers, right? Well, it’s not that easy.

Some property managers are viewed as apathetic
toward crime. It appears that property managers
intentionally rent to anyone, as long as they pay the
rent. Some police officers are viewed as apathetic
toward problems that arise in rental communities. It
appears the police are in too much of a hurry to get to the next call, or the next cup of coffee.

The truth is, there are some property managers and
police officers that could do a better job. But the
majority of police officers and property managers are
doing their best. There is just the issue of
misconceptions about what the police can and cannot
do, as well as what the property manager can and
cannot do.

The Displacement Theory
If management depends too heavily upon the police to deal with criminal activity on the property, they’ll likely be disappointed. The police cannot do very much alone. For example, consider the balloon displacement theory.

If a balloon is squeezed from one side, all of the air is displaced to the other side. When the balloon is released, all of the air comes back again. The police have this same effect on crime. The police can respond to a crime problem, apply pressure, and displace the problem. But as soon as they move on to the next area, and they WILL have to, the problem returns.

If a property manager squeezes one side of a balloon, maintenance squeezes another side, the police another side, and residents squeeze from the top and bottom, the balloon will burst. This team can have the same effect on crime. There is strength in numbers! United against crime, the team will always win.

Packet Pg. 1331
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 56
Police officers do not have sufficient training in civil laws regarding landlord/tenant disputes.

Frequently, the police expect the property management to do things that just are not allowed. The reverse is true. Many times, the police are asked to do things that they are not allowed to do either. Because there is not enough time spent on explaining why a particular action cannot be taken, the other sees this refusal as apathy.

CIVIL LAWS VS. CRIMINAL LAWS
To clear up the matter, we first have to see the differences between civil and criminal matters. They have very little in common. In fact, sometimes they have NOTHING AT ALL in
common. Property managers work with the Landlord & Tenant Act (civil laws) while the police work with California criminal laws. The rules and the penalties are entirely different. The amount of evidence a police officer needs for probable cause to make an arrest is much higher than the preponderance of evidence you need as a property manager.

Criminal Law
When you think of criminal laws, think of Perry Mason, the judge and jury. When you think of civil laws, think of Judge Wapner and The People's Court. The issues and the procedures are quite different.

In criminal law, the police must have probable cause to arrest someone. Suspicion is not enough. Probable cause is where an officer knows a crime happened, and believes the perpetrator is the one being detained. When an officer begins to question the person who just got arrested, they must tell the suspect about their right to remain silent. The police cannot search an apartment without a warrant, and they are not easy to obtain.

If the officer is able to build enough evidence to arrest a suspect, there is still no guarantee the prosecutor’s office will file charges. If charges are filed, there is no guarantee the person will be brought to a jury trial. If the person is brought to a jury trial, there is no guarantee the jury will convict. If the jury convicts, there is no guarantee the person will go to prison. If the person goes to prison, there is no guarantee they will stay there very long.

In many cases, plea bargains are made, probation is given, and in some situations, the charges are just dropped. In most cases, the people that get arrested at rental properties do not go to prison. They are released very soon after being arrested, and they go right back home to their apartment.

Packet Pg. 1332
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 57
Civil Law
In civil law, the procedure is much different. Property managers do not need probable cause to question a resident and they do not have to read them their rights. Property managers have the right to enter rental units (as provided by law), and they don’t need a search warrant! If the resident has committed a breach of the rental agreement, the resident must appear in court or risk losing the judgment.

In civil court there is not the typical courtroom scenario. You might be surprised not to see a jury. Each person stands before a judge; the judge weighs out both sides of the issue based on the evidence presented and renders judgment. That’s it.

In criminal cases, a jury must be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. In civil law, the judge only needs to see a preponderance of evidence. A preponderance of evidence is MUCH less than proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. A preponderance of evidence could be only 51% to win. Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt requires virtually 100% to win the case.

VS.

Criminal Preponderance
98%-100%
Civil Preponderance
51+%

TAKING ACTION
If a resident is conducting illegal activity at the rental property, a criminal conviction may not be as expedient as taking civil action. For instance, if a resident is suspected of selling drugs or gang activity, you should contact the police, but be prepared to take action yourself. There may not be a whole lot the police can do to help you in some cases.

Document all of the activities you and others have observed, because you may have more ability to deal with the situation. For example:

Packet Pg. 1333
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 58
HE’S GOT A GUN!
The City of San Bernardino frequently receives calls from property managers and other concerned residents about a person on the property with a gun.

As long as the person is not pointing the gun at anyone or posing a threat, carrying the gun loaded, or concealed without a permit, the person is probably not breaking California law. It is not against the law for a person to carry a gun, if the gun (or the holster) is visible and is not loaded. If it is concealed, they must possess a concealed weapon permit issued by the Sheriff or Chief of Police.

Criminal laws against threatening a resident or another person require a considerable amount of proof. Civil laws regarding residents of rental property include intimidation, which is a lot easier to prove. In this case, the management may have more authority to deal with gun-toting residents than the police.

Although property managers have tried to make rules prohibiting residents from carrying guns on the property, they may be ruled as conflicting with the constitutional right to bear arms (in violation of the Second Amendment). However, rules regarding the behaviors associated with firearms will be more enforceable.

GANG MEMBERSHIP
It’s not against the law to be in a gang. It is against the law to commit criminal gang activity. Membership in a gang, in and of itself, is not illegal.

A gang is a group of people together for a common purpose. A criminal gang is a group of people together for criminal purposes.

There is a big difference.

If a gang member commits a criminal act on the property, (spray painting, for example), now the police can get involved. But if the suspect is a juvenile, DON’T be surprised if they are immediately released to a parent.

If neighboring residents complain the suspected gang member’s friends are disturbing their peaceful enjoyment of the premises, you may be able to serve a 10-day notice. This would apply to loud music, loud parties, verbal fights or other breaches of the rental agreement.

Packet Pg. 1334
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 59

DRUGS IN APARTMENTS
What will you do if an employee in a resident’s unit discovers drugs? Some management companies may want you to take the drugs to the office, another company may recommend that you secure the office, and yet some companies may want you to get a witness. In all cases you should notify the police. They will secure a search warrant.

Check with your company’s attorney for legal advice in advance. In one case, a maintenance person took needles, which turned out to belong to an insulin dependent diabetic who was very angry with management. Bottom-line, consider your actions! Drugs can be extremely dangerous; caution should always be exercised. It is not advisable to pick up or remove drugs, drug pipes, needles or other paraphernalia. At the very least, rubber gloves should be worn when touching any of these items.

Needles are especially dangerous, not only because of the drugs themselves, but because of the likelihood of the transmission of Hepatitis or the H.I.V. virus. Because children and adults frequently craw into dumpsters, this is not a good place to dispose of them. Maintenance and grounds keepers should also be on the lookout for needles and other stashes in remote areas of the property and inside broken sections of block fences.

GENERAL DISTURBANCES
Loud music, loud parties and just rowdy behavior can be very annoying. The police can ask residents to reduce the noise, but frequently they will soon begin again. The management has the most power to deal with this non-compliance. A resident should be served with a 10-day notice for each breach of the rental agreement, if appropriate. The manager can simply tell the resident to stop violating the rental agreement, or the next time the violation happens it will be grounds for an eviction.

WHO HAS THE POWER?
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the power of the police. The property manager has much more power to remove a resident from the property, since there is a contractual arrangement.

