Twentynine Palms City Council
April 14, 2026

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 4 OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5 OCTOBER 2025
Geographies
San Bernardino Region’s 24 jurisdictions and the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors work collectively as the San Bernardino Council of Governments to address regional matters. The jurisdictions that make up the San Bernardino Council of Governments are shown in Figure 1, Incorporated and Unincorporated Areas in San Bernardino County.

Figure 1. Incorporated and Unincorporated Areas in San Bernardino County Source: Dudek 2022.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 6 OCTOBER 2025
SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization for a six-county region, including San Bernardino Region, which is shown in Figure 2, San Bernardino County in the SCAG Region.

Figure 2. San Bernardino County in the SCAG Region
Source: Dudek 2022.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 7 OCTOBER 2025
The San Bernardino Region spans over 20,000 square miles and is the largest county in the lower 48 states. It includes 24 cities and the unincorporated portion of the county includes more than 80 communities. To support effective planning that reflects the Region’s size, diversity, and varied topography, the Region is divided into six distinct subregions. Each subregion represents a different set of geographic features, community characteristics, and housing challenges across the Region. The subregions are shown in Figure 3, Subregions in the San Bernardino Region, and are detailed in Table 1, Subregional Overview.

Figure 3. Subregions in the San Bernardino Region

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 8 OCTOBER 2025
Table 1. Subregional Overview
Subregion and Description Jurisdictions and Communities within Subregion San Bernardino Valley: The San Bernardino Valley is
the most urban area in the Region. It is the Region’s
center of population and economic activity, with a
wide mix of housing, jobs, and services. Most of the
Region’s development is concentrated here.

Jurisdictions: Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana,
Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair,
Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San
Bernardino, Upland and Yucaipa.

Unincorporated Communities: Bloomington, Mentone
and Muscoy.

Victor Valley: Victor Valley is located in the western
Mojave Desert and is part of the high desert part of
the region. It has been growing quickly due to more
affordable housing prices, and many people here
commute to jobs in other parts of Southern California.

Jurisdictions: Adelanto, Apple Valley, Hesperia,
Victorville.

Unincorporated Communities: Helendale, Lucerne
Valley, and Phelan.

Mountain Region: The Mountain Region includes
mountain towns like Big Bear Lake and Lake
Arrowhead. It is known for its recreation and tourism,
and includes both permanent homes and vacation
properties. Housing in this area tends to be older,
seasonal, or used as short-term rentals.

Jurisdictions: Big Bear Lake
Unincorporated Communities: Big Bear City, Crestline,
Lake Arrowhead, Running Springs and Wrightwood.

North Desert: The North Desert is one of the largest
subregions geographically. This area is generally rural and remote with smaller communities and military
institutions. Housing challenges include aging
infrastructure and access to resources.

Jurisdictions: Barstow
Unincorporated Communities: Baker, Lenwood,
Newberry Springs, and Yermo within the subregion.

Morongo Basin: The Morongo Basin is located in the
southeastern part of the Region and is home to
Joshua Tree National Park. Due to high tourism, this
area experiences higher rates of short-term rentals,
creating housing pressures and affordability concerns.

Jurisdictions: Yucca Valley and Twentynine Palms
Unincorporated Communities: Joshua Tree
The Colorado River: The Colorado River subregion sits
along the eastern edge of the Region, bordering
Arizona, and is defined by desert terrain and the
Colorado River. Housing is limited and largely made
up of mobile homes, seasonal units, and older singlefamily homes. The local economy relies on tourism and recreation but faces challenges due to its remote
location and limited infrastructure. A recent influx in marijuana-related manufacturing and retail have
created new jobs and the influx in population in
response to these jobs is creating new pressures on
the local housing market.

Jurisdictions: City of Needles

9 OCTOBER 2025
Population
San Bernardino Region is one of the most populous regions in the State of California. In 2022, the Region’s population size was ranked fifth in the State of California and fourth in the SCAG region. Within the Region, the City of San Bernardino was the most populated city in 2022. Population trends in the region from Figure 4, Population Change (2014–2024), and Figure 5, Population Compared to SCAG Region, are provided below. ▪ Between 2014 and 2024, the total population of San Bernardino Region increased from 2,096,526 to 2,184,433, or a net increase of 4.19%.
▪ Population grew constantly from 2014 to 2020, at an average annual rate of about 0.67%, but after 2020 population fell 0.46% to 2,171,694 in 2023. In 2024, the Region recovered its 2020 population levels. ▪ In 2022, the total population of San Bernardino Region accounted for 11.7% of the total population of the SCAG region.
▪ Between 2020 and 2024, Fontana, Ontario, San Bernardino, and Victorville each grew by several thousand.

Ontario grew the most, with a 5,927 person increase, followed by Fontana, which grew by 5,741.

Figure 4. Population Change (2014–2024)
Source: California Department of Finance E-5 and E-8.
2,096,526
2,114,182
2,124,990
2,142,339
2,153,258
2,169,538
2,181,654
2,179,006
2,179,845
2,172,694
2,181,433
2,040,000
2,060,000
2,080,000
2,100,000
2,120,000
2,140,000
2,160,000
2,180,000
2,200,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 10 OCTOBER 2025
Figure 5. Population Compared to SCAG Region
Source: California Department of Finance E-5 2024.

Population by Subregion
While the Region is one of the most populous counties in California, the population is not evenly distributed across the Region, with the majority residing in the San Bernardino Valley subregion. The Region’s population by subregion is detailed in Table 2, Estimated Population by Subregion, San Bernardino Region (2024).

The San Bernardino Valley is the population and economic core of the Region, accounting for approximately 66% of the Region’s total population. It includes major cities such as San Bernardino, Fontana, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Chino. The Victor Valley is the next most populous subregion, with around 16% of the population, reflecting its rapid residential growth over the past 2 decades.

The remaining subregions include the Morongo Basin, Mountain Region, North Desert, and Colorado River areas that are more rural or geographically constrained and collectively account for less than 5% of the Region’s population. These subregions have unique housing challenges, including aging infrastructure, recreational and tourism economies, and limited access to services. In addition, unincorporated communities make up approximately 13.6% of the county’s population and are not included in the subregional totals.

Table 2. Estimated Population by Subregion, San Bernardino Region (2024) Subregion
Estimated Population
(Approximately)
% of Region Total
(Approximately)
San Bernardino Valley 1,466,406 66.64%
Victor Valley 353,775 16.08%
Morongo Basin 46,797 2.13%
Mountain Region 4,977 0.23%

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 11 OCTOBER 2025
Table 2. Estimated Population by Subregion, San Bernardino Region (2024) Subregion
Estimated Population
(Approximately)
% of Region Total
(Approximately)
North Desert 24,947 1.13%
Colorado River 4,817 0.22%
Unincorporated Communities 298,632 13.57%
Total San Bernardino Region 2,200,351 100%
Source: California Department of Finance E-5 (2024).

Note: The population totals shown for each subregion include only incorporated jurisdictions. Population data for specific unincorporated communities is not available at the subregional level and is instead aggregated as "Unincorporated Communities" (298,632 residents). As such, the subregional totals do not capture the full population of each subregion.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 12 OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13 OCTOBER 2025
Economic Characteristics
Households in the Region are directly affected by housing market conditions, where affordability is shaped by factors such as limited supply, rising costs, and local land use policies. Economic and employment trends can identify whether households incomes are aligned with local housing costs and if populations are at-risk of facing poverty. The following section highlights economic and employment trends in the San Bernardino Region.

Home Sales Price
Figure 6, Median Home Sale Price in San Bernardino Region (2000–2023), reflects home sales prices between 2014 and 2023. Between 2020 and 2023, the median home sale price increased by 40%.

Figure 6. Median Home Sale Price in San Bernardino Region (2000–2023) Source: California Employment Development Department. Accessed 7.21.2025. https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/ databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSMoreResult.asp?menuChoice=localAreaPro&criteria=property+values&categoryType=economicindicators &geogArea=0604000071&area=San+Bernardino+County&timeseries=property+valuesTimeSeries. $204
$224
$243
$268
$289
$313
$339
$435
$473 $475
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Sale Price in Thousands

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 14 OCTOBER 2025
Home Rental Price
The average asking rent in San Bernardino Region is shown in Figure 7, Annual Average Asking Rent, San Bernardino Region (2010–2023).
▪ Between 2013 and 2023, the annual average asking rent for a two-bedroom home increased from $1,179 to $1,933, an increase of nearly 64%.
▪ To afford the asking rent for a two-bedroom home of $1,933 without being cost burdened1, a three-person household would need to earn $77,320 annually. According to Table 3, Housing Costs by Jurisdiction, lower-income households of three (earning between 30% and 80% of Area Median Income [AMI]) would not be able to afford the average asking rent for a two-bedroom home.

Figure 7. Average Monthly Asking Rent, San Bernardino Region (2010–2023) Source: California Housing Partnership. 2025. https://chpc.net/housingneeds. 1 A household is considered cost burdened when it spends more than 30% of its gross income on housing costs, including rent and utilities, as defined by HUD.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 15 OCTOBER 2025
Housing Cost by Geography
The Region features a wide variety of housing costs. Home sale prices range from approximately $214,000 median home sale price in Needles to over $944,000 in Chino Hills. Similarly, rent prices range significantly, with the lowest asking price of about $1,400 in Barstow to the highest of about $3,500 in Chino Hills. In general, median home sale price correlates with median rent asking price across jurisdictions. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation (0.93 correlation coefficient) between home prices and median incomes; cities with higher incomes, for example, tend to have higher home prices, and the reverse is true of lower incomes. The same is true of rent prices, although the correlation is slightly weaker (0.79 correlation coefficient2). Table 3, Housing Costs by Jurisdiction, shows median home sale prices and median rent asking prices.

Table 3. Housing Costs by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Median Home Sale Price Median Rent Asking Price San Bernardino Region $518,333 Not available
Chino Hills $944,667 $3,495
Upland $789,917 $2,100
Rancho Cucamonga $754,500 $2,995
Montclair $713,167 (list price) $1,900
Chino $701,750 $3,130
Ontario $666,500 $2,350
Loma Linda $660,800 (list price) $1,999
Fontana $646,250 $2,200
Redlands $614,167 $2,100
Grand Terrace $607,817 (list price) $1,700
Big Bear Lake $574,250 $2,250
Yucaipa $571,750 $1,850
Rialto $569,667 $1,825
Highland $553,333 $1,850
Colton $498,667 (list price) $1,873
San Bernardino $481,667 $1,595
Hesperia $453,333 $2,100
Apple Valley $436,667 $1,995
Victorville $424,167 $2,200
Adelanto $380,833 $1,500
Yucca Valley $365,479 $1,800
Barstow $291,333 (list price) $1,395
Twentynine Palms $221,667 $1,500
Needles $213,967 (list price) $1,500
Sources: Zillow (n.d.). Rental Market Trends. Data retrieved April 2025. https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/ and Housing Market. Data retrieved April 2025. https://www.zillow.com/home-values/3250/san-bernardino-county-ca/ Note: Where the median sale price was not available, the list price was used, as indicated in the table. 2 A correlation coefficient is a statistical measure that quantifies the strength of the relationship between two variables. A perfect correlation is given a coefficient of 1; a correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no correlation whatsoever.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 16 OCTOBER 2025
Income
Understanding income distribution is essential to evaluating housing affordability and shaping programs for the San Bernardino Regional Housing Trust. This section begins by defining key terms such as AMI and income limits used by HUD and HCD to classify households as Extremely Low-Income, Very Low-Income, Low-Income, or Moderate-Income. These definitions provide the basis for assessing housing need and targeting funding across the region.

The remainder of this section analyzes income distribution by geography and household size, providing a nuanced view of the economic conditions that shape housing outcomes across San Bernardino Region.

