Attachment 7 - Public Comment Letters and City-issued Response Letters — Mayor and City Council, February 21, 2024

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.

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, mid- rise, 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.

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

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.

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.

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, mid- rise, and high-rise units and what the multi-year strategy will be. Additionally, the housing plan 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

City of San Bernardino Page 5 of 5

Regards,

Mary E. Lanier
Interim Director of Community Development & Housing Department

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]

Page 1 of 8 ends

Monday November 20, 2023
Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
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]

Page 2 of 8 ends

Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
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.

Page 3 of 8 ends

Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
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 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.
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
951.315.5940
[email protected]

Page 4 of 8 ends

Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
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]

Page 5 of 8 ends

Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
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 high- rise 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]

Page 6 of 8 ends

Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
www.justsb.org @justsanbernardino
Program Description/Example
Retrofit pilot program https://www.boston.gov/housing/healthy-and-green- retrofit-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-buildings- plan

TOPA/COPA
(Tenant/Community
Opportunity to Purchase
Act) program
https://www.policylink.org/resources-tools/tools/all-
in-cities/housing-anti-displacement/topa-copa
Handy worker program https://housing2.lacity.org/residents/handyworker- program
Home Enhancement Loan
Program (HELP)
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/housing/home-
enhancement-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-co-
ops
1411 N D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
951.315.5940
[email protected]

Page 7 of 8 ends

Re: Public Comment for Housing Element
Lastly, the community urgently requires the following programs to flourish:
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-range-
planning/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/adaptive- reuse-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]

Page 8 of 8 ends

Re: Public Comment for Housing Element

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.

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

Page 3 ends

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.

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 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.

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 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:

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.

City of San Bernardino Page 7 of 7
Best,

Mary E. Lanier
Interim Community Development and Housing Department

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Tessie Solorzano, Esq.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
M
arvin 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.

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 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 Multi- Family 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

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/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 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

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

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 multi- family 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

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 multi- family 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

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

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 low- 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.)

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.

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

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 community- based 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

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.

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 anti- camping 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

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 provide d in

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 con duct 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 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 de monstrate 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 produc ed in recent years. (E) 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. (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)

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

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 RH NA. ( 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 meet the 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, w hich 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 a nd 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

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 M unicipal 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:

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 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.

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.

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 r esidential. (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

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 Le tter, 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.)

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 deve lopment 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 low-

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 add itional 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, o r 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.

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 unh oused), 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 agreeme nts 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 se nseless 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

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 fol lowing 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 act ions” 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 dis parate 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 community - based 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 giv en 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 invo lve 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 a lternative 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:

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) Ren t 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 mus t 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 followin g 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 im pacts 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.

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 lower- income 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.

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 adeq uate 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 Ci ty’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 emer gency 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

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 B ernardino 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.

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

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

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. 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).

● 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.

● 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

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

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.

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.

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 i n 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 staf fing 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 a nd 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

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 h as 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.

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 co - ops

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.

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 P arks 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 challenge s 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

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).

Page 2 ends

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

project (at 4-17), and the Golden Springs project (at 6-4). However, the vast majority of the planned placements for unhoused people are emergency shelter beds and transitional shelter beds. Even with all the projects listed, the City will not come close to providing placements for its entire population of unhoused residents – especially as this number continues to rise.

The planned buildup of emergency, temporary, and/or interim placements will create a bottleneck of unhoused community members waiting for permanent and affordable housing. To truly fulfill the City’s Housing First goal, the City must prioritize deep investments in permanent housing solutions.

Under the state’s official Housing First policy, placements for unhoused residents should be low- barrier, long-term, and should allow for people to stay with their loved ones, pets, and personal property.
2 Studies have shown that congregate shelters are not an effective solution to the housing crisis and often do not provide pathways to permanent housing. Congregate shelters subject individuals to higher rates of communicable diseases like COVID-19, due to their tight quarters and requirements that many people share facilities.3 Further, crowding large numbers of people together can lead to social withdrawal, psychological distress, and other mental and physical health conditions, and often do not put residents on a path to obtaining permanent housing.
4 Importantly, people do not want to live in congregate settings: in a recent research study of unhoused people in Los Angeles, 70% of individuals surveyed stated they would not accept offers to stay in group shelters, citing lack of privacy as a concern, suggesting a limited role for congregate shelters in effectively moving people off the streets. 5 Rather than focusing on increasing its number of shelter beds, the City should prioritize moving people into dignified, permanent housing consistent with Housing First principles.

The City’s Anti-Camping Enforcement Plan (3-54) is Harmful, Unlawful, and Contravenes Best Practices

The draft plan details the City’s commitment to ramping up enforcement of its anti-camping code against unhoused people. See 3-54. This anti-camping code (SBMC, Chapter 12.98) makes it unlawful to camp, occupy camp facilities or use camp paraphernalia in the following areas: (a) any street; (b) any public parking lot or public area, improved or unimproved; or (c) any park. In effect, the text of this code makes it unlawful for people to be unhoused within the City – anytime, anywhere.

2 See SB 1380, Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (Sept. 29, 2016). 3 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Moving Away from Congregate Shelter , https://nlihc.org/resource/moving-away-congregate-shelter (Jun. 9, 2020). 4 Id. at 8, citing Gove, W., Hughes, M., & Galle, O. (1979). Overcrowding in the home: An empirical investigation of possible pathological consequences. American Sociological Review 44(1), 59- 80. See also Ann Oliva, Ending Homelessness: Addressing Local Challenges in Housing the Most Vulnerable , CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/ending- homelessness-addressing-local-challenges- in-housing-the-most-vulnerable (Feb. 2, 2022).
5 Jason M. Ward, et al. Recent Trends Among the Unsheltered in Three Los Angeles Neighborhoods: An Interim Report on the Los Angeles Longitudinal Enumeration and Demographic Survey (LA LEADS) Project , RAND Corporation, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1890-1.html (last visited Oct. 15, 2022).

Page 3 ends

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

The draft plan references the Ninth Circuit precedent in Martin v. City of Boise, which held that that cities may not criminalize people for their unhoused status. 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019).

Even though the draft cites this binding case, it states that starting on December 1, 2023, the City plans to have an additional 200 beds and as a result "the City can enforce the anti-camping ordinance and be in compliance." It is unclear why the City believes it may enforce its anti- camping code when it will still be woefully lacking in placements for its 1,017 unsheltered residents. As long as there are more unhoused individuals in the City than housing options available to them, it remains unconstitutional to criminalize individuals for engaging in life- sustaining activities like camping in public.

Further, building shelters to enable the City to enforce its anti-camping ordinance is an adversarial policy that does nothing to solve the underlying housing crisis. The City’s goal of enforcing its anti-camping code is misplaced. The goal should not be to criminalize people, but rather to find ways to solve the underlying problem of lack of affordable housing that forces people to live on the street in the first place.