However, there are some things the police can do that managers cannot. But more often what the management can do, the police cannot. Together the police and management can work with responsible residents to solve virtually any problems. It takes a concerted effort, and both sides have to be willing to do as much as possible. Though it may seem easier for the police to deal with it, which is not always the case. Here is another example:

Packet Pg. 1335
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 60

TRESPASSING
If a rental agreement has clearly stated policies regarding unauthorized occupants, the property manager can typically serve a notice for the resident to remedy the breach in 10 days, or face eviction. This is often the case with unauthorized pets.

While these stories may sound far-fetched, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction! These are actual cases.

ATTEMPTED MURDER
“9-1-1, what is your emergency?”
“It’s my husband, he has a gun, and he says he’s going to kill me.” “Okay, stay on the line. I have several officers responding to your apartment as we're talking.”
"Please hurry."
"Which unit number are you in?"
CLICK -- Dial tone.
“Hello? Are you still there?”
(The line is busy on call back.)
The police respond at 1:40 a.m., set up a perimeter, and evacuate all of the neighboring units. It’s the middle of the night, it’s cold outside, but the neighbors could be in danger.

They must leave.

For several hours the police negotiate with the gunman, but he refuses to put the gun down.

The hostage negotiator is also unsuccessful.

At about 7:00 a.m., the police fire tear gas into the unit, breaking the window and burning the curtains and carpeting. The rental unit smells bad. Fortunately, nobody is seriously injured. The S.W.A.T. Team takes the suspect into custody.

By 7:11 a.m. the suspect is handcuffed and placed into the back of a waiting patrol car. By 8:00 a.m. he is in front of a judge; by 9:45 a.m. he’s released and has his guns back.

The manager is livid! She calls the police and insists on knowing why the police let this man go?
The response is, "The police did NOT let this man go, the judge did." The police department’s job is to take a suspect before a judge. After that, it is up to the judge! If the judge orders the police to release him, they have to do it.

Packet Pg. 1336
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 61
The manager lashes back, "I want to know why the judge let him go?" The response it, “It happens all the time. The courts are so busy, and the jails are overcrowded, so not everyone goes to jail.

If you call the sheriff, he'll tell you he doesn't have enough money or facilities because of budget cuts. It all comes back to the people who say, "No new taxes." In a way, the people blame the police, the police blame the judge, the judge blames the sheriff, and the sheriff blames the people...who blame the police, who blame the judge, who blame the sheriff, who blames the people...

The irony of this true story is the manager was mad at the police for not doing their job, when in fact, they did all they could. The manager, however, did not do HER job. This was the third time the police were called to the same apartment unit in less than 10 months. The manager chose not to evict him the previous two times because she knew the resident was having personal problems.

Packet Pg. 1337
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 62
MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY
Frequently managers complain about all the
problems they are having with a particular resident.

They can tell many stories, but when asked to show
written documentation of non-compliance, often the
manager has not kept records.

One manager was asked if he ever served a 10-day
notice. His reply was "What's a 10-day notice?"
It is not uncommon to find managers who only know
about the 5-day notice for non-payment of rent.

They feel they were hired only to collect the rent,
and it is the police department’s job to deal with
undesirable behavior involving residents.

Granted, most apartment managers are
familiar with the various notices, but far
too many don't use them as often as
they should. The three (3) keys to any successful eviction are “document... document... DOCUMENT”.

Packet Pg. 1338
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 63
RESIDENT’S RESPONSIBILITY
Train residents - to recognize and report illegal activity.

Empower residents - to form Block Watches and resident councils.

Establish relationships/rapport - attend meetings, use suggestion boxes, have an opendoor policy.

Set goals - for residents.

Smaller, short-term goals at first
• people get discouraged
• people need successes
• people need a series of goals
• remind residents of goals
• advertise successes
Larger, long-term goals later
▪ more impact on community
▪ more difficult, but more rewards

A TEN-STEP PROCESS

1. Contact all residents.

2. Arrange a timely meeting.

3. Provide handouts.

4. Follow up with newsletter to all residents who don’t show up.

5. Have property manager facilitate meeting.

6. Arrange police/fire department presenter.

7. Present crime statistics.

8. Present reasons for crime.

9. Present resources.

10. Present solutions.

Packet Pg. 1339
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 64

PART TEN

PARTNERSHIP WITH THE POLICE

THE POLICE WILL NOT TALK TO US
Frequently managers will complain that the police do not stop at the office to report why they are called to the property. There are some very legitimate reasons why.

Some problems are so minor, the officer may not feel it warrants reporting. For example, a couple has a verbal dispute, as many people do, but no one is hurt; the situation is minor, and there is no reason to “air the dirty laundry” to the neighbors.

Though it may be the manager who walks up to the officer asking about the call, the officer may not feel it is appropriate to disclose the information. It is also possible the officer is not certain the person is really the manager.

Many times, the officer is in a hurry to clear the call and get on to the next one that is waiting. Domestic calls take a lot of time in and of themselves, and officers are always being criticized about their response time by the next person who is waiting.

The time it takes to locate a manager (and re-tell the whole story) can easily amount to 15 minutes, a half-hour or more.

This is especially true when the manager has a lot they want to say to the officer as well.

Some officers feel the manager is not going to follow through anyway. Though it may be hard to believe, there are property managers that are nosy. They never follow through with the appropriate notices, they just want to know everybody's business.

If a police officer knows the property manager actually follows through with an appropriate course of action, there is greater incentive to talk with the manager. The officer really does not want to keep coming back for the same problem repeatedly.

Meet with the officer, even if you have to call the dispatcher to schedule an appointment.

When the officer arrives, let them know you are an active member of the CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM, and you are willing to work with the police. Meeting the officer is the first step.

Keep in mind, one officer works day shift, another works the swing shift, and another works graveyard shift. Also, other officers fill in on their days off! It could take a while to meet them all.

Packet Pg. 1340
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 65

PRIVACY LAWS
There is another very key issue to be addressed. That is the issue of privacy laws. A police officer cannot stop by in person, or leave a card in the office telling you the “who, what, when, where, why and how.”
The officer is more likely to give you a case number,
and as a matter of public record, you can request a
copy of the police report if you are an involved party.

Always try to get the case number if you get nothing
else. While the officer may not be able to give you
the names of the persons involved, they may be able
to give you the unit number they went to.

HOW TO APPROACH THE OFFICER
If you see a police officer at one of your rental units, do not interfere -- stay back. The situation may
become very volatile at any moment. The officer
may order you to stand back for your own safety.

If you are certain things are settled, you can get the officer’s attention and introduce yourself as the manager and ask to see the officer when he/she is through with the call. The less you say at this point, generally the better. Stand at a safe distance but wait for the officer.

Do not go back to the office.

When the officer is finished, let them know you are working with the CRIME FREE MULTIHOUSING PROGRAM, and get a case number. Sometimes, a case is not drawn up and no report will be written. The officer will let you know.

If the officer is able to give you more information, it will help you follow through with the necessary steps you must take. If not, get a copy of the report. Let the officer know that you do plan to follow through, and you would appreciate working with them in the future.

ESTABLISHING MORE
If a property manager has a serious problem with crime, they may choose to hire off-duty officers to patrol the property. This is a very effective way to solve serious problems with residents. If a manager cannot do that, they may want to consider private security.

Packet Pg. 1341
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 66
REQUESTING “EXTRA” PATROL
Frequently managers will call requesting “extra” patrol.

While it never hurts to ask, it may not help either.