What is Area Median Income (AMI)?
▪ Area Median Income (AMI) is the midpoint of a specific area’s income distribution. ▪ It is used to determine eligibility for subsidized affordable housing. ▪ It is calculated each year by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and then adapted for California by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

How Does It Work?
▪ HUD looks at income data for all households in a region—like the San Bernardino Region. ▪ It finds the middle income: half of households earn more, and half earn less, which is the median income.
▪ HUD then adjusts the number by household size, since a family of six requires a larger income than a single person.
▪ HCD takes HUD’s data and makes further adjustments to establish income categories for California housing programs.
▪ These limits define income categories—like “very low income” (50% of AMI) or “low income” (80% of AMI)—that help determine eligibility for affordable housing.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 17 OCTOBER 2025
Table 4, 2024 HCD Income Limits – San Bernardino County, shows the 2024 HUD Income limits for low-, very low-, and extremely low-income (ELI) groups by number of persons in a family. Income limits show how a household’s income compares to the AMI and place them into categories like Extremely Low-Income, Very Low-Income, Low-Income, or Moderate-Income. These categories determine eligibility for affordable housing programs and help target resources to households most in need.

These income limit numbers reflect what is considered affordable in San Bernardino County based on household size and local median income.

Table 4. 2024 HCD Income Limits – San Bernardino County Income Category
Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Moderate-Income
(120% AMI)
81,960 94,680 105,840 117,120 127,080 126,350 135,700 145,100 Low-Income
(80% of AMI)
57,400 65,600 73,800 82,000 88,600 95,150 101,650 108,250 Very Low-Income
(50% of AMI)
35,900 41,000 46,100 51,250 55,350 59,450 63,550 67,650 Extremely
Low-Income
(30% of AMI)
21,550 24,600 27,700 31,200 36,580 41,960 47,340 52,720 Median Income 68,250 78,000 87,750 97,500 105,300 113,100 120,900 128,700 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (2024). 2024 State Income Limits. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2024.pdf.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 18 OCTOBER 2025
Figure 8, Median Household Income (2016–2024), shows the median income for a family of four from 2016 to 2024.
▪ The 4-year period of 2016 to 2020 saw an increase in median household income of about 16% (average 4% per year); however, the increase from 2020 to 2024 was significantly higher at approximately 24%, or 6% per year.
▪ During the same two time periods, asking rent price increased about 22% (2016 to 2020) and 17% (2020 to 2024). The median home sale price increased by an even greater degree, seeing an increase of 40% from 2020 to 2023. This suggests that increases in rental and home prices outpaced household income increases.

Figure 8. Median Household Income (2016–2024)
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2016, 2020, and 2024. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 19 OCTOBER 2025
Figure 9, Income Category Distribution, provides a comprehensive understanding of the distribution of various income groups, based on HUD income categories, and highlights the wealth gap as lower-income groups make up 40% of the households while moderate-income and above moderate-income groups make up 60%.

ELI households, those earning below 30% of the AMI, in the Region are disproportionately made up of renters, who are the most at-risk of displacement caused by sudden rent increases. Consequently, ELI households that are at-risk of losing their housing due to high housing costs are more vulnerable to experiencing instances of homelessness.

Because these households have little to no financial cushion, even modest rent increases or unexpected expenses— such as a medical bill or job loss—can lead to housing instability. When affordable housing options are unavailable, this instability often escalates into homelessness. National and state research consistently shows that rent burden, overcrowding, and eviction are strong predictors of entry into homelessness, particularly among ELI renters.

Figure 9. Income Category Distribution
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. 2017–2021 ACS, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html.
29,100 34,115
59,190
41,545
230,300
52,080 45,710
54,135
28,225
77,345
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Below 30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI Above 100% AMI Owner Renter

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 20 OCTOBER 2025
Income by Geography
Further detailing income in the Region, Table 5, Income Limits by Jurisdiction, displays the incomes, per jurisdiction, that correspond with the median income, low-income, very low-income, and ELI categories. While official income limits are based on the Region’s AMI, this data is provided to illustrate how income levels vary geographically across the Region. It helps contextualize where households in different jurisdictions may fall related to HUD and HCD defined income limits in each of the respective categories.

Table 5. Income Limits by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Median
Income
Low-Income
(80% of AMI)
Very Low-Income
(50% of AMI)
Extremely LowIncome (30% of
AMI)
Total San Bernardino Region $82,184 $65,747 $41,092 $24,655 Chino Hills $122,600 $98,080 $61,300 $36,780
Rancho Cucamonga $109,511 $87,609 $54,756 $32,853
Chino $103,845 $83,076 $51,923 $31,154
Upland $101,407 $81,126 $50,704 $30,422
Redlands $99,158 $79,326 $49,579 $29,747
Fontana $98,187 $78,550 $49,094 $29,456
Yucaipa $92,401 $73,921 $46,201 $27,720
Rialto $85,521 $68,417 $42,761 $25,656
Grand Terrace $83,668 $66,934 $41,834 $25,100
Loma Linda $82,824 $66,259 $41,412 $24,847
Ontario $82,806 $66,245 $41,403 $24,842
Highland $77,979 $62,383 $38,990 $23,394
Montclair $76,338 $61,070 $38,169 $22,901
Big Bear Lake $74,728 $59,782 $37,364 $22,418
Victorville $70,663 $56,530 $35,332 $21,199
Colton $69,581 $55,665 $34,791 $20,874
Hesperia $68,971 $55,177 $34,486 $20,691
Adelanto $68,419 $54,735 $34,210 $20,526
Apple Valley $65,926 $52,741 $32,963 $19,778
San Bernardino $63,988 $51,190 $31,994 $19,196
Twentynine Palms $56,000 $44,800 $28,000 $16,800
Yucca Valley $55,302 $44,241 $27,651 16,590
Barstow $51,811 $41,449 $25,906 $15,543
Needles $39,876 $31,901 $19,938 $11,963
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2019–2023.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 21 OCTOBER 2025
To better geographically display the proportional share of households that fall into HUD’s income limits, the next three figures show the share of household incomes by census tract across the Region. Household incomes vary across the Region. Figure 10, Median Household Income in the San Bernardino Region, displays the median income per census tract. This shows higher median incomes in darker purple and lower median incomes in lighter purple.

Figure 10. Median Household Income in the San Bernardino Region Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), American Community Survey 2018–2022.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 22 OCTOBER 2025
Lower-income households are not evenly distributed throughout the Region with higher rates of lower-income households near or in Victorville, Hesperia and Yucca Valley as shown in Figure 11, Distribution of Lower-Income Households.

Figure 11. Distribution of Lower-income Households
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014–2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data; Dudek, 2022.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 23 OCTOBER 2025
Understanding where high rates of poverty exist is helpful in understanding where there is a need for affordable housing. The most rural parts of the Region tend to have higher rates of poverty. Figure 12, Poverty in the San Bernardino Region, displays the percentage of poverty by census tract.

Figure 12. Poverty Status in the San Bernardino Region
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 24 OCTOBER 2025
Income levels across the Region vary by subregion, reflecting local economic conditions, housing markets, and workforce patterns. As shown in Table 6, Average Household Income by Subregion (2024), San Bernardino Valley, as the Region’s economic and employment center, has the highest average median household income, followed by the Mountain Region. Subregions like the North Desert, Morongo Basin, and Colorado River report significantly lower income levels, underscoring the disparities in economic opportunity across the region.

Table 6. Average Household Income by Subregion (2024)
Subregion
Median
Income
Low-Income
(80% AMI)
Very Low-Income
(50% AMI)
Extremely Low-Income
(30% AMI)
San Bernardino Valley $89,988 $71,990 $44,994 $26,996
Victor Valley3 $68,495* $54,796* $34,248* $20,549*
Mountain Region $74,728 $59,782 $37,364 $22,418
North Desert $51,811 $41,449 $25,906 $15,543
Morongo Basin $55,651 $44,520 $27,825 $16,695
Colorado River $39,876 $31,901 $19,938 $11,963
Sources: Data based on 2024 median household income estimates by jurisdiction. Low, Very Low, and Extremely Low-Income thresholds are calculated as 80%, 50%, and 30% of median income respectively, consistent with HUD guidelines.

3 Victor Valley average includes Adelanto, Apple Valley, Hesperia, and Victorville.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 25 OCTOBER 2025
Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as households that spend over 30% of their gross income on housing costs. Housing cost burden is considered to be “severe” for households spending over 50% of their gross income on housing costs.

Housing cost burden can occur for renters or homeowners and is indicative of a gap in incomes and housing costs.

Figure 13, Income Compared to Rent Prices, provides the average monthly income across major job sectors in the Region compared to the monthly income needed to afford average asking rent of a two-bedroom rental unit. ▪ Based on the average asking rent shown in Figure 13, Income Compared to Rent Prices, a lower-income household (earning 80% or less of AMI) of three would not be able to afford the monthly income needed to afford the average asking rent for a two-bedroom unit in the Region without being considered cost burdened.
▪ Average wages for the industries highlighted in Figure 13, Income Compared to Rent Prices, would be considered severely cost burdened as the average rent exceeds monthly income by more than 50%. ▪ Renters need to earn 2.3 times the minimum wage to afford the average asking rent.

Figure 13. Income Compared to Rent Prices
Source: California Housing Partnership. Accessed June 2023. https://chpc.net/housingneeds/.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 26 OCTOBER 2025
The issue of housing affordability is further illustrated in Figure 14, Household Cost Burden by Tenure, which shows the share of owner and renter households that are considered cost burdened by their housing costs. Households that spend more than 30%, but less than or equal to 50%, of their gross incomes on housing costs are considered cost burdened; and households that spend more than 50% of their gross incomes on housing costs are considered to be severely cost burdened. Figure 14, Household Cost Burden by Tenure, highlights the following:
▪ 28% of owner households are cost burdened, and 11% are severely cost burdened. ▪ Renter households are disproportionately impacted by cost burden: 52% of renters are cost burdened, and 27% are severely cost burdened.

Figure 14. Household Housing Cost Burden by Tenure
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2017–2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Owner Renter
Cost burden > 30% Cost burden > 50%

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 27 OCTOBER 2025
Table 7, Housing Cost Burden by Jurisdiction, below, provides data on housing cost burden throughout the San Bernardino Region. When considering severe housing cost burden, Victorville, Needles, Montclair, Adelanto, and Highland saw the highest rates of renters experiencing these conditions and the areas with the highest rates of homeowners with severe housing cost burden are Big Bear Lake, Apple Valley, Ontario, and Yucca Valley. Housing cost burden in the region has remained relatively stable in the past 6 years.

Table 7. Housing Cost Burden by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Renter Housing
Cost Burden
Renter Severe
Housing Cost
Burden
Homeowner
Housing Cost
Burden
Homeowner
Severe
Housing Cost
Burden
Total San Bernardino Region4 55.2% 28.9% 30.5% 12.9%
Adelanto 49.0% 36.4% 32.8% 9.6%
Apple Valley 58.6% 31.8% 31.0% 15.3%
Barstow 50.9% 24.8% 22.9% 13.8%
Big Bear Lake 54.8% 23.2% 29.9% 17.6%
Chino 56.4% 27.5% 31.3% 13.1%
Chino Hills 57.7% 26.3% 28.4% 12.0%
Colton 56.3% 28.3% 33.2% 12.7%
Fontana 50.1% 26.6% 32.0% 12.5%
Grand Terrace 53.2% 20.0% 24.5% 12.7%
Hesperia 55.9% 31.5% 34.6% 14.4%
Highland 62.6% 35.7% 28.4% 11.6%
Loma Linda 56.2% 30.7% 20.3% 10.0%
Montclair 61.3% 36.7% 27.8% 10.6%
Needles 53.4% 37.1% 26.6% 12.9%
Ontario 58.6% 32.2% 35.0% 15.0%
Rancho Cucamonga 54.8% 25.5% 32.2% 13.6%
Redlands 47.3% 20.2% 24.7% 9.3%
Rialto 55.5% 27.0% 30.9% 13.8%
San Bernardino 60.9% 32.8% 31.5% 12.0%
Twentynine Palms 45.7% 17.1% 26.0% 13.0%
Upland 53.9% 24.5% 26.0% 10.3%
Victorville 58.6% 37.2% 32.3% 14.7%
Yucaipa 51.1% 22.5% 27.3% 10.5%
Yucca Valley 62.2% 29.7% 29.1% 15.1%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months. 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates. B25070. Data retrieved May 2025.