Criminalizing people for being unhoused is counterproductive and hinders people’s ability to secure housing. People become unhoused because they cannot afford housing; punishing them does not make housing any more accessible. In fact, criminalization can actually make housing less accessible. Studies show that criminalization “perpetuates homelessness” by systematically limiting unhoused people’s access to services, housing, and jobs, while damaging their health, safety, and well-being.
6 We urge the City to move away from punitive approaches to what is, in essence, a housing affordability crisis. The City should focus instead on meeting the immediate affordable housing and service needs of its unhoused population. Any interim accommodations the City provides while it develops sufficient permanent affordable housing should be non-congregate (e.g., motel vouchers), voluntary, and free from restrictive rules and protocols. The City’s top priority should be a commitment to permanent and dignified housing solutions.

The City’s Stated Encampment Removal Policies (3-54) Do Not Match the City’s Actual Practices

The draft plan refers to the City’s encampment removal program (at 3-54). The draft plan states that when encampments are "proposed for closure,” residents are provided with notice, and opportunity to store their belongings at the City's yard. See 3-54. However, the plan fails to mention widespread complaints that the City is destroying unhoused people’s personal property during these removals.

The City is currently facing litigation by unhoused residents whose essential items have been destroyed during these operations. The City has destroyed unhoused people’s medicine, medical equipment, tents, clothing, food, blankets, IDs, and much more. Further, these encampment removals have a disparate impact on unhoused people with disabilities, including people using

Page 4 ends

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

wheelchairs and other mobility devices. These individuals are often unable to comply with the City’s removal orders in time to avoid having their essential items destroyed. These individuals are also regularly forced into remote, inaccessible areas – including ravines, washes, and flood control channels – after their encampments are destroyed.

The City’s largescale encampment removal program is harmful, unlawful, and contravenes best practices in addressing unhoused encampments.7 Effective outreach to unhoused people requires developing relationships of trust and respect, which is inherently undermined when the City destroys unhoused people’s personal property. Studies confirm that encampment displacements harm the health of encampment residents.8 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises municipalities not to move people from encampments unless individual housing units are available.9 We strongly urge the City to disband its encampment removal program and replace it with voluntary outreach efforts that prioritize long-term housing placements.

***

To conclude, it is vital that the City invest in permanent and deeply affordable housing if it wants to fulfill its Housing First vision. It must also abandon harmful programs such as the City’s encampment removal and anti-camping enforcement plans. Thank you in advance, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Kath Rogers
Staff Attorney

7 See United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 7 Principles for Addressing Encampments (June 15, 2022), https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/7-principles-for-addressing-encampments/ 8 See Joshua A. Barocas et al., Population-Level Health Effects of Involuntary Displacement of People Experiencing Unsheltered Homelessness who Inject Drugs in US Cities, JAMA. Published online April 10, 2023. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.4800; Jamie Suki Change et al., Harms of Encampment Abatements on the Health of Unhoused People, SSM-Qualitative Research in Health, 2 (December 2022); Diane Qi Ba et al., Health Impact of Street Sweeps from the Perspective of Healthcare Providers, Journal of General Internal Medicine, 37 (March 2022).
9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Guidance on Management of COVID -19 in Homeless Services Sites and in Correctional and Detention Facilities (updated November 29, 2022). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019- ncov/community/homeless-correctional-
settings.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019- ncov%2Fcommunity%2Fhomeless-shelters%2Funsheltered-homelessness.html

290 North D St, San Bernardino, CA 92401 | P: 909-384-5357 | www.SBCity.org Community & Economic Development Department

SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY

January 30, 2024

Ms. Kath Rogers, Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California

Re: City of San Bernardino Response to November 20, 2023, Letter - Draft 2021 -2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element (January 2024 Revised Draft)

Dear Ms. Rogers:

Thank you for your letter dated November 20, 2023, regarding the City of San Bernardino Draft Housing Element noted above. This letter was prepared in response to that letter and follows the same format.

Responses are noted in red.

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.

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 project (at 4-17), and the Golden Springs project (at 6-4). However, the vast majority of the planned placements for unhoused people are emergency shelter beds and transitional shelter beds. Even with all the projects listed, the City will not come close t o providing placements for its entire population of unhoused residents – especially as this number continues to rise.

City of San Bernardino Page 2 of 4
The planned buildup of emergency, temporary, and/or interim placements will create a bottleneck of unhoused community members waiting for permanent and affordable housing. To truly fulfill the City’s Housing First goal, the City must prioritize deep investments in permanent housing solutions.

Under the state’s official Housing First policy, placements for unhoused residents should be low- barrier, long-term, and should allow for people to stay with their loved ones, pets, and personal property.2 Studies have shown that congregate shelters are not an effective solution to the housing crisis and often do not provide pathways to permanent housing. Congregate shelters subject individuals to higher rates of communicable diseases like COVID -19, due to their tight quarters and requirements that many pe ople share facilities.3 Further, crowding large numbers of people together can lead to social withdrawal, psychological distress, and other mental and physical health conditions, and often do not put residents on a path to obtaining permanent housing.4 Imp ortantly, people do not want to live in congregate settings: in a recent research study of unhoused people in Los Angeles, 70% of individuals surveyed stated they would not accept offers to stay in group shelters, citing lack of privacy as a concern, sugge sting a limited role for congregate shelters in effectively moving people off the streets.5

Rather than focusing on increasing its number of shelter beds, the City should prioritize moving people into dignified, permanent housing consistent with Housing First principles.

RESPONSE:

On the contrary, the Homeless Services Program does reflect the City’s “Housing First” approach. Keep in mind that the City of San Bernardino overall is in recovery stages, not only for the community but also the City infrastructure, due to the bankruptcy, the Great Recession, and the COVID -19 pandemic. Housing is a critical path to this recovery and the City is setting the groundwork for many next steps, especially in the Homeless Services Category. As discussed in the Housi ng Element, the City is dedicating staff resources, funding, grants, and land to address housing needs. With the number of unhoused people in the City and the potential increase, the need for emergency and temporary shelter, be it through shelter beds or motel vouchers, is critical. The City was recently awarded along with its partners Lutheran Social Services and Dignity Moves, approximately $3 5 Millio n for the Wellness Campus at their San Bernardino facility.

Further, the City is working on its own Navigation Center, which will provide that transitional approach to providing housing and assisting the unhoused with stability and resources.

To further permanent housing, the City is currently working with three housing partners to develop its Surplus Land Act properties, which are designed to provide permanent housing opportunities. Most properties are planned for 100% affordable units and very low and low-income ranges as well as exploring new micro units.

The City’s Homeless Outreach Team serves as its first contact with our unhoused population, and through their efforts, we are gaining an understanding of the next steps for San Bernardino. Therefore, the City approach is to address both increasing shelter beds , providing motel vouchers, and partnering with housing developers and non-profit organizations to build permanent housing.