There are hundreds of rental properties in the City,
many more properties than we have patrol officers.

One thing they all have in common is, they all want
“extra” patrol visits through the property.

Then there are the mobile home park managers that
call because several of their vacationing owner’s
mobile homes were burglarized. They all want “extra”
patrol, too.

Let’s not forget the managers of the grocery stores
that call the police looking for “extra” patrol because a customer got a purse stolen, or a car was stolen from the lot. There are more stores than there are patrol officers.

Plus, of course, there are thousands of residents that want “extra” patrol in their residential neighborhoods. Everyone wants to see more police patrols in their neighborhoods.

There are still others that feel the police ought to spend more time writing tickets for speeders and people who do not use turn signals. There just are not enough police officers to fill all those needs.

Unfortunately, the police officers cannot provide security for everyone who asks. Even if they could visit the property a couple of times per day, the likelihood that they would be at the right place at precisely the right time is very slim. The best efforts will include officers that can spend hours at the property. Random passes
through the property are ineffective, and often not possible.

NARCOTICS SURVEILLANCE
Property managers will also call the police requesting a narcotics detective to set up surveillance on a resident they suspect of using drugs. While managers are aware the detectives are not sitting by the phone hoping somebody will call soon, they may not know how many calls are received.

Narcotics detectives are highly trained and do excellent work because they have methods that work so well. Typically, they rely on a person to “introduce them” to a suspect whenever possible. If they can get close to an operation, they are more likely not only to make an arrest, but to arrest several people. If the quantities are high, they are likely to get prison time for the offender. The higher up the supply line that they penetrate, the more successful the operation.

The end user is not going to get the prison time or produce all of the other results the Packet Pg. 1342
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 67
detectives are after. They want the “bigger fish” to fry. They work the more serious cases.

There are more calls than the police have detectives. It is a matter of priority.

MANAGEMENT SURVEILLANCE
You should call to report the drug activity, because you may be providing the very key information the police have been looking for. You should also document other behaviors associated with the drug activity and serve the
appropriate notices. There is usually a string of
other evictable offenses that managers overlook,
trying to prove somebody is into drug activity.

Rarely have property managers confronted residents
with their suspicions, yet they call the police. When
asked why they have not confronted the resident
they say, “I do not have any proof.” Think about that.

The police need a lot more proof than the
manager does. The police cannot do anything
without proof.

Why can’t the police just watch and “get” the proof?
There just are not enough detectives available. The
better question is, “Why don’t the property
management teams watch the resident and get the proof?” It is much easier for those who live and work on the property to watch what is going on. They know who lives at and belongs on the property; the police do not. Because management needs a lot less proof than the police, they will get faster results civilly.

Setting up video cameras or recording license plates may provide clues, but they may also spark retaliation from the resident. Whatever action is taken, safety should always be foremost.

Packet Pg. 1343
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 68
“BUT I AM SCARED!”
Because the potential for danger is there, property managers should be more selective and forceful with prospective residents. If policies are not strictly stated in the beginning, they will be harder to enforce in the end. Prevention is the key.

Most residents will stop drug activity if they find out the manager is “onto them.” The reason most people continue this activity is because they know the manager is afraid to confront them. Even if the police arrest a resident, you will have to evict them and others on the lease. They will come back awaiting trial in most cases.

Packet Pg. 1344
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 69
ELEVEN

DEALING WITH NON-COMPLIANCE

FIRST THINGS FIRST
Many property managers use attorneys that have experience with landlord/tenant issues.

The best attorneys are usually the ones that specialize in the landlord/tenant practice.

Because many evictions are lost on technicalities, the cost for an attorney may save a lot of money down the road.

If a resident retains an attorney and their attorney sees that everything has been handled properly, they are less likely to fight an eviction. If the attorney sees the manager made mistakes in the process, they are more likely to fight the eviction, and ultimately win.

SET YOUR POLICIES
It is essential that property managers are fully aware of their options when it comes to a resident’s non-compliance with a lease agreement. There needs to be set policies to ensure that all residents are treated fairly, yet effectively. Just as with applicant screening, special care should be given to guarantee each resident is treated equally.

Some property managers use a progressive method for dealing with non-compliance. They might begin by sending a personal note, and the next time send an official notice. Some managers will make a personal contact first, then follow with an official notice. With some managers, it depends on the resident.

The best policy is to follow company policy. That usually means you will send written notice and document the incident immediately in the resident’s file. A policy should be applied equally and fairly to all residents.

DON’T BE COMPLACENT
If a manager turns a blind eye to non-compliance, he/she may risk several things.

He or she may lose their right to evict for the non-compliance at a later date. This is especially true if a manager accepts rent from a resident with an unauthorized pet or resident. Unless they use a non-waiver agreement, they could lose an eviction hearing by accepting rent.

The resident may get progressively worse, and then the situation will be more volatile.

Other residents may get the impression they can get away with the same non-compliance.

Don’t make a rule unless you plan to enforce it.

Packet Pg. 1345
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 70
If management refuses to take appropriate action against a non-compliant resident and this leads to an injury or death of another resident, the management could be sued for millions of dollars, as well as deal with their own responsibility for the death or injury.

Some property managers don’t serve the notices because they don’t know how to serve a notice, or what the various notices are for.

The CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM endeavors to clear up any questions regarding the notices and how they are served. In each class, an attorney will spend an hour with managers to answer questions. This service is free to all participants.

KNOW YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
If a notice is improperly served, or if the wrong notice is used, the case will likely be dismissed. In some cases, the manager may lose more than the judgment. For example, if a manager enters a unit to tape a notice to the bathroom mirror, that is not a proper service.

If they entered without serving a 24-hour notice, they have made a second mistake, which may entitle the resident to one free month’s, rent.

Each process has special requirements that
management needs to understand. If a property manager is unsure, they should seek the help from an attorney, or another person familiar with landlord/tenant laws and issues.

Packet Pg. 1346
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 71

PERSONAL SERVICE
If a manager chooses to serve a notice personally, he/she needs to be aware of what constitutes a good service. Most importantly, the person being served should the tenant.

If The Resident Refuses
The resident does NOT have to sign the notice, or even touch it. If the resident sees you, puts their hands into their pockets and says, “I’m not touching that!” you only need to say, “You’re served!” and drop the notice. If the resident jumps into their car and locks the door, you can place it on their windshield and tell them they are served. The same would apply if they don’t open a screen door to their unit or look out a window.

There needs to be a personal contact with the resident. Taping it to their refrigerator where they will be SURE to see it does not amount to a good service.

CERTIFIED OR REGISTERED MAIL
A notice sent by certified mail is “deemed served”
after five working days, or whenever they receive it,
whichever comes first. This may add up to five full
days to any notice served. For example, a 10-day
notice sent by certified mail might not be effective
until 15 days after it was mailed.

The notice needs to be sent to the resident’s last
known address, which is likely the rental unit, or to
the address specifically requested by the resident.

Refer to ‘5 Day Notice’ for more information.

POST AND MAIL
This is typically done for abandonment situations. A
Notice of Abandonment must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. It should be mailed to the resident’s last known address and to any alternate addresses known to management.

The Notice of Abandonment must also be posted on the door of the dwelling unit, or any other conspicuous place on the unit for a 5-day period.

Five days after the Notice of Abandonment has been posted and certified mailed, the manager may retake the unit. Refer to ‘Abandonment’ for further information.