U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Mortgage Status by Selected Monthly Owner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months. 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates. B25091. Data retrieved May 2025.

Note: Housing Burden is defined as spending 30% or more of a household’s income on housing. Severe Housing Burden is defined as spending 50% or more of a household’s gross income on housing. 4 Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) for San Bernardino County includes both incorporated cities and unincorporated areas. The ACS does not provide separate estimates for unincorporated areas alone.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 28 OCTOBER 2025
Housing cost burden also varies by subregion, as shown in Table 8, Housing Cost Burden by Subregion. Across every subregion in the Region, more than half of renter households are cost burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. The San Bernardino Valley, the Region’s urban core, shows a high cost burden among both renters and homeowners. Victor Valley stands out with the highest severe cost burden among renters (34.2%).

The Mountain Region reports the highest severe burden among homeowners (17.6%). Even in the more rural North Desert and Colorado River areas, renter cost burden remains above 50%, highlighting housing affordability challenges across the Region.

Table 8. Housing Cost Burden by Subregion
Subregion
Renter Cost
Burden
Severe Renter
Cost Burden
Owner Cost
Burden
Severe Owner
Cost Burden
San Bernardino Valley 55.7% 27.8% 28.9% 12.0%
Victor Valley5 55.5% 34.2% 32.7% 13.5%
Morongo Basin 54.0% 23.4% 27.6% 14.0%
Mountain Region 54.8% 23.2% 29.9% 17.6%
North Desert 50.9% 24.8% 22.9% 13.8%
Colorado River 53.4% 37.1% 26.6% 12.9%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018–2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. Renter data from Table B25070; homeowner data from Table B25091.

Methodology: Subregional values are calculated by averaging cost burden rates across incorporated jurisdictions within each subregion. Unincorporated areas are not included due to data limitations. 5 Victor Valley includes the cities of Adelanto, Apple Valley, Hesperia, and Victorville.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 29 OCTOBER 2025
Regional Commute Patterns
In addition to housing costs, transportation is typically the second largest household expenditure. Figure 15, Average Percent of Income Spent on Housing and Transportation Costs, factors both housing and transportation costs to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the true cost of housing. For example, people who live further from their job for may have access to lower housing costs, but will often spend a greater amount of their income on transportation costs. In the San Bernardino region, the average combined housing and transportation costs total 50% of household income.

Figure 15. Average Percent of Income Spent on Housing and Transportation Costs Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology (2023). Housing and Transportation Index. https://htaindex.cnt.org/map/#. 28%
22%
50%
Housing Transportation Remaining Income

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 30 OCTOBER 2025
In 2022, the San Bernardino Region employed 841,944 workers, including those who live in nearby counties. Further, 942,708 residents of the Region were employed, whether they worked within the Region or elsewhere. Figure 16, Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs), shows the commute patterns of both residents and those employed in San Bernardino County. 52.3% of workers employed in San Bernardino region also live in the Region. 15.8% of the workers in the Region reside in Los Angeles County, and 18.1% of workers in the Region reside in Riverside County. ▪ Most workers employed in the Region reside in the City of Ontario (17.2%), followed by the City San Bernardino (16.2%), and Rancho Cucamonga (10.4%).
▪ 18.1% of working residents in the Region work in adjacent Riverside County, and 15.8% of residents work in Los Angeles County.
▪ Workers in the Region are primarily employed in the following industries: transportation and warehousing (16.1%), healthcare and social assistance (15.4%), and accommodation and food services (8.3%).

It should be noted that total trips decreased from 73 million in 2019 to 45 million in 2021/2022 due to travel restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a total reduction in travel activity of 39%. The majority of trips (85%) were local within the Region. Proportions of total trip purposes, whether from home to a non-workplace location, from home to the workplace and back, or trips that did not come or go from home, remained the same between 2019 to 2021/2022. 6
Figure 16. Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. 6 Fehr & Peers “Travel Patterns: San Bernadino County” and “Travel Patters: Unincorporated Area”. Accessed September 7, 2022.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 31 OCTOBER 2025
In dispersed areas, households often own more vehicles than those in urbanized areas due to the need to drive farther distances to access jobs, services, and other daily needs, which in turn drives up the cost of living. The annual household transportation cost in San Bernardino County is approximately $17,487. Households own an average of 2.02 vehicles, and households drive an average of 19,228 miles per year. Figure 17, Region’s Residents Distance to Work, summarizes the distance County residents drive from home to work. ▪ The majority of workers (38.7%) live less than 10 miles from work, and approximately 25% live within 10 miles to 24 miles from work.
▪ Despite that most workers commute less than 10 miles, only 2% of workers ride public transit to get to work, suggesting the public transit network does not provide an efficient mode of transportation for commuting.

Figure 17. Region’s Residents Distance to Work
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/.

15.5%

19.5%

26.2%

38.7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
More than 50 miles
25 to 50 miles
10 to 24 miles
Less than 10 miles

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 32 OCTOBER 2025
Annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household generally increases outside of urban areas. Within urban environments, VMT averages below 16,000, but in more rural areas VMT often averages between 18,500 and 21,000, as shown on Figure 18, Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled per Household.

Figure 18. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled per Household
Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology (2025). H+T Index. https://htaindex.cnt.org/map/#.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 33 OCTOBER 2025
The distribution of and transportation costs as a percentage of income is shown in Figure 19, Transportation Costs as a Percentage of Income.

Figure 19. Transportation Costs as a Percentage of Income Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology (2025). H+T Index. https://htaindex.cnt.org/map/#.

As shown in Figure 19, Transportation Costs as a Percentage of Income, proportional transportation cost varies throughout the Region, generally increasing closer to the southwest corner of the Region where the cities of Ontario, Fontana, San Bernardino, and other highly populated areas are located. The eastern and high desert portions of the Region tend to have lower transportation costs but also lower median incomes. While the cost of housing is relatively more affordable in these areas, the overall cost of living may not be as affordable. The combined burden of housing and transportation may account for a larger share of household income, reducing the amount available for other necessities.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 34 OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

35 OCTOBER 2025
Housing Stock, Production, and Needs
The following section highlights housing characteristics such as stock, tenure, and market trends, which is important to understanding the types of housing-related needs the Region Housing Stock
In 2024, the San Bernardino Region was estimated to have 753,826 housing units. The total number of housing units in the San Bernardino Region from 2012 to 2024, as a share of the SCAG region’s housing stock, is illustrated in Figure 20, Number of Housing Units (2012–2024).

From 2012 to 2024, the total number of housing units in San Bernardino increased from by 50,035 units (7.11% increase). The SCAG region mirrors this rate of increase, with the total number of housing units increasing by 488,445 units (7.7%).

Figure 20. Number of Housing Units (2012–2024)
Source: California Department of Finance, E-8, 2000 and 2010; E-5, 2024. 703,791 714,421 731,899 753,826
6,358,375 6,470,406 6,644,499 6,846,820
0 1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
2012 2016 2020 2024
San Bernardino County SCAG Region

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 36 OCTOBER 2025
Housing Production
The total number of residential permits issued in San Bernardino Region are illustrated in Figure 21, Total Residential Units Permitted in San Bernardino Region (2018–2024). ▪ In recent years, residential unit permitting across the region has increased overall, through some year-toyear fluctuation. From 2020 to 2021, residential permitting increased by 60%, reaching a high of 7,330 units. Annual permitting decreased slightly between 2022 and 2024 but remained higher than pre-2020 levels.

Figure 21. Total Residential Units Permitted and Completed in San Bernardino County (2018–2024)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) (2018–2023), Annual Progress Reports – Data Dashboard and Downloads. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-element-implementation-andapr-dashboard. 4,287
5,721
4,560
7,330
7,012
6,593
5,764
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Permitted (Building Permit)

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 37 OCTOBER 2025
Housing Needs
Figure 22, Affordable Home Need, shows the number of very low-income and ELI renter households compared to the available number of affordable and available rental homes in the Region. There are approximately 86,329 renter households classified as very low-income or ELI, while only 25,670 affordable and available rental units exist to serve them. This results in a gap of 60,659 units, indicating a need of affordable rental housing for the lowestincome households in the Region.

Figure 22. Affordable Home Need
Source: California Housing Partnership. 2023. https://chpc.net/housingneeds. 39,511
15,475
46,818
20,000 10,195
10,000
0 80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
100,000
90,000
Rental Households Affordable and Available Rental Homes Very Low Income Extremely Low Income
60,659

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 38 OCTOBER 2025
San Bernardino Region is planned to accommodate 138,110 residential units through 2029 per the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology. Planned means providing sufficient zoning capacity to accommodate the RHNA. The SCAG region overall is planned to accommodate 1,341,827 residential units through 2029. Figure 23, 5th and 6th Cycle RHNA and Production, shows the progress made towards the identified housing need for the years 2013 to 2021 and the progress made, so far, for the identified housing need for the years 2021 to 2029. Production refers to the number of units for which building permits have been issued. ▪ The 5th Cycle RHNA Allocation for the San Bernardino Region was 22,663 units for lower-income and 34,543 units for moderate-income and above moderate-income. ▪ The Region achieved 14% of its lower-income RHNA unit target and 100% of its moderate-income and above moderate-income RHNA unit target for the 5th Cycle. ▪ The 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation for the San Bernardino Region increased by 154% for lower-income units and increased by 133% for moderate-income and above moderate-income from the 5th Cycle. ▪ So far in the 6th Cycle, as of 2024, the Region has achieved about 4% of its lower-income RHNA allocation and about 30% of its moderate/above moderate-income RHNA allocation. Approximately 4 years remain in the 6th Cycle. The Region would have to produce 55,228 lower-income units and 56,183 moderate-/above moderate-income units to meet its RHNA allocation.

Figure 23. 5th and 6th Cycle RHNA and Production
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) Data by Jurisdiction and Year. Accessed July 2025.

Note: 6th Cycle unit production data is current as of December 2024. 22,663
34,543
57,570
80,540
3,150
34,569
2,342
24,357
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
5th Cycle
RHNA Production
6th Cycle

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 39 OCTOBER 2025
Persons Experiencing Homelessness
The shortfall of housing for lower-income households directly impacts the unsheltered population, as lower-income households struggle to compete for the low availability of affordable housing. An insufficient supply of affordable housing leaves vulnerable households with few options and exacerbates issues such as household overcrowding and homelessness.

As shown in Figure 24, Households Experiencing Homelessness in San Bernardino County (2018–2024), there is an upward trend in the number of persons experiencing homeless in the region. The number of shelters and housing needed to serve those experiencing homelessness has not kept pace, and this has led to a greater increase in homelessness.
▪ From 2020 to 2024, the number of persons experiencing homelessness increased by 36.2%. The sharpest increase within this time series was from 2022 to 2023, which saw an increase in the number of persons experiencing homelessness of 862, or a 25.9% increase.
▪ Many factors likely contributed to this increase, including job loss due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and increasing housing costs.

Figure 24. Households Experiencing Homelessness in San Bernardino County (2018 2024) Source: San Bernardino County Homeless Count and Subpopulation Survey. 2018–2024. 675 687 735
944
1,219 1,200
1,443
1,920
2,390
2,389
2,976 3,055
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Sheltered Unsheltered

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 40 OCTOBER 2025
Overcrowding
While understanding the gap between the cost of housing and incomes provide insight into the Region’s housing need; data on household overcrowding can provide additional context on the needs of households. Household overcrowding is defined as more than 1.0 persons per bedroom, and severe household overcrowding is defined as

1.5 persons per bedroom. When housing costs outpace incomes, many will live in overcrowded households.

