ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 24-01
CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
OF SPECIFIC PARCELS TO MEET THE CITY’S
REGIONAL HOUSE NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA),
PURSUANT TO THE ADDENDUM TO FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO.
2004111132).
WHEREAS, together, General Plan Amendment 24-01 and Development Code Amendment 24-01 constitute the City of San Bernardino 2021-2029 Housing Element ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 21-06 is a request to allow the change the Zoning District Classification of specific parcels to meet the City’s Regional House Needs Allocation (RHNA); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”; Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), Section 21067, and State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, § 15000 et seq.), Section 15367, the City of San Bernardino is the lead agency for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to requirements of Section 15164(b) (Addendum to an EIR) of CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community and Economic Development Department accepted the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared by Kimley-Horn on behalf of and submitted by the applicant for the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino held a duly noticed public hearing to consider public testimony and the staff report, and adopted Resolution No. 2024-002 - PC recommending the adoption of the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report, and the approval of General Plan Amendment 24-01 and Development Code Amendment 24-01 to the Mayor and City Council; and WHEREAS, notice of the February 21, 2024 public hearing for the Mayor and City Council's consideration of this proposed Resolution was published in The Sun newspaper on February 10, 2024, and was mailed to the owners and tenants of the properties located within 1,000 feet of the subject property in accordance with Development Code Chapter 19.52 (Hearing and Appeals); and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the Mayor and City Council and no additional information submitted to the City Council, has produced substantial new information requiring substantial revisions that trigger recirculation of the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and
Packet Page. 1433
Ordinance No. Mc-1627
2 WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 19.52 (Hearing and Appeals) and Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Mayor and City Council have the authority to take action on Development Code Amendment 24-01; and
NOW THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. In accordance with Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR), as the decision-making body for the project, the Mayor and City Council have reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for General Plan Amendment 24-01 and Development Code Amendment 24-01, and the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111132) certified on November 1, 2005, in conjunction with the adoption of the City of San Bernardino General Plan (2005). Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record and the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Mayor and City Council, the Mayor and City Council find as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were previously analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report certified on November 1, 2005, in conjunction with the adoption of the City of San Bernardino General Plan (2005) and within the Addendum for the approval for General Plan Amendment 24-01 and Development Code Amendment 24-01; and (2) The certified Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the project; and (3) The certified Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and (4) The certified Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the Mayor and City Council; and (5) The proposed project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report, and all mitigation measures previously adopted with the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Addendum are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3. Finding of Facts – Development Code Amendment 24-01.
Section 19.42.050 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code requires that Development Code Amendments meet certain finding prior to approval by the Mayor and City Council.
Accordingly, the following findings are provided in support of the recommendation by the Planning Commission for the approval of Development Code Amendment 24-01:
Packet Page. 1434
Ordinance No. Mc-1627
3 Finding No. 1: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
Finding of Fact: Development Code Amendment 24-01 is consistent with the General Plan, in that the proposed addition of the subzones RMH-32 and RH-50 implements the previously established intended uses of the Residential Medium High (RMH) and Residential High (RH) zones, while allowing for increased densities that will assist the City in meeting its RHNA.
Finding No. 2: The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Finding of Fact: The adoption and implementation of Development Code Amendment 24- 01 will create two (2) subzones, RMH-32 and RH-50, that will require future development at the same standards and subject to the same permitted uses as the existing Residential Medium High (RMH) and Residential High (RH) zones. Therefore, no development is anticipated that would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City
SECTION 4. Adoption of Ordinance. Development Code Amendment 24-01 to change the Zoning District Classification of specific parcels to meet the City’s Regional House Needs Allocation (RHNA); attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “A” through “B”, is hereby approved.
SECTION 5. Notice of Determination: The Planning Division of the Community and Economic Development Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final project approval certifying the City’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in approving the Project.
SECTION 6. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or clause or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.
SECTION 8. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause publication to occur in a newspaper of general circulation and published and circulated in the City in a manner permitted under section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
Packet Page. 1435
Ordinance No. Mc-1627
4 APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this ___ day of __________, 2024.
__________________________________
Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:
__________________________________
Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
__________________________________
Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney
Packet Page. 1436
Ordinance No. Mc-1627
5 CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Ordinance No. MC-1627, introduced on February 21, 2024, and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, at a regular meeting held at the ___ day of _______, 2024 by the following vote:
Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ
IBARRA
FIGUEROA
SHORETT
REYNOSO
CALVIN
ALEXANDER
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this ___ day of ____________ 2024.
______________________________
Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Packet Page. 1437
EXHIBIT C
Development Code Section 19.04.010(2)(E)
(Residential Zones - Purpose)
19.04.010(2)(E) (Residential Zones - Purpose) shall be modified to read as follows:
E. RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONES
These zones are intended to promote the development of multi-family townhomes, condominiums, and apartments.
All multi-family zones require a reduced density if the minimum lot size for the zone is not met, and shall comply with maximum densities provided in Table 04.02.
Multi-family units which legally existed in the multi-family zones prior to June 3, 1991, may remain as a permitted use.
1. RM (Residential Medium) Zone
This zone requires a minimum lot size of 14,400 square feet with a maximum density of 12 units per net acre. Parcels less than 14,400 square feet in area shall be developed at RU density.
2. RMH (Residential Medium High) Zone
This zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of 24 units per net acre. Lots 14,400-20,000 square feet shall be development at RM density. Lots less than 14,400 square feet shall be developed at RU density.
RMH-32 (Residential Medium High) Zone. This zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of 32 units per net acre. Properties within the RMH-32 Zone shall include only those identified in Table 04-05 and Table 04-06 of the 2021-2029 San Bernardino Housing Element, as applicable. The RMH-32 zone shall be subject to the same development standards and permitted uses as the RMH zone.
3. RH (Residential High) Zone
This zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of 31 units per net acre. Lots 14,400-20,000 square feet shall be developed at RM density. Lots less than 14,400 square feet shall be developed at RU density.
RH-50 (Residential High) Zone. This zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of 50 units per net acre. Properties within the RMH-32 Zone shall include only those identified in Table 04-05 and Table 04-06 of the 2021-2029 San Bernardino Housing Element, as applicable. The RH-50 zone Packet Page. 1438
EXHIBIT C
shall be subject to the same development standards and permitted uses as the RH zone.
All multi-family zones listed above permit the development of senior citizen and senior congregate care housing at a density up to 50% greater than that allowed in the zone with a marketing feasibility study and a conversion plan.
4. RSH (Residential Student Housing) Zone
This overlay zone is specifically designed to allow student housing complexes on lots located within 500 feet of California State University San Bernardino, and which are at least five acres in size, at a maximum density of 20 units per acre and with no more than 60 bedrooms per acre, and specifically, only on the 8.28 acres on the south side of Northpark Boulevard, east of University Parkway, as designated in General Plan Amendment No. 01-06, and the 10.16 acres on the west side of Northpark Boulevard, northwest of the intersection of University Parkway and Northpark Boulevard in Tract 17703-2 Lot 1, and Tract 17703-3 Lots 1, 2, and 3. In the event that the project no longer houses California State University, San Bernardino students or is demolished, further use of the site will revert back to the underlying zone policies and standards.
Packet Page. 1439
Exhibit D
Privately-owned Land Identified for Rezoning/Upzoning
APN Acres
Existing Land
Use
Designation
Proposed Land
Use
Designation
Existing Zone Proposed Zone
013630207 0.68 MFR MFR RMH RMH-32
013631118 1.59 MFR MFR RMH RMH-32
013631126 0.91 MFR MFR RMH RMH-32
013631109 0.92 MFR MFR RMH RMH-32
028115164 1.55 MFR MFR RMH RMH-32
015515124 6.48 MFR MFR RH RH-50
015515125 2.87 MFR MFR RH RH-50
015044104 1.08 MFR MFR RH RH-50
015044130 2.21 MFR MFR RH RH-50
015515120 1.14 MFR MFR RH RH-50
015044114 0.03 MFR MFR RH RH-50
City-owned Surplus Land Identified for Rezoning/Upzoning APN Acres
Existing Land
Use
Designation
Proposed Land
Use
Designation
Existing Zone Proposed Zone
013407119 0.21 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
013407124 0.06 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
013407126 0.06 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
013407158 0.28 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
013410109 0.21 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
013410110 0.31 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
014252208 0.25 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252209 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252211 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252212 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252213 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252214 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252215 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252216 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252217 0.25 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252225 0.21 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252235 0.2 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252236 0.2 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252237 0.2 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252238 0.2 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252241 0.2 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252242 0.21 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252210 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252226 0.19 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014319174 0.75 C MFR CO RMH-32
014319175 0.27 C MFR CO RMH-32
014301244 0.86 C MFR CO RMH-32
015545110 1.41 MFR MFR RH RMH-32
Packet Page. 1440
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Figure 1 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites Citywide Map Packet Page. 1441
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 7
Figure 2 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 1/7 Map
Packet Page. 1442
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Figure 3 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 2/7 Map
Packet Page. 1443
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 9
Figure 4 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 3/7 Map
Packet Page. 1444
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Figure 5 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 4/7 Map
Packet Page. 1445
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 11
Figure 6 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 5/7 Map
Packet Page. 1446
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Figure 7 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 6/7 Map
Packet Page. 1447
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 13
Figure 8 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 7/7 Map
Packet Page. 1448
Packet Page. 1449
Packet Page. 1450
Packet Page. 1451
Packet Page. 1452
Packet Page. 1453
Packet Page. 1454
Packet Page. 1455
EXHIBIT A
Addendum to the General Plan Final EIR (SCH No. 2004111132) Packet Page. 1456
January 2024 | General Plan EIR Addendum
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
SCH No. 2004111132
FOR THE
2021–2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND
ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
City of San Bernardino
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
Contact: Travis Martin
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401
909.384.5313
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Mark Teague, AICP, Principal, AICP
3 MacArthur Place #1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
Packet Page. 1457
Packet Page. 1458
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Table of Contents
January 2024 Page i
Section Page
1. ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED GENERAL PLAN EIR...............................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 GENERAL PLAN EIR.....................................................................................................................................2
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................3
2. CEQA ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................................37
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................38
2.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................39
2.3 FINDINGS........................................................................................................................................................42
2.4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................43 Table Page
TABLE 1-1 PRIVATE-OWNED LAND IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT INVENTORY FOR REZONE.......................................................................................................................................................4 TABLE 1-2 CITY-OWNED LAND IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT INVENTORY FOR
REZONED INFILL PARCELS FOR REZONE TO ACCOMMODATE LOWER INCOME RHNA.......................................................................................................................................................................5 TABLE 1-3 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM CHANGES BETWEEN EXISTING HOUSING ELEMENT AND 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT...................................................................................................................15 Figure Page
FIGURE 1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REZONED SITES CITYWIDE MAP............................................... 6 FIGURE 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REZONED SITES 1/7 MAP .............................................................. 7 FIGURE 3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REZONED SITES 2/7 MAP .............................................................. 8 FIGURE 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REZONED SITES 3/7 MAP .............................................................. 9 FIGURE 5 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REZONED SITES 4/7 MAP ............................................................ 10 FIGURE 6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REZONED SITES 5/7 MAP ............................................................ 11 FIGURE 7 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REZONED SITES 6/7 MAP ............................................................ 12 FIGURE 8 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REZONED SITES 7/7 MAP ............................................................ 13 Packet Page. 1459
ADDENDUM TO TH E GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Page. 1460
January 2024 Page 1
1.Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
1.1 BACKGROUND
The proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element will replace the existing 2013–2021 Housing Element, which was adopted by City Council on February 10th, 2014 (City of San Bernardino, 2014) and serve as the City of San Bernadino’s (City’s) guiding housing policy document to help meet the City’s future housing needs for all economic levels as expressed by the state assigned regional housing needs assessment (RHNA). The Housing Element is one of 13 elements of the City’s General Plan which was adopted by City Council on November 1st, 2005 (City of San Bernardino, 2005a).
The General Plan is the foundational development policy document for the City of San Bernardino. It defines the framework by which the physical, economic, and human resources of the City are to be managed and used over time. The General Plan acts to clarify and articulate the intentions of the City with respect to the rights and expectations of the public, property owners, and prospective investors and business interests. The General Plan informs these citizens of the goals, objectives, policies, and standards for development of the City and the responsibilities of all sectors in meeting these. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential environmental impacts resulting from future development anticipated by the City of San Bernardino General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans (General Plan).
Ordinarily, as a policy document, the Housing Element seeks to account for changes in redevelopment law, and clarify language with the goals, policies, and programs generally remaining intact from the previous Housing Elements. Furthermore, it would not result in physical changes to the environment but rather encourage the provision of affordable housing within the housing development project within the existing land use designations in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. However, in this instance, the City’s ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA will require, in part, the rezoning of existing residential and commercial sites. The City’s proposed Housing Element programs along with the zoning change amendment (proposed project) would result in the following:
A. Revision of the Municipal Code to adopt the revised Chapter 19.04, Residential Zones, the residential districts from Residential Medium High (RMH-) 24 to RMH-32 and Residential High (RH-) 31 to RH-50.
The change in number represents the new maximum number of units per acre.
B. Revise the zoning map to change zone districts for parcels shown in Table 1-1, Private-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone and Table 1-2, City-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone.
C. Adopt the City of San Bernardino 2021-2029 Housing Element.
This addendum to the City of San Bernardino’s General Plan EIR, certified on November 1st, 2005, (State Clearinghouse Number 2004111132), demonstrates that the analysis in that EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, and the proposed project Packet Page. 1461
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
would not trigger any of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration. . This Addendum to the General Plan EIR serves as the environmental documentation for the City’s proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element and Zone Change Amendment.
1.2 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The General Plan EIR addresses both the General Plan Update and the Associated Specific Plans. For the purposes of this Addendum, the impacts relating to the General Plan Update only are identified and discussed.
With regard to the General Plan Update, the General Plan EIR addresses potentially significant impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, noise, traffic and circulation, and utility and service systems (City of San Bernardino, 2005b). The General Plan EIR determined that the following environmental topics were less than significant before mitigation: biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, and recreation (City of San Bernardino, 2005b).
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the following environmental topics (City of San Bernardino, 2005b):
• Air Quality
o GP Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate short-term emissions while long-term operation of the project would generate additional vehicle trips and associated emissions in exceedance of the SCAQMD’s threshold criteria. o GP Impact 5.2-3: Implementation of the San Bernardino General Plan update would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in a state of non-attainment.
• Noise
o GP Impact 5.10-4: The San Bernardino International Airport is located within the City of San Bernardino, resulting in exposure of future residents to airport-related noise. • Traffic and Circulation
o GP Impact 5.-14-2: General plan related trip generation in combination with existing and proposed cumulative development would result in designated intersections, roads, and/or highways exceeding county congestion management agency service standards.
Packet Page. 1462
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 3
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.3.1 Revision of the Municipal Code to Residential Zones The proposed project would result in the following revision to Chapter 19.04, Residential Zones. Underlined text is used to depict additions to Municipal Code Chapter 19.04, Residential Zones and unit changes. The zone district additions will only apply to the parcels shown in Figures 2 through 8 of this Addendum, and not to the City as a whole.
• RMH-32 (Residential Medium High-32) Zone. This zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of 24 32 units per net acre. Lots 14,400-20,000 square feet shall be development at RM density.
• RH-50 (Residential High-50) Zone. This zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of 31 50 units per net acre. Lots 14,400-20,000 square feet shall be developed at RM density.
• The proposed project mentions the constraints to allowing max density amongst parcels due to tiering which has limited the number of units a property can have. The tiered density provisions are scheduled to be removed in the comprehensive revision to the Development Code as part of the General Plan Update.
However, the above Development Code amendments will remove the tiered density for only the parcels affected by the above zone district changes (Figures 2 through 8 of this Addendum) to allow these properties to achieve maximum density.
1.3.2 Rezoning Housing Sites
California Government Code Section 65584 requires that each city and county plan to accommodate a fair share of the region’s housing construction needs. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) prepares the RHNA for the region based on existing and projected regional trends in population growth, household sizes, job accessibility, and transportation access. SCAG determines that the City must plan for and help facilitate the development of 8,123 new housing for the 6th cycle Housing Element, from 2021 to 2029. The City’s housing allocation is 31 percent lower income (which includes 708 extremely low-, 707 very low-, and 1,097 low-income units), 18 percent moderate-income (1,448 units), and 51 percent above moderateincome (4,163 units). Cities are not required to build or financially subsidize housing development, but they must ensure sufficient sites are available to accommodate housing at designated affordability levels.
In order to meet the City’s RHNA, the City will rezone 39 parcels which in total would amount to 27.91 acres as noted in Table 1-1, Private-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone, and Table 1-2, Cityowned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone. The zoning changes allow the City to be able to meet its lower-income RHNA. The zone changes will allow a density of 32 dwelling units per acre for RMH zoning and 50 dwelling units per acre for RH zoning for those parcels shown in Figures 2 through 8.
Packet Page. 1463
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
The proposed project mentions the constraints to allowing max density amongst parcels due to tiering which has limited the number of units a property can have. However, the proposed Housing Element introduces Program 2.4 Development Code Update, which removes the tiered density for lots in multi-family residential zones for all parcels in the city, including those shown in Figures 2 through 8 of this Addendum, allowing multifamily properties to achieve maximum density.
The zoning change amendment would modify the City of San Bernardino’s Municipal Code Chapter 19.04 Residential Zones which designates the maximum density that can be built per residential land use. The zones that require change are RH and RMH zones to increase density among sites that are presently designated for multi-family residential use. Currently, the City of San Bernardino has the RH zone which permits residential development at 31 units maximum per net acre. The City also has the RMH zone which permits residential development at 24 units maximum per net acre. To accommodate the low- and very low- income RHNA, the City will rezone the existing RH and RMH zones to allow for higher residential density that will only apply to the parcels shown in Figures 2 through 8 of this Addendum, and not to the City as a whole. The RMH zone will be upzoned to accommodate 32 dwelling units per acres and the RH zone will be upzoned to accommodate 50 dwelling units per acre for these parcels.
As shown in Table 1-1, Private-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone, approximately 19.46 acres of private land would change zones from RMH 24 to RMH 32 and RH 31 to RH 50 in order to accommodate 819 housing units, Figure 1, City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites Citywide Map shows the existing and proposed zone changes of these parcels and their location within the city. Table 1-2, City-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone, shows that approximately 8.45 acres of city-owned surplus land would be rezoned from residential or commercial zones to either RMH-32 or RH-50 in order to accommodate 335 housing units. Figure 1, City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites Citywide Map, and Figures 2 through 8, City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites (1/7 Map through 7/7 map) show the existing and proposed zone changes of these parcels and their location within the city.
Table 1-1 Private-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone APN Acres Existing Zone Proposed Zone Max Density Estimated Units** 013630207 0.68 RMH RMH-32 32 20
013631118 1.59 RMH RMH-32 32 48
013631126 0.91 RMH RMH-32 32 27
013631109 0.92 RMH RMH-32 32 27
028115164 1.55 RMH RMH-32 32 46
015515124 6.48 RMH RH-50 50 306
015515125 2.87 RMH RH-50 50 135
015044104 1.08 RH RH-50 50 51
015044130 2.21 RH RH-50 50 104
015515120 1.14 RH RH-50 50 54
015044114* 0.03 RH RH-50 50 1
Total 19.46 819
Source: San Bernardino 2023.
* This parcel is identified for rezone only for consistency, it is surrounded by parcel 015044130 and the two parcels have the same ownership. ** Estimated units are based on maximum allowed density times 95 percent for realistic capacity based on past projects approved and/or built in the city.
Packet Page. 1464
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 5
Table 1-2 City-Owned Land Identified In The Housing Element Inventory For Rezoned Infill Parcels For Rezone To Accommodate Lower Income RHNA
APN Acres Existing Zone Proposed Zone Max Density Estimated Units 13407119 0.21 CR-2 RH-50 50
26 13407124 0.06 CR-2 RH-50 50
13407126 0.06 CR-2 RH-50 50
13407158 0.28 CR-2 RH-50 50
13410109 0.21 CR-2 RH-50 50
23 13410110 0.31 CR-2 RH-50 50
14252208 0.25 CG-1 RH-50 50
147
14252209 0.24 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252211 0.24 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252212 0.24 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252213 0.24 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252214 0.24 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252215 0.24 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252216 0.24 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252217 0.25 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252225 0.21 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252235 0.2 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252236 0.2 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252237 0.2 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252238 0.2 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252241 0.2 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252242 0.21 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252210 0.24 CG-1 RH-50 50
14252226 0.19 CG-1 RH-50 50
14319174 0.75 CO RMH-32 32
96 14319175 0.27 CO RMH-32 32
14301244 0.86 CO RMH-32 32
15545110 1.41 RH RMH-32 32
Total 8.45 335
Source: San Bernardino 2023.
Packet Page. 1465
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Figure 1 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites Citywide Map Packet Page. 1466
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 7
Figure 2 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 1/7 Map
Packet Page. 1467
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Figure 3 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 2/7 Map
Packet Page. 1468
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 9
Figure 4 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 3/7 Map
Packet Page. 1469
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Figure 5 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 4/7 Map
Packet Page. 1470
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 11
Figure 6 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 5/7 Map
Packet Page. 1471
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Figure 7 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 6/7 Map
Packet Page. 1472
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 13
Figure 8 City of San Bernardino Rezoned Sites 7/7 Map
Packet Page. 1473
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
1.3.3 Proposed Housing Element Update Program Changes
CEQA requires the City to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes to the environment. Table 1-3 Summary of Program Changes Between Existing Housing Element and 2021–2029 Housing Element, includes the changes in programs between the existing Housing Element and the 2021–2029 Housing Element. As shown in Table 1-3 many of the programs from the previous Housing Element are continued through to the proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element.
Packet Page. 1474
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 15
Table 1-3 Summary of Program Changes Between Existing Housing Element and 2021-2029 Housing Element Program Name Program Objective from the 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress in Meeting the 2014-2021 Objectives Continue/ Modify/Delete
Program 3.1.1 Downtown Housing Encourage and facilitate the development of new housing in Downtown San Bernardino and along transit lines through the implementation of the Downtown Core Vision.
The City adopted a new vision to lay the groundwork for a future downtown specific plan. The City also executed a contract with National Core to redevelop Waterman Gardens into the Arrowhead Grove affordable housing project.
This program will be continued in the Housing Element. The City will complete the Downtown Specific Plan and the Arrowhead Grove project.
Program 3.1.2 Transit District Overlay Publicize incentives offered by the Transit District Overlay beginning in 2014. Provide technical assistance to interested developers and property owners.
The City adopted a transit district overlay around 13 transit stations along the SBX Route with the goal of revitalizing station areas. Although the City was available for technical assistance, development did not occur due to the City’s economic status.
This program will be continued in the Housing Element as the City envisions the role of transit districts increasing with the General Plan update.
Program 3.1.3 Residential Standards for
Commercial Zones
Update the Development Code to identify clear and objective development standards for housing and mixed-use development in the CG-3 and CG-4 zones.
The City did not update the Development Code; work was postponed due to the impending update of the General Plan and Development Code.
The program will be continued in the element. To comply with Govt Code § 65913.4, the ODDS will be drafted as part of the Development Code update after adoption of the updated General Plan.
Program 3.1.4 Corridor Improvement Program Facilitate investment and intensification along underutilized corridors through codifying the development and lot consolidation incentives proposed in the General Plan Land Use Element.
The City is implementing the Corridor Improvement Program, which provides policy, regulations, and incentives intended to stimulate investment and development in the Corridor Strategic Areas.
However, limited progress has been made to date.
This program can be an effective tool to encourage needed reinvestment if incentives are appropriate. The program will be continued and revised as part of the Development Code update.
Program 3.1.5 General Lot Consolidation
Incentive
Amend the Development Code to incentivize lot consolidation for projects committing to management plans and providing on-site management.
The City is in the process of amending the Development Code to simplify development regulations and processes. However, additional lot consolidation incentives may be needed to stimulate housing along corridors or focused areas of the City.
This program will be continued. The City will update the Development Code to implement the General Plan and remove identified potential constraints to facilitate new development.
Program 3.1.6 Density Bonus Provisions Facilitate higher density and affordable housing development by amending the Development Code to reflect the latest amendments to State density bonus law.
The City has received limited density bonus requests, except for several affordable housing projects. The density bonus ordinance was not revised due to staff shortfall.
This program will be continued in the Housing Element and, specifically, the density bonus ordinance will be updated as part of the update of the Development Code.
Program 3.2.1 Single-Family Housing
Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program
Acquire and rehabilitate at least 50 abandoned and foreclosed homes for incomerestricted resale to lower-income households.This program was used in prior cycles with NSP funds, but no longer operational. Efforts are directed at the development of single-family homes on infill lots formerly owned by the City RDA. During the 5th cycle, the City accomplished the following:
• MECH completed 3 infill properties for sale to eligible low income homebuyers—2060 E. 18th Street, 938 N “G” Street, and 140 W 13th Street.
• Additionally, NPHS seeks to complete two more phases (3 properties in Phase III and 4 properties in Phase IV) pending completion of City transfer of sites to NPHS.
This program is an important approach to maintaining and improving housing stock and quality as well as expanding single-family housing opportunities within San Bernardino. The City will continue to operate and augment the program as financial resources become available.
Program 3.2.2 Single-Family Rental Property
Inspection
Continue to identify code violations and educate owners and tenants about their responsibilities through singlefamily rental inspections. Refer owners to appropriate City programs to provide technical and financial assistance to address code violations.
The City spearheaded proactive code compliance efforts and provided financial assistance to property owners who cannot afford to maintain or rehab their dwellings. The program was suspended in 2020 due to funding but has now been reinstated with the hiring of additional code enforcement staff.
The program has been refunded and will be implemented for the 6th cycle Housing Element.
Program 3.2.3 Crime-Free Multi-Family
Housing (CFMH)
Improve multi-family housing conditions; refer code violators to rehabilitation assistance programs on an as-needed basis.
To date, 65 properties are certified compliant. Recent progress in the program has been affected by budget constraints and staff turnover.
The crime-free multi-housing program was deleted during the housing element update process and replaced by a property maintenance program.
Program 3.2.4 Single-Family Rehabilitation
Program
Provide assistance to 20 lower- and moderate-income households annually. This program was consolidated and operated under Program 3.2.1. The consolidated program will continue.
Program 3.2.5 Elderly/Special Needs Minor
Repair Grants Program
On an annual basis, provide home repair grants for approximately 85 units occupied by senior and disabled households.
The Old Timers Foundation, a local nonprofit organization, used CDBG funds to perform minor and emergency repairs to 109 homes owned by seniors and disabled persons.
This program was discontinued during the 5th cycle. The program will not be reactivated; other rehab programs will cover the scope of this program.
Program 3.2.6 Critical Repair Program Annually, provide assistance to 10 lower-income households to make critical exterior repairs.
Due to funding shortages, this program is inactive and is duplicated by existing home repair programs. The program is discontinued for the 6th cycle. Other rehabilitation programs will cover this program.
Program 3.2.7 Preservation of Assisted Multifamily Rental HousingWork with property owners and qualifying agencies to preserve 1,627 assisted multifamily rental units at risk of converting to market rents. Provide technical assistance to assist property owners to secure funds that preserve affordability of their housing units.