Packet Pg. 1347
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
72 WHAT YOU NEED
5-Day Notice (non-payment)
10-Day Notice (non-compliance)
30-Day Notice (non-renewal)
10-Day (second breach)
Immediate Termination
5-Day (health/safety)
Non-Waiver Agreements
Notice of Abandonment
You should have a clean copy of each notice listed above. If a notice is difficult or impossible to read, it may not be admissible in court. Keep originals for copying purposes.

This will ensure they are legible.

The curriculum and materials should NOT be regarded as legal advice or considered a replacement for the property manager’s responsibility to be familiar with the law. For further information on the eviction process obtain an attorney’s advice.

Packet Pg. 1348
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
73 PART TWELVE

FIRE DEPARTMENT
MANUAL
Packet Pg. 1349
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
74 FORWARD
Perhaps nothing is as devastating as fire out of control. Fire can kill, disable, and completely disrupt people's lives. Fire can ruin businesses and destroy livelihoods.

According to the US Fire Administration, 20 percent of fires in the United States occur in apartments.

This training is provided to help equip you with the information you need to significantly reduce the possibility of fire occurring in your complex. If you have questions pertaining to any information contained in this manual, contact the San Bernardino County Fire Community Safety Division at (909) 386-8400.

FIRE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE
Many forms and informative tools are available for your convenience on our website. • Visit the Fire Department website at http://www.sbcfire.org/ Packet Pg. 1350
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
75 SMOKE DETECTORS
The majority of fatal home fires happen at night, when people are asleep. Contrary to popular belief, the smell of smoke may not wake a sleeping person. The poisonous gases and smoke produced by a fire can numb the senses.

Inexpensive household smoke detectors sound an alarm, alerting you to a fire. By giving you time to escape, smoke detectors cut your risk of dying in a home fire nearly in half.

Choosing a Detector
Be sure that the smoke detectors you buy carry the label of an independent testing laboratory (UL). Several types of detectors are available. Some run on batteries, others on household current. Some detect smoke using “ionization” sensor; others use a "photoelectric" detection system. All approved smoke detectors, regardless of the type, will offer adequate protection provided they are installed and maintained properly.

Is One Enough?
Every home should have a smoke detector outside each sleeping area and on every level of the home, including the basement. The National Fire Alarm Code, developed by NFPA, requires a smoke detector in each sleeping room for new construction. On floors without bedrooms, detectors should be installed in or near living areas, such as dens, living rooms, or family rooms. Be sure everyone sleeping in your home can hear your smoke detector's alarms. If any residents are hearing-impaired or sleep with bedroom doors closed, install additional detectors inside sleeping areas as well. There are special smoke detectors for the hearing impaired; these flash a light in addition to sounding an audible alarm. For extra protection, NFPA suggests installing detectors in dining rooms, furnace rooms, utility rooms, and hallways. Smoke detectors are not recommended for kitchens, bathrooms, or garages - where cooking fumes, steam or exhaust fumes could set off false alarms - or for attics and other unheated spaces where humidity and temperature changes might affect a detector's operation.

Where to Install
Because smoke rises, mount detectors high on a wall or on the ceiling. Wall-mounted units should be mounted so that the top of the detector is 4 to 12 inches (10 to 30 cm) from the ceiling. A ceiling-mounted detector should be attached at least four inches (10 cm) away from the nearest wall. In a room with a pitched ceiling, mount the detector at or near the ceiling's highest point. In stairways with no doors at the top or bottom, position smoke detectors anywhere in the path of smoke moving up the stairs.

Always position smoke detectors at the bottom of closed stairways, such as those leading to the basement, because dead air trapped near the door at the top of a stairway could prevent smoke from reaching a detector located at the top. Don't install a smoke detector too near a window, door, or forced-air register where drafts could interfere with the detector's operation. Check manufacturer’s instructions for further details.

Packet Pg. 1351
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
76 Installation
Battery-powered smoke detectors can be installed using only a drill and a screwdriver, by following the manufacturer's instructions. Detectors can also be hard-wired into a building's electrical system. Hard-wired detectors should be installed by a qualified electrician. Never connect a smoke detector to a circuit that can be turned off by a wall switch. Homes equipped with hard-wired detectors at the time of construction are required to maintain hard-wired detectors with an internal battery back-up.

False Alarms
Cooking vapors and steam sometimes set off a smoke detector. To correct this, try moving the detector away from the kitchen or bathroom, or install an exhaust fan. Cleaning your detector regularly, according to the manufacturer's instructions, may also help. If "nuisance alarms" persist, do not disable the detector, replace it.

Maintenance
Only a functioning smoke detector can protect you. Never disable a detector by "borrowing" its battery for another use. Following the manufacturer's instructions, test all your smoke detectors monthly and install new batteries at least once a year. A good reminder is when you change your clocks in the spring or fall change your clock, change your battery. Clean your smoke detectors using a vacuum cleaner without removing the detector's cover. Never paint a smoke detector. Smoke detectors don't last forever. Replace any smoke detector that is more than 10 years old.

Plan and Practice
• Make sure everyone is familiar with the sound of the smoke detector's alarm. • Plan escape routes. Know at least two ways out of each room. Agree on a meeting place outside your home where all residents will gather after they escape. Practice your escape plan at least twice a year.
• Remove obstructions from doors and windows needed for escape.

Packet Pg. 1352
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
77 • Make sure everyone in the household can unlock doors and windows quickly, even in the dark. Bedroom windows with security bars should be equipped with quick-release devices and everyone in the household should know how to use them. • When an alarm sounds, leave immediately. Go directly to your outside meeting place and call the fire department.
! Once you’re out, stay out. Never return to a burning building!

CARBON MONOXIDE DEVICES
Senate Bill (SB) 183 enacts the Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of 2010. The legislative amendments, repeals, and additions of this bill require owners of dwellings intended for human occupancy to install carbon monoxide (CO) devices in existing dwelling units having a fossil fuel burning heater or appliance, fireplace, or attached garage in compliance with the following dates:
• on or before July 1, 2011 for all single-family dwellings; and • on or before January 1, 2013, for all other dwelling units.

SB 183 also mandates that CO devices shall be certified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM). The SFM is required to develop a certification and decertification processes to approve and list CO devices and their accompanying instructions; and to disapprove and de-list previously approved devices, as specified. This bill prohibits the marketing, distribution, offer for sale, or sale of any CO device unless it has been approved and listed by the SFM. See the following link for SFM approved CO alarms and Detectors:
http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/licensinglistings/licenselisting_bml_searchcotest.php • CO devices may be combined with a smoke detector, if the combination device meets all specified SFM listing and approval requirements. • Tenants must notify the responsible party if the CO device becomes inoperable or deficient.
• The owner or owners’ agent is responsible to correct any reported deficiencies or inoperabilities.

Packet Pg. 1353
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
78 EXITING SYSTEMS
The most important aspect of fire safety is getting everyone out quickly and safely. All exit corridors, doors, and stairways must be safely maintained at all times.

Keep stairways free of obstructions at all times. Anything which may render the stairway unusable should be kept away from stairs. Propane barbeque grills, motorcycles, and combustible materials should not be stored under stairs.

If there are interior corridor systems, ongoing maintenance is necessary.

1. Keep all storage and obstructions out of corridors.

2. Maintain and test emergency lighting monthly. Check for burned out bulbs, low and dead batteries.

3. Maintain exit signs. Replace burned out bulbs as soon as possible.

4. Fire doors along the corridor should be maintained self-closing, self-latching (especially laundry and utility rooms) and not propped open. Properly maintained fire doors can hold back fire and smoke from the corridor, allowing tenant’s time to get out.