Household overcrowding can negatively impact the quality of housing for many. Overcrowding can be a result of limited affordable housing supply. Fewer rooms are inherently less expensive, but can result in quality of life issues such as higher risk of spreading communicable diseases.

Figure 25, San Bernardino Region Overcrowding Rates (2018–2023), shows that rates of overcrowding for the region have remained relatively stable over time, fluctuating between 8.8% and 9.1% over the most recent 6 ears available.

Figure 25. San Bernardino Region Overcrowding Rates (2018–2023) Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Selected Housing Characteristics. 2018 - 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates. DP04. Data retrieved May 2025.

Note: Overcrowding is defined as conditions that occur when there is more than one occupant per room in a housing unit.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 41 OCTOBER 2025
Table 9, Overcrowding by Jurisdiction (2023), below, provides information on overcrowding by jurisdiction in the Region. Throughout the Region, approximately 9% of households experience overcrowding. Rialto, Adelanto, Montclair, Fontana, and Ontario see the highest rates of overcrowding throughout the San Bernardino region, each with more than 12% of households experiencing overcrowding.

Table 9. Overcrowding by Jurisdiction (2023)
Jurisdiction Overcrowding
Total San Bernardino Region7 9.0%
Adelanto 13.9%
Apple Valley 6.8%
Barstow 7.2%
Big Bear Lake 4.6%
Chino 6.6%
Chino Hills 3.2%
Colton 11.3%
Fontana 12.8%
Grand Terrace 6.9%
Hesperia 7.6%
Highland 10.6%
Loma Linda 5.3%
Montclair 12.9%
Needles 3.3%
Ontario 12.5%
Rancho Cucamonga 5.3%
Redlands 5.1%
Rialto 15.4%
San Bernardino 3.6%
Twentynine Palms 3.6%
Upland 6.7%
Victorville 9.1%
Yucaipa 3.9%
Yucca Valley 3.2%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Selected Housing Characteristics. 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates. DP04. Data retrieved May 2025.

Note: Overcrowding is defined as conditions that occur when there is more than one occupant per room in a housing unit.

Resources and Barriers
While the Housing Trust provides one tool to help address the Region’s housing needs, housing requires a comprehensive approach from the public and private sectors, including all levels of government from Federal to local. There are many resources and tools available to help meet the housing needs of the Region. This section includes an inventory of existing affordable housing, focused on TCAC funded projects, and reviews local and regional housing policies—such as accessory dwelling unit programs, inclusionary requirements, and zoning tools— 7 Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) for San Bernardino County includes both incorporated cities and unincorporated areas. The ACS does not provide separate estimates for unincorporated areas alone.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 42 OCTOBER 2025
as well as funding sources currently in use. Together, these sections lay the foundation for identifying where additional support, coordination, or investment is needed to meet the region’s critical housing goals.

Figure 26, State and Federal Funding in the San Bernardino Region, reflects funding sources into categories such as State Housing Bonds and Budget Allocations, State Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), Federal LIHTC, and HUD Block Grants. The chart illustrates the monetary amounts allocated in each category for the respective fiscal years and calculates the percentage change between them, providing a clear visual representation of funding trends and shifts over the 2-year period. Overall, the figure shows that in FY 2023–2024, the San Bernardino Region received $99 million in state and federal funding to assist with housing production and preservation. This includes funds directly to qualifying housing projects and funds to jurisdictions and their respective housing authorities.

Additional information summarizing the cost of developing affordable housing in the San Bernardino region and how much local funding contributes to the development of affordable housing refer to Attachment 1, San Bernardino Region Affordable Housing Development Cost and Local Gap Funding.

Figure 26. State and Federal Funding in the San Bernardino Region Source: California Housing Partnership (2025). San Bernardino County 2025 Affordable Housing Needs Report. https://chpc.net/ wp-content/uploads/2024/05/San-Bernardino_Housing_Report-2.pdf. $20,020 $15,990
$663
$21,649
$23,025
$29,929
$60,365
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
FY 2022-2023 FY 2023-2024
Funding (in thousands)
HUD Block Grants + NHTF
Federal LIHTC
State LIHTC
State Housing Bonds and
Housing Programs

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 43 OCTOBER 2025
Affordable Housing Inventory
As of 2025, the TCAC funded affordable housing inventory for the San Bernardino region includes a total of 136 projects and approximately 12,097 housing units for lower-income and moderate-income families and individuals.

As detailed in Table 10, Number of TCAC Funded Affordable Housing Units by Subregion, the projects funded by TCAC from 1990 to 2025 are spread across six subregions of San Bernardino region: San Bernardino Valley, Victor Valley, Morongo Basin, Colorado River, North Desert, and the Mountain region. Most of the affordable housing development has occurred in the San Bernardino Valley, the most urban and densely populated part of the Region.

In total, 8,504 low-income and moderate-income units—over 70% of all units in the inventory—are located in the San Bernardino Valley subregion.

Table 10. Number of TCAC Funded Affordable Housing Units by Subregion Subregion Number of LI-Mod Units Proportional Share
San Bernardino Valley 8,504 70%
Victor Valley 2,046 17%
Morongo Basin 1,037 9%
Colorado River 234 2%
North Desert 235 2%
Mountains 41 0.3%
Total 12,097 100%
The Victor Valley subregion has seen the second highest levels of affordable housing development, with 2,046 units. This area includes cities like Victorville, Hesperia, and Adelanto, where housing needs are growing alongside the population.

In contrast, the Morongo Basin, Colorado River, and North Desert subregions collectively account for fewer than 1,600 affordable units. These areas are generally more rural and geographically dispersed, with development focused in smaller cities like Twentynine Palms, Barstow, and Needles. While project counts are lower, these developments often provide critical housing in underserved areas.

The Mountain subregion, which includes towns like Big Bear Lake and Crestline, has seen the lowest amount of TCAC-supported affordable housing, with just 41 low-mod units—less than 1% of the Regionwide total.

An analysis of TCAC funded affordable housing projects reveals geographic disparities in where low-income and moderate-income units have been developed across the San Bernardino Region. Over 70% of these units are concentrated in the urbanized San Bernardino Valley subregion, while more rural or remote areas—such as the Mountains, North Desert, and Colorado River subregions—collectively account for less than 4% of the Regionwide inventory. These trends reflect a broader pattern of underinvestment in communities that face challenges competing for state and federal housing resources due to factors like smaller populations and lower site scoring under TCAC criteria. TCAC criteria are aligned with other State goals to focus funding on infill housing in areas that have high-quality public transit, high scoring in public schools, and economic indicators such as low rates of poverty, high rates of higher education for adults, and high home values, and low rates of unemployment. This methodology avoids investment in areas where populations have the greatest need. Populations that are facing poverty and

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 44 OCTOBER 2025
unemployment and that lack higher education and high home values are deemed low-opportunity areas that are not invested in by TCAC funds, leaving some of the most vulnerable populations behind with little opportunity for access to affordable housing.

This uneven distribution has important equity implications. Households in underserved subregions may face limited access to affordable housing, longer commutes, and housing instability. Without targeted intervention, these patterns risk reinforcing geographic inequities and leaving rural communities behind.

Figure 27, Affordable Housing Inventory (2025 TCAC), shows the TCAC funded projects in the Region. For a complete inventory of affordable housing projects in the Region—funded through the LIHTC program and reported by the California TCAC—please refer to Appendix A, Current Affordable Housing Inventory. This appendix provides projectlevel details including location, number of units, affordability levels, and year of award.

Figure 27. Affordable Housing Inventory (2025 TCAC)
Addressing the Gap
There is development activity in the Region and further local jurisdictions have identified that there is adequate zoning on sites to accommodate the housing need. The Trust can play a role in bridging the gap between potential development and development opportunities across the Region.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 45 OCTOBER 2025
Pending and Approved Projects
Pending and approved projects represents a pipeline of development that is underway in the Region. The pipeline includes development project applications with affordable housing units reported by jurisdictions in their 2024 Annual Progress Reports as either pending or approved. These projects have submitted their applications in 2024, and some may have already begun construction.

In 2024, pending and approved multifamily projects with five or more units includes 328 units designated for lowincome and very low-income households and 625 units designated for moderate-income households. While jurisdictions reported a total of 5,836 multifamily units across all income levels, this summary focuses specifically on the subset of units that are proposed as lower-income and moderate-income housing.

It should be noted that the affordability levels of units in a project is subject to change throughout the review process, and a development application that includes affordable units does not mean that affordability agreements have been signed. Affordable unit counts may shift due to project revisions, financing availability, or the use of incentives such as California’s Density Bonus Law. External factors like construction costs, interest rates, and infrastructure constraints may also affect whether projects move forward. As such, the figures represent a current snapshot of development activity and may change as projects move through the development process.

Table 11, Pending and Approved Lower-Income Units (2024), provides a jurisdiction-level summary of the number of proposed lower-income and moderate-income units. This data reflects (1) jurisdictions that submitted their Annual Progress Reports and (2) reported projects that were either pending or approved with designated lower-income or moderate-income units. Table 11 shows a total of 953 pending and approved affordable units across five jurisdictions in the region, including 328 lower-income units and 625 moderate-income units. These units are concentrated primarily in Redlands and Yucaipa, with additional contributions from Apple Valley, Hesperia, and San Bernardino City. While Redlands and Yucaipa account for the largest shares of lower-income units, moderate-income units are more prominent in San Bernardino City and Hesperia.

Table 11. Pending and Approved Lower-Income Units (2024) Jurisdiction Number of Lower-Income Units Number of Moderate-Income Units Apple Valley 3 31
Hesperia 34 268
Redlands 75 0
San Bernardino City 0 221
Yucaipa 216 105
Totals 328 625
Source: 2025 Annual Progress Reports (APRs) submitted to HCD, retrieved April 2025.

Housing Element Sites
Table 12, Summary of Available Capacity from Housing Element Site Inventories, presents the number of units jurisdictions identified in their Housing Element site inventories to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA targets. Across the Region, jurisdictions reported capacity for 36,367 lower-income units, 56,595 moderate-income units, and 40,770 above moderate-income units on sites with existing zoning. The data was sourced from HCD and the Department of General Services. Site inventory data was not available for the cities of Chino, Montclair, Needles, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland. However, the cities of Montclair, Needles, and Rancho Cucamonga provided the data.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 46 OCTOBER 2025
Table 12. Summary of Available Capacity from Housing Element Site Inventories Jurisdiction
Number of LowerIncome Units Number of ModerateIncome Units Number of Above
Moderate-Income
Units
Apple Valley 3,886 0 0
Adelanto 876 3,614 3,289
Barstow 304 372 546
Big Bear Lake 0 0 130
Chino Not Available
Chino Hills 892 435 444
Colton 292 827 1,904
Fontana 8,468 2,836 9,658
Grand Terrace 0
Hesperia 0 1,457 3,705
Highland 1,260 507 632
Loma Linda 824 877 790
Montclair 1,734 776 1,631
Needles 1,118 39,740 265
Ontario 305 305 0
Rancho Cucamonga 5,908 0 1,144
Redlands 358 390 162
Rialto 0 563 5317
San Bernardino City 147 753 3,285
San Berardino County 2,864 0 0
Twentynine Palms 1,050 237 729
Upland Not Available
Victorville 4,508 2,463 6,703
Yucaipa 1,215 100 0
Yucca Valley 358 343 436
Source: California Department of General Services, Housing and Local Land Development Opportunities – Projects List. Accessed July 2025. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Projects/Page-Content/Projects-List-Folder/Housing-and-Local-Land-Development-Opportunities.