Ten projects totaling 1,257 units were at risk of conversion to market rents. The City assisted in conducting TEFRA hearings, issuing mortgage revenue bonds, and allocating City funds to preserve units, including City funds for fully replacing the Waterman Gardens Public Housing project.
The program is an important way to maintain/increase affordable housing in the City of San Bernardino and will be continued for the present Housing Element.
Program 3.2.8 Multi-family Rental Housing
Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Acquire and rehabilitate 50 multi-family rental units to benefit lower-income households. The City contracted with MECH to rehabilitate the 52-unit Eastpointe Village. Working with county partners, the Golden Apartments was also acquired and rehabilitated for permanent supportive housing.
The program is an effective way to maintain safe, livable affordable housing in San Bernardino. While funding is no longer available, the City will continue to seek funds for projects that meet City objectives.
Program 3.2.9 Mobile Home Grant Repair
Program
On an annual basis, provide home improvement grants to 20 lower-income mobile homeowners.
Program was previously done with Neighborhood Housing Services of the Inland Empire (NHSIE) and Inland Housing Development Corporation (IHDC), but there is no current progress.
The program will not be continued into the 6th cycle given its current status.
However, should staffing or funding increase, the program may be reimplemented.
Packet Page. 1475
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Program Name Program Objective from the 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress in Meeting the 2014-2021 Objectives Continue/ Modify/Delete
Program 3.3.1 Homebuyer Assistance
Program (HAP)
On an annual basis, provide down payment assistance to 50 low-income first-time homebuyers and homebuyer/ homeowner education to 300 households.
The HAP program is implemented by NHPS. NPHS assisted one household in 2021 with HAP funds.
Additionally, NPHS received $350,000 for acquiring properties to develop affordable homeownership opportunities. In 2020 NPHS developed 2 infill homes, with plans to develop 2 more.
The program is an effective and important way to maintain safe, livable affordable housing in San Bernardino and will continue for the 6th cycle.
Program 3.3.2 Emergency Shelter Assistance Continue to support emergency shelter operations. The City continues to support the provision of emergency shelters. Several projects (including motel conversions) have been developed, expanded, or approved for development. The following projects will be completed in 2023:
• U.S.VETS Housing: 30 units of permanent supportive housing and supportive services to veterans and their families.
While the City has made great strides in housing its homeless residents, it remains a critical issue and the program will be continued in the Housing Element.
Program 3.3.3 Transitional Housing Continue to support transitional housing programs and identify opportunities for expanding the transitional housing inventory to benefit lower- and extremely low-income households.
The City continues to provide funding to address the transitional housing needs in the City. Approved during the prior planning period, the following residential projects will be completed in 2023:
• Mary’s Village: Opened the City’s first “men’s” transitional project that provides housing, behavioral health, medical services, supportive services, job training, GED attainment, and wrap-around services.
• LSS Wellness Center: LSS will also provide emergency shelter, transitional housing, supportive housing, and wrap-around services.
The program continues to be an effective way to address the City’s transitional housing needs; and therefore, the program will continue in the 6th cycle.
Program 3.4.1 Reasonable Accommodation
Ordinance
Reduce governmental constraints to housing for disabled persons through adopting a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance.
The City completed a Development Code update in May 2021, which included a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance (Chapter 19.63).
This program was completed during the 5th cycle. The City will maintain a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance in compliance with state law and continue to implement it in order to support accessible housing development as needed to be updated with the development code update.
Program 3.4.2 Universal Design Features Explore amending the Development Code or program parameters to incentivize or require universal design features in housing projects that are assisted by City funds.
The City is currently working on a comprehensive update to the Development Code and has begun work on a new General Plan, which is anticipated to be completed by 2024.
This program is targeted to be implemented during the 6th cycle Housing Element.
Program 3.4.3 Fair Housing Mediation Contract for fair housing mediation services and refer those in need.
Distribute fair housing materials at City buildings and on the City website.
The City contracts with Inland Fair Housing Mediation Board to provide education, dispute resolution, and landlord/tenant mediation services to property owners, landlords, and tenants.
The program will be continued during the 6th cycle.
Program 3.4.4 Transitional and Permanent
Supportive Housing
Update the Development Code to adequately define transitional and permanent supportive housing, and permit these uses based on unit type, in accordance with SB 2.
While the City has permitted a considerable number of facilities, it will amend the zoning code for consistency with state law
This program is targeted to be complete in the 6th cycle as part of the Development Code update.
Program 3.4.5 Special Needs and Extremely
Low-Income Housing
Provide expedited project review and funding priority for projects available for special needs or ELI/VLI households. Continue to refer those in need to available services.
The City continues to fund many projects for these income groups and several are currently approved and in the development pipeline.
This program will continue for the 6th cycle element.
Program 3.5.1 Priority Water and Sewer
Service
Facilitate priority water and sewer service to affordable housing proposals. The City prioritizes water and sewer services to proposed affordable housing projects. Since there was not a shortage of water and sewer, the City did not have to activate its priority approval process.
The program will be continued during the 6th cycle Housing Element because it is both important and effective in supporting the development of affordable housing.
Program 3.5.2 Application Streamlining
Opportunities
Continue to explore ways of streamlining residential and mixed-use project permits. The City continues to strive to streamline the entitlement process, plan check review, and building permit issuance for all development projects, including residential and mixed-use projects. As of 2020, no applications have been submitted for streamlined residential or mixed-use projects.
As a part of the Development Code update, the City will update and include streamlining procedures consistent with state law. Additional measures for creating a one-stop shop will be included.
Packet Page. 1476
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 17
1.3.4 Modifications to Existing Programs
As shown in Table 1-1, the proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element consolidates some programs from the existing Housing Element to aid in implementation and eliminate redundancy. The programs focus on protecting existing housing stock and ensuring access to housing at all income levels. The City’s proposed Housing Element programs along with the zoning change amendment (proposed project) would introduce new housing units and people to vacant parcels and would affect land use patterns in the city; however, the resulting impacts would be identical to the previously certified General Plan EIR.
1.3.5 New Programs
The 2021–2029 Housing Element proposes the following new programs. • Program 1.1 RHNA Housing Site Inventory: This Housing Element provides an inventory of residential projects in the development pipeline and vacant sites that, taken together, will accommodate the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA. The City will maintain an inventory and map of available sites for residential development and will, in accordance with state law, ensure that requirements for no-net loss and allowance by right for sites used from the prior two planning periods will be adhered to throughout the planning period and that appropriate rezonings will occurs within the specified timeframes.
Objective(s)
o 1.1a. Maintain inventory of residential sites to address the 2021-2029 RHNA; periodically review sites for compliance with no-net-loss law.
o 1.1.b. Upzone 5.65 acres of RMH-designated sites to RM-32, 9.35 acres of RMH designated sites to RH-50, and 4.46 acres of RH-zoned sites to RH-50 (See Table 4-5) o 1.1c. On rezoned sites to meet the lower income RHNA, permit multifamily uses without discretionary action and address reads in Gov't Code 65583, (c)(1) and 65583.2, (h) (i). o 1.1d. Multifamily projects with 20% or more units affordable to lower income will be allowed by right on sites identified in prior planning periods
• Program 1.2 Downtown Specific Plan: Downtown San Bernardino is central to the City’s future as an urban center. The Downtown Specific Plan will transform the area into a mixed-use and multipurpose node that is connected to City services, employment, housing, and educational facilities, within walking distance and connected to transit. The Specific Plan aims to: restore historic and cultural prevalence to the downtown and its structures; leverage existing transit; restore and enhance civic life in the urban core; and serve as an economic and cultural catalyst to increase jobs, retail, housing, and places of gathering. The Specific Plan is not intended to assist in addressing the 6th cycle RHNA.
Packet Page. 1477
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Objective(s)
o 1.2a. Adopt the Downtown Specific Plan; make associated amendments to the Development Code as needed, and monitor plan effectiveness
o 1.2b. Issue RFP, comply with the Surplus Land Act, and select a developer(s) for the Carousel Mall catalytic housing sites and others identified in the Specific Plan. o 1.2c. Continue to work with residential developers until the catalytic projects are built on residential sites in downtown.
• Program 1.4 City-Owned and Surplus Site Development: The City will continue releasing land designated as surplus for development of affordable housing. The City will release surplus sites annually, noticing them via a Notice of Availability consistent with the SLA. All surplus sites are tracked on the City’s website. All surplus sites disposed pursuant to the SLA will include a minimum of 15-25 percent affordable units depending on SLA regulations. In addition to completing rezoning by April 17, 2024, the City will facilitate resolution with selected developers of any impediments to receiving entitlements and building permits to ensure that the project can commence construction prior to January 2028.
Objective(s)
o 1.4a. Dispose RDA sites (Table 4-6) in compliance with SLA; advertise surplus land for sale on the City's website; and consider and award bids to affordable housing developers. o 1.4b. Rezone 4.0 acres of CG-1 zoned land to RH-50, 1.9 acres of CO-zoned land and 1.4 acres of RH-zoned land to RMH-32 zoning, and 1.3 acres of CR-2 land to RH-50 zoning. o 1.4c. Proactively work with nonprofits or for-profit entities to develop residential uses on the surplus sites with units that are affordable to lower income households. o 1.4d. Require any Bice property development on surplus land to reserve at least 15 percent of its units for lower-income households, per state law under the Surplus Lands Act. • Program 1.5 Accessory Dwelling Units: Accessory dwelling units (ADU) are an effective strategy for providing affordable housing and reducing overcrowding and overpayment. In May 2021, the City Council adopted MC-1559 to allow ADUs and JADUs in all residential zones, subject to development review and compatibility with materials and architecture of the primary unit. The ADU Ordinance was subsequently amended again in 2022, resulting in a significant construction boom for ADUs and JADUs. Based on a three-year trend, the City is projecting 1,704 ADUs over the 2021-2029 planning period. To continue this progress, the following actions/objectives are proposed.
Objective(s)
o 1.5a. Periodically review and revise ADU regulations for consistency with state law. Address changes to the ADU Ordinance noted by HCD’s review letter dated October 2023.
Packet Page. 1478
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 19
o 15b. Monitor and record progress in ADU production and affordability in the APR to ensure ADU targets are met.
o 1.5c. Adopt development incentives, including online marketing, expedited process, pre-stamped plans, and one-stop permit.
o 1.5d. If ADU production or affordability falls 25 percent below target for two calendar years, rezone sites to address shortfall within 6 months.
• Program 1.7 Land Use Element/Code Update: As part of the General Plan update, the Land Use Element will be amended to increase the allowable density range for all medium- and higher-density residential land use designations to leverage the demand for apartments and condominiums, both affordable and market rate. Moreover, new mixed-use designations will be created along major east-west and north-south corridors to facilitate the conversion of underutilized sites to residential and/or mixed uses, create a more intense urban downtown, and support existing commercial uses (see Program 1.6). The General Plan update will provide a policy framework for updating specific plans and mixed-use corridors.
To achieve these goals will require amendments of the land use designations and SBMC.
Objective(s)
o 1.7a. Complete comprehensive updates to the General Plan Land Use Element to further increase opportunities for new housing.
o 1.7b. Revise land use designations of medium- to high-density residential zones; create mixed-use zones to implement the General Plan.
o 1.7c. Increase density ranges for medium-and-higher density zones, and draft density/intensity and development standards for residential and mixed-use projects. • Program 1.8 Design Standards: Design standards are implemented to ensure that residential projects built are of lasting value, provide communitywide benefits, and reduce visual blight. Objective development and design standards (ODDS) are a key part of this process because they provide property owners and builders with the community’s expectations for project design, and they improve predictability of the development review and approval process by offering quantifiable standards and regulations that need to be followed. The Development Review Committee, an interdepartmental committee of City staff, reviews all project applications and makes consistency recommendations to the approving body. However, SB 330 requires revisions to the design regulations in the municipal code to provide more specific design guidance for residential/mixed-use projects.
Objective(s)
o 1.8a. Revise, adopt, and implement ODDS (objective development and design standards) for residential and mixed-use projects to comply with State law.
Packet Page. 1479
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
o 1.8b. Review and revise the design findings required for the review and approval of projects to allow for greater objectivity, clarity, and certainty in approval. o 1.8c. Publicize and market the new objective development and design standards on the City’s economic and community development website.
• Program 2.1 Regulatory Incentives: San Bernardino has many underutilized sites and opportunities for residential development. However, small, individual lots offer limited development potential and generally cannot support on-site management when the lot is developed with residential uses. Residential development opportunities, particularly along corridors and infill on vacant and underused sites in existing neighborhoods, could be increased through a broader incentive program. While the City routinely grants minor modifications and exceptions to facilitate development, the program could be expanded to include lot consolidation incentives, such as density incentives. In tandem with other regulatory incentives, these tools will encourage a more efficient use of the land, offer flexibility for developers, and facilitate quality development. Moreover, such a program will further assist developers in revitalizing corridors given new state laws allowing for residential uses.
Objective(s)
o 2.1a. Amend Development Code to incentivize lot consolidation, merger, or lot line adjustments to encourage assemblage of lots into larger parcels to facilitate quality housing. o 2.1b. Allow for minor modifications and exceptions to facilitate and encourage the development of quality residential development.
• Program 2.3 Development Fee Study: Development fees support community services and benefits, such as public safety infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, affordable housing, environmental mitigation, libraries, parks, flood control, and other projects. However, if not carefully drafted, impact fees can make it infeasible for developers to build housing or can significantly increase home prices. Development fees can amount to anywhere from 6 to 18 percent of the median price of a home depending on location, according to the AB 602 Senate Floor Analysis. The City has hired a consultant to assess fees. The City will utilize the fee study to determine revisions to balance full-cost recovery, ensure proposed projects are adequately planned for, and consider the cumulative effect on housing development.
Objective(s)
o 2.3a. Study and implement development and impact fees in accordance with SB 319 and AB 602, as codified in Gov’t Code § 66000 et. seq.
o 2.3b. Complete development fee study to assess appropriateness and consistency with state law; revise fees based on the findings.
o 2.3c. Study the feasibility of offering selected fee reductions, where appropriate, to facilitate the development of housing that fills unmet housing need.
Packet Page. 1480
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 21
• Program 2.4 Development Code Update: As part of the General Plan update, the City has committed to updating the Development Code. Among other items, key provisions include: 1) updating regulatory measures that allow housing types, including special needs housing (Program 2.7); 2) updating the density bonus ordinance (Program 2.2); 3) updating development and design standards to facilitate development along corridors and in downtown (Programs 1.6 and 1.8); and 4) make amendments to facilitate consistency with the General Plan (Program 1.7). However, additional revisions to the Development Code are needed to address potential constraints to development.
Objective(s)
o 2.4a. Revise residential open space and lot coverage standards to allow more flexibility in satisfying requirements (e.g., use of shared space or transfer of open space requirements) o 2.4b. Remove the tiered density reduction standards for lots in multiple-family residential zones, thus facilitating achievement of maximum density in each respective zone. o 2.4c. Revise land use tables for all zones to clarify requirements for land use allowance and creating distinct requirements for physical improvements to property. o 2.4d. Review and, if needed, revise other code requirements and administrative processes that could impede achievement of maximum density.
• Program 2.5 Permit Facilitation: The City’s development review process has three tiers of permits (administrative, development, and conditional permits), each with different decision-making bodies that review, condition, and approve applications. While the City meets its statutory requirements for processing development applications, conversations with developers indicated that further actions, beyond augmenting staffing, can streamline, coordinate, and facilitate the processing of permits. To that end, the City is developing a “one-stop shop” counter that will physically and virtually connect all phases of review for development applications. Additional processes are being implemented, including the objective design standards and permit-expediting process during the planning period.
Objective(s)
o 2.5a. Establish a written policy or procedure to allow a streamlined approval process and standards for eligible projects, as set forth under Gov’t Code § 65913.4. o 2.5b. Create a one-stop-shop counter for residential projects to streamline the application submittal and review process, improve consistency, and improve development certainty. o 2.5c. Monitor status of projects quarterly; for ones not moving forward, contact developers to ascertain issues, facilitate remaining entitlements, and assist in extensions as needed. o 2.5d. Track project processing to ensure an environmental determination is made pursuant to PRC§21080.1, within the timeframes of the PRC §21080.2 and Gov’t Code 65950(a)(5).
Packet Page. 1481
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
• Program 2.6 Site Improvements Assistance: Site improvements are necessary to prepare land for development and address potential impacts of development on- or off-site. Common improvements include grading, street lighting, and drainage; curb, gutter, and sidewalks; utility poles and connections; roadway improvements; etc. Financing site improvements can be a challenge for developers who propose affordable housing or small projects where infrastructure is lacking. To reduce the constraints and costs associated with site improvements, the City may, on a project-by-project basis, 1) allow developers to defer site improvements to a later date, 2) waive the requirement to underground utilities, or 3) waive or modify requirements for public street improvements if the improvements are cost prohibitive.
Objective(s)
o 2.6a. Require adequate site improvements for residential and mixed-use projects to ensure that impacts of development are addressed and mitigated.
o 2.6b. Consider deferral, modification, or waiver of street improvements, undergrounding of utilities, and other features on a project-by-project basis. • Program 2.7 Constraints to a Variety of Housing: Housing Elements must provide for a variety of housing types to accommodate people of all incomes, household types, and disabilities. This includes housing such as single-family homes, multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, ADUs, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, SRO units, emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and low barrier navigation centers. The SBMC update will include the following revisions.
Objective(s)
o 2.7a. Amend the SBMC to define and permit employee housing as a by-right use in zones allowing single-family housing, in accordance with Health and Safety Code § 17021.5. o 2.7b. Define/permit ADUs as a by-right use consistent with Gov’t Code §65852.2; incorporate changes to the ADU ordinance required by HCD’s October 2, 2023 memo to the City. o 2.7c. Amend SBMC's permitting, definitions, and associated regulations to facilitate development of emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, and low barrier navigation centers per state law (See Program 5.5).
o 2.7 d. Interview SRO/micro-unit developers and propose ordinance revisions for consideration to the City Council to incentivize both housing types.
• Program 2.8 Constraints to Housing for People with Disabilities: In December 2022, HCD issued a technical memorandum that provides guidance on how cities should address group homes and housing for people with disabilities. This guidance addresses how such land uses are defined, permitted in zoning districts, subjected to local regulations, and allowed reasonable accommodation. In addition, AB 2339 Packet Page. 1482
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 23
requires additional changes to emergency shelters and other potential constraints to the development of suitable housing. These facilities may also house disabled individuals needing special accommodations.
Objective(s)
o 2.8a. Amend SBMC to redefine the terms “family,” “dwelling unit, ”dwelling single,” and “disability” and residential/ community care facilities to comply with fair housing law. o 2.8b. Amend the SBMC to allow group homes or small residential care facilities (RCF) serving six or fewer persons that operate as a single housekeeping unit and that do not provide licensable services in all zones allowing single or multiunit residences. o 2.8c. Amend the SBMC to allow RCFs operating as a single housekeeping unit that provide licensable services to more than six residents subject to a conditional use permit based on generally applicable, nondiscriminatory findings in all zones allowing residential/mixed uses. • Program 3.1 Housing Rehabilitation: The Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program is designed to assist income-eligible San Bernardino homeowners improve the living conditions of their homes. Only owneroccupied single-family detached dwellings, townhomes, and condominiums within the San Bernardino city limits qualify for this program. Health and safety, building code, accessibility, and some general propertyrelated repairs are eligible for reimbursement. Loans are all deferred loans at three percent interest per annum, with no payments due on the loan unless qualifying actions occur. Beyond single-family homes, however, the City also has a need for rehabilitation of mobile homes and apartments. Though there are fewer funding sources available, HCD will release a Multi-family Housing Program (MHP) Super NOFA in late 2023 to provide funding for rehabilitation activities.
Objective(s)
o 3.1a. Contract with NPHS to implement the owner-occupied housing rehabilitation loan program and report on results annually.
o 3.1b. Consider opportunities to seek and secure funding to expand the housing rehabilitation program to mobile home parks and apartments.
o 3.1c. If program expansion is feasible and approved by council, authorize staffing and financial resources to expand program to cover mobile homes and apartments. o 3.1d. Conduct a survey to clarify the need for demolition, moderate repairs, and major repairs needed to the housing stock within the city.
• Program 3.2 Rental Housing Program Maintenance Standards: On October 4, 2023, the City Council adopted MCC-1619 replacing Chapter 15.27 of the SBMC “Crime Free Rental Housing Program” in its entirety with Rental Housing Program Maintenance Standards. It also amends the chapter to retain the exterior inspections of multi-family rental housing and the eight-hour training class. As part of the stipulated judgment with Promise Gracia et al., the provision for charging for inspections has been Packet Page. 1483
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
removed. The ordinance applies to all multi-family rental housing complexes containing four or more units on a single parcel. City code enforcement may be involved in conducting the rental housing course and annual exterior (re)inspections as a lawful exercise of their duties, including but not limited to enforcement responsibilities under Civil Code 1941 et seq. and HS Code 17920.3 and 17975 et seq.
Objective(s)
o 3.2a. Implement program changes immediately following adoption of the ordinance in 2023 and return to the City Council for action by mid-2024.
o 3.2b. Review ordinance on an annual basis to ensure that it is effective and complies with all state and federal fair housing laws.
• Program 3.3 Code Enforcement: The City’s Code Enforcement program enforces regulations codified in more than 20 municipal codes that are intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public; maintain quality neighborhoods; maintain quality housing; reduce crime; and ensure a high quality of life.
Following the City’s exit from bankruptcy and COVID health restrictions, the City has been increasing code enforcement staff to create greater capacity for responding to code violations and inspections. The City will continue to implement its code enforcement program to further the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its residents and business, while also pursuing additional action items as appropriate to address emerging concerns.
Objective(s)
o 3.3a. Enforce code compliance; increase the number of code enforcement staff to improve capacity to respond to municipal code violations in a timely manner. o 3.3b. Adopt 2022 California Building Code; Require adherence to local housing, property, vehicle, and other local regulations to ensure the safety and health of residents. o 3.3c. In conjunction with County Fire, Housing Division, or business licensing program, explore interventions to expand the inspection of multi-family housing. o 3.3d. Analyze the City’s code enforcement programs with respect to Federal and State Fair Housing Law and include or modify programs to ensure compliance. • Program 3.4 Affordable Housing Inspection Program: San Bernardino’s Housing Compliance Specialist performs housing and compliance checks on homes and apartments developed using HOME, RDA, or NSP assistance. The scope includes more than 24 projects with more than 2,500 affordable housing units. As part of this effort, the housing compliance specialist will: 1) conduct on-site inspections of affordable units, with assistance from City building inspectors; 2) ensure monitoring and inspection deficiencies are addressed in a timely manner; and 3) review and approval of affirmative marketing and tenant services plans. This requirement only applies to projects required to be inspected under 24 CFR Packet Page. 1484
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 25
92.504(d) and is separate from the City’s property maintenance program for single and multiple-family units.
Objective(s)
o 3.4a. Inspect multi-family housing developed using federal HOME or NSP assistance; inspect 20% of projects each year, require compliance with federal housing quality standards. o 3.4b. Implement a general multi-family housing inspection program that is separate and covers all multiple-family residential properties in the city.
o 3.4c. Transition to NSPIRE for consistency with local, state, federal housing inspection criteria • Program 3.5 Violence Prevention/Intervention: The City implements comprehensive violence and crime prevention efforts. The City’s Violence Intervention and Prevention (Program addresses root conditions that have driven violence and crime in San Bernardino. Partners include the City, its police department, Loma Linda University, H.O.P.E Culture, Young Visionaries, Urban Peace Institute, Urban Conservation Corps, and others. Violence intervention involves outreaching to gangs/individuals based on crime reports, holding education events, identifying high risk residents to help develop life plans, and personal follow up. In 2019, under its community-oriented policing initiative, the City reorganized its officers into neighborhoods by staffing four substations that will allow officers to work closer with community groups and residents, build greater trust among residents, and reduce crime and violence rates.
Objective(s)
o 3.5a. Implement violence intervention services to reduce crime and gang-related violence, including $3.8 million in violence intervention grant funds. o 3.5b. Implement community-oriented policing to reduce crime and violence, including the $5.0 million in grants to hire community policing officers
o 3.5c. Explore the feasibility of implementing a citywide Neighborhood Watch Program to prevent and reduce crime and violence. If such a program is adopted, ensure that it complies with all Federal and State Fair Housing Law as well as the City’s duty to AFFH. • Program 3.6 Park and Recreational Planning: San Bernardino’s 36 parks provide opportunities for residents to recreate, socialize, and exercise. During the bankruptcy and following decade, many of these resources fell into disrepair due to the inability to fund maintenance and repair. These resources eventually became unsafe to occupy. Since emerging from bankruptcy, the City has been repairing park and recreational facilities throughout the community. The City has worked to secure grants and/or collaborate with partners from the State of California, San Manuel Reservation, Kaboom, and other for-profit and non-profit agencies to fund the revitalization of park and recreational facilities.
Packet Page. 1485
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Objective(s)
o 3.6a. Complete comprehensive update of the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element; Complete Parks/Rec Master Plan; program recommended improvements into the CIP. o 3.6b. Continue to secure funding, schedule and improve projects, including: Guadalupe, Speicher, Delmann Heights, Seccombe, Nicholson, Encanto Center, and Blair Park o 3.6c. Complete improvements to two libraries: Paul Villasenor Library and Feldhym Library. • Program 3.7 Business and Employment Assistance: The City will establish an Entrepreneurial Resource Center downtown, supported by IECE at CSUSB, that will provide resources and support for entrepreneurs and small business owners in the City. In 2022, the City was awarded a $4.2 million grant to hire 70 young and early-career staff members as part of the California Youth Jobs Program. In collaboration with the Inland Empire Small Business Development Center, the City will dedicate $3.0 million in ARPA funds to assist businesses and organizations impacted by COVID-19 or qualifying as an “underserved small business.”
Objective(s)
o 3.7a. Expend $3.0 million in ARA funds to assist small businesses and organizations that were adversely impacted by the COVD pandemic.
o 3.7b. Establish an Entrepreneurial Resource Center (ERC) to provide a central point for resources and support for entrepreneurs and small business owners in the City. o 3.7c. Implement Youth Workforce grant and employ and train San Bernardino youth for jobs with the City and CBOs to restore services curtailed during the COVID pandemic. o 3.7d. Prepare a citywide Broadband Master Plan that will position the City for implementation grants from the state and federal government.
• Program 3.8 Capital Improvements: Each year the City adopts a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) aligning with the 2020 2025 Key Strategic Targets and Goals established by the mayor and city council. The CIP provides a roadmap for developing and maintaining the City’s capital facilities and infrastructure to provide high quality services to residents and the community. Due to the cost and importance of capital projects, significant consideration goes into allocation of resources to these projects.
Projects in the CIP are evaluated against a four-point scale of priority and selected based on an assessment of community needs, mayor and city council priorities, and available funding.
Objective(s)
o 3.8a. Continue annual update of the CIP and implementation of scheduled projects, including accessibility improvements per the City’s Transition Plan.