City of San Bernardino Page 3 of 4
The City’s Anti-Camping Enforcement Plan (3-54) is Harmful, Unlawful, and Contravenes Best Practices The draft plan details the City’s commitment to ramping up enforcement of its anti-camping code against unhoused people. See 3 -54. This anti -camping code (SBMC, Chapter 12.98) makes it unlawful to camp, occupy camp facilities or use camp paraphernalia in t he following areas: (a) any street; (b) any public parking lot or public area, improved or unimproved; or (c) any park. In effect, the text of this code makes it unlawful for people to be unhoused within the City – anytime, anywhere.

The draft plan references the Ninth Circuit precedent in Martin v. City of Boise, which held that that cities may not criminalize people for their unhoused status. 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019).

Even though the draft cites this binding case, it states that starting on December 1, 2023, the City plans to have an additional 200 beds and as a result "the City can enforce the anti-camping ordinance and be in compliance." It is unclear why the City believes it may enforce its anti - camping code when it will still be woefully lacking in placements for its 1,017 unsheltered residents. As long as there are more unhoused individuals in the City than housing options available to them, it remains unconstitutional to criminalize individuals for engaging in life- sustaining activities like camping in public.

We urge the City to move away from punitive approaches to what is, in essence, a housing affordability crisis. The City should focus instead on meeting the immediate affordable housing and service needs of its unhoused population. Any interim accommodation s the City provides while it develops sufficient permanent affordable housing should be non-congregate (e.g., motel vouchers), voluntary, and free from restrictive rules and protocols. The City’s top priority should be a commitment to permanent and dignified housing solutions.

Response:

Comment noted. The City is committed to assisting all citizens, including those that do not have housing.

Through the efforts to provide housing and services, the City is working diligently to assist its unhoused population.

The City’s Stated Encampment Removal Policies (3-54) Do Not Match the City’s Actual Practices The draft plan refers to the City’s encampment removal program (at 3-54). The draft plan states that when encampments are "proposed for closure,” residents are provided with notice, and opportunity to store City of San Bernardino Page 4 of 4
their belongings at the City's yard. See 3 -54. However, the plan fails to mention widespread complaints that the City is destroying unhoused people’s personal property during these removals.

The City is currently facing litigation by unhoused residents whose essential items have been destroyed during these operations. The City has destroyed unhoused people’s medicine, medical equipment, tents, clothing, food, blankets, IDs, and much more. Furt her, these encampment removals have a disparate impact on unhoused people with disabilities, including people using

6 See e.g. Chris Herring, Dilara Yarbrough, Lisa Marie Alatorre, Pervasive Penality: How the Criminalization of Poverty Perpetuates Homelessness, Social Problems, Volume 67, Issue 1, February 2020, Pages 131 – 149, https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz004 w
heelchairs and other mobility devices. These individuals are often unable to comply with the City’s removal orders in time to avoid having their essential items destroyed. These individuals are also regularly forced into remote, inaccessible areas – including ravines, washes, and flood control channels – after their encampments are destroyed.

T
he City’s largescale encampment removal program is harmful, unlawful, and contravenes best practices in addressing unhoused encampments.7 Effective outreach to unhoused people requires developing relationships of trust and respect, which is inherently undermined when the City destroys unhoused people’s personal property. Studies confirm that encampment displacements harm the health of encampment residents.8 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises municipalities not to move people from encampments unless individual housing units are available.9 We strongly urge the City to disband its encampment removal program and replace it with voluntary outreach efforts that prioritize long-term housing placements.

Response:

Comment noted. The City is committed to assisting all citizens, including those that do not have housing.

Through the efforts to provide housing and services, the City is working diligently to assist its unhoused population.

We look forward to the completion of the City’s 2021 – 2029 Housing Element, its adoption and certification by the Department of Housing and Community Development, and its implementation to assist our San Bernardino community.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Lanier
Interim Community Development and Housing Director

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

January 8, 2024

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 (January 2024 Revised Draft)

Dear Mr. Martin:

Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

Land Inventory Matters

The current Draft still does not include any programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the pipeline projects that the City relies upon to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), per our previous letter to you regarding previous iterations of the Draft dated November 20, 2023 (11/20/2023 Letter), included as Exhibit 1. Further, while the Draft references at page 4-35 that it has a program that allows for by-right development on the identified sites when projects propose 20 percent of all units at an affordable rate, the Draft does not contain any information or any analysis of how the City will monitor the approvals of those projects to ensure that by-right development occurs and that the development has affordable units as required by Government Code section 65583.2(h), (i). The City must revise the Draft to include this analysis and information.

Site Inventory

While the City has provided information regarding the sites that will be rezoned to allow increased densities in the RH and RMH zones (Draft, pp. 4-23 to 4-31, Tables 4-5 and 4-6), the City has not revised the Draft to provide specific actions that the City will take to facilitate and encourage higher density development. Also, the City has not analyzed the likelihood of

2 residential development where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed. This means the City is still in danger of violating the No Net Loss Law, should the sites it identified to meet its RHNA are deemed inadequate during the planning period. The City needs to revise the Draft accordingly.

Realistic Capacity

The City still needs to revise the Draft to include additional information on the two projects explicitly listed as multi-family residential developments, 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 (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.

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. 4-6 to 4-11; 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.)

City-Owned Sites

Table 4-6, Draft, pages 4-28 to 4-31, does not have any of the suggested revisions the 11/20/2023 Letter stated that the City must include to comply with the Surplus Land Act. (11/20/2023 Letter, pp. 3-4.) Furthermore, the Draft still does not make it clear that the rezones will be completed by April 17, 2024. Ibid. The City needs to revise the Draft to address the suggested revisions on compliance with the Surplus Lands Act and rezoning obligation.

Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types

Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Units

In the Draft, the City plans to develop Micro SROs units to meet some of the housing needs of its seniors and people living with disabilities. (See Draft, p. 3-15.) However, the City needs to include information and sufficient analysis on how the City will ensure that the Micro SRO units are suitable and accessible under California Building Code standards, Chapters 11A and 11B, for this special needs population, especially when considering that the Micro SROs are indeed small at 250 to 450 square feet. It is unclear in the Draft how these units will be suitable for seniors and persons living with disabilities who have health conditions that impact their mobility.

3 The Draft Has Not Fully Analyzed the Impact of Governmental Constraints on the Ability of the City to Develop Multi-Family Housing and Housing for People Living with Disabilities

Government Code section 65583(a)(5) requires the City to identify, analyze, and explain efforts to remove governmental constraints upon the “maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income types. . .” While the City has revised the Draft regarding the impact of governmental constraints on its ability to develop housing, additional revisions are needed because the City has not provided enough analysis on the impact of illegal restrictions on density bonus for senior housing such as requiring market feasibility study and conditional use permits (CUP), which the City should analyze as constraints and clearly identify as an area needing correction on Table 3-8, regarding the necessary revisions to the City’s local density bonus ordinance, consistent with the stipulated judgment reached in Gracia, et al. v. City of San Bernardino, et al., CIVSB2301828 (filed February 10, 2023) (Gracia). (See Draft, p. 3-27.)