Table 13, Summary of Rezoning Capacity from Housing Element Site Inventories, presents the number of units jurisdictions identified on sites that will be rezoned to accommodate 6th Cycle RHNA targets. Across the region, jurisdictions reported capacity for 53,604 lower-income units, 9,787 moderate-income units, and 27,889 above moderate-income units on sites requiring rezoning. Jurisdictions not listed in the table do not have a rezoning program as part of their Housing Element.

Table 13. Summary of Rezoning Capacity from Housing Element Site Inventories Jurisdiction
Number of LowerIncome Units Number of ModerateIncome Units Number of Above Moderate-Income Units
Adelanto 449 0 0
Big Bear Lake 85 34 43
Chino Not Available

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 47 OCTOBER 2025
Table 13. Summary of Rezoning Capacity from Housing Element Site Inventories Jurisdiction
Number of LowerIncome Units Number of ModerateIncome Units Number of Above Moderate-Income Units
Chino Hills 1,315 0 124
Fontana 6,447 0 3,043
Grand Terrace 348 140 131
Hesperia 847 0 0
Montclair No rezoning
Needles No rezoning
Ontario 5,782 2,345 5,689
Rancho Cucamonga No rezoning1
Redlands 2,377 672 48
Rialto 4,493 395 3,270
San Bernardino City 1,111 0 0
Upland Not Available
Victorville 3,397 1,307 1,596
Yucaipa 150 0 0
Source: California Department of General Services, Housing and Local Land Development Opportunities – Projects List. Accessed July 2025. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Projects/Page-Content/Projects-List-Folder/Housing-and-Local-Land-Development-Opportunities.

Note:
1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga completed its Housing Element update concurrently with a comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Map update. While no rezoning parcels are identified, the housing capacity identified in Table 12 captures the new zoning designations/rezoning that were concurrently adopted with the Housing Element.

SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND / HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 48 OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Appendix A
Current Affordable Housing Inventory

APPENDIX A / CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
A-1
OCTOBER 2025
Current Affordable Housing Inventory
This appendix provides a complete listing of affordable housing developments in San Bernardino Region funded through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, as reported by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). The data reflects cumulative awards from 1990 to 2025 and includes project-level details such as location, total units, low-income and moderate-income units, target population, and income-level targeting. Note, while there is other affordable housing (funded outside of TCAC), there is no comprehensive dataset.

Table A1. Income Category Data Dictionary for Affordable Housing Inventory Income Category
AMI
Range
Max Income
(4-Person HH) Typical Occupations / Household Types
Deeply ELI (subset of ELI) 0–20% ≤ $23,000 People experiencing homelessness, permanent supportive housing
Extremely Low-Income (ELI) 0–30% ≤ $30,750 Seniors on SSI, disabled adults, extremely lowincome renters Very Low-Income (VLI) 31–50% ≤ $51,250 Childcare workers, janitors, service workers Low-Income (LI) 51–60% ≤ $68,500 (avg) Admin staff, security guards, early career professionals
Moderate-Income (Mod) 61–80% ≤ $82,000 Teachers, entry-level public sector, tradespeople
Reader’s Note: How to Interpret the Affordable Housing Inventory ▪ Missing Income Data
Empty cells under income-level categories (e.g., Extremely Low-Income, Very Low-Income) reflect data not reported by the project sponsor or unavailable in the TCAC database. These gaps are especially common in older developments or projects without deep income targeting. ▪ What Does “Low-Mod” Mean?
The “Low - Mod Income Units” column includes units affordable to households earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). These units span the core of California’s affordable housing eligibility spectrum. ▪ Total Units vs. Affordable Units
“Total Units” refers to all units in a development. Not all units may be income-restricted. ▪ Grouped by Geography
▪ Projects are organized by subregion to show where housing resources have been concentrated—and where gaps remain.

APPENDIX A / CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
A-2
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

APPENDIX A / CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
A-3
OCTOBER 2025
Table A2. Current Affordable Housing Developments in San Bernardino Region Funded Through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program Application
Year Jurisdiction Subregion Project Name Construction Type Target Population Total
Units
Low -
Mod Income
Units
Deeply
Extremely
Low-Income
Extremely
Low-Income
Very LowIncome LowIncome ModerateIncome
2002 Adelanto Victor Valley Desert Gardens New Construction Large Family 81 80 2005 Adelanto Victor Valley Oasis Village New Construction Large Family 81 80 2009 Adelanto Victor Valley Desert View Apartments Acquisition/Rehab At-Risk 30 29 0 0 2002 Barstow North Desert Suncrest Apartments New Construction Large Family 81 80 2004 Barstow North Desert Riverview Apartments New Construction Large Family 81 80 2015 Barstow North Desert Virginia Terrace Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Non-Targeted 76 75 0 15 60
2009 Big Bear Lake Mountains The Crossings at Big Bear New Construction Large Family 42 41 5 25 11 2014 Bloomington San Bernardino Valley Bloomington Housing, Phase I New Construction Large Family 106 105 16 79 10 2015 Bloomington San Bernardino Valley Bloomington Housing Phase II New Construction Large Family 84 83 9 51 23 2019 Bloomington San Bernardino Valley Bloomington Housing Phase III New Construction Large Family 98 97 23 25 49 1998 Chino San Bernardino Valley Seasons at Chino New Construction Seniors 104 102 2008 Chino San Bernardino Valley The Preserve New Construction Non-Targeted 250 53 2012 Chino San Bernardino Valley Ivy at College Park Family Apartments
New Construction Large Family 135 133 0 64 69
2015 Chino San Bernardino Valley College Park II New Construction Non-Targeted 200 198 0 20 178 2015 Chino San Bernardino Valley Vista Park Chino Apartments Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
At-Risk 40 39 0 4 35
1999 Colton San Bernardino Valley Nova Pointe 1 Apartments Phase I
Acquisition/Rehab Non-Targeted 156 155
1999 Colton San Bernardino Valley Nova Pointe 1 Apartments Phase II
Rehabilitation Non-Targeted 130 52
2013 Colton San Bernardino Valley Arbor Terrace Apartments Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
At-Risk 129 127 0 28 99
2020 Colton San Bernardino Valley Las Terrazas Apartments New Construction Large Family 112 111 30 0 24 0 57 2001 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Fontana Senior Apartments New Construction Seniors 108 107 2003 Fontana San Bernardino Valley The Fountains at Sierra New Construction Seniors 93 92 2004 Fontana San Bernardino Valley The Gardens at Sierra New Construction Seniors 93 92 2008 Fontana San Bernardino Valley The Plaza at Sierra Fontana IV Senior Apts
New Construction Seniors 90 89
2009 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Paseo Verde - Phase 1 New Construction Large Family 50 49 2009 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Ceres Way Apartments New Construction Large Family 60 60 0 0 2010 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Paseo Verde II Family Apartments
New Construction Large Family 46 46 0 0
2011 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Toscana New Construction Large Family 53 52 6 31 15 2011 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Paseo Verde III Family Apartments
New Construction Large Family 46 46 5 41 0
2013 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Minerva Manor New Construction Seniors 63 62 0 7 55 2014 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Siena Apartments New Construction Large Family 55 54 6 21 27 2016 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Marygold Gardens Apartments Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
At-Risk 80 74 0 9 70

APPENDIX A / CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
A-4
OCTOBER 2025
Table A2. Current Affordable Housing Developments in San Bernardino Region Funded Through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program Application
Year Jurisdiction Subregion Project Name Construction Type Target Population Total
Units
Low -
Mod Income
Units
Deeply
Extremely
Low-Income
Extremely
Low-Income
Very LowIncome LowIncome ModerateIncome
2017 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Fontana Sierra Family Apartments
New Construction Large Family 69 68 7 42 19
2018 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Cascade Sonrise Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Seniors 80 79 0 11 68
2018 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Citrus Grove Apartments Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Non-Targeted 51 50 0 50 0
2018 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Dino Papavero Senior Center Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Seniors 150 149 14 0 135
2019 Fontana San Bernardino Valley Sierra Avenue Family Apartments
New Construction Large Family 60 59 6 33 20
2005 Grand Terrace San Bernardino Valley Blue Mountain Senior Villas New Construction Seniors 120 107 1998 Hesperia Victor Valley Three Palms Apartments New Construction Seniors 113 111 2005 Hesperia Victor Valley Village at Hesperia Phase III New Construction Seniors 21 20 2006 Hesperia Victor Valley Sunrise Terrace I Apartments New Construction Non-Targeted 110 109 2006 Hesperia Victor Valley The Village at Hesperia
Apartments Phase I
New Construction Seniors 68 67
2006 Hesperia Victor Valley Sunrise Terrace II Apartments New Construction Non-Targeted 72 71 2007 Hesperia Victor Valley San Remo Apartments New Construction Large Family 65 64 2008 Hesperia Victor Valley San Remo II Apartments New Construction Large Family 58 58 2008 Hesperia Victor Valley Villas at Hesperia New Construction Large Family 154 31 2014 Hesperia Victor Valley Santa Fe Apartments Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Large Family 89 88 0 36 52
1998 Highland San Bernardino Valley Jeffrey Court Seniors New Construction Seniors 185 184 2013 Highland San Bernardino Valley Mountain Breeze Villas Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Non-Targeted 168 166 20 12 135
2012 Joshua Tree Morongo Basin Yucca Trails Apartments Acquisition/Rehab Non-Targeted 50 49 16 33 2008 Loma Linda Morongo Basin Poplar Street Apartments New Construction Large Family 44 43 2010 Loma Linda Morongo Basin Loma Linda Commons New Construction Large Family 120 118 0 0 2012 Loma Linda Morongo Basin Loma Linda Terrace New Construction Seniors 50 49 27 22 2016 Loma Linda Morongo Basin Loma Linda Veterans' Village ("Loma Linda Vets")
New Construction Special Needs 87 86 53 33 0
2005 Montclair San Bernardino Valley San Antonio Vista Apartments New Construction Large Family 75 74 2005 Montclair San Bernardino Valley Briarwood Manor Apartments Acquisition/Rehab Seniors 100 83 2008 Montclair San Bernardino Valley Montclair Senior Housing Project New Construction Seniors 85 84 2009 Montclair San Bernardino Valley Vista Del Cielo Apartments New Construction Large Family 50 49 0 0 2012 Montclair San Bernardino Valley Montclair 4 Special Needs New Construction Special Needs 18 17 8 9 0 2000 Needles Colorado River River Garden Apartments New Construction Large Family 81 80 2012 Needles Colorado River Riverview Terrace Apartments Acquisition/Rehab At-Risk 60 58 6 39 13 2013 Needles Colorado River Mesa Grande Acquisition/
Rehabilitation
Seniors 46 45 5 22 18
2013 Needles Colorado River Lilly Hill Apartments Rehabilitation At-Risk 52 51 6 25 20