Packet Page. 1486
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 27
o 3.8b. Prioritize capital improvements where disinvestment or disadvantaged areas exist; pursue collaborate efforts where feasible. Complete Vernon Bridge, Muscoy Improvements, State Street Extension, Cross St. Bridge, Mt Vernon Storm Drain., and Del Rosa Fire Station. o 3.8c. Request estimated $5 million in grant funding and, if approved, prepare an ADA Plan, Bridge Management Plan, Storm Drain Master Plan, and Facility Management Plan. • Program 3.9 Water and Sewer Planning: San Bernardino’s age and geographic diversity underscores the importance of water and sewer planning to address the needs of existing and future residential development. Gov’t Code 65589.7 requires that jurisdictions have a policy for prioritizing water and sewer services (will serve letters) for residential projects that provide affordable housing to lower income residents. While the City can provide adequate service, a priority policy needs to be adopted to comply with state law. Furthermore, in compliance with state and county codes, infrastructure improvements are needed to: 1) protect the groundwater due to leaking from septic use in more rural areas; and 2) upgrade water lines to remove the potential for lead leaching in compliance with USEPA direction.
Objective(s)
o 3.9a. Implement septic conversion projects - convert 250 septic tanks in Arrowhead Farms upon receipt of $24.3 million SWCRB grant.
o 3.9b. Complete $3.5 million project to replace 300+ lead water service connectors in the Cimmaron and San Anselmo neighborhoods
o 3.9c. Adopt a policy that grants priority for issuing will serve water and sewer service to proposed housing affordable to lower-income households.
• Program 3.10 Community Health: For a large, industrialized community, improving and maintaining environmental quality is a high priority for the City. Of the City’s 43 tracts, 13 tracts (33 percent) are considered disadvantaged for pollution burden. Environmental health concerns are broad in type and include environmental justice, air quality, land use adjacency issues, heavy industrial uses, and legacy superfund sites. Improving environmental conditions is complex and costly, oftentimes requiring multiagency cooperation. The Housing Element commits the City to do the following:
Objective(s)
o 3.10a. Complete a Health/Environmental Justice Element for the 2050 General Plan based on the findings of a technical report and community input.
o 3.10b. Support implementation of the Community Emissions Reduction Plan in Muscoy/West San Bernardino to reduce exposure to pollution.
o 3.10c. Encourage and facilitate the cleanup of active contaminated sites and, for inactive projects, seek funding and partnerships to facilitate cleanup.
Packet Page. 1487
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
o 3.10d. Complete installation of traffic signal improvement grant (Caltrans’ Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP))
o 3.10e. Implement Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant to improve road safety. • Program 4.2 Rent Control/Stabilization: In 1984, San Bernardino adopted a rent stabilization program that covered all of its 48 mobile home parks where units are not already covered by a lease. The goal of the program is to maintain the affordability of existing mobile home parks as a viable option for affordable living, particularly for lower income seniors and families with children. City provisions regulate rents, and HCD inspects the properties to ensure that State codes are met. Annual rent increases are capped at 80 percent of the change in the consumer price index. Passed in 2023, SB 940 allows locally passed rent protections to apply towards newly constructed mobile home spaces, and creates a 10-year exemption for spaces in those parks. AB1482 also took effect on January 1, 2020, and imposes rent caps, just cause eviction, and other procedures on apartments built more than 15 years ago.
Objective(s)
o 4.2a. Continue the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization program and ensure that all increase requests go through the proper administrative and hearing process. o 4.2b. Contract with fair housing providers to educate tenants on their rights and responsibilities with respect to rent stabilization and just cause eviction. • Program 4.3 Housing Choice Voucher: The Housing Authority implements a federally funded rental housing choice voucher (HCV) program. The HCV program provides rental assistance to qualified extremely low- and very low-income households residing in San Bernardino or to properties offering affordable units to these income groups. The program offers a rent “voucher” that is equal to the difference between the current fair market rent for an apartment and what a tenant can afford to pay (based on 30 percent of their household income). A tenant may choose to live in housing that costs more than the normal payment standard if they pay the extra rent. Housing vouchers can be allocated to projects (“project-based”) or to renters (“tenant-based”). Presently, approximately 2,600 income-eligible households benefit from the tenant-based housing choice voucher program in San Bernardino.
Objective(s)
o 4.3a. Maintain use of at least 2,600 tenant-based rental vouchers for San Bernardino residents and support continued distribution of project-based vouchers. o 4.3b. Work with HACSB to improve use of tenant-based vouchers 10% by marketing educational and promotional materials to residents, tenants, and property managers. o 4.3c. Publicize the Housing Authority’s HCV program by posting fliers and distributing other educational materials at appropriate venues.
Packet Page. 1488
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 29
• Program 4.4 Emergency Rental Assistance: San Bernardino and its residents were severely impacted by COVID, which resulted in loss of employment, evictions, and other economic hardships. In 2021, the City secured $11 million in Emergency Rental Assistance funding from the State of California to pay rent or utilities for tenants and landlords who did not receive revenues due to the impact of COVID-19.
Through Resolution No. 2021-224, the program allowed past and current rent and utility bills to be paid.
The program partners with Inland SoCal 211+ to provide information regarding program resources. As of January 2023, the program had 6,950 applicants and disbursed $16.9 million in assistance. The program is currently only serving existing clients because available funds are exhausted. More than 90 percent of households are Hispanic or African Americans with one to five members.
Objective(s)
o 4.4a. Provide emergency rental assistance to existing San Bernardino residents impacted by job or other financial losses due to COVID.
o 4.4b. Seek additional funding that may become available and, if funding becomes available, allocate rental assistance to residents most in need of housing support. o 4.4c. Review and consider non-profit applications for funding for rental assistance programs, during its annual CDBG/ESG/HOME funding cycle.
• Program 4.5 Homeownership Initiative: Creating generational wealth has been a reoccurring theme expressed by residents. As is the case statewide, African American, Hispanic, and Filipino residents have the lowest homeowner rates. New homeownership programs have, until recently, declined due to the rapid escalation in prices and high subsidy required to make the cost of a home affordable to low- and moderateincome households. However, expanding homeownership is a key initiative in San Bernardino and is currently implemented through the infill housing development program on formerly surplus sites. The City will initiate a homeownership effort that includes strategies to augment funding and increase partnerships to close the race and ethnic gap in homeownership.
Objective(s)
o 4.5a. Present homeownership gap closure program to City Council for consideration to improve homeownership for San Bernardino residents.
o 4.5b. If approved, apply for homeownership funding opportunities and grants as NOFAs are released. If approved, develop program, and hire staff. • Program 4.6 Assist in the Development of Extremely Low-Income Housing: San Bernardino’s effort to assist in the development of extremely low-, very low-, and low-income housing leverages a variety of affordability tools, incentives, partners, and financing. The first component includes making sites available for affordable housing, including surplus sites. The second component includes regulatory and financial incentives (e.g., density bonus, administrative exceptions, and other regulatory relief) to improve project feasibility. The third component includes permit streamlining to expedite the review and conditioning of Packet Page. 1489
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
the project to reduce constraints to project approval. These components make it possible for the City to assist in the development of affordable housing for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.
Objective(s)
o 4.6a. Post and circulate surplus sites available for affordable housing per the Surplus Land Act; consider proposals from affordable housing developers per the SLA. o 4.6b. Reach out to and collaborate with local nonprofits to provide housing assistance, education and information, and other support and resources.
o 4.6c. Complete processing, facilitation, funding and/or technical assistance of affordable housing in the pipeline and pursue other opportunities that arise. • Program 4.7 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: With inflationary housing prices and rents in recent years, it has grown more challenging to finance and develop affordable housing. At the same time, new State law, referred to as “no net loss,” requires cities to find replacement sites or redesignate sites for affordable housing if the original affordable housing sites in the Housing Element are built with marketrate housing. As a result, cities are increasingly reexamining the feasibility of inclusionary housing ordinances (IHO), which mandate that new residential projects set aside a percentage of units as affordable to low- and/or moderate-income families. An IHO can help achieve multiple housing goals—achieving the RHNA mandate, preventing unnecessary rezoning, reducing housing insecurity, and integrating affordable housing options alongside market rate housing.
Objective(s)
o 4.7a. Contract with an affordable housing specialist to study, identify, and evaluate feasibility of inclusionary housing policies.
o 4.7b. Host study session(s) with the City Council and the development community to discuss opportunities for inclusionary housing.
o 4.8c. If approved by the City Council, conduct a nexus study, prepare inclusionary requirements and in-lieu fee options, and create an expenditure policy for funds. • Program 4.8 Housing or Land Trust: Community land trusts (CLT) are mechanisms for creating affordable housing units and maintaining the units as affordable over the long term. Traditionally, land trusts maintain housing affordability by retaining ownership of the land, allowing the owner to place permanent covenants on the prices or rents for homes on the land. There are various public and private land trust models and funding options that can help to provide resources beyond affordable housing, such as community revitalization, home preservation, and ownership opportunities. SBCTA has developed an initial CLT program that might offer the opportunity to join at a low initial cost. However, the City can also work with nonprofit organizations to develop a local CLT as well.
Packet Page. 1490
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 31
Objective(s)
o 4.8a. Explore the feasibility of a housing trust, either regional (e.g., SBCTA) or local, as a means of providing affordable housing in the City.
o 4.8b. Host a study session with the City Council to discuss housing land trust opportunities and their feasibility in the City of San Bernardino.
o 4.8c. If approved, develop a list of City land assets, funding sources, and interested parties and prepare a program for council consideration.
• Program 5.2 Senior Housing and Services: San Bernardino’s seniors have specific needs related to housing affordability, accessibility, and supportive services. As the senior population grows, so will the need for housing that is affordable for those on fixed incomes or with mobility needs. To address the housing needs of senior households, the City permits and facilitates the development of senior apartments, senior (“age-restricted”) mobile home parks, assisted living, residential care, and other housing options. The City provides two senior centers provide social events and programs (nutrition; senior companion; AmeriCorps; health, fitness, and exercise; etc.). The City provides a senior companion program and nutrition program (SCP/SNP) with $700,000 in grants from the CNCS from 2022-2025.
Objective(s)
o 5.2a. Continue to seek and attract residential developers to provide, build, and expand the City’s inventory of affordable and market rate housing for seniors. o 5.2b. Sponsor and provide physical, social, health, and other support services for senior residents at San Bernardino’s senior centers and other locations. o 5.2c. Maintain the housing security of seniors through voucher advocacy, preservation of affordable housing, mobile home rent stabilization, housing assistance, and other programs. • Program 5.3 Housing for Persons with Disabilities: San Bernadino’s disabled population is diverse, representing different ages, abilities, medical conditions, and other life situations. The City’s approach to serving its disabled residents is multifaceted and designed to facilitate independent living so residents can live their fullest. For new housing, the City requires that housing is accessible per ADA disability standards.
For housed residents, the City provides procedures for residents to seek reasonable accommodation (SBMC Chapter 19.63) to modify their homes to improve accessibility. The City improves the accessibility of infrastructure and public facilities in accordance with its Transition Plan. The City also approves residential care facilities and other group housing for residents with a wide range of disabilities.
Objective(s)
o 5.3a. Continue to ensure compliance with all building accessibility codes. Review and revise the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance to ensure it is consistent with State law; prepare interdepartmental letter directing compliance with state law until ordinance is updated.
Packet Page. 1491
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
o 5.3b. Update and implement the City’s Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan and continue to schedule improvements to ensure accessibility to City streets, facilities, and public services. o 5.3c. Update the SBMC regarding residential care facilities, consistent with State requirements (Health and Safety Code § 1502 et seq).
o 5.3d. Support efforts to provide community, recreational, and social services to people with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities.
• Program 5.4 Housing for Students: Cal State San Bernardino and San Bernardino Valley Community College are valued community assets, providing education, jobs, and enrichment opportunities. Though Cal State has some on-campus housing, both schools are predominantly commuter schools. As is the case statewide, college students often face precarious and uncertain housing situations; it is not uncommon for college students to double up to afford housing and tuition. Even for students who are adequately housed, the combined cost of college tuition and housing may result in housing insecurity. In 2022, the San Bernardino CCD was awarded a $1 million grant for a feasibility study. Should the feasibility study demonstrate the demand for housing, the district can submit an application for an allocation from California’s pool of $1.5 billion to finance the development of student housing.
Objective(s)
o 5.4a. Support local college and university efforts to explore the development of on- and off-site housing opportunities for their students and faculty.
o 5.4b. Work with SBVC to facilitate student housing through the entitlement process--expediting rezoning, development entitlements, or supporting funding applications • Program 5.5 Housing for Families with Children: The Housing Element analysis found that families with children are the majority household type in the City. Additionally, most of the households in San Bernardino are considered lower income and live in low opportunity districts or neighborhoods. According to the Census Bureau, the needs of San Bernardino’s families with children are many, including housing problems (overpayment, overcrowding, substandard housing), the need for financial assistance for lower income families, the need for continued education and employment for youth and adults, the need for park and recreational programs, and other needs. Though the City is not positioned to address the full range of needs of families with children, it can provide housing and services when feasible and contract with other appropriate entities to address service gaps.
Objective(s)
o 5.6a. Seek and attract residential developers to provide, build, and expand the City's inventory of affordable and market rate housing for families with children. o 5.6b. Sponsor and provide at community centers physical, social, health, and other support services for families and children.
Packet Page. 1492
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 33
o 5.6c. Maintain the housing security of families with children through preservation of affordable housing, rent stabilization, housing assistance, etc.
• Program 5.6 Homeless Services: San Bernardino is home to 40 percent of the county’s homeless population, and the City’s homeless population has increased 175 percent since 2017. Shelters are at or near full capacity. Moreover, homelessness is expected to increase. On February 1, 2023, the City Council issued an Emergency Homelessness Declaration. San Bernardino is committed to implementing a “housing first” strategy and provision of a full continuum of housing and services to address homelessness. The City‘s strategy to address homelessness and the multiplicity of unmet needs is multilayered. It begins with individual outreach and interaction, leading ultimately to comprehensive housing opportunities (e.g., shelters, navigation centers, transitional shelters, interim housing, permanent supportive housing) and the full range of health, social, and employment services needed to facilitate independence. The City is dedicating more than $20 million, not including additional noncity funds, to augment shelter capacity, outreach and engagement, and supportive services.
Objective(s)
o 5.5a. Convene a Homeless Task Force to review implementation of the City’s Homeless Action Plan and the expenditure of $20 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds to finance the plan. o 5.5b. Partner with County, for-profit, and nonprofit agencies to provide a comprehensive continuum of services to people who are homeless or residing temporarily in shelters. o 5.5c. Provide a street outreach team to assist individuals experiencing homelessness, direct them to services, and address issues with encampments.
o 5.5d. Complete the following projects:
170-bed Lutheran Social Services multiservice campus
30-unit U.S. VETS permanent supportive housing on E Street 60-unit interim SBVC project on G Street for college students 200-bed Salvation Army expansion
200-prefab-unit HOPE Navigation Center Campus on 6th Street o 5.5e. Work with the County to provide accurate counts of homeless people to document the need for services and success of City programs.
o 5.5f. Amend SBMC's definition for transitional and supportive housing and permit by right in all zones allowing residential uses, and allow low barrier navigation centers as a by-right use in all zones allowing residential and mixed uses, per Gov't Code § 65583(c)(3) and § 65660.
Packet Page. 1493
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
o 5.5g. Revise municipal code provisions for a security and management plan for emergency shelters in compliance with the Stipulated Final Judgement and Order submitted in the case of Gracia et. al v. City of San Bernardino.
o 5.5h. Make code revisions needed to address AB 2339 and revise the emergency shelter overlay site to remove infeasible sites and include additional sites as warranted. • Program 5.7 Housing Mobility: Racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA) are a fair housing concern in that certain areas may disproportionately benefit higher resources to the exclusion of lower income residents. The City of San Bernardino does not have an RCAA; in fact, most of the City is lower income tracts. A of 2023, only four tracts in Northwest San Bernardino are moderate/higher resource. To ensure equal access to resources in these areas, the City will implement a fourfold strategy: 1) approve ADU applications submitted; 2) surplus up to 113 parcels in single-family residential developments for affordable housing; 3) market housing choice vouchers to apartment properties in the area; and 4) work with HASC to preserve any at risk housing units in the neighborhood.
Objective(s)
o 5.7a. Facilitate and approve ADU applications in Northwest San Bernardino o 5.7b. Surplus up to 113 lots for affordable single-family housing in Northwest San Bernardino o 5.7c. Affirmatively market use of rental vouchers to apartments in Northwest San Bernardino o 5.7d. Work with HASC to preserve affordable housing in Northwest San Bernardino • Program 5.8 Place-Based Program: As discussed in Chapter 5, San Bernardino has several disadvantaged incorporated areas—the Westside and Central/Downtown—which are some of the oldest areas of the community. Both comprise the majority of the areas designated as R/ECAPs and/or high segregation and poverty in the community. As explained earlier, these conditions are due in part to the many economic, housing, and social changes since 1980 that resulted in significant economic disruption, poverty, foreclosures, deteriorating infrastructure, and declining neighborhoods. Reversing and ameliorating these conditions will take considerable time and continued investments. To improve these areas, the City is directing significant public and private investment into both areas. Chapter 5 (Tables 5-23 and 5-24) along with action items in other housing element programs list dozens of initiatives and multi-million-dollar investments being dedicated to these two areas. The timeframes for each action item were initiated by the City, County or other partners can be found by referencing the program number for each line item in the housing plan.
Objective(s)
o 5.8a. Complete comprehensive community building investments in the Central/Downtown and Westside (see Tables 5-23 and 5-24).
Packet Page. 1494
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
January 2024 Page 35
o 5.8b. Continue to seek grants and engage with nonprofit and for-profit organizations to assist in implementing community building initiatives.
Packet Page. 1495
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Page. 1496
January 2024 Page 37
2. CEQA Analysis
As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations):
When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless the agency determines that the proposed project would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. This analysis has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Packet Page. 1497
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
2. CEQA Analysis
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Under CEQA Guideline Section 15164, an addendum may be prepared if only minor technical changes are required or if none of the conditions identified in Guideline Section 15162 are present. In the absence of substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project changes may result in significant environmental impacts not previously studied, an addendum to the EIR is appropriate. The following review proceeds with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The following discussion concludes that the conditions set forth in Section 15162 are not present, and that an addendum is appropriate for the proposed project.
Table 1-3, Summary of Program Changes Between Existing Housing Element and 2021-2029 Housing Element shows that many of the existing Housing Element programs will remain unchanged with the proposed project. The 2021- 2029 Housing Element provides a total of 25 programs; most of these programs are either informative or would result in no physical change to the environment. Overall, the programs were modified to comply with state law, respond to directives from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and eliminate programs where the City has already completed the identified task. Program 1.1: RHNA Housing Site Inventory, requires the rezoning of 19.5 acres of RH and RMH designated land to higher densities, which would help the City meet its low-income RHNA target. Program 1.4 City-Owned and Surplus Site Development, would rezone 4.0 acres of (Commercial General) CG-1 zoned land, 5.6 acres of RH-zoned land, and 9.3 acres of RMH- zoned land to RH-50 zoning; and rezone 1.9 acres of (Commercial Office) CO-zoned land, 1.4 acres of RH-zoned land, and 5.6 acres of RMH-zoned land to RMH-32 zoning. These parcels are shown in Table 1-1, Private-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone, and Table 1-2, Cityowned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone, and the impacts associated with the zoning changes would increase density for residential uses or change non-residential zones to the new residential zones with increased density. The Housing Element identifies 11 parcels for rezone, as shown in Table 1-1, Private-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone and an additional 28 parcels for rezone, as shown in Table 1-2, City-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone.
Furthermore, the units identified in the 2021–2029 Housing Element would not exceed the listed housing unit buildout in Table 1, City of San Berardino General Plan Buildout Statistics of the 2005 General Plan EIR which shows the total development capacity at 88,282 residential units for developable/usable area during the time of the EIR. The proposed project identifies 8,123 new housing units to meet the City’s RHNA, which when added to the City’s current number of housing units is 75,716 units. Similarly, the estimated number of residents that would be added to the city under full buildout of the 2021–2029 Housing Element is 7,270 residents, which when added to the City’s 2023 population is 230,500. Thus, there would be 63,859 fewer residents than the 2005 buildout population described in the General Plan EIR which is 294,359 residents.
The public service impacts associated with the potential population increase that could be associated with new housing include police and fire services, and parks. Additional services for police and fire would only result in a physical impact if new facilities were required to meet the growth needs.
Packet Page. 1498
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
2. CEQA Analysis
January 2024 Page 39
2.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The discussion in this addendum confirms that the proposed project has been evaluated for significant impacts pursuant to CEQA. The discussion is meaningfully different than a determination that a project is “exempt” from CEQA review, because the proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element update and Zone Change Amendment are not exempt. Rather, the determination here is that the General Plan EIR evaluated the physical impacts likely to result from future development.
There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. The proposed project represents no change from the physical impacts that were assumed and analyzed by the General Plan EIR.
As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 allowing the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum. Accordingly, this EIR addendum has been prepared.
The following identifies the standards set forth in Section 15162 as they relate to the proposed project. The text that follows the provisions of the law relates to the proposed project.
1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 2.
No substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The program changes included in the proposed Housing Element are limited to complying with state law, combining programs with similar intent to aid in implementation, or elimination of programs where the City has already completed the identified task. All development in the city must be consistent with the General Plan, and if a discretionary action, is subject to project-specific CEQA. It is important to note that the state legislature has passed several laws that would make certain housing projects ministerial thereby eliminating further CEQA analysis at the time of application. In these instances, local regulations such as engineering and design standards would continue to apply as they are requirements of the building permit and do not rely on CEQA. In addition, federal and state regulations concerning biological and cultural resources, wetlands, and construction air quality would also apply as they too are not reliant upon CEQA.
As a result, even if a housing project is exempt from CEQA, the physical impacts on the environment would still be addressed through the permitting process.
Packet Page. 1499
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
2. CEQA Analysis
California Government Code Section 65584 requires that each city and county plan to accommodate a fair share of the region’s housing construction needs. The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are limited to complying with state law and would ensure the City’s ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA. Subsequent development must be consistent with the General Plan, and if a discretionary action is determined, then must complete a project specific CEQA analysis. Though the application of the Housing Element and Zone Change amendment would change the existing development pattern for the city, the change occurs on properties already designated and zoned for development. The difference in unit yield per acre does not result in new significant environmental effects.
As all projects within the city must be consistent with the General Plan, state, and federal law, policies identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would continue to apply to all future development and would reduce impacts to the same significance level as identified in the General Plan EIR.
3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified shows:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.
The proposed project includes policy-level changes that are limited to complying with state law and would not result in physical changes to the environment that were not disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The state and local regulations identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would also apply to the proposed project. The proposed Housing Element programs are similar to the existing programs of the existing 2013-2021 Housing Element. The 2021-2029 Housing Element provides a total of 25 housing programs; these programs would not result in new significant environmental impacts.
The proposed Housing Element identifies targets for housing at different income levels but does not include development of an unusual type, scale, or location that would not have been evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Because a development project must be consistent with the General Plan, zoning, and development standards of the City, the adopted measures to address physical impacts on the environment would be applied resulting in the same impacts as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there would be no new environmental impacts.
As shown in Table 1-1, Private-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone, and Table 1-2, City-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone, the amendment and additions to the Zoning Code are proposed to comply with existing state law. The Zoning Code update amends Chapter
19.04 of the City’s Municipal Code to upzone parcels shown in Figures 2 through 8 of this Addendum.
Additionally, the City’s zoning map is revised to change zone districts for residential parcels increasing their allowable density. According to the project description, the City’s proposed Housing Element programs along with the zoning change amendment (proposed project) would result in the following:
Packet Page. 1500
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
2. CEQA Analysis
January 2024 Page 41
A. Revision of the Municipal Code to adopt the revised Chapter 19.04, Residential Zones, the residential districts from Residential Medium High (RMH-) 24 to RMH-32 and Residential High (RH-) 31 to RH-50. The change in number represents the new maximum number of units per acre.
B. Revise the zoning map to change zone districts for parcels shown in Table 1-1, Private-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone and Table 1-2, City-owned Land Identified in the Housing Element Inventory for Rezone.
C. Adopt the City of San Bernardino 2021-2029 Housing Element.
These revisions will allow the City to meet its RHNA obligations.
The physical environmental impacts have already been considered and would be exempt from CEQA (under § 15303), or would be subject to project specific CEQA analysis, as well as the policies from the General Plan. The City’s proposed Housing Element programs along with the zoning change amendment (proposed project) would introduce new housing units and people to vacant parcels and would affect land use patterns in the city; however, the resulting impacts would be identical to the previously certified General Plan EIR. There would be no new environmental impacts, or an increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts.
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.
The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as those disclosed in the certified General Plan EIR. The state and local regulations identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all new development, including parcels located in the RMH-32 and RH-50 residential districts. There is no new information that would demonstrate that significant effects examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the certified General Plan EIR. c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The proposed project includes policy-level changes that are limited to complying with state law and would not result in physical changes to the environment that were not disclosed in the General Plan EIR General Plan EIR. The proposed project does not create new impacts or the need for mitigation measures. The state and local regulations identified in the General Plan EIR would reduce physical environmental effects associated with future development. The City is required to adopt a Housing Element and the element must be reviewed and certified by HCD. There is no feasible alternative to adopting a Housing Element.
The update to the Housing Element would not result in significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of any environmental impacts previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR; therefore, there is no need for new mitigation measures or alternatives. The proposed project does not create new impacts or the need for additional mitigation measures.
Packet Page. 1501
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
2. CEQA Analysis
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as the previously certified General Plan EIR, and all associated state and local regulations identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all future development. There would be no new significant impacts resulting from adoption of the zoning amendment therefore, there would be no new mitigation measures or alternatives required for the proposed project.
2.3 FINDINGS
The foregoing analysis confirms that the proposed project has been evaluated for new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified significant impacts pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The determination here is that the 2021–2029 Housing Element and Zoning Code Amendment does not require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts. The Housing Element Update is a policy document, and its adoption would not produce environmental impacts since no actual development is proposed. Therefore, the proposed project recommends changes to increase density, and the development impacts of the uses are addressed by existing policies in the General Plan EIR such as mitigation measures related to water supply demand and reducing air pollution. Future housing development projects would generally be subject to project-level environmental review.
The sites with designated zone changes are located on vacant parcels that are zoned for commercial and residential purposes; most of these sites are located next to non-vacant residential parcels. The proposed zone changes will allow for the sites to be developed with residential uses, enabling the City to meet its RHNA obligations. Given that the surrounding properties have residential uses, the conditions warrant a change in their zoning designation. The zone changes would be compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with adjacent zoning designations.
There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. The proposed project represents no change from the physical impacts that were assumed and analyzed by the General Plan EIR. As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 mandating the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum.