Further, the Draft concludes without analysis that the Administrative Permit process does not constrain housing. (See Draft, p. 3-39.) The Draft should include the information the City relied upon to reach that conclusion, notwithstanding the City’s statement that the AP process only affects “small projects and is minimal.” Additionally, the Development Permit process, Draft, at page 3-40, which applies to units 5 or more units lacks any analysis of whether the process of four to eight weeks constrains the City’s ability to develop multifamily units in the City and if so what steps the City will take to ameliorate that issue. Finally, the Draft, at page 3-41, discusses CUPs, but does not include any analysis of how the CUP requirements have constrained housing, particularly housing for special needs populations (e.g., seniors and Persons with disabilities) in the City. (See e.g., Draft at p 3-51- City will be “amending reasonable accommodation provisions to allow for the consideration and permitting of land use permitting for facilities, where appropriate, that accommodate people with disability instead of requiring a conditional use permit for all cases,” emphasis added.) The City must revise the Draft to include this analysis.

Concerning the City’s reasonable accommodation procedures, in the Draft, at page 3-51, the City should include timeframes in decision making on applications requesting a reasonable accommodation and analyze whether the City’s current process has impeded the ability of developers in need of a reasonable accommodation to seek one. Additionally, the City needs to include a program to revise San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC) Chapter 19.63.050 regarding the denial of reasonable accommodation- state law is more protective- requires both to be present – not either or. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, §12179(b)(2): “The requested accommodation would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the person who is asked to provide the accommodation.” (Emphasis added).) Additionally, the requirement under SBMC Chapter 19.63, to make the reasonable accommodation in writing conflicts with state law that does not require a reasonable accommodation to be made in a particular manner or at a particular time. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, §12176(f)(3).) Accordingly, the City needs to revise the Draft and Programs 2.8 and 5.3 to include objectives to revise SBMC Chapter 19.63 regarding its reasonable accommodation process to ensure that the City asks for information related to disability that is not prohibited by state or federal law. To protect the privacy rights of persons living with disabilities particularly to their medical conditions and records, state and federal law

4 prohibit inquiries about nature or severity of person’s disability/disabling condition. (24 CFR §100.204(c); Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, §12176(b)(1). See also HUD/DOJ Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Questions 16-18, available at following link: huddojstatement.pdf.) The City needs to revise the Draft to make this clear and include an objective in Programs 2.8 and 5.3, to revise SBMC Chapter 19.63 accordingly.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

As the City has not made any of the changes outlined in the 11/20/2023 Letter regarding our comment concerning the City’s overreliance on ADUs to meet the RHNA, we defer to that document regarding information that the City is required to provide with regards to ADUs in the City and its usage towards the RHNA. (See 11/20/2023 Letter, pp. 4-5.)

Potential and Actual Government Constraints Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)

Land Use Controls

We once again defer to the 11/20/2023 Letter regarding this section (11/20/2023 Letter, pp. 5-6) and note further that the City did not make any of the changes or amend the Draft to include a footnote related to compliance with our ongoing litigation in Gracia.

Processing and Permitting Procedures

The Draft still states that emergency shelters can be developed by-right, which runs counter to Chapter 19.10-E of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, and does not analyze how the City’s processing and permitting procedures, specifically the City not permitting the development of emergency shelters in any area zoned for residential use, have constrained the development of housing in the city pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(5). The City must conduct this analysis, even if the Municipal Code is amended to allow by-right development.

Codes and Enforcement

The Draft does not assert 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).

Zoning and Fees Transparency

The City still needs to 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.

5 Fees and Exaction

While the City has added analysis to show that the fee burden is not a constraint, it neglected to mention whether or not those fees are current. The City needs to revise the Draft to include this information and analyze the constraints presented by the City’s fee structure.

Approval Time and Requests Lesser Densities

The City still must analyze the constraint of the City’s approval process for the development of multi-family developments, as it currently takes about four months or longer to process, approve, and issue permits for multi-family developments than for their single-family counterparts. It must also include a corresponding program to explain how it will plan to address the disparity between the approval and processing times for residential development in the City.

Environmental Constraints

The City has not made any changes to its environmental constraints section, and thus we once again defer to the 11/20/2023 Letter and our comments regarding the necessary changes thereto. (See 11/20/2023 Letter, p. 8.)

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

While we are pleased to see that the City has made strides in its analysis of Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty (R/ECAPs) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), the Draft still must fully analyze the location of the sites in its AB 686 Sites Analysis and of affordable opportunities in high resource areas, as required by Government Code Section 8899.50. The Draft needs to be revised to include this information. (See 11/20/2023 Letter, pp. 8-

9.)

Density Bonus Ordinance

The Draft still 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.

Anti-Camping Ordinance

Even though City proposes to add 200 shelter beds through the Motels for Vouchers, the City acknowledges that its unhoused population, at 1,350 persons is the highest in the County, and has increased in 2023. (See Draft, p. 5-36). The Draft needs to analyze impacts of enforcing the anti- camping ordinance, as a governmental constraint, on its unhoused population. Further, because the City lacks sufficient shelter to accommodate the needs of the unhoused as stated in the Draft, the proposed enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance conflicts with established 9th Circuit law that prohibits enforcement of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on

6 public property where inadequate shelter exists. Martin v. Boise (9th Cir. 2018) 902 F.3d 1031, 1048. Johnson v. City of Grant Pass (9th Cir. 2023) 72 F.4th 868, 895.

San Bernardino’s Draft Relies on Public Housing Replacement Projects as New Construction

In the 11/20/2023 Letter, we commented upon the City’s pipeline projects in the Draft Housing Element, summarized in Table 4-2. (11/20/2023 Letter, p. 3.) The Draft claims credit for public housing projects of the Housing Authority for the County of San Bernardino (HACSB) that were already developed. We also found that these public housing replacement projects are not new housing nor do they meet committed assistance requirements under Government Code section 65583.1. Therefore, these two projects claimed in Table 4-2, Arrowhead Grove, claiming 213 units, and Crestview Terrace, claiming 184 units, should be removed from the inventory so that a total of 397 units are reduced from sites available to meet the lower income RHNA.

Crestview Terrace – represented by the City as adding 184 new apartments to the City’s housing stock. (Draft, pp. 4-6, 4-9.) However, none of this housing is new, and does not add any additional units. Phase III was developed in 2020 and added 116 project-based units with tax credits and 31 tax-credit affordable units, but it replaced 182 units of existing public housing. (See 2022 and 2023 MTW Annual Report, Housing Authority County of San Bernardino, pp. 8, 129-131, available at the following link: HACSB-FY-2022-MTW-Annual-Report-HUD- Accepted-2.27.23.pdf; 2023-MTW-Plan-FINAL-HUD-Approved-11.4.22.pdf (hacsb.com), pp. 64, 65, last visited on December 19, 2023.) The balance of the units at Crestview Terrace from Phase III – 35 units are market-rate units with no RAD, PBV or tax-credit restrictions, and would not qualify as replacement units under Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3).