APPENDIX A / CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
A-5
OCTOBER 2025
Table A2. Current Affordable Housing Developments in San Bernardino Region Funded Through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program Application
Year Jurisdiction Subregion Project Name Construction Type Target Population Total
Units
Low -
Mod Income
Units
Deeply
Extremely
Low-Income
Extremely
Low-Income
Very LowIncome LowIncome ModerateIncome
2005 Ontario San Bernardino Valley Mountain View II Senior Apartments
New Construction Seniors 20 20
2001 Ontario San Bernardino Valley Mountain View Senior Apartments
New Construction Seniors 86 84
2008 Ontario San Bernardino Valley Ontario Senior Apartments New Construction Seniors 76 75 2017 Ontario San Bernardino Valley Seasons at Ontario Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Non-Targeted 80 78 0 8 70
2018 Ontario San Bernardino Valley Ontario Emporia Family Apartments
New Construction Large Family 75 74 8 42 24
2018 Ontario San Bernardino Valley Ontario Townhouses Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Large Family 86 84 0 26 59
2018 Ontario San Bernardino Valley Virginia Holt Apartments (Site A) New Construction Large Family 101 100 21 37 42 2022 Ontario San Bernardino Valley Emporia Place II New Construction Large Family 50 49 0 5 25 19 0 1997 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley Villa Pacifica Senior Community New Construction Seniors 158 158 2001 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley Heritage Pointe Senior
Apartments
New Construction Seniors 49 48
2002 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley Olen Jones Senior Apartments New Construction Seniors 96 95 2005 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley Sunset Heights Apartments Acquisition/Rehab Large Family 117 116 2006 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley Pepperwood Apartments Acquisition/Rehab Large Family 230 227 2007 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley East Rancho Verde Village New Construction Large Family 40 39 2008 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley Villaggio on Route 66 New Construction Large Family 166 131 2009 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley San Sevaine Villas New Construction Large Family 225 167 0 0 2014 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley Villa del Norte Rehabilitation Large Family 88 87 9 50 28 2016 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley Villa Pacifica II New Construction Seniors 60 59 5 7 47 2018 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley Day Creek Villas New Construction Seniors 91 78 15 60 3 2018 Rancho
Cucamonga
San Bernardino Valley Day Creek Villas New Construction Seniors 49 49 0 43 3 2012 Redlands San Bernardino Valley Redlands Lugonia Revitalization New Construction Large Family 85 84 27 57 2021 Rialto San Bernardino Valley Rialto Metrolink South New Construction Large Family 55 54 0 6 31 17 0 1999 Rialto San Bernardino Valley The Crossings Apartment Homes New Construction Large Family 100 99 2001 Rialto San Bernardino Valley Greentree Senior Apartments Acquisition/Rehab Seniors 272 270 2006 Rialto San Bernardino Valley Willows/Winchester
Neighborhood Revit. Project
Acquisition/Rehab Large Family 152 150

APPENDIX A / CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
A-6
OCTOBER 2025
Table A2. Current Affordable Housing Developments in San Bernardino Region Funded Through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program Application
Year Jurisdiction Subregion Project Name Construction Type Target Population Total
Units
Low -
Mod Income
Units
Deeply
Extremely
Low-Income
Extremely
Low-Income
Very LowIncome LowIncome ModerateIncome
2009 Rialto San Bernardino Valley Vista Cascade (Site A) Acquisition/Rehab Large Family 42 41 0 0 2009 Rialto San Bernardino Valley Vista Cascade (Site B) 0 0 2011 Rialto San Bernardino Valley Park Place New Construction Non-Targeted 32 30 0 11 19 2013 Rialto San Bernardino Valley Willow Village Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Non-Targeted 100 99 0 20 79
2014 Rialto San Bernardino Valley Renaissance Village Apartments Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Large Family 144 143 0 15 128
2023 Rialto San Bernardino Valley Citrus Grove Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Large Family 152 150 0 16 91 43 0
1995 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Ramona Sr. Project New Construction Seniors 44 43 1999 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley The Waterman Apartments Acquisition/Rehab Large Family 128 127 1999 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Village Green Apartments Acquisition/Rehab Non-Targeted 184 182 2001 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Autumnwood Apartments Rehabilitation Non-Targeted 160 158 2005 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Sterling Village Acquisition/Rehab Large Family 80 79 2010 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley The Magnolia at Highland New Construction Seniors 80 79 0 0 2012 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Lugo Senior Apartments Rehabilitation Seniors 119 118 12 78 28 2012 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Vintage at Kendall Apartments Acquisition/Rehab Seniors 176 176 36 140 2013 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Arrowhead Vista Apts. Rehabilitation Special Needs 40 39 10 28 1 2014 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Val 9 Apartments New Construction Large Family 76 73 8 49 18 2015 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Waterman Gardens Phase I New Construction Large Family 62 61 7 41 13 2016 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley New Zion Manor Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
At-Risk 125 125 19 69 37
2017 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Beautiful Light Inn Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Seniors 100 99 0 20 79
2018 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Arrowhead Grove Phase 2 (aka Waterman Gardens Phase 2)
New Construction Large Family 184 147 38 38 71
2018 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Pioneer Park Plaza Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Non-Targeted 161 159 0 16 143
2020 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Foothill Villas Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Large Family 239 237 0 70 167
2024 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Arrowhead Grove Phase IV New Construction Large Family 92 91 0 23 36 11 21 2025 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley Village Green Apartments Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
At-Risk 184 182 0 19 18 145 0
2007 Twentynine
Palms
Morongo Basin Twentynine Palms Apartments Acquisition/Rehab Non-Targeted 48 47 2015 Twentynine
Palms
Morongo Basin Sagewood Manor Apartments Rehabilitation Seniors 65 64 7 42 15 2016 Twentynine
Palms
Morongo Basin Adobe Villas Apartments Acquisition/
Rehabilitation
At-Risk 35 34 4 23 7
2022 Twentynine
Palms
Morongo Basin Twentynine Palms Apartments Acquisition/
Rehabilitation
Non-Targeted 48 47 0 5 5 37 0
1996 Upland Morongo Basin Coy D Estes Senior Housing New Construction Seniors 130 111

APPENDIX A / CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
A-7
OCTOBER 2025
Table A2. Current Affordable Housing Developments in San Bernardino Region Funded Through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program Application
Year Jurisdiction Subregion Project Name Construction Type Target Population Total
Units
Low -
Mod Income
Units
Deeply
Extremely
Low-Income
Extremely
Low-Income
Very LowIncome LowIncome ModerateIncome
1999 Upland Morongo Basin Alpine Woods Apartments Rehabilitation Non-Targeted 137 136 2015 Upland Morongo Basin Sycamore Terrace Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Seniors 100 98 0 30 68
1997 Victorville Victor Valley Village Oak Apartments New Construction Large Family 116 115 1998 Victorville Victor Valley Northside Commons New Construction Large Family 83 82 2002 Victorville Victor Valley Impressions at Valley Center New Construction Large Family 100 99 2003 Victorville Victor Valley The Village at Victorville New Construction Large Family 81 80 2003 Victorville Victor Valley Casa Bella Apartments New Construction Large Family 96 94 2004 Victorville Victor Valley Casa Bella 1B New Construction Large Family 80 80 2005 Victorville Victor Valley Casa Bella 2 New Construction Large Family 112 111 2006 Victorville Victor Valley Rodeo Drive Apartments Acquisition/Rehab Non-Targeted 99 98 2006 Victorville Victor Valley Desert Springs Apartments New Construction Large Family 203 201 2010 Victorville Victor Valley Rodeo Drive Meadows New Construction Large Family 48 47 0 0 2013 Victorville Victor Valley Sherwood Villa Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Non-Targeted 101 100 0 15 85
2019 Victorville Victor Valley Kimberly Park Apartments Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Large Family 132 131 0 100 4
1990 Yucaipa San Bernardino Valley Yucaipa Terrace New Construction Seniors 51 51 2011 Yucaipa San Bernardino Valley Yucaipa Senior Terrace New Construction Seniors 45 44 0 26 18 2015 Yucaipa San Bernardino Valley Horizons at Yucaipa New Construction Non-Targeted 50 49 19 23 7 2011 Yucca Valley Morongo Basin Sunnyslope Apartments Acquisition/Rehab At-Risk 33 32 0 4 28 2011 Yucca Valley Morongo Basin Sunwest Villas Apartments Acquisition/Rehab At-Risk 50 49 0 5 44 2012 Yucca Valley Morongo Basin Yucca Valley Senior Apartments New Construction Seniors 75 74 8 52 14

APPENDIX A / CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
A-8
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Appendix B
Housing Needs Allocation

APPENDIX B / HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
B-1
OCTOBER 2025
Table B1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by Jurisdiction and Income Category, San Bernardino Region (6th Cycle: 2021–2029)
Jurisdiction
Very LowIncome LowIncome ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome Total
Total San Bernardino Region 35,667 21,903 24,140 56,400 138,110 Adelanto 394 566 651 2,152 3,763
Apple Valley 1,086 600 747 1,857 4,290
Barstow 172 228 300 820 1,520
Big Bear Lake 50 33 37 92 2,12
Chino 2,113 1,284 1,203 2,378 6,978
Chino Hills 1,388 821 789 731 3,729
Colton 1,318 668 906 2,542 5,434
Fontana 5,109 2,950 3,035 6,425 17,519
Grand Terrace 189 92 106 243 630
Hesperia 1,921 1,231 1,409 3,594 8,155
Highland 619 409 471 1,014 2,513
Loma Linda 523 311 352 865 2,051
Montclair 698 383 399 1,113 2,593
Needles 10 11 16 50 87
Ontario 5,640 3,286 3,329 8,599 20,854
Rancho Cucamonga 3,245 1,920 2,038 3,322 10,525
Redlands 967 615 652 1,282 3,516
Rialto 2,218 1206 1,371 3,477 8,272
San Bernardino 1,415 1,097 1,448 4,163 8,123
San Bernardino County 2,179 1,360 1,523 3,770 8,832
Twentynine Palms 231 127 185 504 1,047
Upland 1,584 959 1,013 2,130 5,686
Victorville 1,735 1,136 1,504 3,790 8,165
Yucaipa 708 493 511 1,154 2,866
Yucca Valley 155 117 145 333 750
Table B2. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by Subregion and Income Category, San Bernardino Region (6th Cycle: 2021–2029)
Subregion Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA San Bernardino Valley 27,734 16,494 17,623 39,438 101,289 Victor Valley 5,353 3,431 4,308 11,384 24,476
Morongo Basin 386 244 330 837 1,797
Mountain Region 50 33 37 92 212
North Desert 172 227 299 818 1,516
Colorado River 10 11 16 50 87

APPENDIX B / HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
B-2
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Appendix C
Glossary of Key Terms

APPENDIX C / GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
C-1
OCTOBER 2025
Glossary of Key Terms
Area Median Income (AMI) – The midpoint of all household incomes in a particular geographic region, meaning that half of the households in the region earn more than the median income and half earn less than the median income.

Cost Burden – The percentage of a household’s income that goes toward housing-related expenses. These expenses can include rent or mortgage payments, utility bills, property taxes, insurance, and other related expenses.

Households that spend over 30% of their income on housing costs are considered cost burdened, and households that spend over 50% of their income on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened.

Income Limits – Income limits define the maximum income a family can earn to be eligible for certain housing assistance programs such as Section 8 or affordable housing. These limits are based on a percentage of the AMI and are adjusted for family size.

Household Overcrowding – Household Overcrowding occurs when there is more than one person per bedroom in a household. When there is more than 1.5 persons per room in a household, this is considered to be severe overcrowding.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) – The RHNA is the number of housing units that must be planned for through a determined planning period. The number is determined for each jurisdiction through a calculation and allocation process by both the State and the regional planning agency and is allocated every 8 years. The current planning cycle goes from 2021 to 2029.

San Bernardino Region – The San Bernardino Region is inclusive of all jurisdictions in San Bernardino County. This includes all 24 cities and the unincorporated County of San Bernardino.

APPENDIX C / GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
C-2
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Attachment 1
San Bernardino Region Affordable Housing
Development Cost and Local Gap Funding

LeSar Development Consultants | 845 15th Street, Suite 103 | San Diego | California 92101 | 619.236.0612 | lesardevelopment.com

MEMORANDUM
Date: August 21, 2025
To: Elizabeth Dickson, DUDEK
From: Farzad Mashhood and Ryan Dagamac, LeSar Development Consultants Re: San Bernardino Region Affordable Housing Development Cost and Local Gap Funding

1. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to examine the cost of developing affordable housing in the San Bernardino region and how much local funding contributes to creating this important public good.

Specifically, this analysis found the following key pieces of data:
• Projected per-unit total development cost (TDC) for new affordable rental housing in San Bernardino County: $596,000
• Average TDC for affordable housing developments in San Bernardino County (2020–2025): $50.6M • Average local government contribution to affordable housing developments in San Bernardino County (2020–2025): $8.8M, or 17% of total project cost

2. Introduction
This memorandum focuses on the development cost of affordable housing projects that were awarded Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) in recent years. Since its establishment in 1986, LIHTC has functioned as the main source of capital financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction of affordable rental housing developments. Looking at affordable housing developments that have been awarded LIHTC in the San Bernardino region can provide the San Bernardino Regional Housing Trust (Trust) a better framework on how to gather funding to sponsor affordable housing projects moving forward. While not all affordable housing developments rely on LIHTC, its funding applications offer the most complete and transparent source of affordable housing financing and construction cost information. This data includes details on local funding sources that projects have used as well. Such information will help the Trust better understand the historic use of local funds that developers have leveraged.