Packet Page. 1502
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNANDINO
2. CEQA Analysis
January 2024 Page 43
2.4 REFERENCES
San Bernardino, City of. 2014. City of San Bernardino 2013-2021 Housing Element. https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_17442462/File/Government/Department/Community %20&%20Economic%20Development/Planning/Housing%20Element%202013-2021.pdf ____. 2005a. City of San Bernardino General Plan. https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_17442462/File/Government/Department/Community %20&%20Economic%20Development/Planning/Complete%20General%20Plan%20Compressed.pdf ____. 2005b. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR. https://www.sbcity.org/city_hall/community_economic_development/planning/environmental_docum ents
Packet Page. 1503
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
FOR THE 2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
2. CEQA Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Page. 1504
EXHIBIT B
General Plan – Chapter 2 (Land Use Plan), Table LU-2 (Land Use Designations) Packet Page. 1505
Table LU-2
Land Use and Zoning Designations Consistency
Land Use
Designations Zoning Designations Max. Density (units per acre)and Intensity (floor area ratio) Intended Uses Residential Designations – San Bernardino offers a wide range of housing densities and products to meet the demand of current and future residents with equally varying lifestyles. In addition to the uses described below, other uses such as schools, parks, childcare facilities, and other public/institutional uses that are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards the needs of residential neighborhoods may also be allowed.
Single-Family Residential Estate (RE) 1 dwelling unit per acre Single-family detached residences in an estate setting.
Residential Low (RL) 3.5 dwelling units per acre (9,720 minimum lot size)
Single-family detached residences in low-density setting.
Residential Suburban (RS) 4.5 dwelling units per acre (7,200 minimum lot size)
Single-family detached residences in a high quality suburban setting.
Residential Urban (RU) 8 dwelling units per acre (7,200 minimum lot size, 5,200 minimum lot
size in planned unit developments)
Single/multi-family attached and detached residences, including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes, small lot
subdivisions, and mobile home parks.
Multi-Family Residential Medium (RM) 12 dwelling units per acre (14,400 minimum lot size
Multi-family dwellings including townhomes, stacked flats, courtyard homes, apartments and condominiums as well as small lot single-family developments
Residential Medium High (RMH) 24 dwelling units per acre (20,000 minimum lot size
Multi-family dwellings including apartments and condominiums.
Residential Medium High (RMH32)32 dwelling units per acre (20,000 minimum lot size
Multi-family dwellings including apartments and condominiums.
Residential High (RH) 31 dwelling units per acre (20,000 minimum lot size)
Multi-family dwellings including apartments and condominiums.
Residential High (RH-50) 50 dwelling units per acre (20,000 minimum lot size)
Multi-family dwellings including apartments and condominiums.
Commercial Designations – San Bernardino accommodates a full spectrum of retain, service, professional, office, and entertainment uses at a range of intensities to meet the demand of current and future residents. In addition to the uses described below, other uses such as parks, childcare facilities, and other public/institutional uses that are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards the needs of commercial uses may also be allowed.
Commercial Commercial Office (CO) 1.0 floor area ratio Professional offices including financial, legal, insurance, medical, and other similar uses.
Commercial General (CG-1) 0.7 floor area ratio Local and regional serving retail, personal service, entertainment, office, related commercial uses and limited residential uses with a CUP.
Packet Page. 1506
Table LU-2
Land Use and Zoning Designations Consistency
Land Use
Designations Zoning Designations Max. Density (units per acre)and Intensity (floor area ratio) Intended Uses Commercial General-2 (CG-2) 1.0 floor area ratio Local and regional serving retail, personal service, entertainment, office, related commercial uses and limited residential uses with a CUP.
Commercial General-3 (CG-3) 1.0 floor area ratio Local and regional serving retail, personal service, entertainment, office, related commercial uses.
Central City South-1 (CCS-1) 1.0 floor area ratio Local and regional serving retail and service uses.
Central City South-2 (CCS-2) .7 floor area ratio Local and regional serving retail and service uses.
University Business Park-2 (UBP-2) 1.0 floor area ratio Local and regional serving retail and service uses.
University Business Park-3 (UBP-3) 1.0 floor area ratio Local and regional serving retail and service uses.
Commercial Regional-1 (CR-1)
Commercial Regional Malls
1.5 floor area ratio Large scale, regional serving retail and service uses.
Commercial Regional-2 (CR-2)
Downtown
Non-Residential Intensity – 3.0 floor
area ratio (4.0 ratio if a vertical
mixed-use project)
Residential Density – 47 units per
gross acre. Senior citizen and senior
congregate care housing shall permit a
maximum density of 130 units per
gross acre, subject to the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit
A mixture of regional serving retail, service, office, outdoor dining, entertainment, cultural, and residential uses that enhance the downtown area as the functional and symbolic center of the City of San Bernardino.
Commercial Regional-3 (CR-3)
Tri-City Commercial
.7 floor area ratio commercial
3.0 floor area ratio hotels & offices
1.5 floor area ratio R&D
A mixture of regional serving retail, service, tourist, office, entertainment, financial establishments, restaurants and supporting outdoor dining, hotels/motels, research and development, high technology, business parks, warehouse/promotional retail, and supporting services uses that capitalize on the location along the Interstate 10 corridor.
Commercial Regional-4 (CR-4)
Auto Plaza
.7 floor area ratio
1 acre minimum lot size
New car dealerships with supporting retail and service uses.
Commercial Heavy (CH) .7 floor area ratio
10,000 square feet minimum lot size
Large scale, regional serving retail and service uses and limited commercial and industrial uses that are characterized by an extensive use of outdoor or indoor space for their sales, service, and/or storage.
Packet Page. 1507
Table LU-2
Land Use and Zoning Designations Consistency
Land Use
Designations Zoning Designations Max. Density (units per acre)and Intensity (floor area ratio) Intended Uses Industrial Designations – San Bernardino accommodates a full spectrum of industrial related employment uses, such as manufacturing, distribution, research and development, office, and mineral extraction, at a range of intensities to meet the demand of current and future residents. In addition to the uses described below, other uses, such as parks and other public/institutional uses that are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards the needs of industrial uses may also be allowed.
Industrial Office Industrial Park (OIP) 1.0 floor area ratio Employee-intensive employment uses in a park-like setting, including research & development, technology centers, research and development, corporate offices, “clean” industry and light manufacturing, and supporting retail.
Industrial Light (IL) .75 floor area ratio Variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing/distribution, assembly, light manufacturing, research and development, mini storage, and repair facilities conducted within enclosed structures as well as supporting retail and personal uses.
Industrial Heavy (IH) .75 floor area ratio Variety of intense industrial activities that could potentially generate significant impacts, such as excessive noise, dust, and other nuisances, such as rail yards and multi-modal transportation centers.
Industrial Extractive (IE) .05 floor area ratio Mineral, sand, and gravel extraction with an approved Mineral Reclamation Plan in accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act.
University Business Park-1
(UBP-1)
.75 floor area ratio Employee-intensive employment uses in an industrial setting, including research & development, technology centers, corporate offices, and “clean” industry.
Public/Quasi-Public Designations – San Bernardino accommodates a full spectrum of public facilities and institutional uses to meet the demand of current and future residents.
Public/QuasiPublicPublicly owned Flood Control
(PFC)
NA Flood control facilities.
Public Facilities (PF) NA Public facilities, governmental institutions, transportation facilities, public schools (K-12), public or private colleges and universities, museums, and public libraries.
Central City South-3 (CCS-3) NA Flood control facilities.
Railroad (RR) NA Railroad facilities.
Packet Page. 1508
Table LU-2
Land Use and Zoning Designations Consistency
Land Use
Designations Zoning Designations Max. Density (units per acre)and Intensity (floor area ratio) Intended Uses Open Space Designations – San Bernardino accommodates a full spectrum of active and passive recreational uses such as parks, trails, athletic fields, golf courses, fair grounds, and stadiums, as wells as those areas intended to remain in natural open space.
Open Space Public Parks (PP) 0 dwelling units per acre Public parks and recreational facilities.
Open Space (OS) 0 dwelling units per acre Permanent open space.
Public/Commercial Recreation
(PCR)
Case-by-case basis Intensive recreational uses, such as golf courses, sports complexes, and fair grounds as approved through the public review process.
Overlays – An overlay is intended to reflect a particular characteristic of an area and is applied “over” an underlying land use designation to provide guidance above and beyond the underlying land use designation.
Hillside Management Overlay Densities per an adopted specific plan or as determined by the
following formula:
Average Slope (%) Units per Acre
10 to <15 2.0 units per acre
15 to <20 1.5 units per acre
20 to <25 1.0 units per acre
25 to <30 0.5 units per acre
30+ 0.1 units per acre
Regulates growth in the City’s hillsides to ensure that development in this area occurs in a manner that protects the hillside’s natural and topographic character, environmental sensitivities, and aesthetic qualities. As detailed in the Hillside Management Overlay Zoning District:
• Parcels of 15% natural slope or less can be excluded, • The transfer of allowable units to lesser slopes is allowed, • Grading is minimized,
• The clustering of units is encouraged, and
• Buildings are designed to “fit” with their hillside setting.
Foothill Fire Zone Overlay (FF) Per the underlying land use designations and applicable overlays
Mitigate the spread of wildfires, help to minimize property damage, and reduce the risk to the public health and safety.
Residential Student Housing
Overlay (RSH)
20 units per acre (5 acre minimum) Multi-family dwellings including apartments and condominiums that house student populations. Student housing is required to provide amenities in relation to the number of units/bedrooms.
Transit District Overlay (TD) Per the underlying land use designations
To provide policies to promote transit-oriented development within San Bernardino.
Packet Page. 1509
EXHIBIT C
Development Code Section 19.04.010(2)(E) (Residential Zones - Purpose) Packet Page. 1510
EXHIBIT C
Development Code Section 19.04.010(2)(E)
(Residential Zones - Purpose)
19.04.010(2)(E) (Residential Zones - Purpose) shall be modified to read as follows:
E. RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONES
These zones are intended to promote the development of multi-family townhomes, condominiums, and apartments.
All multi-family zones require a reduced density if the minimum lot size for the zone is not met, and shall comply with maximum densities provided in Table 04.02.
Multi-family units which legally existed in the multi-family zones prior to June 3, 1991, may remain as a permitted use.
1. RM (Residential Medium) Zone
This zone requires a minimum lot size of 14,400 square feet with a maximum density of 12 units per net acre. Parcels less than 14,400 square feet in area shall be developed at RU density.
2. RMH (Residential Medium High) Zone
This zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of 24 units per net acre. Lots 14,400-20,000 square feet shall be development at RM density. Lots less than 14,400 square feet shall be developed at RU density.
RMH-32 (Residential Medium High) Zone. This zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of 32 units per net acre. Properties within the RMH-32 Zone shall include only those identified in Table 04-05 and Table 04-06 of the 2021-2029 San Bernardino Housing Element, as applicable. The RMH-32 zone shall be subject to the same development standards and permitted uses as the RMH zone.
3. RH (Residential High) Zone
This zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of 31 units per net acre. Lots 14,400-20,000 square feet shall be developed at RM density. Lots less than 14,400 square feet shall be developed at RU density.
RH-50 (Residential High) Zone. This zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of 50 units per net acre. Properties within the RMH-32 Zone shall include only those identified in Table 04-05 and Table 04-06 of the 2021-2029 San Bernardino Housing Element, as applicable. The RH-50 zone Packet Page. 1511
EXHIBIT C
shall be subject to the same development standards and permitted uses as the RH zone.
All multi-family zones listed above permit the development of senior citizen and senior congregate care housing at a density up to 50% greater than that allowed in the zone with a marketing feasibility study and a conversion plan.
4. RSH (Residential Student Housing) Zone
This overlay zone is specifically designed to allow student housing complexes on lots located within 500 feet of California State University San Bernardino, and which are at least five acres in size, at a maximum density of 20 units per acre and with no more than 60 bedrooms per acre, and specifically, only on the 8.28 acres on the south side of Northpark Boulevard, east of University Parkway, as designated in General Plan Amendment No. 01-06, and the 10.16 acres on the west side of Northpark Boulevard, northwest of the intersection of University Parkway and Northpark Boulevard in Tract 17703-2 Lot 1, and Tract 17703-3 Lots 1, 2, and 3. In the event that the project no longer houses California State University, San Bernardino students or is demolished, further use of the site will revert back to the underlying zone policies and standards.
Packet Page. 1512
EXHIBIT D
Rezoned/Upzoned Parcels
Packet Page. 1513
Exhibit D
Privately-owned Land Identified for Rezoning/Upzoning
APN Acres
Existing Land
Use
Designation
Proposed Land
Use
Designation
Existing Zone Proposed Zone
013630207 0.68 MFR MFR RMH RMH-32
013631118 1.59 MFR MFR RMH RMH-32
013631126 0.91 MFR MFR RMH RMH-32
013631109 0.92 MFR MFR RMH RMH-32
028115164 1.55 MFR MFR RMH RMH-32
015515124 6.48 MFR MFR RH RH-50
015515125 2.87 MFR MFR RH RH-50
015044104 1.08 MFR MFR RH RH-50
015044130 2.21 MFR MFR RH RH-50
015515120 1.14 MFR MFR RH RH-50
015044114 0.03 MFR MFR RH RH-50
City-owned Surplus Land Identified for Rezoning/Upzoning APN Acres
Existing Land
Use
Designation
Proposed Land
Use
Designation
Existing Zone Proposed Zone
013407119 0.21 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
013407124 0.06 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
013407126 0.06 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
013407158 0.28 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
013410109 0.21 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
013410110 0.31 C MFR CR-2 RH-50
014252208 0.25 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252209 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252211 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252212 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252213 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252214 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252215 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252216 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252217 0.25 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252225 0.21 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252235 0.2 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252236 0.2 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252237 0.2 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252238 0.2 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252241 0.2 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252242 0.21 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252210 0.24 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014252226 0.19 C MFR CG-1 RH-50
014319174 0.75 C MFR CO RMH-32
014319175 0.27 C MFR CO RMH-32
014301244 0.86 C MFR CO RMH-32
015545110 1.41 MFR MFR RH RMH-32
Packet Page. 1514
ATTACHMENT E
City of San Bernardino 2021-2029 draft Housing Element
https://www.sbcity.org/city_hall/community_economic_development/planning/housing_element Packet Page. 1515
To whom it may concern,
I’ve drafted notes on the revised 6th Cycle City of SB housing plan, see below.
1. The housing element does not address the specific needs of unincorporated county islands in depth. Also, in the proposed general plan Muscoy is to largely be zoned as Residential Estate; Muscoy was originally designed as an agrarian town. Residential Estate does not appear to have an agricultural designation or overlay. Also, the unincorporated Arrowhead Farms neighborhood has large lots as well. An agricultural zoning designation or overlay would complement the original design and intention of the neighborhood. Applying agricultural zoning to the Muscoy and Arrowhead Farms neighborhoods would allow current residents to fully utilize their properties for residential and economic advancement opportunities. Allowing agricultural zoning could allow for residents to legally engage in agricultural industry ventures. Granted there are many food deserts in San Bernardino, allowing residents to raise livestock and grow crops will help to diversify San Bernardino’s economy, increase the community’s access to food, and improve community property values.
2. The housing element recognizes Valley Truck Farm (a historically black neighborhood); but allows that neighborhood and surrounding areas to be zoned as industrial and allow for logistics industry developments to be developed in Southern San Bernardino. What the city fails to outline is how it will correct racially motivated rezoning and placement of industrial and light industrial buildings and truck routes in areas that were historically inhabited by minorities and or people of lower income. The University of Redlands has documented the history of the Valley Truck Farms neighborhood as well as resident testimonials here:
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/7343b0fe57b34cd18950547008ea4439 It is my recommendation that the City of San Bernardino take the time to look into correcting poor zoning decisions that it has made that have lead to destruction of many homes in Southern San Bernardino.
3. Minimum unit sizes for RE are 1,700sq ft. Perhaps a range of 1,400 – 1,700 sq ft can be applied for the minimum unit size for this zone. Since most development in RE zones will likely be infill development, it’s best to allow residents and or builders a range to choose from that could suit their needs.
4. Bachelor/Studio minimum size should be 400 sq ft. Allowing for smaller studio units would likely translate to lower rent compared to a 500 sq ft studio.
5. The building height for RH seems a bit low and restrictive. Like to see a better range of units and floors allowed for CR-2 and RH. The zoning codes in this housing element seem too basic and might not suit the needs of the community. I’d like to learn more about how the city plans to accommodate developments such as rowhomes, cluster housing, mid-rise and high-rise housing to meet housing demand and to introduce housing supply. I would like to see the city a more equitable approach to zoning revisions.
Packet Page. 1516
6. Would like to see the City of SB entertain requests for proposals from a variety of development firms in and outside the region to fulfill the desired construction. Many new home builders in the IE primary focus on single family home development; perhaps the city will need to engage in efforts to find suitable developers that focus on muti-family developments. The housing element should address the City of SB’s plan to attract developers who can build cluster, low-rise, midrise, and high-rise units and what the multi-year strategy will be. Additionally, the housing plan does not make it clear what the city at build out would look like and what the total pollution will be; this information would be useful to know.
7. I would like the city to push back on the high requirement of parking spaces, we don’t need as much parking based on neighborhood. I’d like to see transit-oriented development parking added to special housing needs category for parking as well as a category created for neighborhoods low car use (see the purple sections in the graphic below).
8. I would like to have a special category for street infrastructure standards. By default, the standards and existing streets are much too wide. Special considerations need to be put into place for reducing street widths in areas with a high number of pedestrians, transit-oriented developments, downtown, and other areas.
Packet Page. 1517
9. Under the race and ethnicity section it says the non-white minority population has increased in the city thus there is no segregation patterns. The city fails to analyze that poor zoning and over industrialization of neighborhoods where minorities live has been happening for decades.
10. Under the environmental conditions section, the revised analysis is stating that the Central Chino Valley and Rancho Cucamonga have higher pollution than San Bernardino but are not considered disadvantaged; however, this analysis does not seem to be backed up by the CalEnviorScreen 4.0 data. Rancho Cucamonga has much better air quality compared to San Bernardino in the CalEnviormentalScreen 4.0 graphic below. This section fails to acknowledge that the U.S. Airforce cleaned up the pollution in and around the base by 2011, the U.S. Airforce account of their cleanup efforts can be found here:
https://www.afcec.af.mil/Home/BRAC/Norton/Cleanup/#:~:text=The%20Air%20Force's%20succ essful%20cleanup,long%20before%20the%20base%20closed.
I find that the City of San Bernadino’s claims of pollution from the old air force base around the SB Airport to be outdated and need of a new analysis.
Daniel Jivanjee, 7th Ward, City of San Bernardino
Packet Page. 1518
290 North D St, San Bernardino, CA 92401 | P: 909-384-5357 | www.SBCity.org Community & Economic Development Department
SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
January 6, 2024
Daniel Jivanjee, Resident 7th Ward, City of San Bernardino Re: City of San Bernardino Draft 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element Dear Mr. Jivanjee,
The following responds to your latest letter, dated November 20, 2023. An abbreviated summary of each of your questions and comments are provided, followed by the City’s response.
1. The housing element does not address the specific needs of unincorporated county islands in depth. Also, in the proposed general plan, Muscoy is to largely be zoned as Residential Estate; Muscoy was originally designed as an agrarian town. Residential Estate does not appear to have an agricultural designation or overlay. Also, the unincorporated Arrowhead Farms neighborhood has large lots as well. An agricultural zoning designation or overlay would complement the original design and intention of the neighborhood. Applying agricultural zoning to the Muscoy and Arrowhead Farms neighborhoods would allow current residents to fully utilize their properties for residential and economic advancement opportunities. Allowing agricultural zoning could allow for residents to legally engage in agricultural industry ventures. Granted there are many food deserts in San Bernardino, allowing residents to raise livestock and grow crops will help to diversify San Bernardino’s economy, increase the community’s access to food, and improve community property values.
Response:
The draft housing element addresses the unincorporated communities (e.g., Arrowhead Farms and Muscoy) in accordance with legislation on disadvantaged unincorporated communities using guidance provided by the State of California, Office of Planning and Research. However, the question of land use and zoning for these areas is beyond the purview of the housing element and is determined solely by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors.
Packet Page. 1519
City of San Bernardino Page 2 of 5
2. The housing element recognizes Valley Truck Farm (a historically black neighborhood); but allows that neighborhood and surrounding areas to be zoned as industrial and allow for logistics industry developments to be developed in Southern San Bernardino. The city fails to outline how it will correct racially motivated rezoning and placement of industrial and light industrial buildings and truck routes in areas that were historically inhabited by minorities and or people of lower income. The University of Redlands has documented the history of the area and resident testimonials here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/7343b0fe57b34cd18950547008ea4439 The City of San Bernardino take the time to look into correcting poor zoning decisions that it has made that have led to destruction of many homes in Southern San Bernardino.
Response:
As noted, the majority of the area is currently designated for industrial land uses. The Land Use Element of the revised General Plan will examine and determine the general plan designations and zoning on a citywide basis. Your comment will be forwarded for consideration.
3. Minimum unit sizes for RE are 1,700sq ft. Perhaps a range of 1,400 – 1,700 sq ft can be applied for the minimum unit size for this zone. Since most development in RE zones will likely be infill, it’s best to allow residents and or builders a range to choose from that could suit their needs.
4. Bachelor/Studio minimum size should be 400 sq ft. Allowing for smaller studio units would likely translate to lower rent compared to a 500 sq ft studio.
5. The building height for RH seems a bit low and restrictive. Like to see a better range of units and floors allowed for CR-2 and RH. The zoning codes in this housing element seem too basic and might not suit the needs of the community. I’d like to learn more about how the city plans to accommodate developments such as rowhomes, cluster housing, mid-rise and high-rise housing to meet housing demand and to introduce housing supply. I would like to see the city a more equitable approach to zoning revisions.
Response:
In response to comments on residential development standards (e.g., minimum lot size, unit size, building heights, and zoning regulations), the City is updating the Development Code. The revisions are intended, in part, to allow for greater flexibility in development types by zone.
Recommended suggestion will be forwarded to City staff for further consideration.
6. Would like to see the City of SB entertain requests for proposals from a variety of development firms in and outside the region to fulfill the desired construction. Many new home builders in the IE primary focus on single family home development; perhaps the city will need to engage in efforts to find suitable developers that focus on muti-family developments. The housing element should address the City of SB’s plan to attract developers who can build cluster, low-rise, midrise, and high-rise units and what the multi-year strategy will be. Additionally, the housing plan Packet Page. 1520
City of San Bernardino Page 3 of 5
does not make it clear what the city at build out would look like and what the total pollution will be; this information would be useful to know.
Response:
The City reviews development plans submitted by landowners, developers, and others who submit such plans. The City lacks the ability to restrict or encourage specific developers from submitting applications for residential development unless the land is owned or otherwise under the control of the City. Even in the latter cases, a competitive bidding process would be required.
As part of the updated land use element and environmental documentation for the general plan, a buildout analysis will be prepared that provides a description of the number of housing units, households, population, and jobs that are anticipated as a result of the land use plan.
7. I would like the city to push back on the high requirement of parking spaces, we don’t need as much parking based on neighborhood. I’d like to see transit-oriented development parking added to special housing needs category for parking as well as a category created for neighborhoods low car use (see the purple sections in the graphic below).
Response:
While parking standards can limit the type and density of residential development, it is important to note that the presence of low vehicle ownership in a neighborhood today does not necessarily mean that future occupants of housing will have similarly low vehicle uses. Also, a neighborhood often contains a diversity of land uses, each with different parking needs.
Therefore, the approach to residential parking standards has been to address parking for specific land uses (a “project-specific” approach), rather than neighborhood/district approach.
Packet Page. 1521
City of San Bernardino Page 4 of 5
The Housing Element provides multiple ways to reduce parking standards – based on occupancy (special use/affordable housing) or transit oriented districts or offers other flexibility through minor exceptions. In summary, parking requirements are not believed to constrain the development of housing due to the many reductions allowed. However, Housing Plan, Program
2.4d, includes a commitment to review and, if needed, revise other code requirements and administrative processes that could impede achievement of maximum density.
8. I would like to have a special category for street infrastructure standards. By default, the standards and existing streets are much too wide. Special considerations need to be put into place for reducing street widths in areas with a high number of pedestrians, transit-oriented developments, downtown, and other areas.
Response:
The Housing Element does not regulate street dimension; it only analyzes them. Your comment relates more to the circulation element of the revised general plan.
9. Under the race and ethnicity section it says the non-white minority population has increased in the city thus there is no segregation patterns. The city fails to analyze that poor zoning and over industrialization of neighborhoods where minorities live has been happening for decades.
Response:
The revised race/ethnicity section in Chapter 2 and 5 shows that, at a census tract level, the level of integration of different race and ethnic groups, as measured by the dissimilarity index, has increased and is well below the industry standard for denoting the presence of segregation.
10. Under the environmental conditions section, the revised analysis states that the Central Chino Valley and Rancho Cucamonga have higher pollution than San Bernardino but are not considered disadvantaged; however, this analysis does not seem supported by CalEnviroScreen4.0 (CES) .
Rancho Cucamonga has much better air quality compared to San Bernardino in the CES graphic.
This section fails to acknowledge that the U.S. Airforce cleaned up the pollution in and around the base by 2011, the U.S. Airforce account of their cleanup efforts can be found here:
https://www.afcec.af.mil/Home/BRAC/Norton/Cleanup/#:~:text=The%20Air%20Force's%20succ essful%20cleanup,long%20before%20the%20base%20closed.
I find that the City of San Bernadino’s claims of pollution from the old air force base around the SB Airport to be outdated and need of a new analysis.
Response:
CalEnviroScreen provides three analyses: 1) a composite score (an “average” of population factors and pollution; 2) a pollution score; and 3) a population score. Based on pollution scoring, Chino and Rancho Cucamonga have high pollution scores, but they are not disadvantaged. That is because Chino and Rancho Cucamonga have more favorable scores on the population index.
As a result, Chino and Rancho Cucamonga are not considered to be disadvantaged.
Packet Page. 1522
City of San Bernardino Page 5 of 5
Regards,
Mary E. Lanier
Interim Director of Community Development & Housing Department Packet Page. 1523
City of San Bernardino
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Dear City of San Bernardino,
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we are writing to provide comments and feedback on the City of San Bernardino’s November 2023 version of the 2021- 2029 Housing Element. The Just San Bernardino (Just SB) Collaborative, comprising eight organizations, united in 2020 to engage residents and community members in assessing resources and developing a plan to actively address the conditions contributing to San Bernardino's decline.
Members of the Just SB collaborative include Arts Connection Network, BLU Educational Foundation, Congregations United for Prophetic Engagement (COPE), Inland Congregations United for Change (ICUC), Inland Empire Labor Council (IELC), People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (PC4EJ), Time for Change Foundation (TFCF), and Warehouse Worker Resource Center (WWRC).
Our collective efforts aim to create innovative models and strategies for economic growth in the City of San Bernardino, emphasizing participatory and inclusive community engagement.
By conducting comprehensive surveys and interviews, and engaging with over 4,000 residents and workers in San Bernardino, we crafted the People’s Plan for Economic Inclusion. This plan stands as a guiding framework for economic policies and projects firmly rooted in grassroots-based solutions. Consequently, we emphasize the critical importance of conveying the needs of our community whenever public input opportunities arise.
Firstly, we express our gratitude to the team involved in the creation and editing of this document, recognizing the dedication required to complete such an essential piece of work. Acknowledging the complexity of the development process and the challenges faced by the city staff, who often operate under constraints, we appreciate the effort in producing the revised housing element draft.
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
951.315.5940
[email protected]
Monday November 20, 2023
Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Page. 1524
Chapter 2 - Page 2-24: The City notes the existence of 46 mobile home parks and highlights that none were suspended in 2022 or 2023, which is commendable. To gain further insight, could you provide information on the most recent inspections conducted by HCD, given their seven-year cycle? Additionally, is there available data published by HCD regarding the current repair status of these parks?