Arrowhead Grove is part of the former Waterman Gardens and was previously 251 public housing units that the City has redeveloped in multiple phases. Now in Phases IV and V, the City identifies a source of funds for the Phase IV development coming from HOME-assisted tenant based rental assistance funds. (See 2021 Annual Action Plan, City of San Bernardino Consolidated Plan, pp. 23, 33-34, available at the following link Attachment-22349.pdf, last visited on January 3, 2024.) This source of funds would not qualify under Government Code section 65583.1(d)(4), as the term “committed assistance” requires a “legally enforceable agreement” for that assistance, and it “does not include tenant-based rental assistance”. HACSB plans to develop 120 units in Phase V, but the City has not provided sufficient information about the source of the funds to be used to develop them to determine whether the units are eligible to be credited against the lower-income RHNA under Government Code sections 65583.1 and 65583.2. (See RFP-PC1346-Arrowhead-Grove-Developer-Partner-final.pdf (hacsb.com), p. 4; see also San Bernardino to start on next phase of affordable housing project (iebusinessdaily.com).)

All-Star Lodge – Draft, p. 4-17, 75 units of Permanent Supportive Housing, funded with Homekey moneys. (Draft, Table 4-2, p. 4.6.) The developer, Shangri-La Industries LLC (SLI), was recently found in breach of its Homekey agreement by the State of California for failing to record 55-year covenants of affordability against all parcels of the project. Notice-of-Violations- Final.12.4.23.pdf (calmatters.org), p. 19-20 (discussing breach of SLI, owner/developer of All-

7 Star Lodge in City of San Bernardino); see also California homeless housing projects on hold- CalMatters (discussing the various breaches and legal violations by SLI). These 75 units should be removed from the RHNA inventory, unless the City can provide sufficient information in the Draft that the rents charged for the units are indeed at an affordable rate. The information we have located calls the City’s representations that this project should be counted against its RHNA into question.

Table 4-3, Draft p. 4-14- ADU Survey – many of the lower-income units, unit types and type of units are not specified, so it calls into question whether City can realistically rely upon this housing type to meet its lower-income housing needs.

Housing Programs

We defer to the 11/20/2023 Letter regarding our comments to the following Programs contained in the Draft that still require revision: Program 1.5 (Accessory Dwelling Unit, pp. 7-9, 7-30, regarding revising 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); Program 3.5 (Violence Prevention/Intervention, Draft, pp. 7-17, 7-34); Program

4.1 (Preservation of Assisted Multi-Family Housing, Draft, pp. 7-20, 7-36); Program 4.2 (Rent Control/Stabilization, Draft, pp. 7-20, 7-36 erroneously named “Mobile Home Parks”); Program

4.3 (Housing Choice Vouchers, Draft, pp. 7-21, 7.36); Program 4.4 (Emergency Rental Assistance, Draft, pp. 7-21, 7-36). (See 11/20/2023 Letter, pp. 10-12.)

Further, the following programs not discussed in the 11/20/2023 Letter also need further revisions:

Program 2.8 – Constraints to Housing for People with Disabilities, Draft, p. 7-14, Program 5-3:

Housing for People with Disabilities, Draft, p. 7-25, As mentioned, the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance requirement to disclose the nature of the disability in making a request for an accommodation violates state and federal law protections that prohibit asking a requestor of a reasonable accommodation about the nature of their disability/disabling condition. 24 CFR §100.204(c); Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, §12176(b)(1). Accordingly, the City must revise these proposed programs to include objectives with specific metrics and timelines to revise SBMC Chapter 19.63 to bring that Chapter in compliance with state and federal law regarding reasonable accommodations.

Program 3.5- Objective 3.5c – We maintain our objection to the use of city funds to support the feasibility for a neighborhood watch program because of the exclusionary history of such programs and the concern of such a program serving as a proxy to exclude persons who have or have had negative interactions with law enforcement in violation of state and federal fair housing law from being able to find shelter in the City. (11/20/2023 Letter, p. 11.) As such, the City must revise this program and this objective to specifically state how it will comply with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing and remove barriers that cause impediments to fair housing opportunity, as required by Government Code section 8899.50 and Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at

8 285-86, to ensure that no fair housing violations occur with exploring the feasibility of a neighborhood watch program in the City.

Public Participation

Lastly, we defer to the 11/20/2023 Letter with regards to this section, as the City did not make any of the changes outlined therein. (See 11/20/2023 Letter, p. 13.)

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], to schedule a date and time to meet about our comments.

Sincerely,

Anthony Kim
Staff Attorney, Inland Counties Legal Services

Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson
Staff Attorney, The Public Interest Law Project
/s/

290 North D St, San Bernardino, CA 92401 | P: 909-384-5357 | www.SBCity.org Community & Economic Development Department

SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY

February 5, 2024

Anthony Kim
Staff Attorney, Inland Counties Legal Services

Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson
Staff Attorney, The Public Interest Law Project

Re: City of San Bernardino Response to the January 8th, 2024, Letter - Draft 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element (January 2024 Revised Draft)
Dear Mr. Kim and Ms. Anaebere-Nicholson:

Thank you for your letter dated January 8th, 2024, and our calls to discuss the City of San Bernardino Draft Housing Element noted above. I am pleased to provide this res ponse, which covers the c omments referenced in that letter and provide s further clarification on the City’s Housing Element goals, policies, and programs, as discussed. The letter also refers to the City’s response dated January 16 , 2024, to your November 23, 2023 letter, as the letters overlap due to the timing of responses provided by the City.

Responses are noted in red.

Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
Land Inventory Matters
The current Draft still does not include any programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the pipeline projects that the City relies upon to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), per our previous letter to you regarding previous iterations of the Draft dated November 20, 2023 (11/20/2023 Letter), included as Exhibit 1. Further, while the Draft references at page 4-35 that it has a program that allows for by -right development on the identified sites when projects propose 20 percent of all units at an affordable rate, the Draft does not contain any information or any analysis of how the City will monitor the approvals of those projects to ensure that by-right development occurs and that the development has affordable units as required by Government Code section 65583.2(h), (i). The City must revise the Draft to include this analysis and information.

Response:

Please see response #2, which provides additional information and includes Program 2.5 and Action 2.5c.

See Moderate and Above Moderate Sites Inventory in Appendix A.

City of San Bernardino Page 2 of 10
Site Inventory
While the City has provided information regarding the sites that will be rezoned to allow increased densities in the RH and RMH zones (Draft, pp. 4 -23 to 4-31, Tables 4-5 and 4-6), the City has not revised the Draft to provide specific actions that the City will take to facilitate and encourage higher density development. Also, the City has not analyzed the likelihood of residential development where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed. This means the City is still in danger of violating the No Net Loss Law, should the sites it identified to meet its RHNA are deemed inadequate during the planning period. The City needs to revise the Draft accordingly.

Response:

Please see response #3 A - F. A conservative approach was used in the unit calculations for the RMH -32 and RH-50, as noted on page 424 and Program 4.5, where 85% was assumed. In addition, as part of the Development Code update, various standards will be relaxed, facilitating higher residential densities. See Programs 2.4, Actions a. and b. Density bonus revisions in Program 2.2 will also provide further incentives to achieve higher densities intended for the respective zoning districts.