5. Post evacuation plans in common areas of the complex. Each plan must indicate two exits from each area and a safe place for everyone to congregate. Provide evacuation information to new tenants regarding procedures to be followed if the fire alarm is activated.

ADDRESS
It is very important that address numbers are easily seen from the street to assist emergency personnel in quickly locating the appropriate address.

The complex address numbers should be at least six inches in height, contrast with the background, and be visible from the street.

Post apartment numbers conspicuously, contrasting with background, and at least three inches in height. Unit numbers shall be mounted on the exterior near the front door or exterior security screen door if a security screen door is present.

Packet Pg. 1354
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
79 FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS
Fire alarms are designed to notify residents of a fire in time to safely evacuate a building.

Building managers should consider providing residents with information to assist them in planning their evacuation. Keep fire alarm systems in proper operating condition at all times. A copy of the testing/maintenance report shall be forwarded to the fire department.

Complete regular testing and maintenance by qualified personnel. This includes, but is not limited to, testing all devices, cleaning all smoke detectors, checking battery levels, etc. Insurance underwriters seeking verification that reasonable efforts are being made to maintain the system in good working order, may request documentation.

Note: A trouble condition, indicated on the alarm panel by a yellow light, can be caused by numerous conditions. This situation requires contacting qualified service personnel to troubleshoot and correct the problem
False alarms, besides being annoying, can cause residents to become desensitized to the alarm and possibly to disregard it. Proper maintenance can help avoid this situation.

Occasionally, manual pull stations are maliciously pulled. If this occurs frequently, contact the San Bernardino City Fire Prevention Bureau for assistance.

FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
Fire sprinkler systems are the most effective means of controlling fires, minimizing fire spread and damage caused by smoke and fire. Sprinkler heads are strategically placed throughout apartment living areas. Activated by heat, only those heads near the fire will discharge water. Fire sprinkler systems do require regular testing and maintenance. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the fire department.

Testing and maintenance of fire sprinkler systems

1. Fire sprinkler systems require at least annual testing and maintenance by a qualified contractor. Reports shall be forwarded to the fire department upon request.

2. Standards for testing and maintenance of fire sprinkler systems are outlined in NFPA 25.

Central station monitoring
In existing buildings, a sprinkler system has 100 or more sprinkler heads, is required to be monitored by an alarm monitoring company for water flow and tamper. Tamper switches must be attached to the control valves. These switches will send a signal to the alarm monitoring company to notify them that someone is turning a valve.

If the fire sprinkler system has less than 100 sprinkler heads, lock sprinkler system control valves in the open position to avoid tampering by unauthorized persons.

Packet Pg. 1355
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
80 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
Fire extinguishers, when operated by a person knowledgeable in their use can significantly reduce fire damage. Training is essential. If you have a fire extinguisher available, be sure it is a Class ABC extinguisher, with a testing laboratory label. Use an extinguisher only if...

1. The fire department is being called. (9-1-1)

2. The building is being evacuated. Activate fire alarm, if available.

3. You know you have a class ABC and already know how to operate it.

4. The fire is small and contained in the area where it started.

5. You can fight the fire with your back to an exit.

If any of these is not true, get out immediately and dial 9-1-1.

Training information pertaining to fire extinguishers is available from San Bernardino Fire Prevention.

Maintenance:
• Keep fire extinguishers in good working order at all times. • Be sure they are mounted in conspicuous, accessible locations. • Annual servicing by qualified personnel is required.
• Provide 1 extinguisher of a 2A:10BC rating on the exterior within 75 ft. travel distance of each unit or provide 1 extinguisher of a 1A:10BC rating on the interior of each apartment unit.
• Provide a minimum 2A:10BC extinguisher inside each laundry room. • Extinguishers shall be mounted no higher than 5 ft.
• Provide proper coverage for each floor.

FIRE HYDRANTS
Fire hydrant systems shall be subject to periodic tests as required by AHJ.

Provide documentation of annual testing of all on-site fire hydrants to the fire department.

FIRE LANES
Fire lanes are designed to provide direct access for emergency activities and emergency vehicles. Most frequently, they are used for fire apparatus during medical emergencies.

When fire lanes are blocked by vehicles, a delay in receiving emergency assistance may occur. In a fire or medical emergency, seconds count. Proper signage is very important to enforce no parking in the fire lane. The police department will cite vehicles illegally parked and may assist apartment managers with enforcement. Contact San Bernardino City Fire Prevention for information on signage wording and placement.

Packet Pg. 1356
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
81 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
• Place 9-1-1 stickers, your address and phone number, and emergency numbers on or near the phone.
• When dialing 9-1-1, be sure to answer all the dispatchers' questions and follow their directions. Speak slowly and stay calm. Stay on the phone until instructed to hang up.
• Provide specific information about where the emergency is taking place. For example, the building number, apartment number, nearest entrances, which pool, etc.
• To direct emergency personnel to the scene, turn on an outside light and, if available, send someone out to meet them.
• Unlock gates or doors leading to the apartment so firefighters can make entry.

POOL SAFETY
Many water-related incidents occur each year. These frequently involve young children, but adults can also be victims. Water-related incidents include not only drowning, but near drowning, which can leave the victim severely brain damaged. Also, diving from other than designated areas can cause head and spinal cord injuries if the victim strikes his/her head on the bottom. Permanent paralysis can result. Alcohol consumption may precipitate water-related incidents by impairing judgment.

Adults, as well as children, should never swim alone. An adult must always directly supervise children.

Provide approved life-saving equipment, such as a pole with a hook or a styrofoam ring, in the pool area.

Persons supervising others should know cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Interior perimeter pool fences should be installed. Fences should be at least 5 feet in height, with self-closing and self-latching gates 4 feet above grade, which should be checked frequently. Vertical bars should not be spaced more than four inches apart.

Keep pool area free of toys and other objects that might attract children.

Keep tables and chairs away from the outside of the interior perimeter fence, so children cannot climb over the fence by using furniture or other objects.

Do not allow pets in the pool area when young children are present.

Post pool rules conspicuously and enforce them. Suggested rules include:

1. A “lessee” must accompany anyone using the pool.

Packet Pg. 1357
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
82 2. NO consumption of alcoholic beverages at the pool.

3. Roughhousing is not allowed.

4. Dive only from the diving board, not from the side of the pool.

5. Gates must be closed after entering or exiting the pool area; never prop them open.

6. Glass containers are not allowed in the pool area.

It is recommended a telephone be near the pool, with 9-1-1 posted for emergencies.

CHEMICAL STORAGE- FLAMMABLE
& COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS STORAGE
Pool chemicals:

Store pool chlorine and muriatic acid separately in a well-ventilated area.

Flammable and combustible liquids:

Store gasoline in approved safety cans only. Do not exceed five gallons. Place caps tightly on container. It is recommended that flammable and combustible liquids are stored in a well-ventilated area, away from open flame (i.e., gas water heaters and other ignition sources).

Combustible and flammable liquids stored in excess of ten gallons must be stored in an approved flammable liquid storage cabinet. Contact San Bernardino City Fire Prevention for cabinet specifications.