Chapter 3 - Page 3-19: The absence of a program regarding density standards is noted. Additionally, while Page 3-53 explains the emergency shelter management plan, further clarity is needed on the amendments to the current regulations in the municipal code. Page 3-54, addressing the anti-camping ordinance, requires clarification on the specifics of the items removed and storage procedures at the City Yard.
Chapter 3 - Page 3-53: It outlines specific requirements for the emergency shelter ordinance, we ask for a particular emphasis on ensuring the clarity of the ordinance's commitment to being anti-discriminatory. Recognizing the need for distinct housing accommodations for individuals with 409s, this aspect could be explicitly defined within the ordinance or municipal code.
Chapter 3 - Page 3-54: This section indicates, "However, should the personal property not be removed by encampment residents, the City will remove the items and leave a notice of how and where to retrieve items at the City Yard at 205 S. Pershing Avenue. Items removed from encampments are stored for 90 days at the City Yard." While we have trust in the City's commitment to respecting its residents, there appears to be a disconnection in the implementation of this process. Residents have recounted instances where their personal belongings were discarded, and they did not receive proper receipts for the disposed items.
Upon reviewing the 7 chapters, we would like to raise specific concerns:
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
951.315.5940
[email protected]
Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Page. 1525
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
951.315.5940
[email protected]
Chapter 4- Page 4-17: The section highlighting Housing Unsheltered residents describes different projects, however, some of the language is outdated and some of the differences don’t provide details regarding when the project started and it would be helpful to have a timeline of where these projects are.
Chapter 4- Page 4-26: "A 15% affordability covenant is required on land sold or leased after no entity responds to the NOA during the 60 days or after price or terms cannot be reached during the 90-day good faith negotiation period. (Gov. Code, §§ 54233)." We hope that the City will contemplate increasing the affordable housing requirement to 20-25% on projects. Additionally, we encourage the consideration of establishing a standard process for community benefit agreements or exploring alternative models for community involvement.
Chapter 4- Page 4-40: We express concern regarding emergency overlay areas 3 and 6, which fall within the 76th and 95th percentiles for hazardous waste. To uphold environmental justice principles, the city could consider utilizing infill strategies aimed at mitigating pollution for populations already at risk.
Chapter 5- Page 5-30-34: The statement regarding problems existing equally between single-family and multiple-family homes contradicts the displacement risk map in Chapter 5. While the EDR model relies on a statistical formula and doesn't pinpoint the cause of displacement, the city must remain vigilant about displacement risks. We propose considering a map that illustrates the neighborhoods built during different time frames and how that may or may not be in alignment with the information provided in the map included in Chapter 5. To enhance accuracy, the city might explore more precise data sets or conduct canvassing to gather information on the causes of displacement. This approach would enable more effective remediation of housing issues.
Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Page. 1526
Chapter 5-Page 5-75: It's positive that the disadvantages of Muscoy and other unincorporated regions are acknowledged. We propose that these areas be considered for rezoning with an agricultural designation, facilitating the construction of additional housing under farmworker housing initiatives. Additionally, providing incentives for residents to establish legal farms could be a valuable strategy.
Chapter 5-Page 5-91: Central and West Side San Bernardino, designated as R/ECAP areas, should not bear the majority of low-income housing projects. Instead, the objective should be to decentralize poverty from these regions by exploring the construction of low-income housing in areas with more abundant resources.
Chapter 6- Page 6-31: As entrusted leaders of the community, it is our responsibility to ensure that the needs of the community are met. Therefore, we should all strive to make quality long-term and short-term decisions. We appreciate the acknowledgment of the collaborative's work and efforts in addressing the community's concerns. While recognizing these efforts, we also acknowledge the ongoing work that the City and community partners must continue to undertake to achieve impactful change.
Chapter 6- Page 6-32: There is a section highlighting the City's environmental justice efforts. While we commend these efforts, we are aware that the City initiated a truck route study without a final version for enforcement of these routes. To accurately reflect this, the language could be adjusted to state that the City Staff has initiated a truck route study and will work towards adopting enforceable truck routes. Although we appreciate the ongoing remediation efforts at Casa Ramona, we are uncertain about the specific role of environmental justice concerning this project. Additionally, we believe it's important to highlight collaborative partnerships and work with entities such as So Cal Edison, SBCTA, Omnitrans, etc., especially if there are ongoing projects aimed at reducing pollution and emissions. While recognizing the significance of the efforts already listed, we urge the City to explore alternative strategies to address environmental injustices. This could involve zoning considerations for green zones, providing incentives for contractors using ecofriendly materials in public works and capital improvement projects, and exploring the possibility of purchasing micro-grids in partnership with So Cal Edison to mitigate the impact of rolling blackouts experienced by residents annually. We anticipate making more suggestions when the health/environmental element is released.
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
951.315.5940
[email protected]
Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Page. 1527
Chapter 7-Page 7-15&16: We commend the City for the prudent decision to repeal the Multi-Family Crime Free Housing Program. While recognizing the remaining Rental Housing Program Maintenance Standards, which presently focus on the exterior, we acknowledge that additional efforts are needed to establish an inspection program that encompasses interior concerns. It is essential to create a program that not only addresses internal issues but also avoids potential loopholes leading to "renovictions" for all renters.
Chapter 7-Page 7-19: We anticipate providing additional feedback with the release of the Health/Environmental Justice Element.
Chapter 7-Page 7-20: We hope to see a commitment to collecting data and conducting an analysis of the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization program.
This effort will provide a clear understanding of the program's effectiveness by the next housing element cycle. We are also appreciative to see the commitment to contracting with fair housing experts to offer tenants education on rent stabilization and just-cause eviction.
In addition to the comments provided, we express severe concern regarding the zoning outlined in the housing element. While the document acknowledges Valley Truck Farm, a historically black neighborhood, it permits the zoning of this neighborhood and its surroundings as industrial, potentially allowing for logistics industry developments in Southern San Bernardino. The city fails to address how it plans to rectify racially motivated rezoning and the placement of industrial buildings, light industrial structures, and truck routes in areas historically inhabited by minorities or people with lower incomes.
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
951.315.5940
[email protected]
Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Page. 1528
We propose reconsidering the minimum unit sizes for the RE zone. Currently set at 1,700 sq ft, we suggest implementing a range of 1,400 – 1,700 sq ft for greater flexibility, especially for infill development where residents and builders may require options tailored to their needs. For Bachelor/Studio units, we recommend a minimum size of 400 sq ft. Allowing smaller studio units could lead to more affordable rents compared to a 500 sq ft studio.
Moreover, we find the building height for RH restrictive. We encourage a broader range of units and floors for CR-2 and RH to better accommodate diverse housing needs. The proposed density for both COR-1 and COR-2 zones is deemed insufficient for a major corridor aiming to become a walkable and bikeable community. To foster a vibrant community with a high demand for services like grocery stores, restaurants, and entertainment, we recommend increasing the density to 80+ units per acre. This elevated density would support the creation of a lively and pedestrian-friendly environment.
Without achieving this higher density, there is a risk of the E Street Corridor becoming primarily a thoroughfare for cars. While recognizing the importance of cars and the positive impact of public transportation, such as sbX, the current zoning proposals for COR-1 and COR-2 seem incongruent with the city's future planning goals and the desire to diminish reliance on automobiles.
Reconsidering and adjusting the zoning to support a more sustainable and walkable community would align with the city's forward-looking vision.
The zoning codes in this housing element appear too basic and may not fully meet the community's needs. We seek more information on how the city plans to facilitate developments such as rowhomes, cluster housing, mid-rise, and highrise housing to address housing demand introduce a more diverse housing supply, and reduce dependency on cars.
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
951.315.5940
[email protected]
Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Page. 1529
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
Program Description/Example
Retrofit pilot program
https://www.boston.gov/housing/healthy-and-greenretrofit-pilot-program Homebuyer program
https://www.boston.gov/departments/housing/boston
-home-center/one-boston-homebuyer-program
Resilient Buildings Plan
https://www.boston.gov/bostons-resilient-buildingsplan
TOPA/COPA
(Tenant/Community
Opportunity to Purchase
Act) program
https://www.policylink.org/resources-tools/tools/allin-cities/housing-anti-displacement/topa-copa Handy worker program
https://housing2.lacity.org/residents/handyworkerprogram Home Enhancement Loan
Program (HELP)
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/housing/homeenhancement-loan-program-help/ REIT, Co-operative and
Community Land Trust
programs
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-
29/alternative-homeownership-land-trusts-and-coops
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
951.315.5940
[email protected]
Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Lastly, the community urgently requires the following programs to flourish:
Packet Page. 1530
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
Program Description/Example
Rent stabilization/just cause
https://www.santa-ana.org/renter-protections/
https://www.pomonaca.gov/government/department
s/rent-stabilization
Green zones
https://planning.lacounty.gov/long-rangeplanning/green-zones-program/ https://oag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/AG%20Letter%20t
o%20LA%20County%20%28Green%20Zones%20Ordinan
ce%29%20.pdf
Adaptive reuse ordinance
https://www.santa-ana.org/documents/adaptivereuse-ordinance-and-eligible-locations-map/ Sincerely,
Rocio Aguayo, JustSB Policy Research Associate
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
951.315.5940
[email protected]
Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Packet Page. 1531
290 North D St, San Bernardino, CA 92401 | P: 909-384-5357 | www.SBCity.org Community & Economic Development Department
SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
[email protected]
January 8, 2024
Rocio Aguayo, Policy Research Associate
Just San Bernardino
1411 North D Street,
San Bernardino, CA 92405
Re: City of San Bernardino Draft 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element Dear Mr. Aguayo,
The following responds to your latest letter, dated November 20, 2023. An abbreviated summary of each of your contentions are provided, followed by the City’s response.
Comment 1: MobileHome data
Chapter 2 - Page 2-24. The City notes the existence of 46 mobile home parks and highlights that none were suspended in 2022 or 2023, which is commendable. To gain further insight, could you provide information on the most recent inspections conducted by HCD, given their seven-year cycle? Additionally, is there available data published by HCD regarding the current repair status of these parks? • Response: HCD is responsible for inspecting mobilehomes and enforcing code compliance. HCD does not make inspection data or repair status available without a public records request. The public can make a request at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/contact-us/public-records-requests Comment 2: Emergency Shelter Regulations
Chapter 3 - Page 3-19. The absence of a program regarding density standards is noted. Additionally, while Page 3-53 explains the emergency shelter management plan, further clarity is needed on the amendments to the current regulations in the municipal code. Page 3-54, the anti-camping ordinance, requires clarification on the specifics of the items removed and storage procedures at the City Yard.
Packet Page. 1532
City of San Bernardino Page 2 of 7
• Response: The Housing Element, Program 2.4, commits the City to remove the tiered density provision so residential projects can be built at maximum density of the underlying zone. The City Attorney is revising the Emergency Shelter Overlay Management Plan and will move forward for adoption in early 2024. The City implements standard procedure on how to remove items from encampments and the procedure is designed to comply with court decisions and fair housing law.
Comment 3: Chapter 3 and Emergency Shelter and 409s
emphasis on ensuring the clarity of the ordinance's commitment to being anti-discriminatory.
Recognizing the need for distinct housing accommodations for individuals with 409s, this aspect could be explicitly defined within the ordinance or municipal code. • Response: Request is being referred to the City Attorney who will draft the ordinance.
Comment 4: Personal Property from Encampments
Chapter 3 - Page 3-54. This section indicates, "However, should the personal property not be removed by encampment residents, the City will remove their items and leave a notice of how and where to retrieve items at the City Yard Items removed from encampments are stored for 90 days at the City Yard." While we have trust in the City's commitment to respecting its residents, there appears to be a disconnection in the implementation of this process. Residents have recounted instances where their personal belongings were discarded, and they did not receive proper receipts for the disposed items. • Response: The City endeavors to comply with state law. However, there may be instances where items may be disposed for potential health and safety concerns. These concerns are being sent to the City Attorney for consideration in drafting regulations for removal of encampment items.
Comment 5: Updated detail on Homeless Projects
Chapter 4- Page 4-17: The section highlighting Housing Unsheltered residents describes different projects, however, some of the language is outdated and some of the differences don’t provide details regarding when the project started and it would be helpful to have a timeline of where these projects are.
• Response: The Housing Resources chapter was revised to provide project descriptions. The Housing Plan, Table 7-1 (page 7-39) contains an update of timelines for homeless projects.
Comment 6: Surplus Land Act Sites and Affordability
Chapter 4- Page 4-26: "A 15% affordability covenant is required on land sold or leased after no entity responds to the NOA during the 60 days or after price or terms cannot be reached during the 90-day good faith negotiation period. (Gov. Code, §§ 54233)." We hope that the City will contemplate increasing the affordable housing requirement to 20-25% on projects. Additionally, we encourage the consideration of establishing a standard process for community benefit agreements or exploring alternative models for community involvement.
Packet Page. 1533
City of San Bernardino Page 3 of 7
• Response: The revised draft housing element shows that residential projects being proposed on surplus sites have well exceeded the minimum affordability requirements. Indeed, several projects are proposing to offer 100% of the rental housing units as affordable to lower income residents.
Regarding community benefit agreements and alternative models of community involvement, further clarity is needed to determine the nature of the request and its applicability to the housing element.
Comment 7: Environmental Justice and Shelter Overlays
Chapter 4- Page 4-40: We express concern regarding emergency overlay areas 3 and 6, which fall within the 76th and 95th percentiles for hazardous waste. To uphold environmental justice principles, the city could consider utilizing infill strategies aimed at mitigating pollution for populations already at risk. • Response: It is important to note that CalEnviroScreen is a screening tool, and is not designed to show where development is feasible or prohibited. It is a tool that can be used to guide further land use investigations and siting. Census tracts can have high pollution scores based solely on their location near permitted land uses or historic hazards, such as underground plumes, which do not necessarily pose a present risk to public health. Furthermore, prior to the approval of any development permit, the proposed project must meet the stringent requirements of CEQA, which includes an analysis of potential hazards that occupants of housing may be exposed to. Projects cannot be approved unless mitigation, if needed, is provided to the satisfaction of state law.
Comment 8: Displacement Concerns
Chapter 5- Page 5-30-34: The statement regarding problems existing equally between single-family and multiple-family homes contradicts the displacement risk map in Chapter 5. While the EDR model relies on a statistical formula and doesn't pinpoint the cause of displacement, the city must remain vigilant about displacement risks. We propose considering a map that illustrates neighborhoods built during different time frames and how that may or may not be in alignment with the information provided in Chapter 5. To enhance accuracy, the city might explore more precise data sets or conduct canvassing to gather data on the causes of displacement. This approach would enable more effective remediation of housing issues.
Response: We agree that data that accurately tracks displacement is lacking and that current mapping methodologies can be speculative. However, new state law (codified as Gov. Code 65583.2(g)(3)) requires cities to ensure that affordable housing is not lost when new developments replace units that were formerly affordable, deed restricted, or occupied by lower income households. All local governments, both charter and general law, are required to abide by this new replacement requirement.
Comment 9: Muscoy
Chapter 5-Page 5-75: It's positive that the disadvantages of Muscoy and other unincorporated regions are acknowledged. We propose that these areas be considered for rezoning with an agricultural Packet Page. 1534
City of San Bernardino Page 4 of 7
designation, facilitating the construction of additional housing under farmworker housing initiatives.
Additionally, providing incentives for residents to establish legal farms could be a valuable strategy.
Response: Muscoy was included in the analysis contained within the housing element due to SB244, which requires an analysis of disadvantaged communities within the sphere of influence of a city.
However, land use policies for the unincorporated areas are decided upon by the Board of Supervisors.
Unfortunately, the City does not have the ability to change land uses or zoning within unincorporated areas, but may comment on proposed projects developed within its sphere of influence.
Comment 10: R/ECAP Areas
Chapter 5-Page 5-91: Central and West Side San Bernardino, designated as R/ECAP areas, should not bear the majority of low-income housing projects. Instead, the objective should be to decentralize poverty in these regions by exploring construction of low-income housing in areas with more abundant resources.
Response: In the most recent revision, the number of R/ECAPs have significantly declined by 2020, though the area is still a lower resource area. The revised Housing Element recognizes the importance of deconcentrating poverty to other higher resource areas. The revised Housing Element proposes a housing mobility strategy (Program 5.7) that includes additional affordable housing in the Northwest through ADUs, greater use of rental vouchers, development of surplus sites, and preservation of at-risk units.
Comment 11: Environmental Justice
Chapter 6- Page 6-32: There is a section highlighting the City's environmental justice efforts. While we commend these efforts, we are aware that the City initiated a truck route study without a final version for enforcement of these routes. To accurately reflect this, the language could be adjusted to state that the City Staff has initiated a truck route study and will work towards adopting enforceable truck routes.
Although we appreciate the ongoing remediation efforts at Casa Ramona, we are uncertain about the specific role of environmental justice concerning this project. Additionally, we believe it's important to highlight collaborative partnerships and work with entities such as So Cal Edison, SBCTA, Omnitrans, etc., especially if there are ongoing projects aimed at reducing pollution and emissions. While recognizing the significance of the efforts already listed, we urge the City to explore alternative strategies to address environmental injustices. This could involve zoning considerations for green zones, providing incentives for contractors using eco-friendly materials in public works and capital improvement projects, and exploring the possibility of purchasing micro-grids in partnership with So Cal Edison to mitigate the impact of rolling blackouts experienced by residents annually. We anticipate making more suggestions when the health/environmental element is released.
Response: We would recommend that this be addressed in the Environmental Justice Technical Report or the Circulation Element as it covers the City’s transportation infrastructure and planning. We understand that Just SB Collaborative will also be offering input for other elements in the general plan.
Packet Page. 1535
City of San Bernardino Page 5 of 7
Comment 12: Interior Housing Inspection Program
Chapter 7-Page 7-15 & 16: We commend the City for the prudent decision to repeal the Multi-Family Crime Free Housing Program. While recognizing the remaining Rental Housing Program Maintenance Standards, which presently focus on the exterior, we acknowledge that additional efforts are needed to establish an inspection program that address interior concerns. It is essential to create a program that not only addresses internal issues but also avoids potential loopholes leading to "renovictions" for all renters.
Response: While the habitability of housing is a significant concern, the revised housing element does not recommend the program at this time. Recommendations for an interior inspection program to address housing habitability could be offered for Council consideration prior to adoption of the housing element.
Comment 13: Mobile Home Park Assessment
Chapter 7-Page 7-20: We hope to see a commitment to collecting data and analyzing the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization program. This effort will provide a clear understanding of program effectiveness by the next housing element cycle. We are also appreciative to see the commitment to contracting with fair housing experts to offer tenants education on rent stabilization and just-cause eviction.
Response: Mobile home rent stabilization is a complex issue. A program has not been included in the housing element to collect and analyze mobilehome data due to the lack of staffing at this time.
However, such an effort could be offered for Council consideration prior to adoption of the housing element.
Comment 14: Racially Motivated Rezoning
In addition to the comments provided, we express severe concern regarding the zoning outlined in the housing element. While the document acknowledges Valley Truck Farm, a historically black neighborhood, it permits the zoning of this neighborhood and its surroundings as industrial, potentially allowing for logistics industry developments in Southern SanBernardino. The city fails to address how it plans to rectify racially motivated rezoning and the placement of industrial buildings, light industrial structures, and truck routes in areas historically inhabited by minorities or people with lower incomes.
Response: The Housing Element does not specifically address airport land use policy and placement of industrial buildings. We recommend addressing this topic in the land use element.
Comment 15: Restrictive Zoning
We propose reconsidering the minimum unit sizes for the RE zone. Currently set at 1,700 sq ft, we suggest implementing a range of 1,400 – 1,700 sq ft for greater flexibility, especially for infill development where residents and builders may require options tailored to their needs. For Bachelor/Studio units, we recommend a minimum size of 400 sq ft. Allowing smaller studio units could lead to more affordable rents compared to a 500 sq ft studio. Moreover, we find the building height for RH restrictive. We encourage a broader range of units and floors for CR-2 and RH to better Packet Page. 1536
City of San Bernardino Page 6 of 7
accommodate diverse housing needs. The proposed density for both COR-1 and COR-2 zones is deemed insufficient for a major corridor aiming to become a walkable and bikeable community. To foster a vibrant community with a high demand for services like grocery stores, restaurants, and entertainment, we recommend increasing the density to 80+ units per acre. This elevated density would support the creation of a lively and pedestrian-friendly environment. Without achieving this higher density, there is a risk of the E Street Corridor becoming primarily a thoroughfare for cars. While recognizing the importance of cars and the positive impact of public transportation, such as sbX, the current zoning proposals for COR-1 and COR-2 seem incongruent with the city's future planning goals and the desire to diminish reliance on automobiles. Reconsidering and adjusting the zoning to support a more sustainable and walkable community would align with the city's forward-looking vision.
The zoning codes in this housing element appear too basic and may not fully meet the community's needs. We seek more information on how the city plans to facilitate developments such as rowhomes, cluster housing, mid-rise, and high-rise housing to address housing demand introduce a more diverse housing supply, and reduce dependency on cars.
Response: The City recognizes that the zoning codes may not fully meet the needs of the community nor encourage the type of desired development. The Development Code is being updated to allow for more urban standards and a range of housing products and density levels. This is being done to not only comply with state law with regard to housing, but to also overall broaden the diversity of housing products and designs available and to facilitate other types of desired development within the community.
Comment 16: Additional Recommended Programs
The letter offers a table with recommended programs for consideration, including:
Retrofit pilot program | Homebuyer program | Resilient Buildings Plan TOPA/COPA(Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act) | Handy worker program Home Enhancement Loan Program (HELP) | REIT, Co-operative and Community Land Trust Rent stabilization/just cause | Green zones | Adaptive reuse ordinance Response: We appreciate the program recommendations offered for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Currently, the primary constraint in implementing new housing programs is lack of City staff resources.
The City is hiring housing and planning staff as quickly as possible to respond to the needs of the development community and implement proposed programs in the housing element. Nonetheless, the programs mentioned above can be brought forward for Council consideration during hearings on the housing element. In addition, on an annual basis (prior to April 1 of each year), the City is also required to review the effectiveness of current programs and revise them or adopt new programs to address unmet community needs. New initiatives can also be brought forward at that time for additional consideration.
Packet Page. 1537
City of San Bernardino Page 7 of 7
Best,
Mary E. Lanier
Interim Community Development and Housing Department
Packet Page. 1538
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
Liliana Garcia Maytorena
Xingshuo Liu, Esq.
Andrew R. Morand, Esq.
Julie D. Neal, Esq.
Nithin B. Reddy, Esq.
Elaine S. Rosen, 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
November 20, 2023
Travis Martin
City of San Bernardino- Community and Economic Development 201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Re: City of San Bernardino Draft 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element (November 2023 Revised Draft)
Dear Mr. Martin:
Inland Counties Legal Services (ICLS) and The Public Interest Law Project (PILP) submit these comments regarding the City of San Bernardino’s (City) most recent 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Draft Housing Element (Draft), revised November 2023.
Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
Housing Conditions
Government Code 65583(a)(2) requires that the Housing Element provide “an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition.”
While the Draft provides updated information about the housing conditions in the City based on information received from code enforcement, it may not fully provide information about housing stock conditions in the City since the information from Code Enforcement would be largely based upon those who call code enforcement for assistance and would exclude those who may not call Code Enforcement, such as tenants who experience landlord harassment or indifference, or housing instability caused by evictions who may be living in dilapidated housing conditions and not reporting their living conditions to Code Enforcement. As such, the City should survey housing developers and nonprofit agencies and organizations that may have information to help assess the status of the housing conditions in the City, so that the Draft accurately reflects the status of the housing stock in the City.
Packet Page. 1539
2 Land Inventory Matters
The Draft continues to heavily rely on pipeline projects to meet its RHNA. As such, per HCD’s request (see 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 2), the Draft needs to include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects, which the Draft still fails to do. Even though the Draft does contain a reference that the City has a program to allow for by-right development on the identified sites when projects propose 20 percent of all units at an affordable rate, there is no analysis of said program nor is there an analysis of how the City will monitor the approvals of the projects. As such, the Draft has not met HCDs request to demonstrate progress in meeting the RHNA, and needs to be revised accordingly.
Site Inventory
HCD requested that the Draft must identify which sites will be rezoned to allow increased densities in RH and RMH zones described on page 4-23 to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA. Furthermore, HCD provided that Table 4-1 should be revised to indicate what the City’s RHNA shortfall is, and how these rezones address this shortfall.
The Draft purports in Table 4-7 (Draft, p. 4-34), San Bernardino RHNA Status Summary, that they will be 10% above their RHNA for lower income levels, 32% above their RHNA for moderate income levels, and 4% above their RHNA for above moderate-income levels.
However, said calculations continue to rely heavily on pipeline projects, without providing adequate analysis of how the City will facilitate development and monitor same. In addition, as outlined below, it is unrealistic for the City to rely on such large numbers of ADUs to meet their RHNA based on the average number of ADUs that the City has produced in recent years.
Further, for the proposed rezones to meet the lower-income RHNA identified at Tables 4-5 and 4-6 (Draft, pp. 4-24; 4-27 to 4-31), the City needs to revise the Draft to provide specific actions that the City will take to facilitate and encourage higher-density development because it is not clear from the Draft how the City will accomplish that. Additionally, the City has not analyzed the likelihood of residential development where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 3.) Without such specific actions, the City appears not to have sufficient sites designated to meet the RHNA, which would cause it to run afoul of the No Net Loss Law, which requires the City to ensure development opportunities remain throughout the Planning Period.
Realistic Capacity
We again 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, and discrepancies remain between the pipeline projects listed on the City’s website and those represented in the Draft. Aside from the majority of the City’s pipeline projects are apportioned for above-moderate projects, the Draft claims to have an approximate total of 799 lower-income RHNA Pipeline projects since July 2021 (Draft, pp. 4-5 to 4-6; Table 4-2) Additionally, the Draft claims Permanent Supportive Housing, which would account for 30 units (U.S. VETS Housing) and 85-units (Mary Village) in two projects, respectively, as well as a number of Packet Page. 1540
3 multifamily developments listed (see Draft. pp. 4-8 to 4-9.) However, the City’s website portal that tracks pipeline projects only includes two projects explicitly listed as multi-family residential developments, totaling only 47 units-- the 20 Unit Multi-Family Residential Development on Eastside of Ferndale Avenue; South of East 39th Street; and the 27-unit MultiFamily Residential Complex on North Sterling Avenue (between E. Marshall Boulevard & E.
Lynwood Drive). See City of San Bernardino Development Projects, located at the following link: https://www.sbcity.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=17442546&pageId=18197247. The City should provide more information in the Draft on the claimed projects, including those that have been completed and are approved. Additionally, the Draft only reflects a few RHNA lower-income pipeline sites on its website, with none of those sites corresponding with projects in the Pipeline projects referenced in the Draft. (Draft, pp. 4-8 to 4-9; Table 4-2.) The City must correct these discrepancies to come into compliance with Government 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)
Further, regarding the publicly subsidized projects contained in Table 4-2, the City should not get credit towards its RHNA for housing that already exists, and to the extent that the City seeks credit against its RHNA for these subsidized housing projects, the Draft must be revised to demonstrate how the City has complied with Government Code section 65583.2(g)(3), which requires that sites that have or have had residential units, but where the units were vacated or demolished within the last five years, do not qualify as sites available to accommodate the RHNA unless replacement housing has been developed and the units are or were:
• Subject to recorded covenants restricting rents to lower income households; • Subject to rent control; or
• Occupied by very low- or low-income households.