Realistic Capacity
The City still needs to revise the Draft to include additional information on the two projects explicitly listed as multi-family residential developments, 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 (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.

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. 4-6 to 4-11; Table 4 -2.) The City must correct t hese 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.)

Response:

Please see response #4.

City-Owned Sites
Table 4-6, Draft, pages 4-28 to 4-31, does not have any of the suggested revisions the 11/20/2023 l etter stated that the City must include to comply with the Surplus Land Act. (11/20/2023 l etter, pp. 3 -4.) Furthermore, the Draft still does not make it clear that the rezones will be completed by April 17th, 2024.

Ibid. The City needs to revise the Draft to address the suggested revisions on compliance with the Surplus Lands Act and rezoning obligation.

Response:

Please see response #6.

City of San Bernardino Page 3 of 10
Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Units
In the Draft, the City plans to develop Micro SROs units to meet some of the housing needs of its seniors and people living with disabilities. (See Draft, p. 3-15.) However, the City needs to include information and sufficient analysis on how the City will ensure that the Micro SRO units are suitable and accessible under California Building Code standards, Chapters 11A and 11B, for this special needs population, especially when considering that the Micro SROs are indeed small at 250 to 450 square feet. It is unclear in the Draft how these units will be suitable for seniors and persons living with disabilities who have health conditions that impact their mobility.

Response:

Please see response #7. In response to accessibility in smaller square footage units, the City will require projects to comply with Title 24 building requirements for accessibility. This will be further realized in projects that the City is participating in through land grants and funding. It is the City’s intent to facilitate both SRO and Mirco Unit projects as they are submitted for a project entitlement.

The Draft Has Not Fully Analyzed the Impact of Governmental Constraints on the Ability of the City to Develop Multi-Family Housing and Housing for People Living with Disabilities Government Code section 65583(a)(5) requires the City to identify, analyze, and explain efforts to remove governmental constraints upon the “maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income types. . .” While the City has revised the Draft regarding the impact of governmental constraints on its ability to develop housing, additional revisions are needed because the City has not provided enough analysis on the impact of illegal restrictions on density bonus for senior housing such as requiring market feasibility study and conditional use permits (CUP), which the City should analyze as constraints and clearly identify as an area needing correction on Table 3 -8, regarding the necessary revisions to the City’s local density bonus ordinance, cons istent with the stipulated judgment reached in Gracia, et al. v.

City of San Bernardino, et al., CIVSB2301828 (filed February 10th, 2023) (Gracia). (See Draft, p. 3-27.) Further, the Draft concludes without analysis that the Administrative Permit process does not constrain housing. (See Draft, p. 3-39.) The Draft should include the information the City relied upon to reach that conclusion, notwithstanding the City’s statem ent that the AP process only affects “small projects and is minimal.” Additionally, the Development Permit process, Draft, at page 3 -40, which applies to units 5 or more units lacks any analysis of whether the process of four to eight weeks constrains the City’s ability to develop multifamily units in the City and if so what steps the City will take to ameliorate that issue. Finally, the Draft, at page 3 -41, discusses CUPs, but does not include any analysis of how the CUP requirements have constrained housi ng, particularly housing for special needs populations (e.g., seniors and Persons with disabilities) in the City. (See e.g., Draft at p 3-51- City will be “amending reasonable accommodation provisions to allow for the consideration and permitting of land use permitting for facilities, where appropriate, that accommodate people with disability instead of requiring a conditional use permit for all cases,” emphasis added.) The City must revise the Draft to include this analysis.

City of San Bernardino Page 4 of 10
accommodation to seek one. Additionally, the City needs to include a program to revise San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC) Chapter 19.63.050 regarding the denial of reasonable accommodation- state law is more protective- requires both to be present – not either or. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, §12179(b)(2): “The requested accommodation would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the person who is asked to provide the accommodation.” (Emphasis added).) Additionally, the requirement under SBMC Chapter 19.63, to make the reasonable accommodation in writing conflicts with state law that does not require a reasonable accommodation to be made in a particular manner or at a particular time. (Cal.

Code Reg., tit. 2, §12176(f)(3).) Accordingly, the City needs to revise the Draft and Programs 2.8 and 5.3 to include objectives to revise SBMC Chapter 19.63 regarding its reasonable accommodation process to ensure that the City asks for information related to disability that is not prohibited by state or federal law.

To protect the privacy rights of persons living with disabilities particularly to their medical conditions and records, state and federal law prohibit inquiries about nature or severity of person’s disability/disabling condition. (24 CFR §100.204( c); Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, §12176(b)(1). See also HUD/DOJ Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Questions 16 -18, available at following link: huddojstatement.pdf.) The City needs to revise the Draft to make this clear and include an objective in Programs 2.8 and 5.3, to revise SBMC Chapter 19.63 accordingly.

Response:

Additional analysis has been added in the Constraints chapter of the Housing Element. The City has also initiated an update of its Density Bonus Ordinance and in the meantime, will process applications in accordance with State law. The Housing Plan, Program 5.3b, proposes a revision to the reasonable accommodation ordinance consistent with state law. To date, the City is not aware of any reasonable accommodation requests, but if requested, it would address them as submitted and in compliance with State and Federal laws. Currently, there is no fee for reasonable accommodation requests. Prior responses demonstrate that the permitting processes and timelines are reasonable.

The City is currently working with three affordable housing developers to provide affordable housing on City owned surplus land, which will provide a range of housing. By doing so, the City continues its commitment to affordable housing and working with the development community. HCD has reviewed the City’s permitting processes and concurs with all recommended changes.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
As the City has not made any of the changes outlined in the 11/20/2023 l etter regarding our comment concerning the City’s overreliance on ADUs to meet the RHNA, we defer to that document regarding information that the City is required to provide with regards to ADUs in the City and its usage towards the RHNA. (See 11/20/2023 letter, pp. 4-5.)

Response:

Please see response #6. The City has provided documentation to support its use of ADUs to meet the RHNA. To ensure that the RHNA is being met, the City will annually monitor the construction of ADUs.

Also, through the City’s new General Plan and Zoning, additional residential land will be identified, and the City expects to exceed the amount of residentially zoned land required by the RHNA when completed.

City of San Bernardino Page 5 of 10
Potential and Actual Government Constraints Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)

Land Use Controls
We once again defer to the 11/20/2023 Letter regarding this section (11/20/2023 Letter, pp. 5-6) and note further that the City did not make any of the changes or amend the Draft to include a footnote related to compliance with our ongoing litigation in Gracia.

Response:

HCD has concurred with changes made to land use controls; no other revisions are necessary. The Housing Element cites the Gracia litigation eight times in the housing element.

Processing and Permitting Procedures
The Draft still states that emergency shelters can be developed by -right, which runs counter to Chapter

19.10-E of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, and does not analyze how the City’s processing and permitting procedures, specifically the City not permitting the development of emergency shelters in any area zoned for residential use, have constrained the development of housing in the city pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(5). The City must conduct this analysis, even if the Municipal Code is amended to allow by-right development.