This analysis draws on data from the eight projects in the San Bernardino region that were awarded LIHTC from 2020 to 2025. However, because of the relatively small number of awarded projects during this sixPage 222 of 312 | 2
year period, this analysis also relies on data from projects that were awarded LIHTC in the Riverside region (the unincorporated County of Riverside and all incorporated cities within the county) in 2024 and 2025. The Riverside region data is used to provide a large sample of data to project the typical cost of new construction affordable housing; this is done to rely on a larger sample of data and because construction costs across the two counties do not vary substantially. The Riverside region data is not used when estimating the cost of acquisition-rehabilitation projects or in analyzing the local funding contributions.

Finally, a notable finding in this analysis was around the recent awarding of LIHTC between the San Bernardino region and the Riverside region. In California, LIHTCs are awarded by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. This agency organizes the state into 10 regions, each with an allocation of tax credits. San Bernardino and Riverside counties compose the Inland Empire region (which also includes Imperial County). LIHTC applications are assessed against all other applications in the region, meaning affordable housing developments in the San Bernardino and Riverside regions are competing against each other for LIHTC. From 2020 to 2025, more than five times as many projects were awarded in the Riverside region than the San Bernardino region (53 projects with 5,342 housing units in Riverside compared to 8 projects with 932 housing units in San Bernardino). It is beyond the scope of this analysis to examine the factors explaining this difference, but one key factor is the commitment of local funds to affordable housing development, a need that the Trust aims to fill.

3. Methodology

3.1 Data Collection
This analysis relied on application data for affordable housing projects in the San Bernardino Region that were awarded LIHTC from 2020 to 2025. Additional data was pulled from the Riverside Region from 2024 to 2025 to provide a more accurate representation of TDC for newly constructed affordable housing projects.

LIHTC applications detail the estimated cost of developing affordable housing and a complete list of funding sources a project will use, including LIHTC equity, traditional bank debt, and other sources known as gap financing. Outlining a project’s financials is critical to ensuring a development is financially feasible. The total financial contributions can be illustrated as a capital stack, typically broken down into LIHTC equity, debt, and gap financing. Gap financing is of particular interest to this analysis, as it is the primary role that the Trust’s funds would play in a LIHTC capital stack.

Application data was researched and analyzed in the following steps:

1. Data was gathered from LIHTC applications, published on the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee website, for recent projects in the San Bernardino region (2020 to 2025, new construction and acquisition/rehabilitation) and the Riverside region (2024 to 2025, new construction only). This included gathering the following notable points: TDC, land cost, project financing, number of units, and whether the development is new construction or acquisition/rehabilitation.

| 3

2. All costs were adjusted for annual inflation, using the inflation rate from January of the project’s respective year to January 2025, according to the average U.S. Consumer Price Index, as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

3. TDC was broken down to per-unit cost, calculated by dividing the property’s TDC by the number of units.

4. Last, LIHTC applications in the San Bernardino region were analyzed to identify local funding sources which were classified as local gap funding. Local funding sources were defined as any funding contributed by a local government agency, such as a city, county, housing authority, and others.

3.2 Limitations
Because of the extreme competitiveness for LIHTC, only a limited number of projects are sponsored each year. From 2020 and 2025, the San Bernardino region successfully received funding for 8 developments:
4 new construction and 4 acquisition/rehabilitation for a total of 932 units. This relatively small sample size provides only a small glimpse into the average cost of developing affordable housing and would be more meaningful if a greater set of developments were available to analyze. To provide greater fidelity to this analysis, TDC for new construction projects awarded LIHTC in Riverside County were also examined, adding an additional 17 developments to the analysis. As construction costs do not vary substantially across the counties, data from the Riverside region was included provide a more representative average cost of new construction in the broader Inland Empire region. However, the Riverside region’s data on acquisition-rehabilitation was also limited, and such projects have much more project-specific nuance, offering little benefit to expanding the data. The Riverside region’s data on local gap funding was also not examined, as this analysis is focused on the contributions of public agencies in the San Bernardino region.

4. Findings
This section presents an analysis of affordable housing project data from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee applications. The data reveals the TDC for affordable housing projects in the region, as well as local funding sources leveraged to cover development costs in the San Bernardino region from 2020 to 2025, shown in Table 1 below.

| 4
Table 1: Key Data Points for Affordable Housing Developments in San Bernardino (2020–2025) and Riverside (2024–2025) Counties Data Point Amount
Total affordable housing developments awarded LIHTC 8
New construction developments 4
Acquisition/rehabilitation developments 4
Total affordable housing units in LIHTC awarded projects 932 New construction units 309
Acquisition/rehabilitation units 623
Average, inflation-adjusted, per-unit TDC $557,000
Average, inflation-adjusted, per-unit new construction TDC $596,000 Average, inflation-adjusted, per-unit acquisition/rehabilitation TDC $423,000 Average, project TDC $50.6M
Average, project local gap funding award $8.8M
Local gap funding as a percent of average TDC 17%
Total gap funding awarded by local agencies $70.2M
Per-unit gap funding awarded by local agencies $75,000
Based on this analysis, it is projected that the per-unit cost of newly build affordable housing is $596,000 in the San Bernardino region. It is also noteworthy that for the average-cost $50.6M affordable housing development, on average local agencies account for 17% of the project cost.

4.1 Summary of Projects Analyzed
The following table shows a summary of the eight LIHTC awarded projects analyzed in the San Bernardino region from 2020 to 2025.

Table 2: List of LIHTC Awarded Affordable Housing Developments in San Bernardino County (2020–2025) Project name Units Project type Per-unit, inflationadjusted TDC*TDC** Local gap
funding
Arrowhead Grove
Phase IV 92 New Construction $742,000 $66.3M $8.5M
Emporia Place II 50 New Construction $693,000 $30.7M $12.7M Rialto Metrolink South 55 New Construction $626,000 $28.4M $9.8M Las Terrazas
Apartments 112 New Construction $483,000 $43.9M $12.8M
Village Green
Apartments 184 Acquisition/ Rehabilitation $384,000 $69.7M $0 Citrus Grove 152 Acquisition/
Rehabilitation $449,000 $64.3M $26.4M
Twentynine Palms
Apartments 48 Acquisition/ Rehabilitation $233,000 $9.9M $0 Foothill Villas 239 Acquisition/
Rehabilitation $474,000 $91.9M $0
* Rounded to the nearest $1,000.
** Rounded to the nearest $1,000,000.

| 5
Additionally, Figure 1 below maps the location of the affordable housing projects listed above. Note the high concentration of developments near the City of San Bernardino.

Figure 1: Map of Affordable Housing Developments in San Bernardino County (2020–2025)

4.2 Development Costs
This section breaks down the cost of developing affordable housing in the San Bernardino region and the surrounding region. The average costs presented for all developments and new construction incorporate the developments from the Riverside region in addition to the San Bernardino region. The costs presented for acquisition/rehabilitation are solely from the San Bernardino region. The financials in this section are adjusted for annual inflation to better account for rising costs.

Average inflation-adjusted, per-unit development cost:
• All developments: $557,000
o New construction: $596,000
o Acquisition/rehabilitation: $423,000
Figure 2 below presents the average per-unit TDC for the three groupings of developments outlined above. It is worth noting that land costs for LIHTC awarded developments vary widely, with some projects including the market value of land and others showing significantly discounted rates. For this reason, the figure below separates out the overall TDC as well as the TDC less land cost, which is a more precise depiction of the hard and soft costs of affordable housing construction.

| 6
Figure 2: Average, Inflation-Adjusted, Per-Unit TDC for Affordable Housing Projects in San Bernardino County (2020–2025) As shown, new construction affordable housing costs about 30% or $174,000 more per unit than acquisition/rehabilitation projects. Furthermore, the cost difference increases when eliminating the cost of land, with new construction costing about 67% or $383,000 more per unit than acquisition/rehabilitation projects.

4.3 Project Financing
To finance affordable housing developments, a variety of funding sources are used. The typical affordable housing project uses several funding sources beyond LIHTC. This includes conventional bank debt as well as what is typically called “gap funding.” Gap funding sources can include state and federal funding programs as well as local government agency contributions.

The following section will discuss gap funding for developments only in the San Bernardino region. As previously mentioned, the average LIHTC awarded development cost $50.6M, relying on $20.8M in tax credit awards. This amounts to an average of $29.4M per project in non-LIHTC funds. Out of this amount, local gap funds accounted for $8.8M per project or about $75,000 per unit, as shown in Figure 3 below. In total, the eight LIHTC awarded projects from 2020 to 2025 relied on about $70.2M in local gap funds.

However, while all new construction projects were supported by local gap financing sources, there was only one acquisition/rehabilitation project supported in 2023. The uneven distribution of funding from local gap sources can be seen in Figure 3. The average per-unit cost received for new construction from local gap funding is almost triple the amount, or $99,000 more, compared to acquisition/rehabilitation projects. This suggests that local gap financing sources are more inclined to support new construction over rehabilitation projects. This could be due to potential factors like predictability, construction time, and risk mitigation.
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
All Developments New Construction Acquisition/Rehabilitation Total development cost Total development cost, less land

| 7
Figure 3: Average, Per-Unit Cost Received From Local Gap Funding in San Bernardino County (2020–2025) Lack of funding from local gap sources for acquisition/rehabilitation projects could also be attributed to the project’s size. Recall that acquisition/rehabilitation projects typically have 50 more units compared to new construction. The sheer size and undertaking of acquisition/rehabilitation can make a project more complex to develop, compared to starting from scratch with new construction.

Table 3 below shows the various local gap funding sources affordable housing developers have leveraged in the San Bernardino region from 2020 to 2025.

Table 3: Amounts Awarded to Developers by Local Gap Funding Sources in San Bernardino County (2020–2025) Local Gap Funding Source Year Amount
Awarded Program
City of San Bernardino 2024 $4,900,000 HOME & LMIHAF (Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund)
County of San Bernardino
2023 $4,706,412 Taxable loan
2021 $2,250,000 HOME
2020
$1,373,602 NSP (Neighborhood Stabilization
Program)
$592,000 IVDA (Inland Valley Development Agency)
$8,358,000 HOME
HACSB (Housing Authority of
the County of San Bernardino) 2023 $3,600,000 Residual receipts loan Rialto Housing Authority
2023 $19,332,011 Tax-exempt loan
$2,329,926 Taxable loan
2021 $4,550,000 Residual development loan
$3,030,000 Residual land loan
Ontario Housing Authority 2022 $2,700,000 Land acquisition loan $10,000,000 Residual receipts loan
Unspecified agency* 2020 $2,450,000 Capitalized Land Lease * This data was not available in the project information; however, capitalized land leases are often provided by local agencies as a form of local subsidy, and it is therefore accounted for here as a local gap contribution. $0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
All Developments New Construction Acquisition/Rehabilitation

| 8
Majority of this type of funding is supported by regional housing authorities such as the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino, the Rialto Housing Authority, and the Ontario Housing Authority. There is also additional support from the City and County of San Bernardino, regional programs such as the Inland Valley Development Agency. These local sources awarded a variety of funds, ranging from around $600,000 to $19 million.

As described earlier, local gap financing sources are not the sole source of funding for affordable housing developments. All projects qualified for LIHTC, which accounted for a significant portion of project financing. Nonetheless, the Trust should leverage as many regional gap funding sources as possible to support affordable housing developments in addition to LIHTC. Especially when financing new construction projects, the Trust should mobilize the biased nature of local gap funding in their favor. Table 3 lists viable examples the Trust can consider drawing on to provide initial funding for future developments.