City-Owned Sites
Although the Draft improves upon the information regarding its treatment of City-owned sites during the planning period, e.g., declaring 14 city-owned sites as surplus and providing information about proposed development plans for surplus lands sites with affordable housing developers such as Jamboree and Mission Communities, along with sites to be designated as surplus in 2024, (see Draft pp. 4-25 to 4-33), Table 4-6, Draft, pp. 4-27 to 4-31, still does not have the requested information to determine the suitability of the sites that the City proposes to use to meet the RHNA. The Table does not include existing uses, particularly for proposed sites as surplus that the City has currently zoned commercial. Additionally, Table 4-6 does not provide affordability levels for the proposed City-owned parcels the City plans to use to meet the RHNA. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 4.) The City must revise the Draft to provide this detail and additional analysis on how it will plan to comply with recent amendments to the noticing and disposal provisions of the Surplus Lands Act, as amended by AB 480, Ch. 788, Stats. 2023, sec. 1, which includes amending the low-income housing set aside for the proposed parcels contained in Table 4-6, to conform to the set aside requirements under Gov. Code section 54220 et seq. Additionally, the Draft should make clear that the rezones will be made complete Packet Page. 1541
4 by April 17, 2024, as HCD cannot find the Element in substantial compliance until the rezones under Government Code sections 65583(c)(1)(A) and 65583.2(h) are complete.
Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Units
The City appears to be de-emphasizing SRO development in favor of a “micro-unit” plan being worked on in conjunction with an unnamed developer. The latest draft of the housing element claims that these “micro-units,” which are estimated to be between 250 and 400 square feet in size, are preferable to SROs because they “are fully self-contained and have on-site supportive services available.” The draft housing element also does not contain any concrete plans regarding efforts to incentivize SRO construction, instead stating that the city will “[i]nterview SRO/microunit developers and propose ordinance revisions for consideration to the city council to incentivize both housing types.” The apparent lack of focus on SROs in the draft housing element is justified with the claim that “there is a limited housing market for SROs.” The city’s interest in developing these “micro-units” while de-emphasizing efforts to build SROs is concerning, as SROs are subject to special development standards designed to assist elderly and disabled residents (e.g. being located away from establishments such as liquor stores, being located within ¼ of a mile from bus stops); these “micro-units” may not be subject to the same or similar standards. The city should explain in more detail why “micro-unit” construction is being favored over SRO construction, directly address whether “micro-units” will meet the same or similar development standards as SROs, and go into more detail regarding material and procedural constraints that might impact SRO development.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
While we are pleased to see that the City has made changes to the Draft to reflect HCD’s request to revise its ADU ordinance to adhere to state law requirements (10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 5), we remain concerned that the City continues to propose an unrealistic number of ADUs for development during the planning period. Previously, the Draft stated that the City will plan to develop 1200 ADUs over the planning period. HCD found this proposal to be unrealistic given that since 2020, the City has only produced an average of 86 ADUs per year. (10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 4.) Additionally, the City does not provide sufficient information about the affordability levels of the 200 ADUs the City states it permitted in the first nine (9) months of the year.
In this version of the Draft, the City estimates that it will build an even higher number of ADUs over the planning period – 1,704. (Draft, p. 7-9) However, the City fails to provide any data to support that it can (a) build this number of ADUs over the planning period given the few numbers of units they have so far and (b) whether it will have a sufficient number of sites over the planning period to accommodate a sufficient number ADUs at the level of affordability needed to accommodate the lower- and moderate-income RNHA.
Further, even though the Draft indicates that the City will adopt incentives to develop these ADUs, the Draft does not state what those incentives are, and the Draft does not outline how it will monitor for production and affordability, particularly whether the proposed new units that the City states it will plan to develop over the planning period will be rental housing. The ADUs Packet Page. 1542
5 proposed to be built may not function in the same way as ADUs previously built. Accordingly, the Draft must provide information and analysis on how the City will ensure that this type of housing stock will adequately meet the needs of renters who need affordable housing in the City.
Moreover, Program 1.5 (Draft, p. 7-9), the Draft states that “if ADU production or affordability falls 25 percent below target for two calendar years, rezone sites to address the shortfall within 6 months.” (Ibid.) Under the No-Net Loss Law codified at Government Code section 65863, the City has a duty to maintain adequate sites throughout the planning period, such that waiting until six months to address a shortfall in development may cause the City to run afoul of the requirement to maintain adequate sites as required under Section 65863. Accordingly, the City should consider scaling back the number of ADUs to a realistic number or provide additional information to support that the City can indeed build that number of ADUs over the planning period.
Analysis of Existing Housing Developments Eligible to Convert to Non-Low-Income Housing We appreciate the inclusion of additional information to assess the conversion risk of affordable housing developments in the City, as required by Government Code section 65583(a)(9), and as requested by the 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter (see p. 8). However, the Draft needs to include additional information regarding whether the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino will intend to renew the vouchers of the Maplewood Apartments, which has an expiration year of 2026, to determine whether these apartments, which are PBV-subsidized, are truly at low-risk of conversion. Additionally, regarding Housing Authority owned properties, the Draft should include additional specifics on how the Housing Authority intends to preserve the PBV vouchers and comply with 24 CFR Part 983, et seq., based on the expected year of conversion of those properties as reflected in the Draft.
The Draft Does Not Completely Analyze the Potential and Actual Governmental Constraints on the Development of Housing as Required by Government Code section 65583(a)(5)
Land Use Controls
HCD requested that the City amend the element to “analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. The analysis should specifically address requirements related to cover parking, lot coverage requirements, and limits on allowable densities in each zone that allows residential development.” (10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 5.) However, the Draft does not include full information on the limits on allowable densities in each zone that allows for residential development. (See Draft, at Tables 3-1 to 3-3, pp. 3-3 to 3-5.) The City should revise the Draft to include this information and densities present any governmental constraint on the development of multi-family housing in the City, as well as address how the City will remove the constraint. The Draft must also analyze how including an impermissible administrative constraint of a conditional use permit (CUP) in violation of Government Code section 65915, on senior/congregate housing eligible for a density bonus has impacted its ability to develop shelter for this special needs population in the City. (See Draft, p. 2-28; Table 3-1, p. 3-3.) In this regard, the City must revise the Draft and specifically state that it will comply with Packet Page. 1543
6 the stipulated judgment reached in Gracia v. City of San Bernardino, CIVSB2301828 (filed February 10, 2023) (Gracia). The City should include a footnote indicating that, per the stipulated judgment reached in Gracia and subsequent city directive, the City will no longer require a CUP for senior/congregate housing projects seeking density bonus approval, and the City’s revisions to its local density bonus ordinance will comply with the Density Bonus Law, as amended.
Additionally, the link to evaluate the projects contained in Table 3-3 regarding the Specific Plans with Residential Zones does not work. The City needs to revise the Draft and provide a functioning link for the public to examine the veracity of the data provided by the City for these specific plans included in the Draft.
Processing and Permit Procedures
Contrary to what the City asserts in the Draft, the San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC) in its current format, does not allow the development of emergency shelter by right. Indeed, a review of the SBMC at Chapter 19.10-E shows that the City currently requires a CUP or Development Permit to develop emergency shelter in the ES Overlay Zone, which the City represents as the area of the City where it permits by-right shelter development. (See Table 6.01, San Bernardino Mun. Code Ch, 19.06; Table 8.01 San Bernardino Mun. Code Ch. 19.08.020). Pursuant to the Draft, the City does not permit the development of emergency shelter in any area zoned residential. (Draft, Table 3-4, p. 3.6) The Draft must analyze how these processing and permit procedures have constrained the development of housing in the City. (Gov. Code §65583(a)(5)).
Codes and Enforcement
While we appreciate the City’s amendments to this section of the Draft to clarify the scope of the inspections for multifamily housing units in the City and to Program 3.4, regarding affordable housing projects funded by HOME and NSP funds, the Draft should assert, including in Program
3.4 that the City will analyze its housing codes and enforcement programs to ensure compliance with state and federal fair housing law, which is consistent with the duty to affirmatively further fair housing under Government Code section 8899.50, as affirmed in Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193 (Martinez). Additionally, Program 3.4 contains a typographical error regarding the applicable CFR code for inspections for HOME-funded programs—it should be 24 CFR section 92.504(d), and not Federal CFR 92.504(d) as currently reflected in the Draft. (Draft, p. 7-16)
Zoning and Fees Transparency
Even though the Draft provides information about required fees for single-family and multifamily housing development, it does not analyze the impacts of these fees as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability as required by Government Code section 65583(a)(5), which requires the Housing Element to analyze governmental and non-governmental constraints on the development of housing. Nor does the Draft provide additional information regarding the Packet Page. 1544
7 average of the development fees but there is no additional information as to the average cost of these fees and their impact on feasibility of single-family or multifamily development. Rather, the Draft summarily concludes that the development and exaction fees do not constrain housing. (Draft, p. 3-59), without any information or data to support that conclusion. Further, the City should revise Program 2.3 (Development Fee Study), Draft, p. 7-12 to include a goal that it “may offer deferrals for any development fee with approval of City Council if they find that such a deferral would help improve or make project financing better,” (Draft, p. 3-59), This change acknowledges that these fees present a governmental constraint and that the City is committed to doing something to address it.
Additionally, the link for Step 1 Access General Plan and Zoning in Table 3-19, Draft, p. 3-63 (AB 1483 Required Documents and Website Access), is a broken link. The City needs to revise the Draft to provide accessibility to all links regarding zoning and fees transparency consistent with the HCD finding to “clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website.” (10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 7.)
Fees and Exaction
Even though the City has revised the Draft to provide required fees for single- and multi-family development, the Draft should make clear whether the fees contained in Tables 3-16 to 3-18, Draft, pp. 3-59 to 3-61 are current since they are not current. Additionally, the City has not included any information or analysis of the impact of these required fees upon the cost and supply of residential development as requested by HCD (see 10/2/2023 Findings Letter, p. 6.) Presently, the City concludes, without analysis that the required fees contained in Tables 3-16 to 3-18, Draft, pp. 3-59 to 3-61 do not constrain development. The City needs to revise the Draft to analyze whether these listed fees administratively constrains development in the City as required by Government Code section 65583(a)(5).
Approval Time and Requests Lesser Densities
Although the Draft now includes information about approval times for the development of single- and multi-family development, it is clear from the description of the projects contained in the Draft at p. 3-62, that the projects are not subject to the same approval time length, with multifamily developments taking about four months longer to process, approve, and issue permits as compared to single-family developments. Government Code section 65583(a)(5) requires the Housing Element to conduct “[a]n analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), 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. . .” Here, the Draft does not address the hinderance presented by this approval process, nor does the Draft analyze the impacts upon the supply of Packet Page. 1545
8 residential development by having a process that ranges from one to one and one-half years to develop single- family and multi-family development in the City as required by Section 65583(a)(5). The City must analyze this constraint and include a corresponding program in the Draft on how it will plan to address the disparity between the approval and processing times for residential development in the City. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, pp. 7, 8.)
The Draft Fails to Properly Analyze Environmental Constraints The environmental constraints section of the Draft is virtually identical to the previous iterations of the Draft, and as such suffers from all of the same issues identified in our previous comment letters of June and September 2023, by most pertinently failing to relate the environmental constraints to identified sites where the City plans to develop housing, including sites identified as potential for emergency shelter development. For instance, the Draft describes a variety of potential environmental hazards which may affect the City at large, but it fails to relate these conditions back to any identified sites for development or to specific types of housing, such as ADUs or SROs. It also limits its discussion of hazards to flooding, wildfire, and earthquakes, without addressing any other known environmental constraints (e.g., water supply or hazardous waste) which could impact housing development on the identified sites. The City’s emergency overlay sites illustrates these concerns. As mentioned in previous comment letters, sites 3 and 6, which fall within the 76th and 95th percentiles for hazardous waste, and the City has failed to consider the environmental constraints imposed on the potential to develop these sites for housing for those in need of emergency shelter. The City should revise the Draft to address these concerns as they relate to both the identified sites and the types of housing that will be developed on said sites, as well as consider using environmental justice principles such as infill strategies that are aimed at mitigating pollution for populations who are already at risk.
The Draft Still Suffers from Deficiencies Concerning the Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
We appreciate the revisions to the AFFH chapter to provide additional information regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the City as well as outreach efforts with the Inland Fair Housing Mediation Board, as well as the new section on disadvantaged incorporated areas in the City at page 5-83 of the Draft. Additionally, the City added a section about economic and educational disparities, information about educational attainment relative to other communities, and environmental conditions. (See Draft, pp. 5-40, 5-43, and 5-52).
Notwithstanding, the Draft contains deficiencies concerning AFFH and needs to be revised to bring the Draft within substantial compliance under Government Code section 8899.50. For instance, even though the City revised the Draft to specifically denote the westside and central/downtown area of the City as Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty (R/ECAPs), the Draft still fails to analyze the conditions of the neighborhoods relative to quality of life or describe past strategies related to equitable quality of life. In the Draft, the City states that the increase in R/ECAPs is unclear (Draft, p. 5-10), but relies upon older information in its discussion of the R/ECAPs. The City should survey community groups and organizations that work in those areas to obtain recent data and information that could shed light on why R/ECAPs Packet Page. 1546
9 have increased in the City. Central and Westside San Bernardino, which the City has designated as R/ECAP areas, should not bear the majority of low-income housing projects. The objective should be to decentralize poverty from these regions by exploring the construction of lowincome housing in areas of the City with more abundant resources. (See Gov. Code §8899.50(a)(1); see also HCD AFFH Guidance (April 2021 Update), p. 48.) Additionally, the Draft does not evaluate Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA).
HCD requested that the City analyze higher resources and areas of the City that could promote housing mobility and housing opportunity. (10/2/2023 HCD Finding Letter, p. 1). Specifically, HCD directed the City to analyze higher resource areas such as Verdemont as a location to site lower-income housing, but the Draft does not conduct this analysis. The City should revise the Draft and analyze this region along with other higher-income regions of the City where the City could develop housing opportunity.
Concerning disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk, the Draft does not identify any place-based strategies with specific goals and timelines to address disparities to access of housing opportunity in the City. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Finding Letter, p. 1.) And while the City revised their AB 686 sites analysis by adding language related to the location of certain tracts within the City and changing the figures of allocated units in the City areas, the Draft does not fully analyze either the location of those sites or affordable opportunities in high resource areas as required by Gov. Code 8899.50. The City mentions contributing factors that the Housing Element must analyze at page 5-105 of the Draft, but does not fully analyze what factors are contributing to impediments to fair housing in the City. There also appears to be a typographical error in the Draft regarding the location of this information—the Draft cites to Table 5-24, which relates to Westside programs when presumably the City means Table 5-29. (Ibid.) Finally, while the City added additional information to its goals, priorities, metrics, and milestones, at Table 5-29, at pages 5-111 to 5-114, that revised table does not specifically address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, or discuss place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection in the City. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p.
2.) The City must revise the Draft to provide this information.
Other Local Ordinances
Density Bonus Ordinance
We appreciate that the City has directed staff to adhere to state law in processing density bonus applications, and plans to adhere to the stipulated judgment reached in Gracia v. City of San Bernardino. Further, the addition of information in Table 3-8 (Draft p. 3-27), assists the public in understanding the deficiencies contained in the local density bonus ordinance when compared against state law. However, the Draft does not inform or analyze the constraints presented on the development of housing by those applicants seeking a density bonus who were subjected to outdated and illegal provisions of the local density bonus ordinance as requested by HCD. (10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 7) The City should revise the Draft accordingly to provide this information.
Packet Page. 1547
10 Anti-Camping Ordinance
Consistent with the HCD finding at page 7 of the 10/2/2023 Findings Letter, the City should further revise the Draft to specifically state how enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance impacts trust of those experiencing houselessness in the City’s ability to assist them with getting housed and how the City will comply with its AFFH duty to improve conditions for the unhoused and mitigate the displacement risk associated with enforcement of anti-camping ordinances. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 7; Gov. Code section 8899.50(a)(1); HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, (April 2021 Update), p. 40; California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness, Chapter 3: Experiences During Homelessness (discussing impacts of confiscations and forced displacements of the unhoused), available at CASPEH_Report_62023.pdf (ucsf.edu), last accessed on November 15, 2023.)
Housing Programs
Although the City has made marked improvement to this section of the Draft, many of the time periods identified in Table 7-1 lack discrete timing (month and year) as requested by HCD in the 10/2/2023 Findings Letter. Given that the City is quite tardy, i.e., over two years late in adopting its Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update, the City must revise those programs that have amorphous timing designations such as “ongoing,” “mid-2024,” to help assess the viability of the City to complete program goals over the Planning Period.
Program 1.5 Accessory Dwelling Unit, Draft, pp. 7-9, 7-29; Program 2.7 Constraints to A Variety of Housing, Draft, pp. 7-23. 7-31: In addition to the revised goals noted in the Draft, the City should revise the goals for this program to include the specific accessibility, affordability, and housing code requirements for ADUs to help assess the feasibility of this program to meet the needs of lower-income residents who live in the City and who are in need of housing to access them, especially considering the City’s extensive reliance upon this type of housing to meet the City’s housing needs as contained in the Draft.
Additionally, although the Draft contains data showing that ADU construction increased following the adoption of the City’s ADU ordinance (MC-1559) in 2021, the ordinance in its current form may still be inconsistent with State statutory requirements. The Draft acknowledges this deficiency and states that the City will “periodically review and revise ADU regulations for consistency with state law;” however, these Programs do not specify how frequently these reviews will take place, nor does it provide a deadline for the revision of local ordinances in the event that said review uncovers deficiencies. The City should revise the Draft to specify the frequency of these periodic reviews (e.g., once every year) and to provide a deadline for finalizing and implementing revised ordinances if a review finds that current regulations are inconsistent with state law (e.g., April 1 of the year following review).
Program 3.5: Violence Prevention/Intervention, Draft, pp. 7-17, 7-34: As we have mentioned in our comment letters of September 5, 2023, and June 12, 2023, we object to the use of a neighborhood watch program to address crime and violence in the City. Apart from encouraging Packet Page. 1548
11 vigilantism as documented in national cases involving the senseless deaths of Black people at the hands of their neighbors (e.g., Trayvon Martin, Atatiana Jefferson, Aijke Owens, and countless others), neighborhood watch programs have been disproportionately used to monitor the movement of communities of color in and out of racially exclusive enclaves. We are also concerned that such a program will be used to illegally exclude persons who have had negative interactions with law enforcement, such as an arrest, or who are returning home following involvement with the criminal legal system from living in the City. Accordingly, this proposal to consider the feasibility of a neighborhood watch program presents fair housing concerns as it conflicts with City’s statutory duty to take “meaningful actions” to “address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.” (Gov. Code 8899.50(a)(1); Martinez, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 285-86.) The City must eliminate this objective altogether.
Further, the City should amend objective 3.5b to specifically earmark more funds for communitybased programs that can assist with stemming crime and violence in the City. The City should make the proposed funds to programs aimed at at-risk youth the same as funds given to the police for community policing. Additionally, the City can and should involve the public in the process of determining how much funding should be allocated to programs that provide alternative ways to ameliorate crime and violence that do not involve police. In this regard, the City can and should survey community collaboratives such as Just 4 San Bernardino, a collaborative of at least eight community organizations with members who have lived experiences that can assist the City with identifying alternative strategies to crime prevention that are informed from members of the public.
Program 4.1 Preservation of Assisted Multi-Family Housing, Draft, pp. 7-20, 7-36:
The City should revise this program to specifically include an objective to provide tenant education about conversion notices they may receive as the affordability covenants on the properties where they live are set to expire. This tenant assistance is particularly critical for those tenants who are part of special needs populations such as seniors, people living with disabilities, and those who are limited English proficient. As such, the City should amend Objective 4.1b to read “Coordinate with property owners to ensure conversion notices to tenants are sent out at three intervals: 3 years, 1 years, and 6 months of the affordable covenant expiration date, and simultaneously provide tenants who have received conversion notices with tenant education and resources where they may receive legal assistance/information about their rights, and information of the City entity to whom they may lodge a complaint regarding violations of federal and state law, including without limitation, the Notice Preservation Law, Gov. Code section 65863.10, et seq.”
Program 4.2: Rent Control/Stabilization, Draft pp. 7-21; 7-36: 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 Packet Page. 1549
12 constructed after January 1, 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). Further, the City must revise this program to specifically include an objective or a separate program with discrete timing (month and year) and identity of responsible city agency that articulates how the City will comply with state law regarding mobilehome park conversion and closure and address rent stabilization and preservation issues for City residents at risk of displacement from the City’s mobilehome parks who could experience displacement from any one of the City’s mobilehome parks.
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. 2-53; Program 4.4, Draft p. 7-21), 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 Vouchers, Draft pp. 7-21; 7-36: Given the high number of people who rely upon a Section 8 voucher to subsidize their rent (see Draft, p. 2-52), 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 California Code of Regulations, Tit. 2, section 12140 et seq., and Small Area Fair Market Rents.
Program 4.4 Emergency Rental Assistance, Draft, pp. 7-21; 7-36: As outlined in the Draft, the City stated that COVID-19 severely impacted its residents. 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. 7-21).
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 through the City’s emergency rental assistance program. The City should develop it now or while that existing program is ongoing.
Packet Page. 1550
13 Public Participation
As the City continues to revise the Draft to bring it within substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, the City must continue to solicit the public’s participation in this process as required by Government Code section 65583(c)(9). While the City acknowledges the public participation requirements as set forth in AB 215 (Ch. 342, Stats. 2021), the Draft still does not describe the efforts the City undertook to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community to develop the Draft as required by Section 65583(c)(9). Even though the Draft includes information about community concerns about the crime-free program, which the City acknowledges receipt and use of to eliminate its most harmful provisions, the Draft contains no information about the extensive comments the City received from the public about the City’s anticamping ordinances and treatment of those who are without shelter in the City. Indeed, in addition to comment from our offices, the City received extensive comment from the ACLU and other community groups in the City that are not reflected in this version of the Draft, as well as from the Just 4 San Bernardino Collective, representing several community organizations in the City about administrative and environmental constraints upon housing development in the City. The City should revise this section of the Draft to include a summary of the comments received regarding the Draft and how the City has addressed those comments.
The City’s Draft still does not substantially comply with Housing Element Law and we urge the City to revise the Draft accordingly so that it may comply with the law. We are happy to schedule time to speak with you about or comments and concerns about the Draft. Please contact us at [email protected] or [email protected], to schedule a date and time to meet about our comments.
Sincerely,
Vivian Anaya
Staff Attorney, Inland Counties Legal Services
Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson
Staff Attorney, The Public Interest Law Project
Packet Page. 1551
290 North D St, San Bernardino, CA 92401 | P: 909-384-5357 | www.SBCity.org Community & Economic Development Department
January 16, 2024
SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
[email protected]
[email protected]
Ms. Vivian Anaya
Staff Attorney, Inland Counties Legal Services
Ms. Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson
Staff Attorney, The Public Interest Law Project
Re: City of San Bernardino Draft 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element Dear Ms. Anaya and Ms. Anaebere-Nicholson:
Thank you for your comment letter on the City of San Bernardino Draft 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element dated November 20, 2023. An abbreviated summary of each of your comments is provided, followed by the City’s response.
1. Housing Conditions
While the Draft provides updated information about the housing conditions in the City based on information received from code enforcement, it may not fully provide information about housing stock conditions since information from Code Enforcement would be largely based upon those who call code enforcement for assistance and would exclude those who may not call Code Enforcement, such as tenants who experience landlord harassment or indifference, or housing instability caused by evictions who may be living in dilapidated housing conditions and not reporting their living conditions to Code Enforcement. As such, the City should survey housing developers and nonprofit agencies and organizations that may have information to help assess the status of the housing conditions, so that the Draft accurately reflects the status of the housing stock in the City.
Response:
The City’s Code Enforcement Division staff are in the community on a daily basis and are able to observe housing conditions citywide. While their efforts are primarily complaint-driven, they do see the surrounding properties when visiting a specific location. Their insight, along with that of the building inspectors, is beneficial in providing a good overview of housing conditions throughout the city. The City also interviewed Legal Aid, which has been conducting tenant/landlord workshops, and contacted the Inland Fair Housing Mediation Board (IFHMB). Housing condition data is provided in Packet Page. 1552
City of San Bernardino Page 2 of 16
Chapter 5 (substandard housing and fair housing complaints) and Chapter 6 of the draft housing element. That said, to provide more specific information that can be useful in allocating resources, Program 3.1, Housing Rehabilitation, commits the City to conduct a housing survey (See Action 3.1 d).
2. Land Inventory Matters
The Draft continues to heavily rely on pipeline projects to meet its RHNA. As such, per HCD’s request (see 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 2), the Draft needs to include programs with actions that committo facilitating development andmonitoring approvals ofthe projects, which the Draft still fails to do. Even though the Draft does contain a reference that the City has a program to allow for byright development on the identified sites when projects propose 20 percent of all units at an affordable rate, there is no analysis of said program nor is there an analysis of how the City will monitor the approvals of the projects. As such, the Draft has not met HCDs request to demonstrate progress in meeting the RHNA, and needs to be revised.
Response:
State law allows pipeline projects to be credited toward the RHNA, provided certain criteria are met.
The City has been successful in seeing more than 90 percent of pipeline projects advancing past the approval stage and nearly 50% having been built or are under construction in the past two years. To continue this success, the revised draft element already includes an action under Program 2.5, Permit Facilitation. Action 2.5c: Monitor projects; for ones not moving forward, contact developers to ascertain issues, facilitate entitlements, and assist in extensions.
3. Site Inventory
(A) HCD requested that the Draft must identify which sites will be rezoned to allow increased densities in RH and RMH zones described on page 4-23 to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA. (B) Furthermore, HCD provided that Table 4-1 should be revised to indicate what the City’s RHNA shortfall is, and how these rezones address this shortfall. The Draft purports in Table 4-7 (Draft, p. 4-34), San Bernardino RHNA Status Summary, that they will be 10% above their RHNA for lower income levels, 32% above their RHNA for moderate income levels, and 4% above their RHNA for above moderate-income levels. (C) However, said calculations continue to rely heavily on pipeline projects, without providing adequate analysis of how the City will facilitate development and monitor same. (D) In addition, it is unrealistic for the City to rely on such large numbers of ADUs to meet their RHNA based on the average number of ADUs that the City has produced in recent years. (E) Further, forthe proposed rezones to meet the lower-income RHNA identified at Tables 4- 5 and 4-6 (Draft, pp. 4-24; 4-27 to 4-31), the City needsto revise the Draftto provide specific actions that the City will take to facilitate and encourage higher-density development because it is not clear from the Draft how the City will accomplish that. (F) Additionally, the City has not analyzed the likelihood of residential development where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 3.) Without such specific actions, the City appears not to have sufficient sites designated to meet the RHNA, which would cause it to run afoul of the No Net Loss Law, which requires the City to ensure development opportunities remain throughout the Planning Period.