Response:

Please see response #11.

Codes and Enforcement
The Draft does not assert 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 sect ion 8899.50, as affirmed in Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193 (Martinez).

Response:

The City has added a Program to review its Code Enforcement program for compliance with Federal Fair Housing laws. See program 3.3, action d.

Zoning and Fees Transparency
The City still needs to 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.

Response:

Please see response #13.

City of San Bernardino Page 6 of 10
Fees and Exaction
While the City has added analysis to show that the fee burden is not a constraint, it neglected to mention whether or not those fees are current. The City needs to revise the Draft to include this information and analyze the constraints presented by the City’s fee structure.

Response:

Please see response #13.

Approval Time and Requests Lesser Densities
The City still must analyze the constraint of the City’s approval process for the development of multi- family developments, as it currently takes about four months or longer to process, approve, and issue permits for multi- family developments than for thei r single-family counterparts. It must also include a corresponding program to explain how it will plan to address the disparity between the approval and processing times for residential development in the City.

Response:

Please see response #14.

Environmental Constraints
The City has not made any changes to its environmental constraints section, and thus we once again defer to the 11/20/2023 letter and our comments regarding the necessary changes thereto. (See 11/20/2023 letter, p. 8.)

Response:

Please see response #15.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
While we are pleased to see that the City has made strides in its analysis of Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty (R/ECAPs) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), the Draft still must fully analyze the location of the sites in its AB 686 Sites Analysis and of affordable opportunities in high resource areas, as required by Government Code Section 8899.50. The Draft needs to be revised to include this information. (See 11/20/2023 letter, pp. 8- 9.)

Response:

Please see response #16. Note Programs 5.7 and 5.8 have been added to Table 7-1.

Density Bonus Ordinance
The Draft still 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.

City of San Bernardino Page 7 of 10
Response:

Please see response #17. As with some other cities in California, the City of San Bernardino will process any and all requests for a Density Bonus in compliance with State law. The City is not aware of any applicants that were denied or processed under outdated provisions.

Anti-Camping Ordinance
Even though City proposes to add 200 shelter beds through the Motels for Vouchers, the City acknowledges that its unhoused population, at 1,350 persons is the highest in the County, and has increased in 2023. (See Draft, p. 5-36). The Draft needs to analyze impacts of enforcing the anti- camping ordinance, as a governmental constraint, on its unhoused population. Further, because the City lacks sufficient shelter to accommodate the needs of the unhoused as stated in the Draft, the proposed enforcement of th e anti -camping ordinance conflicts with established 9th Circuit law that prohibits enforcement of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property where inadequate shelter exists. Martin v. Boise (9th Cir. 2018) 902 F.3d 1031, 1048. Johnson v. City of Grant Pass (9th Cir. 2023) 72 F.4th 868, 895.

Response:

Please see response #18. The City is working closely with its local non -profits to secure shelter beds in addition to motel vouchers. In addition to the recent HomeKey award to the City and partner Lutheran Social Services of Southern California for Wellness campus to include shelter beds for men, the City is also moving forward with an RFP for the design -build of its own Navigation Center to house and provide services for the City’s unhoused.

San Bernardino’s Draft Relies on Public Housing Replacement Projects as New Construction In the 11/20/2023 letter, we commented upon the City’s pipeline projects in the Draft Housing Element, summarized in Table 4-2. (11/20/2023 Letter, p. 3.) The Draft claims credit for public housing projects of the Housing Authority for the County of San Bernardino (HACSB) th at were already developed. We also found that these public housing replacement projects are not new housing nor do they meet committed assistance requirements under Government Code section 65583.1. Therefore, these two projects claimed in Table 4-2, Arrowhead Grove, claiming 213 units, and Crestview Terrace, claiming 184 units, should be removed from the inventory so that a total of 397 units are reduced from sites available to meet the lower income RHNA.

11.4.22.pdf (hacsb.com), pp. 64, 65, last visited on December 19th , 2023.) The balance of the units at Crestview Terrace from Phase III – 35 units are market -rate units with no RAD, PBV or tax -credit restrictions, and would not qualify as replacement units under Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3).

City of San Bernardino Page 8 of 10
Arrowhead Grove is part of the former Waterman Gardens and was previously 251 public housing units that the City has redeveloped in multiple phases. Now in Phases IV and V, the City identifies a source of funds for the Phase IV development coming from HOME -assisted tenant based rental assistance funds. (See 2021 Annual Action Plan, City of San Bernardino Consolidated Plan, pp. 23, 33 -34, available at the following link Attachment-22349.pdf, last visited on January 3 rd, 2024.) This source of funds would not qualify under Government Code section 65583.1(d)(4), as the term “committed assistance” requires a “legally enforceable agreement” for that assistance, and it “does not include tenant -based rental assistance”. HACSB plans to develop 120 units in Phase V, but the City has not provided sufficient information about the source of the funds to be used to develop them to determine whether the units are eligible to be credited against the lower-income RHNA under Government Code sections 65583.1 and 65583.2. (See RFP-PC1346-Arrowhead-Grove-Developer-Partner-final.pdf (hacsb.com), p. 4; see also San Bernardino to start on next phase of affordable housing project (iebusinessdaily.com).) All-Star Lodge – Draft, p. 4-17, 75 units of Permanent Supportive Housing, funded with Homekey moneys. (Draft, Table 4-2, p. 4.6.) The developer, Shangri -La Industries LLC (SLI), was recently found in breach of its Homekey agreement by the State of Califor nia for failing to record 55 -year covenants of affordability against all parcels of the project. Notice -of-Violations- Final.12.4.23.pdf (calmatters.org), p. 19 -20 (discussing breach of SLI, owner/developer of All-

Star Lodge in City of San Bernardino); see also California homeless housing projects on hold- CalMatters (discussing the various breaches and legal violations by SLI). These 75 units should be removed from the RHNA inventory, unless the City can provide sufficient information in the Draft that the rents charged for the units are indeed at an affordable rate. The information we have located calls the City’s representations that this project should be counted against its RHNA into question.

Response:

The Housing Element has updated the sections related to these units and provided clarification, as requested by HCD staff.

Housing Programs
We defer to the 11/20/2023 l etter regarding our comments to the following Programs contained in the Draft that still require revision: Program 1.5 (Accessory Dwelling Unit, pp. 7-9, 7-30, regarding revising 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); Program 3.5 (Violence Prevention/Intervention, Draft, pp. 7-17, 7-34); Program

4.1 (Preservation of Assisted Multi -Family Housing, Draft, pp. 7 -20, 7 -36); Program 4.2 (Rent Control/Stabilization, Draft, pp. 7-20, 7-36 erroneously named “Mobile Home Parks”); Program

4.3 (Housing Choice Vouchers, Draft, pp. 7 -21, 7.36); Program 4.4 (Emergency Rental Assistance, Draft, pp. 7-21, 7-36). (See 11/20/2023 letter, pp. 10-12.)
City of San Bernardino Page 9 of 10
Response:

See Numbers 19-24.