LOCKS/LOCK BOXES
At least two vehicular access points into larger complexes may be required for fire department access. If gates are to be installed or locked, a permit must be obtained from the City of San Bernardino Building Department. At that time, a detail shall be provided, showing distances from the street, turn-abounds, etc. Gates may not be installed or locked until after issuance of the permit. Applications for Knox locks and/or boxes may be obtained from the San Bernardino City Fire Prevention office at 200 E. 3rd St, San Bernardino, Ca 92410. The completed application must be returned to Fire Prevention, along with a copy of the building permit and a copy of the site plan.

If a new Knox box or key switch is required or an existing box or switch shall be replaced, you shall obtain a Knox application from the fire department and follow the given instructions to submit the application with the fire department.

Notify San Bernardino City Fire Dispatch at (909) 884-7248 prior to changing entry locks to schedule an engine company to replace the key in the Knox Box.

Packet Pg. 1358
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
83 HEATING AND VENTILATION UNITS
Heating and ventilation units require regular service. Develop and use preventative maintenance programs for all mechanical equipment. Keep motors free of grease and dust.

Check filters regularly and change them when necessary. Make sure fresh air returns/vents are kept clean and open to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning.

LAUNDRY ROOMS
A laundry room is another area of fire hazard. Lint and combustible debris can accumulate behind the dryer and can ignite when heated.

Clean dryer lint screens after each use.

Dryer vents should be continuous to the outside.

Clean dryer and washer motors as needed to eliminate grease and lint accumulation.

Gas vents for water heaters and dryers should be maintained in good repair and continuous to the outside.

DUMPSTERS
Locate dumpsters away from buildings. Maintain a 5-foot separation from combustible construction and eaves. The intent is that in the event of a fire in the dumpster, the fire may be contained to the dumpster and not spread to adjacent buildings.

ELECTRICAL
Many apartment fires are caused by electrical problems. These include improper use of extension cords, damaged flexible cords, overloaded circuits, and defective appliances.  A qualified electrician, in accordance with the National Electrical Code should install electrical installations and wiring throughout the complex.  Extension cords: Do not use these as a replacement for permanent electrical wiring. Extension cords are designed for temporary use only. They should be kept free from damage, and the wiring size should be appropriate for the amperage of the appliance it is supplying. Use only UL listed cords.  Flexible cords: Maintain flexible cords to appliances (i.e., lamps, toasters, etc.) in good condition and place them where they are not subject to damage.

Packet Pg. 1359
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
84 Replace damaged, frayed, dried, or cracked cords.
 Overloaded circuit: This can occur when too many appliances are plugged into one circuit, exceeding the capacity of the wiring, heating the wiring, and possibly starting a fire. Never plug in more appliances than the receptacle will accept. Two plugs are usually allowed in a typical household receptacle.  Defective appliances: Heat producing appliances are especially prone to create a fire problem if misused or allowed to become defective. Unplug heat-producing appliances (i.e., toasters, blow dryers, and curling irons) when not in use.
 Never allow tenants to run extension cords from one apartment to another to supply power to an apartment without electricity.

BARBEQUE GRILLS
With the adoption of the 2010 California Fire Code (CFC) in January 2011, a new section on open flame cooking became law. Section 308 of the CFC has new requirements for cooking with an open flame on combustible balconies. These requirements apply to any device used for cooking that uses an open flame. This section applies to all occupancies but exempts one- and two-family dwellings (single family home or a duplex).

The section reads as follows:
308.1.4 Open-flame cooking devices. Charcoal burners and other open-flame cooking devices shall not be operated on combustible balconies or within 10 feet of combustible construction.1
Exception:

1. Where buildings, balconies and decks are protected by an automatic sprinkler system.

2. One-and-two family dwellings.
308.1.4. Liquefied-petroleum gas-fueled cooking devices. LP-gas burners having an LP-gas container with a water capacity greater than 2.5 pounds [nominal 1 pound LP-gas capacity] shall not be located on combustible balconies or within 10 feet of combustible contruction.1 This new regulation will in effect prohibit the use of open flame cooking on balconies of existing multi-family structures (more than 3 units), apartments, condos, town homes, except those built as high-rise structures.

The use of Electric Barbeques and LP gas Barbeques with a supply bottle of 1 pound or less is allowed.

Enforcement of these provisions are the responsibility of the Owner/Manager as are all other fire prevention laws. Inspections will be conducted on a case-by-case basis to determine the type of balcony construction.1
Packet Pg. 1360
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
85 LPG/NATURAL GAS
(LPG/Propane Use and Storage/Natural Gas)
LPG cylinders (such as barbeques) should not be used or stored inside buildings or on balconies, but preferably in a secured shaded area outside, away from building openings and stairs. If a cylinder leaks or vents, flammable vapors may travel inside buildings. • Check rubber “O-rings” and supply hose every time the cylinder is filled. • Protect natural gas meters and piping from damage by vehicles.

WORKING WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
The information provided in this manual, regarding fire and life safety is intended to raise your awareness of safety issues and assist you in recognizing potential problems. To supplement the information in this manual, the San Bernardino County Fire Department has videotapes available for use in employee and tenant training. On-going education and training are essential.

As a manager or landlord, you have the ability to significantly reduce safety hazards by being observant and by following up on concerns forwarded to you by tenants.

Tenant Complaints
Occasionally complaints are received and evaluated by the San Bernardino County Fire Community Safety Division. The first question asked is, "Have you notified your apartment manager or landlord?" If not, it is usually suggested they notify the manager prior to any intervention by the San Bernardino County Fire Department.

If fire department intervention occurs, an inspector will first discuss the concern with the manager and perform an inspection to evaluate the situation. If a problem exists, the inspector will then present recommended solutions to the manager and agree on a reasonable time frame for correction.
 Manager Complaints/Landlord Complaints
If the tenant is maintaining an unsafe condition, the fire department, when requested by the manager or landlord, will determine if intervention is called for and the type of intervention necessary. Often, as a manager or landlord, the lease may allow you Packet Pg. 1361
San Bernardino Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
86 the ability to act on a problem, depending on the nature of the situation.

CONDUCTING PROPERTY INSPECTIONS
If you conduct property inspections as outlined in the San Bernardino City Crime Free MultiHousing Workbook, fire safety checks can easily be included during your inspection. Since an unsafe condition in a tenant's apartment can affect other tenants, it is crucial the condition be corrected. Questions about specific problems can be addressed by contacting the San Bernardino County Fire Community Safety Division at 909 386-8400.

SB DIRECT
ONE CALL THAT’S ALL
909-384-7272
To be connected to the department of your choice
Packet Pg. 1362

INLAND REGION

HOUSING JUSTICE

COALITION
Mayor Helen Tran and City Councilmembers
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
cc: Sonia Carvalho- City Attorney, Charles McNeely-City Manager Re: San Bernardino’s Draft 2021-2019 Housing Element Comments Dear Mayor Tran and City Councilmembers,
Please accept this letter as our organizations’ official public comment on the City of San Bernardino Draft Housing Element. We are specifically writing to voice our opposition to the sections of the Draft Housing Element about the Crime Free Multi Housing Program & anti-camping policies targeting San Bernardino’s unhoused neighbors without investing in the housing our community needs.

The Crime Free Multi Housing Program
On April 5th, 2023, we attended the City Council meeting along with dozens of residents and community organizations to support Councilman Ben Reynoso’s motion to agendize and begin the repeal process of San Bernardino’s Discriminatory Crime Free Multi Housing Program. The motion passed that day, so we were surprised and disappointed to see the Crime Free Multi Housing Program included in the City’s Draft Housing Element.