Response:
A. Housing sites proposed for rezoning to either RMH-32 and RH-50 to address the lower income RHNA are provided in Table 4-5 (Infill Parcels for Rezone to Accommodate Lower Income RHNA) and Table 4-6 (Surplus Opportunity Sites to Accommodate the RHNA). Table 4-7 (pages 4-35) Packet Page. 1553
City of San Bernardino Page 3 of 16
provides the RHNA shortfall before rezoning actions are implemented, as well as the additional development (units) capacity that will be made possible through rezoning and surplus sites.
B. See response above.
C. See response in Item #2, Land Inventory.
D. ADU production can be estimated by methods other than the cited “safe harbor” approach.
Future ADU projections are based on the number of units permitted, future estimates on permit submittals from developers, and an existing backlog of ADUs awaiting approvals.
E. City is rezoning sites at higher densities to facilitate the development of affordable housing. In addition to density incentives, the Housing Plan contains additional programs that incentivize development, including regulatory concessions, density bonuses, off-site infrastructure, etc. See Program 4.6, which also provides additional commitments for affordable housing projects.
F. The Element documents that all sites proposed for housing to meet the lower income requirement of the RHNA will be rezoned for housing; none of the proposed housing sites will allow commercial or nonresidential uses. The comment is, therefore, no longer relevant.
4. Realistic Capacity
We again 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, and discrepancies remain between the pipeline projects listed on the City’s website and those represented in the Draft.
Aside from the majority of the City’s pipeline projects are apportioned for above-moderate projects, the Draft claims to have an approximate total of 799 lower-income RHNA Pipeline projects since July 2021 (Draft, pp. 4-5 to 4-6; Table 4-2) Additionally, the Draft claims Permanent Supportive Housing, which would account for 30 units (U.S. VETS Housing) and 85-units (Mary Village) in two projects, respectively, as well as a number of multifamily developments listed (Draft. pp. 4-8/4-9/). However, the City’s website portal that tracks pipeline projects only includes two projects explicitly listed as multi-family housing, totaling only 47 units-- the 20 Unit Multi-Family Residential Development on Eastside of Ferndale Avenue; South of East 39th Street; and the 27-unit Multi- Family Residential Complex on North Sterling Avenue. See City of San Bernardino Development Projects https://www.sbcity.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=17442546&pageId=18197247. The City should provide more information on the claimed projects, including those completed and approved. The Draft only reflects a few RHNA lower-income pipeline sites on its website, with none of those sites corresponding with projects in the Pipeline projects referenced in the Draft. (Draft, pp. 4-8 to 4-9; Table 4-2.).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) Response:
The City’s webmap is not intended to be an exhaustive list of housing projects, but only a sample. The Element relies on housing projects from the City’s permit database, supplemented by information from City staff. Based on that, Table 4-2 was updated to include the status of projects, characteristics, affordability, and expected date of completion. Project descriptions were revised to include funding sources that guarantee affordability and occupancy to lower-income households. Tables 4-5 and 4-6 and accompanying descriptions of affordable projects include funding restrictions.
5. Publicly Subsidized Project Credit
Further, regarding the publicly subsidized projects contained in Table 4-2, the City should not get credit towards its RHNA for housing that already exists, and to the extent that the City seeks credit against its RHNA for these subsidized housing projects, the Draft must be revised to demonstrate Packet Page. 1554
City of San Bernardino Page 4 of 16
how the City has complied with Gov. Code 65583.2(g)(3), which requires that sites that have or have had residential units, but where the units were vacated or demolished within the last five years, do not qualify as sites available to accommodate the RHNA unless replacement housing has been developed and the units are or were: subject to recorded covenants restricting rents to lower income households; subject to rent control; or occupied by very low- or low-income households.
Response:
Per HCD, only housing projects where a certificate of occupancy will be issued after July 1, 2021, are credited toward the 2021-2029 RHNA. Several affordable projects were completed after that date.
The Arrowhead Grove project, the former Waterman Gardens, required the demolition of all existing units and, as a RAD demonstration project, required one-for-one replacement as approved by HUD.
City staff are not aware of sites that have rent-controlled units, restricted housing, or housing being occupied by lower-income residents being demolished to make way for new non-affordable housing.
The City will comply with replacement requirements per Gov. Code 65583.2(g)(3) and 65915(C)(3).
6. City-Owned Sites
Although the Draft improves upon the information regarding its treatment of City-owned sites during the planning period, it still does not have the requested information to determine the suitability of the sites that the City proposes to use to meet the RHNA. ( A ) The Table does not include existing uses, particularly proposed sites as surplus that the City has currently zoned commercial. In addition, Table 4-6 does not provide affordability levels for the proposed City-owned parcels that will be used to meetthe RHNA. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 4.) The City must revise the Draft to provide this detail and include (B) additional analysis on how it will plan to comply with recent the noticing and disposal provisions of the Surplus Lands Act, as amended by AB 480, which includes amending the low-income housing set aside for the proposed parcels contained in Table 4-6, to conform to the set aside requirements under Gov. Code section 54220 et seq. (C) Additionally, the Draft should make clear that the rezones will be made complete by April 17, 2024 Response:
A. An electronic sites inventory was sent to HCD at: [email protected]. This spreadsheet includes about 600 parcels that can accommodate housing and includes APN, existing use, zoning, density, units, affordability levels, and other information.
B. Program 1.4, action 1.4a commits the City to dispose of RDA sites (Table 4-6) in compliance with SLA, advertise surplus land for sale on the City's website, and consider and award bids to affordable housing developers. Sell sites and dispose of them to qualified developers.
C. Program 1.1 indicates that the City will complete the rezones concurrent with the housing element adoption. Program action 1.4b commits to rezoning the surplus sites by April 17, 2024.
The City intends to adopt the housing element prior to the stipulation judgment dates.
7. Single-Room Occupancy/MicroUnits
The City appears to be de-emphasizing SRO development in favor of a “micro-unit” plan being worked on in conjunction with an unnamed developer. The latest draft of the housing element claims that these “micro-units,” which are estimated to be between 250 and 400 square feet in size, are preferable to SROs because they “are fully self-contained and have on-site supportive services available.” (A) The draft housing element also does not contain any concrete plans regarding efforts to incentivize SRO construction, instead stating that the city will “[i]nterview SRO/micro-unit developers and propose ordinance revisions for consideration to the city council to incentivize both housing types.” The apparent lack of focus on SROs in the draft housing element is justified with the Packet Page. 1555
City of San Bernardino Page 5 of 16
claim that “there is a limited housing market for SROs.” (B) The city’s interest in developing these “micro-units” while de-emphasizing efforts to build SROs is concerning, as SROs are subject to special development standards designed to assist elderly and disabled residents (e.g. being located away from establishments such as liquor stores, being located within ¼ of a mile from bus stops). (C) The city should explain why “micro-unit” construction is favored over SRO construction, directly address whether “micro-units” will meet the same or similar development standards as SROs, and go into more detail regarding material and procedural constraints that might impact SRO development.
Response:
The City is not de-emphasizing SROs and will welcome opportunities for conversations with developers who are interested in that product type. One of the developers interested in an SLA property expressed interest in a microunit concept, which the City staff supports this new concept.
A. Mission Communities has been awarded surplus sites to build micro-units. It is premature to recommend SRO/MicroUnit development incentives until developer interviews occur.
B. The City Municipal Code does not state that SRO standards were designed and intended to address the needs of seniors and disabled individuals (e.g., “location away from a liquor store”).
C. Micro-units with services onsite, particularly those integrated within existing residential neighborhoods, are responsive to the needs of seniors and people with disabilities.
8. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
(A) …….Previously, the Draft stated that the City will plan to develop 1200 ADUs over the planning period. HCD found this proposal to be unrealistic given that since 2020, the City has only produced an average of 86 ADUs per year. (10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 4.) (B) Additionally, the City does not provide sufficient information about the affordability levels of the 200 ADUs the City states it permitted in the first nine (9) months of the year. In this version of the Draft, the City estimates that it will build an even higher number of ADUs over the planning period – 1,704. (Draft, p. 7-9) (C) However, the City fails to provide any data to support that it can (a) build this number of ADUs over the planning period given the few numbers of units they have so far and (b) whether it will have a sufficient number of sites over the planning period to accommodate a sufficient number ADUs at the level of affordability needed to accommodate the lower- and moderate-income RNHA. (D) Further, even though the Draft indicates that the City will adopt incentives to develop these ADUs, the Draft does not state what those incentives are, and the Draft does not outline how it will monitor for production and affordability, particularly whether the proposed new units that the City states it will plan to develop over the planning period will be rental housing. The ADUs proposed to be built may not function in the same way as ADUs previously built. Accordingly, the Draft must provide information and analysis on how the City will ensure that ADUs will adequately meet the needs of renters who need affordable housing in the City.
Response:
A. State law does not require the City to use the “safe harbor approach” that was originally referenced in projecting ADUs construction. The City’s projection is based on actual building permits issued, interviews with the major ADU builder, and backlog.
B. HCD allows cities to use the default ADU affordability calculations (with reasonable adjustments) that were prepared by SCAG to assign the affordability of ADUs permitted and built.
C. See response to A.
D. Program 1.5 commits to monitoring through the preparation of the Annual Progress Report.
Program 1.5 also includes the exact incentives to be provided, timing, and monitoring below:
Packet Page. 1556
City of San Bernardino Page 6 of 16
a. Periodically review and revise ADU regulations for consistency with State law and HCD letters. b. Monitor & record progress in production/affordability in the APR to ensure targets are met. c. Adopt online marketing, expedited process, ombudsman, pre-stamped plans, and one-stop permits.
9. Analysis of Existing Housing Developments Eligible to Convert to Non-Low-Income Housing We appreciate the inclusion of additional information to assess the conversion risk of affordable housing developments in the City, as required by Government Code section 65583(a)(9), and as requested by the 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter (see p. 8). However, the Draft needs to include additional information regarding whether the Housing Authority will intend to renew the vouchers of the Maplewood Apartments, which has an expiration year of 2026, to determine whether these apartments, which are PBV-subsidized, are truly at low-risk of conversion. Additionally, regarding HousingAuthority owned properties, the Draft should include additional specifics on how the Housing Authority intends to preserve the PBV vouchers and comply with 24 CFR Part 983, et seq., based on the expected year of conversion of those properties as reflected in the Draft.
Response:
The revised draft indicates that the HACSB has confirmed a commitment to preserve Maplewood, Arrowhead Wood, and Kendall projects. The HASCB is a separate legal entity from the City and, therefore, out of its control. As part of the City’s expansion of its Housing Division, it has developed partnerships with the HASCB to further affordable housing opportunities in the City. The City would rely on its efforts to comply with federal regulations in 24 CFR Part 983 as it pertains to its internal policies and procedures.
10. Land Use Controls
HCD requested that the City amend the element to “analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. The analysis should specifically address requirements related to cover parking, lot coverage requirements, and limits on allowable densities in each zone that allows residential development.” (10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 5.) (A) However, the Draft does not include full information on the limits on allowable densities in each zone that allows for residential development. (See Draft, at Tables 3-1 to 3-3, pp. 3-3 to 3-5.) The City should revise the Draft to include this information and how densities present any governmental constraint on the development of multi-family housing, as well as address how the City will remove the constraint. (B) The Draft must also analyze how including an impermissible administrative constraint of a conditional use permit (CUP) in violation of Government Code 65915, on senior/congregate housing eligible for a density bonus has impacted its ability to develop shelter for this special needs population in the City. (See Draft, p. 2-28; Table 3-1, p. 3-3.) In this regard, the City must revise the Draft and specifically state that it will comply with the stipulated judgment reached in Gracia v. City of San Bernardino, CIVSB2301828. (C) The City should include a footnote that, per the stipulated judgment reached in Gracia and subsequent city directive, the City will no longer require a CUP for senior/congregate housing projects seeking density bonus approval, and the City’s revisions to its ordinances will comply with the Density Bonus Law, as amended. (D) The City needs to revise the Draft (Table 3-3) and provide a functioning link for the public to examine the veracity of the data for the specific plans included in the Draft.
Packet Page. 1557
City of San Bernardino Page 7 of 16
Response:
A. The constraints chapter analyzed the current tiered density based on lot size. Action 2.4b includes commitment to remove the tiered density reduction standard, thus facilitating achievement of maximum density in each of the respective zones.
B. The element analyzed the current density bonus provision. Program 2.2a commits to removing the CUP for a density bonus on eligible projects consistent with State law and per said case. The City is revising its ordinances to be consistent with residential/community care law for group quarters.
C. Continued referencing and citation of state housing laws, in either text or footnotes, do not change the City’s obligation or commitment to affirmatively further fair housing.
D. Table 3-3 weblink reference has been updated so the reader can access the specific plans. https://www.sbcity.org/city_hall/community_economic_development/planning/specific_plans
11. Processing and Permit Procedures
Contrary to what the City asserts in the Draft, the SBMC in its current format, does not allow the development of emergency shelter by right. Indeed, a review of the SBMC at Chapter 19.10-E shows that the City currently requires a CUP or Development Permit to develop emergency shelter in the ES Overlay Zone, which the City represents as the area of the City where it permits by-right shelter development. (See Table 6.01, SBMC Ch, 19.06; Table 8.01 SBMC Ch. 19.08.020). Pursuant to the Draft, the City does not permit development of emergency shelter in any area zoned residential. (Draft, Table 3-4, p. 3.6) The Draft must analyze how these processing and permit procedures constrain the development of housing in the City. (Gov. Code §65583(a)(5)).
Response:
The SBMC allows emergency shelters by right with an administrative permit in the Emergency Shelter Overlay, and the City has issued an internal departmental memorandum posted on its website that provides a directive to City staff regarding permitting shelters by right.
12. Codes and Enforcement
While we appreciate the City’s amendments to this section of the Draft to clarify the scope of the inspections for multifamily housing units in the City and to Program 3.4, regarding affordable housing projects funded by HOME and NSP funds, the Draft should assert, including in Program 3.4 that the City will analyze its housing codes and enforcement programs to ensure compliance with state and federal fair housing law, which is consistent with the duty to affirmatively further fair housing under Government Code 8899.50, as affirmed in Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193 (Martinez). Additionally, Program 3.4 contains a typographical error regarding the applicable CFR code for inspections for HOME-funded programs—it should be 24 CFR section 92.504(d), and not Federal CFR 92.504(d) as currently reflected in the Draft. (Draft, p. 7-16) Response:
Request, beyond repeating State law, is unclear. Typo has been corrected.
13. Zoning and Fees Transparency
(A) Even though the Draft provides information about required fees, it does not analyze the impacts of these fees as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability as required by Gov.t Code 65583(a)(5), which requires an analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints on the development of housing. Nor does the Draft provide additional information regarding the average of Packet Page. 1558
City of San Bernardino Page 8 of 16
the development fees but there is no additional information as to the average cost of these fees and their impact on feasibility of single-family or multifamily development. Rather, the Draft summarily concludes that the development and exaction fees do not constrain housing. (Draft, p. 3-59), without any information or data to support that conclusion. (B) Further, the City should revise Program 2.3 (Development Fee Study), Draft, p. 7-12 to include a goal that it “may offer deferrals for any development fee with approval of City Council if they find that such a deferral would help improve or make project financing better,” (Draft, p. 3-59). This change acknowledges that these fees present a governmental constraint and that the City is committed to doing something to address it. (C) Additionally, the link for Step 1 Access General Plan and Zoning in Table 3-19, Draft, p. 3-63 is a broken link. The City needs to revise the Draft to provide accessibility to all links regarding zoning and fees transparency consistent with the HCD finding to “clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website.” (10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 7.). (D) Even though the City revised the Draft to provide required fees for single- and multi-family development, the Draft should make clear whether the fees contained in Tables 3-16 to 3-18, Draft, pp. 3-59 to 3-61 are current. (E) Additionally, the City has not included any information or analysis of the impact of these required fees upon the cost and supply of residential development as requested by HCD (see 10/2/2023 Findings Letter, p. 6.) Presently, the City concludes, without analysis, that the required fees in Tables 3-16 to 3-18, Draft, pp. 3-59 to 3-61 do not constrain development. The City needs to revise the Draft to analyze whether these listed fees administratively constrain development as required by Govt Code 65583(a)(5).
Response:
The City of San Bernardino’s fee structure has not been updated and is well below that of surrounding cities. Due to the low fee structure, development costs are subsidized by the City’s General Fund, which is a significant benefit to promoting both single and multi-family housing.
A. According to HCD, fees average 10% to 15% of development cost; City fees are below that.
B. The City has a policy that allows the Council to defer DIFs, except for regional circulation.
C. The links have been updated.
D. Fees are for 2020, and planning and development fees have not been updated since then.
E. Fees comprise less than 10% of development costs/value, well below a constraint threshold.
14. Approval Time and Requests Lesser Densities
….. it is clear from the description of the projects in the Draft at p. 3-62, that the projects are not subject to the same approval time length, with multi- family developments taking about four months longer to process, approve, and issue permits as compared to single-family developments. Govt Code 5583(a)(5) requires the Housing Element to conduct “[a]n analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing 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.” Here, the Draft does not address the hinderance presented by this approval process, nor does it analyze the impacts upon the supply of residential development by having a process that ranges from one to one and one-half years to develop single- family and multi-family development in the City as required by Section 65583(a)(5).
The City must analyze this constraint and include a corresponding program in the Draft on how it will plan to address the disparity. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, pp. 7, 8.) Packet Page. 1559
City of San Bernardino Page 9 of 16
Response:
The revised element showed that larger single-family and apartment projects required 15 months while the two smaller projects required 11 months. A project can take longer to issue permits due to delay in the developer providing information, size and complexity of the project, housing market, etc.
Given these variables, it would be incorrect to assume that the slight difference is a constraint, particularly given that 50% of the City’s pipeline projects have been built or are under construction and that much of the timeframe depends on when the builder decides to submit the project.
15. The Draft Fails to Properly Analyze Environmental Constraints The environmental constraints section of the Draft is virtually identical to the previous iterations of the Draft, and as such suffers from all of the same issues identified in our previous comment letters… by most pertinently failing to relate the environmental constraints to identified sites where the City plans to develop housing, including sites identified as potential for emergency shelter development.
The Draft describes potential environmental hazards which may affect the City at large, but it fails to relate these conditions back to any identified sites for development or to specific types of housing, such as ADUs or SROs. It also limits its discussion of hazards to flooding, wildfire, and earthquakes, without addressing any other known environmental constraints (e.g., water supply or hazardous waste) which could impact housing development on the identified sites. The City’s emergency overlay sites illustrates these concerns. Sites 3 and 6 fall within the 76th and 95th percentiles for hazardous waste, but the City has failed to consider the environmental constraints imposed on the potential to develop these sites for housing for those in need of emergency shelter. The City should revise the Draft to address these concerns as they relate to the identified sites and the types of housing that will be developed on said sites, as well as consider using environmental justice principles … are aimed at mitigating pollution for populations who are already at risk.
Response:
The revised draft adequately addresses natural hazards and utilities per HCD requirements. CEQA will also require site-specific analyses when the project is actually proposed on identified sites, when required. CalEnviro Screen does not show where development is infeasible, only where a potential siting concern may exist on a census tract basis. For instance, a census tract can have a high pollution score based solely on proximity to permitted uses, but these uses may not actually pose a prohibitive risk to a site. That said, there is still adequate shelter capacity in the overlay areas with lower pollution scores.
16. Fair Housing
The Draft Still Suffers from Deficiencies Concerning the Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Notwithstanding, the Draft contains deficiencies concerning AFFH and needs to be revised to bring the Draft within substantial compliance under Government Code section 8899.50. For instance, even though the City revised the Draft to specifically denote the westside and central/downtown area of the City as Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty (R/ECAPs), (A) the Draft still fails to analyze conditions of the neighborhoods relative to quality of life or describe past strategies related to equitable quality of life. (B) In the Draft, the City states that the increase in R/ECAPs is unclear (Draft, p. 5-10), but relies upon older information. The City should survey community groups and organizations that work in those areas to obtain recent data and information that could shed light on why R/ECAPs have increased. The Central and Westside San Bernardino, which the City has designated as R/ECAP areas, should not bear the majority of low-income housing projects. The objective should be to decentralize poverty from these regions by exploring the construction of lowPacket Page. 1560 City of San Bernardino Page 10 of 16
income housing in areas of the City with more abundant resources. (See Gov. Code §8899.50(a)(1); see also HCD AFFH Guidance (April 2021 Update), p. 48.) (C) Additionally, the Draft does not evaluate Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA). HCD requested that the City analyze higher resources and areas of the City that could promote housing mobility and housing opportunity. (10/2/2023 HCD Finding Letter, p. 1). Specifically, HCD directed the City to analyze higher resource areas such as Verdemont as a location to site lower-income housing, but the Draft does not conduct this analysis. The City should revise the Draft and analyze this region along with other higher-income regions of the City where the City could develop housing opportunity. (D) Concerning disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk, the Draft does not identify any place-based strategies with specific goals and timelines to address disparities to access of housing opportunity in the City. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Finding Letter, p. 1.) (E) And the Draft does not fully analyze either the location of those sites or affordable opportunities in high resource areas as required by Gov. Code 8899.50. The City mentions contributing factors that the Housing Element must analyze at page 5-105 of the Draft, but does not fully analyze what factors are contributing to impediments to fair housing in the City. Finally, while the City added additional information to its goals, priorities, metrics, and milestones, at Table 5-29, at pages 5-111 to 5-114, that revised table does not specifically address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, or place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection in the City. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 2.) Response:
A. The draft provides Table 5-22 documenting the conditions of the neighborhoods and the need for reinvestment due to urban decline since at least 1980.
B. The R/ECAP analysis was revised based on new data provided by HUD in 2020, which actually shows a significant decline in the R/ECAP areas within both the Central/Downtown/Westside.
C. Recent TCAC maps and analysis show declining areas of moderate and higher resource areas. The revised draft contains an analysis of R/ECAPs and higher opportunity areas (RCAAs) on pages 5-9 and 5-10. Program 5.8 addresses housing mobility in higher-opportunity areas.
D. Tables 5-23 and 5-24 identify more than 40 projects totaling $200 million of improvements to the Westside/Central/Downtown, and the individual programs list the timelines. Program 5.9 was also added to describe and reference the City’s place-based investments.
E. As stated above, the revised draft analyzes high-opportunity areas. Both Program 5-8 and 5-9 now address housing mobility enhancement and new housing choices and affordability within the remaining higher opportunity areas, as well as place-based investments.
17. Density Bonus Ordinance
We appreciate that the City has directed staff to adhere to state law in processing density bonus applications, and plans to adhere to the stipulated judgment reached in Gracia v. City of San Bernardino. Further, the addition of information in Table 3-8 (Draft p. 3-27), assists the public in understanding the deficiencies contained in the local density bonus ordinance when compared against state law. However, the Draft does not inform or analyze the constraints presented on the development of housing by those applicants seeking a density bonus who were subjected to outdated and illegal provisions of the local density bonus ordinance as requested by HCD. (10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 7) The City should revise the Draft accordingly to provide this information.
Packet Page. 1561
City of San Bernardino Page 11 of 16
Response:
While the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance was not updated, should applications requesting a density bonus be submitted, the City would have complied and will comply with current State Law. Further analysis of the outdated density bonus ordinance is not required, given that the City is already proposing and drafting a comprehensive update.
18. Anti-Camping Ordinance
Consistent with the HCD finding at page 7 of the 10/2/2023 Findings Letter, the City should further revise the Draft to specifically state how enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance impacts trust of those experiencing houselessness in the City’s ability to assist them with getting housed and how the City will comply with its AFFH duty to improve conditions for the unhoused and mitigate the displacement risk associated with enforcement of anti-camping ordinances. (See 10/2/2023 HCD Findings Letter, p. 7; Gov. Code 8899.50(a)(1); HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, (April 2021 Update), p. 40; California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness, Chapter 3: Experiences During Homelessness (discussing impacts of confiscations and forced displacements of the unhoused), available at CASPEH_Report_62023.pdf (ucsf.edu), last accessed on Nov 15, 2023.) Response:
The anti-camping analysis was revised to show how the City complies with fair housing law (p. 3-54).
The City hired a highly-qualified organization to sensitively outreach to homeless residents and address relocation concerns. As of December 6, 2023, the City Council has approved staff to proceed with agreements to add up to 200 motel beds for unhoused people, including people from encampments. HCD’s letter did not require an analysis of how the anti-camping program impacts resident “trust.”
19. Program 1.5 ADUs, pp. 7-9, 7-29; Program 2.7 Constraints to Variety of Housing, pp. 7-23. 7-31:
The City should revise goals for this program to include the specific accessibility, affordability, and housing code requirements for ADUs to help assess the feasibility of this program to meet the needs of lower-income residents who are in need of housing to access them, especially considering the City’s extensive reliance upon this type of housing it to meet the City’s housing needs. Additionally, although the Draft contains data showing that ADU construction increased following the adoption of MC-1559 in 2021, the ordinance in its current form may still be inconsistent with State law. The Draft acknowledges this deficiency and states that the City will “periodically review and revise ADU regulations for consistency with state law;” however, these Programs do not specify the frequency of these reviews, nor provide a deadline for the revision of local ordinances to address deficiencies. The City should revise the Draft to specify frequency of periodic reviews (e.g., once every year) and to provide a deadline for finalizing and implementing revised ordinances if a review finds that current regulations are inconsistent (e.g., April 1 of the year following review).
Response:
HCD concurs with the adequacy of the City’s ADU program in the revised element.
20. Program 3.5: Violence Prevention/Intervention, Draft, pp. 7-17, 7-34:
As mentioned in our comment letters of September 5, 2023, and June 12, 2023, we object to the use of a neighborhood watch program to address crime and violence in the City. Apart from encouraging vigilantism as documented in national cases involving the senseless deaths of Black people at the hands of their neighbors (e.g., Trayvon Martin, Atatiana Jefferson, Aijke Owens, and countless others), neighborhood watch programs have been disproportionately used to monitor the movement Packet Page. 1562
City of San Bernardino Page 12 of 16
of communities of color in and out of racially exclusive enclaves. We are also concerned that such a program will be used to illegally exclude persons who have had negative interactions with law enforcement, such as an arrest, or who are returning home following involvement with the criminal legal system from living in the City. Accordingly, a proposal to consider the feasibility of a neighborhood watch program presents fair housing concerns as it conflicts with City’s statutory duty to take “meaningful actions” to “address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.” (Gov. Code 8899.50(a)(1); Martinez, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 285-86.) The City must eliminate this objective.
Response:
While we understand the concern about avoiding discriminatory programs, as evidenced by the City Council’s repeal of the crime-free multi-housing program, there is no evidence that the mere study of the feasibility of a neighborhood watch program is contrary to furthering fair housing opportunity. A neighborhood watch program is intended to protect residents from some of the highest crime rates in California and would not be expected to have a disparate impact against residents in a city that is approaching 90 percent minority, has no RCAAs, is predominantly lower income, and has no racially exclusive enclaves according to HCD’s web mapper. Also, the Martinez decision cited refers to the disparate impact from Clovis not fulfilling a site rezoning commitment to obtain housing element certification, not a neighborhood watch program. Violence prevention is a serious issue in the community, and the housing element contains programs that are intended to reduce crime, divert individuals from committing crime, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents.