Further, the following programs not discussed in the 11/20/2023 letter also need further revisions:

Program 2.8 – Constraints to Housing for People with Disabilities, Draft, p. 7-14, Program 5-3: Housing for People with Disabilities, Draft, p. 7 -25, As mentioned, the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance requirement to disclose the nature of the disa bility in making a request for an accommodation violates state and federal law protections that prohibit asking a requestor of a reasonable accommodation about the nature of their disability/disabling condition. 24 CFR §100.204(c); Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, §12176(b)(1).

Accordingly, the City must revise these proposed programs to include objectives with specific metrics and timelines to revise SBMC Chapter 19.63 to bring that Chapter in compliance with state and federal law regarding reasonable accommodations.

Response:

An action item is included to revise the Ordinance.

Response:

No funding is proposed. Should the City be included in any program, it will comply with Fair Housing laws and requirements.

Public Participation
Lastly, we defer to the 11/20/2023 letter with regards to this section, as the City did not make any of the changes outlined therein. (See 11/20/2023 letter, p. 13.)

Response:

See #25, which outlines the City’s public participation that occurred throughout the process.

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], to schedule a date and time to meet about our comments.

City of San Bernardino Page 10 of 10
Response:

The City and its staff believe the Draft Housing Element does indeed comply with the Housing Element Law and is a document to guide the staff and decision-makers with measures and programs to implement through the Cycle.

As noted from our call on January 23, 2024, the City will prepare a reasonable accommodation letter, noting the City’s compliance with Federal and State laws and requirements. The letter will be similar to that, memorializing the City’s commitment to compliance with State Density Bonus Law.

Thank you again for your comments. We are pleased that through the letters and dialog, we were able to address many of your concerns, resulting in a better Housing Element.

We look forward to the completion of the City’s 2021 – 2029 Housing Element, its adoption, and certification by the Department of Housing and Community Development . We appreciate your input as we look to the Housing Element implementation to assist our San Bernardino community.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Lanier
Interim Community Development and Housing Director

From: Maribel Nunez
To: CommunityDevelopment
Subject: public comment: San Bernardino Housing element Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 2:29:52 PM
Caution - This email originated from outside the City - Verify that the Email display name and Email address are consistent. - Use caution when opening attachments.

Hello
Maribel Nunez from Inland Equity Community Land Trust and San Bernardino Tenants Union chapter. This is public comment for the San Bernardino Housing element in partnership with Uplift SB 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. 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 2.7c and d:

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:

Program 3.1b and 4.2:

Also consider applying to the Manufactured Housing Opportunity and Revitalization Program (MORE).

Program 3.5b and 3.7:

Program 4.5:

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.

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

Consider the Following Shared Equity Models

1. Community land trusts and co-op, work with existing CLT’s and co-op Concerns:

Typos:

Correct SB 2011 to AB 2011
Best,
Maribel Nunez
Inland Equity Partnership Executive Director
(562) 569-4051

290 North D St, San Bernardino, CA 92401 | P: 909-384-5357 | www.SBCity.org Community & Economic Development Department

SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY

February 5, 2024

Ms. Maribel Nunez
Inland Equity Community Land Trust and
San Bernardino Tenants Union Chapter

Re: City of San Bernardino Response to Email dated January 23, 2024 Draft 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element (January 2024 Revised Draft)

Dear Ms. Rogers:

Thank you for your email dated January 23, 2024, regarding the City of San Bernardino Draft Housing Element noted above. This letter was prepared in response to that email and follows the same format.

Responses are noted in red.

Maribel Nunez from Inland Equity Community Land Trust and San Bernardino Tenants Union chapter.

This is public comment for the San Bernardino Housing element in partnership with Uplift SB

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.

Response:

The City has identified 19.46 acres to be upzoned. Through the rezoning and property inventory included in the Housing Element Appendix, there is enough land identified to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, as required.

Ms. Maribel Nunez
Inland Equity Community Land Trust and San Bernardino Tenants Union Chapter February 5, 2024
Page | 2

City of San Bernardino Page 2 of 5
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.

SB 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 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. 56 housing bills signed into law.

Response:

Thank you for providing a list of recent legislation. The City will review these as applicable as development applications are submitted.

Program 1.5:

Consider modeling the proposed ADU program after the City of San Diego’s ADU bonus program.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

Program 1.5c and Program 2.5b:

Consider modeling the proposed “One Stop Shop” after City of Riverside’s “One Stop Shop”.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

Program 2.7c and d:

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 turnaround 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.

Ms. Maribel Nunez
Inland Equity Community Land Trust and San Bernardino Tenants Union Chapter February 5, 2024
Page | 3

City of San Bernardino Page 3 of 5
Response:

Thank you for your comment. When partnering, the City must adhere to procurement and funding requirements that will dictate specific partnerships.

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).

Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Program 3.5b and 3.7:

Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Program 4.5:

Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Program 4.7:

Consider partnering with the following consultants:

3. LeSar

4. Development Consultants

8. Terner

9. Center UC Berkeley
Response:

Thank you for your comment. When partnering, the City must adhere to procurement and funding requirements that will dictate specific partnerships.

Program 4.8:

Ms. Maribel Nunez
Inland Equity Community Land Trust and San Bernardino Tenants Union Chapter February 5, 2024
Page | 4

City of San Bernardino Page 4 of 5
Partner with SBCTA for the Regional Housing Trust Fund.

Response:

Thank Mayor and City Council approved a letter of Intent to join the SBCTA.

Program 5.4:

Persuade County Supervisors to provide municipal bonds for SBVC mixed-used student housing.

Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Program 5.6:

Consider partnering with Community Solutions for their Built for Zero initiative for cities to achieve functional zero homelessness.

Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Invest in shelter bed creation for interim and permanent supportive housing for populations experiencing homelessness.

Response:

The City recently approved a motel voucher program, establishing a Navigation Center, providing funding to local non -profits through the Community Development Block Grant Program , and working with with non-profit organizations through the HomeKey program.

Additional comments:

Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

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.

Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

The General Plan update is currently underway and would be the document to evaluate the noted opportunities for higher density and circulation.

Ms. Maribel Nunez
Inland Equity Community Land Trust and San Bernardino Tenants Union Chapter February 5, 2024
Page | 5

City of San Bernardino Page 5 of 5
Consider the Following 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.

Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Consider the Following Shared Equity Models
Community land trusts and co-op, work with existing CLT’s and co-op Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Concerns:

Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Typos:

Correct SB 2011 to AB 2011
Response:

Comment noted.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We look forward to the completion of the City’s 2021 – 2029 Housing Element , its adoption and certification by the Department of Housing and Community Development, and its implementation to assist our San Bernardino community.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Lanier
Interim Community Development and Housing Director

Mayor and City CouncilFebruary 21, 2024

Mayor and City Council
February 21, 2024