Not only does the Crime Free Multi Housing Program target black, brown, and underserved communities of San Bernardino, it endangers victims of crime and residents with health issues who utilize 911 emergency services. The program punishes landlords if their tenants call 911 more than 10 times in one year, which violates state law. The program’s training encourages landlords to discriminate against applicants with prior convictions by using background checks to screen their applicants. The training materials do not warn landlords against illegally discriminating against people on the basis of past convictions that have been expunged or are from many years ago.

The program’s Lease Addendum encourages landlords to evict entire households if a child, guest, or single family member is accused of breaking the law – even if they are never found guilty. Through the program’s “Crime-Free Multi Housing Referral” system, Code Enforcement and Police work together to surveil tenants and encourage landlords to impose housing consequences based on interactions with law enforcement that never result in a conviction. The Crime Free Multi Housing Program should be removed from the proposed Housing Element Draft because it violates fair housing laws.

We are also outraged that the Draft Housing Element says the City’s Crime Free Multi Housing reduces and deters crime without providing any evidence. Despite our many requests for information and conversations with City officials regarding the Crime Free Multi Housing Program, the City has never shown any evidence to support the claim that the program reduces crime in our City. The information we have been provided does show that the City is utilizing this program as a revenue stream and a tool to encourage landlords to evict renters.

It also concerns us that the Draft Housing Element ignores the current lawsuit against the city regarding the Crime Free Multi Housing Program that subjects the City to liability. As you know, many of our neighboring cities have also been sued and have been forced to eliminate their Crime Free Housing programs by the federal Department of Justice and others. The Draft Housing Element not only calls for continuation of the Crime Free Multi Housing Program but also says it intends to expand the program by increasing staffing for enforcement and by forcing the program on residents and landlords of Mobile Home units. Our communities have so many housing needs that we need the City to support instead of spending even more resources on this program. Instead of expanding the program, the City should follow through with the repeal it voted on and take the program out of the Draft Housing Element.

Packet Pg. 1363
Anti-Camping Enforcement & Homeless Services
We appreciate the city’s recent approval of the $21 million dollars being allocated to assist San Bernardino’s unhoused residents, but we have concerns with the Draft Housing Element’s immediate plans of congregate (shared spaces) shelter bed model. While the City has secured some initial grant funding to meet the needs of unhoused resident, its plan to spend $21 million on housing unsheltered community members is not fully committed to a best practices Housing First model, wherein safe, permanent, adequate and affordable housing is provided to unhoused people as an immediate response to their needs. Currently, the City’s plan includes some promising permanent supportive housing projects, including the All Star Lodge and U.S. VETS Inland Empire projects. But the City should not couple these projects with an expansion of congregate shelter spots. Instead we are demanding the State of California’s recommended Housing First Model replace the congregate shelter plans in the Draft Housing Element. Congregate shelters increase the spread of diseases (ie. COVID-19, Hepatitis, etc.) and do not provide permanent housing access and services.

California’s Housing First non-congregate housing model not only provides permanent housing and services, but it provides a safe and healing space for those recovering from the trauma they have experienced prior to and while being unhoused. Many unhoused people have been victims of crime and sexual abuse, experienced trauma as veterans, or struggle with substance use and mental health challenges. Non-congregate housing allows unhoused community members to receive the tools and services they need to heal in a safe and supporting atmosphere. In contrast, congregate shelters (shared living spaces) which put people in close quarters with strangers exacerbate these problems. Research has shown that pervasive problems with privacy, safety, noise, and cleanliness lead many unhoused people to exit congregate shelters in favor of living on the street, and to refuse future placements in similar settings.

We also have immediate concerns regarding the Draft Housing Element’s 5.5 section that details the city's intention to enforce its anti-camping code. This type of criminalization of unhoused people is counterproductive and harmful.

Citations and arrests make it harder for people to access jobs and housing. Criminalizing people for being unhoused also undermines community trust, and wastes valuable resources that could be better spent providing housing and services for people who need them. The recent closures of public parks have further demonstrated that San Bernardino needs to provide housing and services, otherwise displaced people have nowhere to go and will simply be pushed from one block to the next. The Housing Element should move our city away from harmful non-solutions toward Housing First solutions that are proven to work.

Sincerely,
______________________
Inland Region Housing Justice
Coalition
___________________
ICUC
Vanessa Perez
Time For Change
Foundation
_________
COPE
____________________
IE United
___________________
Just San Bernardino
Darryl Evey
_______________________
Family Assistance Program
Maribel Nunez
_______________________
Inland Equity Partnership
Packet Pg. 1364
Packet Pg. 1365

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Notice is hereby given that the City of San Bernardino Mayor and City Council will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 2, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in the Feldheym Public Library, Bing Wong Auditorium, 555 West 6th Street, San Bernardino, California 92410, on the following item(s):
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT – A request to authorize submittal of the City of San Bernardino 2021- 2029 draft Housing Element for review to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element is one of the required elements of the General Plan. It addresses existing and future housing needs of persons in all economic segment groups and serves as a tool for decision-makers and the public in understanding and meeting housing needs in San Bernardino. This 2021- 2029 Housing Element update is a policy document of the City of San Bernardino regarding current and projected future housing needs, and the City’s goals, policies, and programs to address those identified needs, and represents an update to the City’s adopted 2014-2021 Housing Element.

Applicant: City of San Bernardino – Community, Housing, and Economic Development Department The Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino welcomes your participation in evaluating these items. The Mayor and City Council will review the project prior to making its decisions. The public is welcome to speak at the public hearing or to submit written comments prior to the hearing. For more information, please contact the City Clerk’s Office by phone at (909) 384-5002.

If you challenge the resultant action of the Mayor and City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Submitted: July 17, 2023
Publish: July 22, 2023 (Display Ad)
Please send first proof for verification or changes by e-mail to Jessica Nametz: [email protected].

Please reference “MCC Display Ad” on the billing and send to the City of San Bernardino, Planning Division, 290 North D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92401.

Packet Pg. 1366
City of San Bernardino
2021-2029 Draft Housing Element
Presented by Mary Lanier, Interim Agency Director
Community, Housing, and Economic Development Department Packet Pg. 1367
Overview:
 All  cities  and  counties  in  California,  including  San Bernardino,  are  required  by  State  law  to  prepare  a  Housing Element every 8 years.
 The Housing Element assesses current needs for housing in the City and includes goals, policies and programs to address the unmet needs.
 The  Housing  Element  must  comply  with  State  and  Federal regulations  and  is  reviewed  for  compliance  by  the  California Department of Housing and Urban Development (HCD).

