DISCUSSION
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: September 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Cassandra Searcy
Department: Community Development & Housing
Subject: Policy Options for Shelter Operations, Local Prioritization Requirements
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California receive and file the report; discuss policy options, and provide direction to staff regarding the preferred policy framework.
City Manager's Comments
This is a report for the City Council to consider and provide direction. In addition, we are bringing forward 3 specific ordinances.
Executive Summary
At the direction of the City Council meeting on September 17, 2025, item #19, the council approved for staff to evaluate the feasibility of various policy approaches related to shelter operations, local service prioritization, data reporting, security planning, and community impact mitigation for homeless service providers operating within the City of San Bernardino.
The evaluation included a review of legal authority, funding considerations, operational impacts, and potential implications for providers receiving County, State, or federal funding. This report presents several policy options for Council consideration, including regulatory, contractual, and partnership-based approaches, and identifies the associated benefits, constraints, implementation considerations, and legal risks of each option.
Background
On September 17, 2025, under Agenda Item No. 19, the City Council directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of implementing operational and accountability requirements for all public and private homeless shelters, interim housing facilities, recuperative care centers, and similar facilities operating within the City of San Bernardino. Specifically, the Council requested that staff assess the feasibility of requiring facilities to:
•Reserve a minimum of 40% of beds for City residents;
•Provide shareable participant data and six-month outcome tracking (as permitted by law);
•Submit annual 12-month security plans for City approval; •Reimburse the City for nuisance complaints and increased service demands; and
•Complete interior and exterior facility upgrade consistent with City standards.
In response to the City Council's direction, staff completed a comprehensive review of applicable federal and state laws, relevant court decisions and legal precedent, funding and contractual considerations, operational impacts, and potential fiscal implications.
Staff also evaluated current best practices and the potential effects of these requirements on shelter operations and service delivery. The findings of this analysis, along with the staff's recommendations, are presented for the City Council's consideration.
Discussion
Council Direction
On September 17, 2025, Councilmember Knaus directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of requiring homeless shelters, interim housing facilities, recuperative care centers, and similar facilities operating within the City to reserve a minimum percentage of beds for City residents and comply with related reporting, security, reimbursement, and facility standards.
Staff have conducted a preliminary legal and policy review and identified several significant authorities, funding, and liability considerations that require formal guidance from the City Attorney before presenting a final recommendation to Council.
Legal and Operational Findings
Staff's analysis identified a couple of considerations associated with implementing mandatory shelter requirements, including the City's authority to impose operational mandates, funding or regulatory nexus, State and federal funding requirements, privacy restrictions on participant data, and operational impacts on providers participating in regional referral systems.
As a result, staff evaluated multiple approaches for advancing the objectives identified in the original directive while minimizing legal exposure and implementation challenges.
Evaluation of Policy Options:
Option 1 – Hybrid Contract-Based and Prospective Regulatory Model Description
Under this approach, the City would apply operational requirements where it maintains the strongest legal authority, specifically:
•Conditioning City funding (e.g., ESG, CDBG, HOME, General Fund, or other local assistance) on a defined local prioritization requirement (e.g., 5–10 percent or priority preference);
•Requiring aggregated, de-identified outcome reporting consistent with State and Federal law;
•Requiring annual security or community management plans through funding agreements; and
•Applying operational standards prospectively to new or substantially modified facilities through discretionary land use approvals (e.g., Conditional Use Permits). There are some facilities that must be processed ministerially per state law.
Legal and Policy Considerations
•Legal Authority: Based on established principles of contract law and land use authority.
•Funding Nexus: Clear nexus where City funds are provided. •Preemption Risk: Reduced if structured in alignment with HUD, CoC, and State program requirements.
•Enforcement: Enforceable through contract remedies and land use compliance mechanisms.
•Operational Impact: Targeted application limits disruption to non-City-funded providers.
Option 2 – City-Led Shelter Partnership and Implementation Framework (Collaborative Model)
Description
This option would establish a structured, City-led Shelter Partnership Framework designed to advance local prioritization, operational accountability, and community impact mitigation through collaborative agreements rather than universal mandates.
The City would convene shelter operators, County Office of Homeless Services representatives, Continuum of Care leadership, and relevant City departments to develop standardized partnership tools and implementation strategies.
Core components may include:
1.Legal and Funding Alignment
Clarification of permissible requirements and identification of funding-based leverage opportunities consistent with State and Federal law.
2.Good Neighbor and Community Impact Framework
Development of standardized Good Neighbor Agreement templates, communication protocols, and clearly defined City support roles.
3.Standardized Referral and System Alignment
Improved integration with Coordinated Entry, formalized referral pathways to Rapid Rehousing and Permanent Supportive Housing, and legally compliant data-sharing protocols.
4.Funded Partnership Tools
•Targeted bed reservation agreements through negotiated MOUs supported by funding;
•Surge capacity agreements for weather-related or emergency activation; •Infrastructure or operational support incentives aligned with available resources.
5.Pilot Programs with Defined Metrics
Time-limited partnership pilots incorporating measurable outcomes and renewal or sunset provisions.
Legal and Policy Considerations
•Legal Authority: Based on voluntary agreements and contractual authority where funding is provided.
•Preemption Risk: Minimal if structured in coordination with County and CoC partners.
•Operational Impact: Strengthens system alignment without imposing unfunded mandates.
•Litigation Risk: Low relative to universal regulatory mandates.
Preliminary Assessment
This option advances Council’s policy objectives through structured collaboration, measurable agreements, and targeted funding tools while minimizing legal exposure and preserving provider autonomy.
Strategic Goals and Priorities
This item is consistent with Strategic Target and Goal No. 3, Improved Quality of Life:
Reduce the impacts of homelessness through coordinated engagement, strategic partnerships, and expanded access to housing and supportive services. The HSAO supports the City’s commitment to improving quality of life by implementing data- informed strategies that strengthen system coordination, enhance housing stability, and connect individuals and families experiencing homelessness to critical resources Fiscal Impact
Should the City require a homeless shelter operator to reserve or allocate shelter beds specifically for City referrals, and if sufficient grant or external funding is unavailable to support those beds, there may be a financial impact to the General Fund. The City could be responsible for costs associated with shelter operations, supportive services, case management, or bed utilization necessary to maintain the reserved capacity.
The extent of any General Fund impact will depend on the number of beds allocated, the duration of the commitment, available grant funding, and the ability to secure regional cost-sharing or other funding sources. Staff will continue to pursue external funding opportunities and regional partnerships to minimize any potential General Fund obligation.
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California receive and file the report; discuss policy options, and provide direction to staff regarding the preferred policy framework.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - PowerPoint
Ward:
All Wards
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:
Councilmember Knaus requested an evaluation of a policy framework that would require shelters operating within the City to reserve a minimum percentage of beds for City residents, and to comply with related reporting, security, reimbursement, and facility standards.
CC
Eric Levitt, City Manager