Program 3.5: Violence Prevention/Intervention (cont.)
Further, the City should amend objective 3.5b to specifically earmark more funds for communitybased programs that can assist with stemming crime and violence. The City should make the proposed funds to programs aimed at at-risk youth the same as funds given to the police for community policing. Additionally, the City can and should involve the public in the process of determining how much funding should be allocated to programs that provide alternative ways to ameliorate crime and violence that do not involve police. In this regard, the City can and should survey community collaboratives such as Just 4 San Bernardino, a collaborative of at least eight community organizations with members who have lived experiences that can assist the City with identifying alternative strategies to crime prevention that are informed from members of the public.
Response:
The City continues to successfully apply for grants addressing crime prevention and at-risk youth. For more than a decade, the City has successfully obtained funding to hire police officers to support its community-oriented/based policing efforts, provide alternative programs to rehabilitate previous offenders, and otherwise work with local groups to address community violence. Making decisions regarding the equivalent allocation of funding between programs for at-risk youth and for community policing is a City Council policy decision and beyond the purview of this housing element.
21. Program 4.1 Preservation of Assisted Multi-Family Housing, Draft, pp. 7-20, 7-36:
The City should revise this program to specifically include an objective to provide tenant education about conversion notices they may receive as the affordability covenants on the properties where they live are set to expire. This tenant assistance is particularly critical for those tenants who are part Packet Page. 1563
City of San Bernardino Page 13 of 16
of special needs populations such as seniors, people living with disabilities, and those who are limited English proficient. As such, the City should amend Objective 4.1b to read “Coordinate with property owners to ensure conversion notices to tenants are sent out at three intervals: 3 years, 1 years, and 6 months of the affordable covenant expiration date, and simultaneously provide tenants who have received conversion notices with tenant education and resources where they may receive legal assistance/information about their rights, and information of the City entity to whom they may lodge a complaint regarding violations of federal and state law, including without limitation, the Notice Preservation Law, Gov. Code 65863.10, et seq.”
Response:
State law requires the property owner to follow state preservation requirements. The City is obligated to follow applicable statutory requirements required for preserving at-risk properties.
22. Program 4.2: Rent Control/Stabilization, Draft pp. 7-21; 7-36:
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, 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). Further, the City must revise this program to specifically include an objective or a separate program with discrete timing (month and year) and identity of responsible city agency that articulates how the City will comply with state law regarding mobilehome park conversion and closure and address rent stabilization and preservation issues for City residents at risk of displacement from the City’s MHPs who could experience displacement from any one of the City’s mobilehome parks.
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 lowerincome 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. 2-53; Program 4.4, Draft p. 7-21), the City should include an objective to enact a rent stabilization ordinance in the City and identify a timeline for implementation of same.
Response:
The City’s rent stabilization program was adopted in 1984; therefore, the program covers and applies to all of its 48 mobile home parks and the residential rental spaces therein. Further, the City must (and will) comply with current and future State Laws. Where any of its ordinances conflict, State Law takes precedence. Program 4.6 is to maintain the affordability of existing mobile home parks and ensure that mobile homes continue to be a viable option for affordable living, particularly for lowerincome seniors and families with children. Mobile Home Park Residency Law was recently updated in 2023 and would apply to the City’s mobile home parks. The additional items requested are above and beyond what the Housing Element Law requires. The City with the existing Program 4.6 a and b meets the provisions of State Law. The City, at this time, has neither included as a program in the Housing Element a rent stabilization ordinance nor is it required to include one. This does not preclude the City from considering an ordinance in the future.
Packet Page. 1564
City of San Bernardino Page 14 of 16
The City has noted in Program 4.6 that it will continue the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization program through an annual review to ensure that all increase requests go through the proper administrative and hearing process. The City will contract with fair housing providers to educate tenants on their rights and responsibilities with respect to rent stabilization and just cause eviction. Quarterly updates will be available.
23. Program 4.3 Housing Choice Vouchers, Draft pp. 7-21; 7-36 Given the high number of people who rely upon a Section 8 voucher to subsidize their rent (see Draft, p. 2-52), 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 12955(p) and California Code of Regulations, Tit. 2, 12140 et seq., and Small Area FMRs.
Response:
The Housing Authority is legally responsible and receives federal funding to administer the Section 8 voucher program and its administrative plan, among other responsibilities. The City does not manage the program.
24. Program 4.4 Emergency Rental Assistance, Draft, pp. 7-21; 7-36:
As outlined in the Draft, the City stated that COVID-19 severely impacted its residents. 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. 7-21). 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 through the City’s emergency rental assistance program. The City should develop it now or while that existing program is ongoing.
Response:
The City received significant federal grants to address the COVID pandemic and its effects on residents. Additional funds were received to address the impacts on businesses. Unfortunately, funding is no longer available to address this request at this time, though City staff continue to review available grant funding that may become available in the future.
25. Public Participation
As the City continues to revise the Draft to bring it within substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, the City must continue to solicit the public’s participation in this process as required by Govt Code 65583(c)(9). While the City acknowledges the public participation requirements as set forth in AB 215 (Ch. 342, Stats. 2021), the Draft still does not describe the efforts the City undertook to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community to develop the Draft as required by Section 65583(c)(9). Even though the Draft includes information about community concerns about the crime-free program, which the City acknowledges receipt and use of to eliminate its most harmful provisions, the Draft contains no information about the extensive comments the City received from the public about the City’s anti-camping ordinances and treatment of those who Packet Page. 1565
City of San Bernardino Page 15 of 16
are without shelter in the City. Indeed, in addition to comment from our offices, the City received extensive comment from the ACLU and other community groups in the City that are not reflected in this version of the Draft, as well as from the Just 4 San Bernardino Collective, representing several community organizations in the City about administrative and environmental constraints upon housing development in the City. The City should revise this section of the Draft to include a summary of comments received regarding the Draft and how the City addresses those comments.
Response:
The City has made a good-faith effort to inform the community regarding the housing element and incorporate comments. Please see Chapter 6 for revisions to this section. Not including auxiliary general plan and housing outreach efforts conducted for the consolidated plan, analysis of impediments, specific projects, and single-subject issues, the following events have been used to gather input about key housing needs and to inform the policies and programs. • Seven (7) issue and visioning workshops (see Table 6-3) • Seven (7) GPAC meetings on housing topics (see Table 6-4) • Seven (7) stakeholder interviews/meetings (see Table 6-5) • Three (3) additional public meetings at the request of Public Law • Three (3) Legal Aid Workshops for renters and property owner • Detailed review of the JustSB Collaborative document and City responses • Communitywide survey with well over a thousand comments • Detailed summary of comments received as part of the outreach • Website record of events and presentations (https://futuresb2050.com/participate/
26. Programs, Objectives, and Timeframes
Although the City has made marked improvement to this section of the Draft, many of the time periods identified in Table 7-1 lack discrete timing (month and year) as requested by HCD in the 10/2/2023 Findings Letter. Given that the City is quite tardy, i.e., over two years late in adopting its Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update, the City must revise those programs that have amorphous timing designations such as “ongoing,” “mid-2024” to help assess the viability of the City to complete program goals over the Planning Period.
Response:
The revised housing element provides many new quantified objectives and timeframes. See the yellow highlighted text in the revised draft for revisions made.
The City, through its staff and consultant, has taken the comments provided seriously and, in conjunction with the Department of Housing and Community Development, updated and added more detail and programmatic information to the City of San Bernardino Housing Element. Further, it shows the City’s commitment to its residents in providing housing for various income ranges, new affordable housing development, addressing homelessness, and affirmatively furthering Fair Housing.
For the past few years, the City has been in a rebuilding phase – recovering from its bankruptcy, the Great Recession, and the COVID-19 pandemic. We acknowledge improvement was and is needed and are working toward that end. The work and investment, both in time and finances, to complete this Housing Element are a testament to the commitment the City has to move forward.
Packet Page. 1566
City of San Bernardino Page 16 of 16
As you may be aware, the City is midway through its General Plan update process and Downtown Specific Plan, which has been paused to complete the Housing Element due to limited staff resources.
With the Housing Element's completion, we are excited to reengage this effort, which will result in increased housing opportunities and densities within the City. It is expected that a future update to the Housing Element will be completed to add additional inventory that will exceed its RHNA numbers.
We look forward to our continued conversations moving the City toward completion of its Housing Element for 2021-2029.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Lanier
Interim Community Development and Housing Director
Packet Page. 1567
909-245-1454 | makinghope.org
341 W. Second Street, Suite 7 San Bernardino, CA. 92401 November 20, 2023
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 Montoya-City Manager Re: San Bernardino’s Draft 2021-2019 Housing Element Comments Dear Mayor Tran and City Councilmembers,
We thank you for considering and implementing the recommendations that were initially given during the first period of open comments. After careful review and consideration, Uplift San Bernardino and the Housing Pipeline Impact Team would like to provide the following feedback in response to the revised draft of the General Plan Housing Element for the Sixth Cycle (2021-2029). Please review the attached document that was shared in our working group, where you will find our policy recommendations in the following areas:
Increasing housing affordability for low to moderate income families, creating shared equity and tenant protection models and identifying opportunities to streamline housing production.
Our mission, as a collective, is to build a generation of successful adults committed to growing roots in San Bernardino, which includes having increased access to housing opportunities for youth and their families. We appreciate your partnership in this effort.
For any follow up, please contact Karen Suarez, [email protected] or (909) 245-1454 x102 and Ruben Mendoza, [email protected] or (909) 245-1454 x105.
Sincerely,
Karen Suarez, VP of Collective Impact, Uplift San Bernardino Making Hope Happen Foundation
Packet Page. 1568
City of San Bernardino Housing Element - Ch. 7 Review
Feedback:
● Program 1.1b and 1.4b: as revised would only allow 19.46 acres to be upzoned. The upzoned 19.46 acres is not enough land to meet the housing needs of San Bernardino residents.
The city should make an effort to identify additional parcels, vacant lots and vacant buildings in order to develop more housing infrastructure by considering the following:
- The Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act (SB 6) and the Middle Class Housing Act both (AB 2011) both address state housing needs, revitalize underutilized commercial land and generate well-paid construction jobs.
See reference here.
- SB 432: removes the sunset of SB 35 (2017), which allows for ministerial approval of developments in communities that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Allocations or adopted a compliant housing element and extends the law to coastal communities.
- AB 1033: repeals a current law that prohibits the separate conveyance of ADUs, enabling property owners in participating cities to build an ADU and sell it separately, providing a new homeownership option for families and the potential for wealth-building for homeowners.
- AB 1449: extends CEQA exemptions to 100% affordable projects assisted through the LIHTC program as long as they meet specified labor and environmental requirements. As most affordable developments include tax credits, this bill will streamline the development process for affordable projects and bring new homes online faster.
- AB 1418: prohibits cities and counties from enacting “crime-free” housing programs and nuisance ordinances that require landlords to evict people when a household member is a convicted felon.
- AB 323 intergenerational housing developments for older adults with caregivers and transitional age youth.
- Here is a link to the recent legislation that Governor Newsom signed.
Packet Page. 1569
56 housing bills signed into law.
● Program 1.5:
Consider modeling the proposed ADU program after the City of San Diego’s ADU bonus program.
● Program 1.5c and Program 2.5b:
Consider modeling the proposed “One Stop Shop” after City of Riverside’s “One Stop Shop”.
● Program 2.7b:
Consider contracting the following developers to build micro units for unhoused populations and LMI communities:
- Dignity Moves:
Units are built to FEMA emergency building codes as opposed to traditional building codes. This allows for a streamlined permitting process and quicker turn around time for units to come online.
Dignity Moves also leases land. ½ acre parcel, vacant lot, etc. can accommodate up to 70 rooms including common areas.
- LifeArk:
Prefabricated modular housing that can also float on water, great for communities affected by heavy floods and rain. There is a site located in El Monte currently providing permanent supportive housing.
● Program 3.1b and 4.2:
Leverage SB 940 which amends Civil Code Sections 798.7 and 798.45, which currently prohibit local rent stabilization ordinances from governing newly constructed mobile home spaces first offered for rent after January 1, 1990. SB 940 would allow local mobilehome rent regulations to govern a newly added mobile home space in an existing park regardless of when it was initially held out for rent. The bill also retains an incentive for the building of new mobile home parks by allowing for a “rolling” 10-year exemption for spaces in those parks, so as to allow investors to recoup their costs of acquisition and construction.
Also consider applying to the Manufactured Housing Opportunity and Revitalization Program (MORE).
Packet Page. 1570
● Program 3.5b and 3.7:
Partner with the Continuum of Care Interagency Council on Homelessness to submit an application for YHDP funding to address youth and young adults experiencing homelessness and HHAP 5 funding to generally reduce homelessness across all populations.
● Program 4.5:
Consider implementing first-time home buyer education at the high school level, partnering with SBCUSD and HUD approved counseling agencies: Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Neighborhood Housing Services of the Inland Empire, Credit.org provide these services.
● Program 4.7:
Consider partnering with the following consultants:
1. LeSar Development Consultants
2. Terner Center UC Berkeley
● Program 4.8:
Partner with SBCTA for the Regional Housing Trust Fund. ● Program 5.4:
Persuade County Supervisors to provide municipal bonds for SBVC mixed-used student housing.
● Program 5.6:
Consider partnering with Community Solutions for their Built for Zero initiative for cities to achieve functional zero homelessness.
Invest in shelter bed creation for interim and permanent supportive housing for populations experiencing homelessness.
Additional comments:
● The City of San Bernardino can increase home ownership by setting aside new market rate housing builds for first time home buyers and restricting corporate buyers from purchasing in a community that receives support from the city.
Packet Page. 1571
● The density the city is proposing for either COR-1 or COR-2 is not enough for a major corridor that should be made into a walkable and bikeable corridor. Both should be 80+ units per acre to achieve a high-enough density of people (and thus a high-enough demand of services such as grocery, restaurants and entertainment) that will allow a walkable and bikeable community to thrive. If the density is lower, then the E Street Corridor will just become a speedway for cars. Nothing against cars and public transportation, such as sbX is absolutely an amazing addition to E Street, but the COR-1 and COR-2 zoning as it is currently proposed conflicts with the city’s goal to plan towards the future and reduce reliance on cars.
Consider the Following Tenant Protection Models
1. Add TOPA/COPA (Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act) elements when the landlord is not complying. All jurisdictions should consider committing to adopt a local TOPA/COPA policy in their Housing Element in order to prevent displacement, stabilize current residents and existing communities, and preserve affordable housing for the long term.
Consider the Following Shared Equity Models
1. Community land trusts and co-op, work with existing CLT’s and co-op Packet Page. 1572
Concerns:
The City of San Bernardino does not have sufficient staff to support numerous endeavors, consider creating a pipeline of high school students and college students interning in multiple City departments that eventually lead to local career opportunities.
Typos:
● Correct SB 2011 to AB 2011
Packet Page. 1573
290 North D St, San Bernardino, CA 92401 | P: 909-384-5357 | www.SBCity.org Community & Economic Development Department
SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
[email protected]
January 8, 2024
Karen Suarez, VP of Collective Impact, Uplift San Bernardino Making Hope Happen Foundation
341 W. Second Street, Suite 7
San Bernardino, CA. 92401
Re: City of San Bernardino Draft 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element Dear Ms. Suarez,
The City appreciates the Uplift San Bernardino at the Making Hope Happen Foundation’s comments and support of our efforts to address housing and homelessness. The Housing Element is the overall plan for housing in San Bernardino and provides the foundation for future efforts. As noted below, the City is working on increasing its housing inventory and beds for homeless services.
The following responds to your latest letter, dated November 20, 2023. An abbreviated summary of each of your contentions are provided, followed by the City’s response.
Comment 1: Land Inventory
Program 1.1b and 1.4b: as revised would only allow 19.46 acres to be upzoned, which is not enough land to meet the housing needs of San Bernardino residents. The city should make an effort to identify additional parcels, vacant lots and vacant buildings in order to develop more housing infrastructure by considering the 56 bills recently signed into law (56 housing bills signed into law.). These bills include:
• The Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act (SB 6) and the Middle Class Housing Act both (AB 2011) both address state housing needs, revitalize underutilized commercial land and generate well-paid construction jobs.
• SB 432: removes the sunset of SB 35 (2017), which allows for ministerial approval of developments in communities that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Allocations or adopted a compliant housing element and extends the law to coastal communities. • AB 1033: repeals a current law that prohibits the separate conveyance of ADUs, enabling property owners in participating cities to build an ADU and sell it separately, providing a new homeownership option for families and the potential for wealth-building for homeowners.
Packet Page. 1574
City of San Bernardino Page 2 of 5
• AB 1449: extends CEQA exemptions to 100% affordable projects assisted through the LIHTC program as long as they meet specified labor and environmental requirements. As most affordable projects include tax credits, this bill will streamline the development process • AB 1418: prohibits cities and counties from enacting "crime-free" housing programs and nuisance ordinances that require landlords to evict people when a household member is a convicted felon. • AB 323 intergenerational housing for older adults with caregivers and transitional age youth.
Response:
The City’s 2021-2029 RHNA is addressed through a fourfold strategy: 1) housing projects in the development pipeline; 2) rezoning of sites; 3) vacant land already zoned for residential development; and 4) surplus sites proposed for housing. Collectively, these strategies will address the 2021-2029 RHNA. The Housing Element only addresses the City’s production needs through 2029. The General Plan update and Downtown Specific Plan will provide additional opportunities for residential and mixed use projects. As the City increases staff, there will be additional capacity to explore additional housing opportunities.
Comment 2: Program 1.5: ADU Program
Consider modeling the proposed ADU program after the City of San Diego's ADU bonus program.
Response:
Under the referenced program, an ADU bonus is available in exchange for ADUs that are deed restricted as affordable to very low-, low- or moderate-income households for 15 years. While state law allows the City to use SCAG surveys to forecast and project the affordability of ADUs for lower income households, ensuring the affordability of ADUs is an important part of the City’s strategy for addressing the RHNA.
The referenced program from San Diego will be referred to City staff for consideration.
Comment 3: Program 1.5c and Program 2.5b: On-Stop Shop
Consider modeling the proposed "One Stop Shop" after City of Riverside's "One Stop Shop".
Response:
A One-Stop Shop permitting center is a complex process involving not only physical improvement to buildings and staff relocations, but also the integration of record and potential upgrades to software systems. The City held two workshops on a future one-stop shop in April 2023 and accepted public comments online at [email protected]. The revised Housing Element contains Program 2.5, which commits the City to create a one-stop-shop counter for residential projects to streamline the application submittal and review process, improve consistency, and improve development certainty. The referenced program idea from Riverside will be referred to the relevant City departments for consideration.
Comment 4: Program 2.7b: Micro-Units
Consider contracting with the following developers to build micro units for unhoused populations and LMI people:
• Dignity Moves: Units built to FEMA emergency building codes as opposed to traditional code, allowing for a streamlined permitting process and quicker turn around time for units to come online.
• LifeArk: Prefabricated modular housing that can also float on water, great for cities affected by heavy floods and rain. There is a site located in El Monte providing permanent supportive housing.
Packet Page. 1575
City of San Bernardino Page 3 of 5
Response:
In 2023, the City’s Housing Department recently briefed the City Council on options for micro-units. In 2023, the City awarded surplus land to a developer who proposes development concepts of micro units.
With respect to development standards for microunits, the revised Housing Plan, Program 2.7, commits the City to interview SRO/micro-unit developers and propose revisions for consideration to the City Council to incentivize both housing types. While the Housing Element does not recommend specific vendors, unless approved by the Council, referenced comments will be referred to City staff.
Comment 5: Mobile home Rent Stabilization Program 3.1b and 4.2:
Leverage SB 940 which amends Civil Code 798.7 and 798.45, which prohibit local rent stabilization ordinances from governing newly constructed mobile home spaces first offered for rent after January 1, 1990. SB 940 would allow local mobilehome rent regulations to govern a newly added mobile home space in an existing park regardless of when it was initially held out for rent. The bill also retains an incentive for the building of new mobile home parks by allowing for a "rolling" 10-year exemption for spaces in those parks, so as to allow investors to recoup their costs of acquisition and construction. Also consider applying to the Manufactured Housing Opportunity and Revitalization Program (MORE).
Response:
The Housing Plan, Program 3.1 commits the City to “consider opportunities to seek and secure funding to expand the housing rehabilitation program to mobile home parks and apartments” (Action 3.1b) and, if program expansion is feasible and approved by council, authorize staffing and financial resources to implement such a program (Action 3.1c). Comments will be forwarded to City staff for consideration.
Program 3.5b and 3.7: Continuum of Care
Partner with the Continuum of Care Interagency Council on Homelessness to submit an application for YHDP funding to address youth and young adults experiencing homelessness and HHAP 5 funding to generally reduce homelessness across all populations.
Response:
The Housing Department is implementing an aggressive program to address homelessness and continues to actively seek funding for its various programs and services. Funding opportunities will be forwarded to the Housing Department for consideration.
Program 4.5: Homeownership Program
Consider implementing first-time home buyer education at the high school level, partnering with SBCUSD and HUD approved counseling agencies: Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Neighborhood Housing Services of the Inland Empire, Credit.org provide these services.
Response:
First-time homebuying is an important way for residents to build wealth and is reflected in Program 4.5, Homeownership Initiative. Specifically, two actions are proposed: 1) to present a homeownership gap closure program to City Council for consideration and 2) if approved, apply for homeownership funding opportunities and grants as NOFAs are released. While the Housing Element does not recommend specific vendors, unless approved by the Council, suggestions will be referred to City staff.
Program 4.7: Inclusionary Housing
Consider partnering with: LeSar Development Consultants and Terner Center UC Berkeley Packet Page. 1576
City of San Bernardino Page 4 of 5
Response:
Initial discussions regarding the consideration of an inclusionary housing program are slated to begin during 2024. The Housing Element does not recommend partnerships with specific private development consultants or other organizations unless a contract has already been approved by City Council, but the program recommendation for inclusionary housing will be forward to staff for consideration.
Program 4.8: Regional Housing Trust
Partner with SBCTA for the Regional Housing Trust Fund.
Response:
Regional housing trusts have been recommended to obtain additional funding for affordable housing. The Housing Element specifically references, in Program 4.8, the SBCTA for the Regional Housing Trust. The City Council will consider it on January 17, 2024 and also will be considering establishing its own.
Program 5.4: Student Housing
Persuade County Supervisors to provide municipal bonds for SBVC mixed-used student housing.
Response:
The City will continue to support SBVC mixed use housing.
Program 5.6: Homelessness
Consider partnering with Community Solutions for their Built for Zero initiative for cities to achieve functional zero homelessness. Invest in shelter bed creation for interim and permanent supportive housing for populations experiencing homelessness.
Response:
The City will continue to support the development of housing for its homeless population. While the Housing Element does not recommend partnerships with specific private development consultants or other organizations unless a contract has already been approved by City Council, the program suggestion will be forward to the Housing Department for consideration.
Additional comments:
1. The City of San Bernardino can increase home ownership by setting aside new market rate housing builds for first time home buyers and restricting corporate buyers from purchasing in a community that receives support from the city.
2. Density Limits for Housing. The density proposed for COR-1 or COR-2 is not enough for a major corridor that should be made into a walkable and bikeable corridor. Both should be 80+ du/ac to achieve a high-enough density of people (and thus a high-enough demand of services such as grocery, restaurants and entertainment) that will allow a walkable and bikeable community to thrive. If the density is lower, then the E Street Corridor will just become a speedway for cars. Nothing against cars and public transportation, such as sbX is absolutely an amazing addition to E Street, but the COR-1 and COR-2 zoning as it is proposed conflicts with the city's goal to plan towards the a reduced reliance on cars.
Packet Page. 1577
City of San Bernardino Page 5 of 5
3. Tenant Protection Models. Add TOPA/COPA (Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act) elements when the landlord is not complying. All jurisdictions should consider committing to adopt a local TOPA/COPA policy in their Housing Element in order to prevent displacement, stabilize current residents and existing communities, and preserve affordable housing for the long term.
4. Shared Equity Models. Consider community land trusts and co-op, work with existing CLT's and coops Response:
As part of the inclusionary housing feasibility studies (Program 4.7), both rental and homeownership housing opportunities will be considered for feasibility. The City is updating the Development Code and drafting a Specific Plan, both of which will consider higher densities in certain portions of the community where such housing is beneficial. The draft housing element does not include a tenant protection model and shared equity model, but the recommendations will be referred to City staff for further consideration.
The City of San Bernardino does not have sufficient staff to support numerous endeavors, consider creating a pipeline of high school students and college students interning in multiple City departments that eventually lead to local career opportunities.
Response:
In June 2022, the City of San Bernardino, in partnership with California Volunteers, Office of the Governor announced a $4,169,142 grant to hire nearly 70 young and early career staff members over the next two years. The City will hire individuals in the Parks and Recreation, Animal Services, Library, and Police Departments, along with additional positions in partnership with local Community Based Organizations.
The grant is intended to employ local youth under the age of 30 to help address urgent challenges in staffing while participants learn key job skills, develop career pathways, and serve their communities.
Best,
Mary E. Lanier
Interim Community Development and Housing Director
Packet Page. 1578
November 20, 2023
Mayor Helen Tran, City Councilmembers, and City Manager Montoya 290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Via Email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on City of San Bernardino’s Draft 2021-2019 Housing Element Dear Mayor Tran, City Councilmembers, and City Manager Montoya, I 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, this letter addresses the City’s plans concerning homeless services, enforcement of the City’s anti-camping ordinance, and the City’s unhoused encampment removals.
Program 5.6 (Homeless Services Program) Does Not Reflect the City’s Stated “Housing First” Approach
The plan describes the City’s approach to addressing the needs of unhoused people 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 5.6. We are encouraged by the City’s stated commitment to the Housing First model, which is a proven solution based on decades of empirical studies demonstrating that homelessness is most effectively solved by providing low-barrier access to permanent, stable housing.1 While the City has done laudable work to secure initial grant funding to address the crisis of its growing unhoused population, its draft Housing Element does little to put the City on a path to achieve its Housing First vision.
Currently, the plan includes only several permanent housing developments for unhoused people.
These include the All Star Lodge (already completed, at 4-17), the U.S. VETS Inland Empire 1 See e.g. Leyla Gulcur et al., Housing, Hospitalization, and Cost Outcomes for Homeless Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities Participating in Continuum of Care and Housing First Programmes, J. of Comm. & Appl.
Soc. Psy. 171 (2003). See also Sam Tsemberis & Ronda Eisenberg, Pathways to Housing: Supported Housing for Street-Dwelling Homeless Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities, Psychiatr Serv., 484 (2000); Ann Elizabeth Montgomery et al., Housing Chronically Homeless Veterans: Evaluating the Efficacy of a Housing First Approach to HUD-VASH, 41 J. of Comm. & Appl. Soc. Psy., 505 (March 21, 2013); Sam Tsemberis et al., Housing First, Consumer Choice, and Harm Reduction for Homeless Individuals with a Dual Diagnosis, Am. J. Public Health 651 (April 2004); Jennifer Perlman & John Parvensky, Denver Housing First Collaborative: Cost Benefit Analysis and Program Outcomes Report, Denver’s Road Home, Colorado Coalition for the Homeless (December 11, 2006).
Packet Page. 1579