Packet Pg. 1368
Background:
 September  2020  –  City  enters  into  agreement  with PlaceWorks,  Inc.  to  prepare  comprehensive  update  to  the current General Plan
 2022 – Public workshops / Committee meetings
 May-June  2023  –  30  Day  public  review  of  Draft  Housing Element
Packet Pg. 1369
Outreach:

The City’s public participation program included the following:
 Visioning Workshops
 Committee Meetings
 Website Presence
 Stakeholder Consultations
Three additional workshops were held on July 17th, 18th, and 20th Packet Pg. 1370
Analysis:

Housing Element Components:
 Chapter 1: Introduction
 Chapter 2: Needs Assessment
 Chapter 3: Constraints Analysis
 Chapter 4: Housing Resources
 Chapter 5: Fair Housing
 Chapter 6: Program Evaluation
 Chapter 7: Housing Plan
Site Inventory and Analysis – RHNA Allocation
Packet Pg. 1371
Analysis:

Table 1: City of San Bernardino – RHNA Allocation (By Income Group)

HOUSEHOLD
INCOME

CATEGORY
DEFINITION OF
INCOME

CATEGORIES
NUMBER OF
HOUSING UNITS
PERCENT OF

ALLOCATION
Extremely Low
Income 0–30% of AMI* 708 8.7%
Very Low Income 31–50% of AMI 707 8.7%
Low Income 51–80% of AMI 1,097 13.5%
Moderate Income 81–120% of AMI 1,448 17.8%
Above Moderate
Income Over 120% of AMI 4,163 51.3%
Total 8,123 100%
*AMI – Area Median Income
Packet Pg. 1372
Anlaysis:

INCOME LEVELS

LOWER MODERATE ABOVE

MODERATE TOTAL
RHNA Allocation 2,512 1,448 4,163 8,123
Pipeline Projects towards
RHNA 767 510 1,604 2,881
Remaining RHNA Need 1,745 938 2,559 5,242
REMAINING RHNA ACCOMMODATION
ADUs 696 504 0 1,200
Existing Vacant Land 785 731 2,666 4,182
Surplus Sites 452 0 0 452
DTSP Vacant Land 341 0 0 630
Total Units towards RHNA 3,041 1,745 4,720 9,056
Count Over/Under RHNA 529 297 107
Percent of RHNA 121% 121% 103%
Table 2: City of San Bernardino RHNA Status
Summary
Packet Pg. 1373
Housing Plan:
 Goal #1: Facilitate and improve the development of safe, high-quality housing that is diverse in housing type, size of unit, tenure, affordability levels, and location for all.  Goal #2: Reduce, mitigate, or remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for all residents of San Bernardino.  Goal #3: Provide neighborhoods of well-maintained homes, ample public services and facilities, open spaces and recreation, and infrastructure that provide quality, safe, and healthful places to reside.
 Goal #4: Assist in the development of affordable housing through provision of homeowner and rental assistance, preservation of affordable housing, and other efforts to improve housing affordability and housing security.
 Goal #5: Affirmatively further fair housing opportunity in San Bernardino through proactive policy, outreach and education, and programs so that residents can live in dignity in their neighborhood.

Packet Pg. 1374
Next Steps:
 Submittal to HCD for review
 Environmental Review
 Pending HCD approval:
 Planning Commission – Recommendation for adoption
 Mayor and City Council – Adoption
 Submittal to HCD for Certification
Packet Pg. 1375
Recommendation:

Receive public comments on the 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element; and Provide comments and direction on the 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element; and Authorize,  by  motion,  staff  to  make  necessary  changes  to  the  2021-2029  Draft Housing Element based on comments and direction; and
Authorize,  by  motion,  the  Community,  Housing,  and  Economic  Development Department to submit the revised document to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review.

The Mayor and City
Council:

1. 2.

3. 4.

Packet Pg. 1376

PUBLIC HEARING
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: August 2, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Charles E. McNeely, Interim City Manager;
Barbara Whitehorn, Agency Director of Administrative Services Department: Finance
Subject: Imposing Liens on Certain Parcels of Real Property for Unpaid Business Registration Taxes and Penalties
(All Wards)
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California:

1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public comment on the matter; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-127 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, imposing liens on certain parcels of real property for unpaid business registration taxes and penalties; and

3. Direct the Agency Director of Administrative Services to remove any properties from the Business Registration Lien List (Exhibit A to the Resolution) which are resolved prior to the hearing.

Executive Summary
This action allows the Business Registration Division to place liens on certain properties identified as unregistered properties that require a business license and have not obtained one. Identified property owners have not responded to multiple attempts by staff to contact them, including by certified letter. Liens will not be filed if property owners come into compliance before the liens are filed, and liens will be removed if properties come into compliance, or the properties are shown to be exempt from the requirement.

Background
On November 21, 1990, the Mayor and City Council adopted Ordinance MC-756 adding section 5.04.076 to the Municipal Code relating to liens for delinquent business license fees. San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 5.04.076 enables unpaid taxes Packet Pg. 1377
and penalties for business registration to become an assessment on the associated property if not collected after proper notification to the owner. To comply with this section, staff regularly brings a list of identified unregistered properties to the Mayor and City Council to approve the placement of liens.

Discussion
Unregistered properties are identified through multiple sources, including a Homeowners Exemption listing received from the County of San Bernardino, newly opened water department accounts, closed rental property business registration accounts, code enforcement efforts, and citizen notification. These potentially unregistered accounts are contacted using the property’s mailing address provided by the County of San Bernardino and the Water Department. The properties listed in Exhibit A include newly identified rental properties and delinquent accounts that have provided no response to the City’s collection efforts.

Business Registration staff makes multiple attempts to contact property owners to gain compliance with the municipal code before a property is entered into the lien process.

The initial letter informs the property owner that rental properties are considered a business and a registration certificate is required. This letter also informs the owner that if the property is not a rental to please indicate the status of the property, in order to ensure that it is not included in the list of properties requiring registration. If a response is not received, a second letter is sent advising the owner to comply with the registration requirement or contact the Business Registration office to discuss the status of the property. If there is still no response after the second letter, a certified letter is sent providing the same information. If there is no response to the certified letter, a lien hearing notice is mailed with a Business Registration application to allow the owner to comply or close the account before proceeding into the lien process.

If letters are returned because the owner's address is unknown, the City will continue the same process using the new address collected by the United States Post Service.

If no forwarding address is provided by the USPS, the matter is dismissed.

Exhibit A to the Resolution (attached) represents accounts that have not come into compliance as of August 2, 2023, when this report was submitted into the agenda process. Those accounts that were addressed between July 17, 2023 and August 2 2023, will be removed from the list that is forwarded to the County; liens will not be placed on those properties.
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
The approval of the placement of liens on the subject properties for unpaid Business Registration taxes and penalties aligns with Key Target No. 1: Improved Operational & Financial Capacity by implementing, maintaining, and updating a fiscal accountability plan. The program helps to ensure greater compliance with the municipal code within the business community and will generate additional revenue through this enhanced compliance effort by Business Registration staff.

Packet Pg. 1378
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the budget associated with this action. The anticipated amount of revenue to be collected through the lien process is $139,837, an estimate of which was included in the FY 2023/2024 Business Registration revenue budget.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California:

1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public comment on the matter; and

2. Adopt Resolution No.2023-127 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, imposing liens on certain parcels of real property for unpaid business registration taxes and penalties; and

3. Direct the Agency Director of Administrative Services to remove any properties from the Business Registration Lien List (Exhibit A to the Resolution) which are resolved prior to the hearing.

Attachments
Attachment 1: Resolution No.2023-127
Attachment 2: Resolution No.2023-127-Exhibit A
Attachment 3: Notice of Public Hearing
Ward:

All Wards
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

March 15, 2023 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-050, imposing liens on certain parcels of real property located within the City of San Bernardino for uncollected Business Registration fees.

October 19, 2022 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-220, imposing liens on certain parcels of real property located within the City of San Bernardino for uncollected Business Registration fees.

May 18, 2022 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-93, imposing liens on certain parcels of real property located within the City of San Bernardino for uncollected Business Registration fees.

Packet Pg. 1379
Resolution No. 2023-127
Resolution 2023-127
August 2, 2023