5. Conclusion
To ensure the success of the San Bernardino Regional Housing Trust, it is critical to understand the landscape of existing affordable housing funding sources, especially local gap funders. This analysis presented an overage of affordable housing development cost as well as how much these developments relied on local gap funding.

1 Regional Housing Trust Fund
San Bernardino Region
SBCOG BOARD UPDATE DECEMBER 3, 2025

2 01 Project Overview

4 Establishing a
02 Housing Trust

5 Housing Trust Operating Structures
§ Local
§ Established by a City or County
§ San Diego Innovative Housing Trust Fund is operated by the County of SD § Regional
§ As allowed under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act
§ Can have a non-profit component
§ San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust consists of 25 member cities § Non-profit
§ Local housing advocates, businesses, foundations, and more § Lift to Rise Coachella Valley

6 Regional Housing Trust Establishment Options
§ Can choose SB 20 Framework or rely on existing JPA authority § Joint Exercise of Powers Act
§ Two or more “public agencies” can jointly exercise any powers that are common to them
§ SB 20 – September 2023
§ Two or more “public agencies” may enter into a JPA to create an operate a regional housing trust to fund housing for extremely low, very low-, and low-income families and those experiencing homelessness

9 Income Limits – San Bernardino County

10 Housing Costs by Jurisdiction - San Bernardino County

11 Housing Development Cost and Gap Funding Analysis
§ Projected per-unit total development cost (TDC) for new affordable rental housing in San Bernardino County: $596,000
§ Average TDC for affordable housing developments in San Bernardino County (2020–2025): $50.6M
§  Average local government contribution to affordable housing developments in San Bernardino County (2020–2025): $8.8M, or 17% of total project cost

12 How Market Based and Affordable Housing are Financed Market Based Affordable
Equity
Debt
Equity
Gap Financing
Debt

13 Earmarks to Housing Trusts since 2021
Housing Trust Name Type Budget Earmark Year
OCHFT JPA $3 Million 2023 – Fed
Earmark
SGVHT JPA $7.8 Million 2022
SGVHT JPA $20 Million 2021
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena JPA $23 Million 2022
Lift To Rise – Coachella Valley
Catalyst Housing Fund
Non-Profit $15 Million 2022

14 Key Ad Hoc Considerations and Feedback
§ Set Up Housing Trust to be eligible for as much funding as possible § Housing Trust must be able to work on Moderate Income programs and projects
§ Homeownership programs
§ Missing Middle Housing
§ Workforce Housing
§ SB 20 Authored by Senator Rubio (22 nd Dist.)
§ Several budget authorizations have been authored by Senator Rubio § Use of SB 20 as framework may garner support from senator Rubio and potentially State funding

§ Non-Elected Appointees/Field Experts criteria identified in the legislation 15 Moving Forward
§ Joint Powers Authority will include language from
§ JPA Act
§ SB 20 Requirements
§ Staff will work with City Managers to identify criteria options for appointees for consideration.

16 Thank you

28 Funding and Financing Sources
Community
Developmen
t Block
Grants
(CDBG)
American
Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) Funds
HOME
Funds
RAD
Public to
Private
Housing
Public
Housing
Operating
and Capital
Funding
Rental
Assistance
Programs
Historic Tax
Credits
Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
(LIHTC)
State
Matching
Tax Credits
(Historic &
LIHTC)
Tax Exempt
Bonds with
the 4%
LIHTC
New Market
Tax Credits
Federal
Home Loan
Bank
Affordable
Housing
Program
(AHP)
CDFI
Predevelopme
nt Loans
Bank
Construction
Loans
CDFI
Acquisitions
Loans
Bank
Predevelopmen
t Loans
Bank
Permanent
Loans
Regional
Housing
Trust Fund
Other
local/state
programs
Housing and
Community
Developmen
t Funding
SB County
Community
Developmen
t & Housing
funds
ProjectBased
Rental
Assistance
City

CDBG/HOM
E Funds

36 Funding Program
03 Overview

1 of 2
Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 21:52:16 Pacific Daylight Time Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 21:52:16 Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: SB Regional Housing Trust and $1.75 Million 29 Palms REAP allocation Date: Date: Friday, April 3, 2026 at 8:36:52AM Pacific Daylight Time From: From: Monique Reza-Arellano
To: To: Daniel Mintz, Sr., Stone James
CC: CC: Carrie Schindler, Andrea Zureick, Josh Lee
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Good Morning, Daniel and Stone.

I wanted to follow up since I’ve been able to connect with you both over the last couple of weeks.  I need to ensure that we’re on the same page as you prepare for the JPA discussion at your city council meeting in the next couple of weeks.

As you know, a pilot project was awarded $1.75 Million in the City of 29 Palms when REAP funds were awarded to SBCOG for implementation of the Housing Trust. There is a tight timeline on use of the funds, and I want to make sure you understand the commitment.

The housing trust must allocate the funds to a viable project in the City by December.  The funds must be expended within 5 years of allocation, so essentially, the project needs to be ready to go to construction in the next 7 months.

Due to the tight timeline for allocation and use of the funds, SBCOG/Housing Trust will need to have a confirmation that the City of 29 Palms can make use of the funds and meet the deadlines above by 4/15/26.  The Housing Trust Board will be making a motion at the first Board meeting on 5/13 to accept the REAP funds for implementation of the 2 pilot projects.  Confirmation of the City’s use of funds will allow us to recommend the city’s project.  If not, the Board will need to reallocate those funds to a diberent project to meet the timeline for use of funds.

I’m happy to discuss further if you have any questions.

Thanks,
~ Monique
Monique Arellano
San Bernardino Council of Governments/San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Director of the Council of Governments
1170 West Third Street, 2nd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92410
909.884.8276 | Office
Gosbcta.com/sbcog

2 of 2
The information in this e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this message or attachment is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the e-mail and all of its attachments.

STAFF REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
FOR MEETING: Apr 14 2026
SUBJECT: JTNPA Workforce Housing on City-owned 17-acre Site.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City Council authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to work with JTNPA on a land lease to allow for the long-term usage of all or a portion of the 17 +/- acres located west of Adobe Road and south of Theatre 29.

The lease would come back to City Council for final approval along with additional project details prior to execution.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE:

Request Staff Report (City Manager Presenting)
Council Question of Staff
Request Public Comment
Council Discussion
Motion/Second
Discussion of Motion
Call the Question
ATTACHMENTS:
• JTNPA Project Proposal[1]
• LMA Qualifications Package
• Mojave Land grading area
• 2024-10-01 LEASE
AGREEMENT AHA Projects
Mojaveland Lease Agreement
• Location of 17 Acres along
Adobe Road
BACKGROUND:

On January 26, 2026, City Manager James met with Joshua Tree National Park Association’s (JTNPA) Executive Director Jacqueline Guevara, Director Christine Grimes, and project manager Ken Beck.

Various challenges and opportunities surrounding Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP) operations were discussed and specifically National Park Service (NPS) employee housing.

Every year during the Fall, Winter, and Spring months, seasonal Park volunteers and employees are vital to ensuring a safe and enjoyable visit to the National Park. Unfortunately, as Twentynine Palms has become more popular and house values have increased, the cost of seasonal rentals has also Page 247 of 312 increased. Unfortunately, seasonal employees tend to be on the lower end of the Federal pay scale.

Housing affordability has become a significant issue for Park employees both within Twentynine Palms and in populated areas adjacent to other high-traffic national parks. Thankfully, the JTNPA and the National Park Service Foundation (parent organization for all National Park non-profit associations) are working on solutions.

In 2025, JTNPA was awarded a $75,000 planning grant from the National Park Service Foundation. The goal of this planning grant is to help JTNPA design a project (Project) which would become a workforce housing/community‐centered project that supports park staff, volunteers, education, and the local economy. While currently in the visioning stage with a locally acclaimed architect, should the JTNPA find a suitable piece of land to locate the Project, the JTNPA would become eligible to apply for a $2M construction grant. While $2M will not build the Project as currently contemplated, $2M would be a significant step forward and a solid foundation to launch a successful fund-raising effort.

During the January 26, 2026 City Council meeting, the City-owned 17 +/- acre parcel located west of Adobe Road, north of Foothill, and south of Sullivan was identified as a potential location for the Project.

The 17 acres is within walking distance of our Downtown businesses and restaurants, and the JTNP Headquarters. Another bonus is future Project guests can support, enjoy, and/or volunteer at Theatre 29, Mojaveland miniature golf course, and at the future Palms N Paws animal shelter.

On April 11, 2000, the City acquired the property. Originally intended to be a City park, construction funding fell through. Given rising construction and ongoing park maintenance costs, the City has been reluctant to pursue additional park funding.

Tonight’s agenda item is an opportunity for the City Council to hear from JTNPA and NPS, and to discuss the City’s interest in supporting this workforce housing/community education center through the sale or ideally a long-term land lease.

Please note, given the size and location of the previously approved Mojaveland miniature golf project, Staff sees both the Project and Mojaveland working well together.

The attached Powerpoint outlines JTNPA’s preliminary proposal.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

This agenda item addresses the following strategic plan goals:
 A1.3: Analyze what economic development strategies are within the City’s jurisdiction, and initiate a plan to implement corresponding actions (e.g. identify viable public-private partnerships that can be revenue generating for both parties).
 A3.3 Foster partnerships with relevant foundations and/or organizations to identify and match funding needs with opportunities.
 A5.2 Evaluate cost and comparative service levels between City-provided services with private sector, non-for-profit, and non-governmental organizations to determine if any services can be outsourced, as a cost-savings mechanism.
 B3.2: Explore feasibility of an adaptive reuse program that can be used to remediate, sell, and/or redevelop blighted buildings and vacant lots.
 C1.4: Explore feasibility of incentive programs that attract new housing developments at multiple levels of affordability.
 E1.9: Increase awareness of and drive visitation to the new National Park Visitor Center in Freedom Plaza, elevating the City’s positioning as the gateway of choice to Joshua Tree National Park.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

If approved, facilitating the creation of workforce housing near the JTNP Headquarters and Downtown will reduce daily vehicle trips to and from work.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose to save this land for use as a future park or reduce the total amount of land which could be used for the Project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Negligible.

J
T
N
P
A
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L

IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
TIO
N
Joshua
Tre
e
N
ational P
ark Asso
ciation (JT
N
P
A) is
proud to
p
artner with the
City
of T
w
entynine
P
alms on a transform
ativ
e, c
o
m
munity‑c
entere
d
proje
ct that sup
p
orts p
ark staff, v
olunte
ers,
e
duc
ation, and the lo
c
al e
c
ono
m
y.

W
e
are se
eking
City
C
ouncil a
p
pro
v
al to
o
btain
tw
o
City‑o
wne
d
p
arc
els lo
c
ate
d
off A
d
o
b
e
R
o
a
d,
within city limits, to
d
e
v
elo
p
a
multi‑use
pro
p
erty
that dire
ctly
b
enefits b
oth Joshua
Tre
e
N
ational
P
ark and the
T
w
entynine
P
alms c
o
m
munity.

T
H
E
N
E
E
D
Joshua
Tre
e
N
ational P
ark c
ontinues to
e
x
p
erienc
e:

Incre
ase
d
visitation
A
gro
wing
d
e
m
and for p
ark staff and
v
olunte
ers
Limite
d
attaina
ble housing for N
ational P
ark
S
ervic
e
e
m
plo
y
e
es
A ne
e
d for e
x
p
and
e
d
e
duc
ation and
c
o
m
munity
g
athering sp
a
c
es
This proje
ct resp
onds dire
ctly to these
challeng
es
while
aligning
with the
City’s g
o
als for e
c
ono
mic
vitality, w
orkforc
e sup
p
ort, and
c
o
m
munity servic
es.

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
O
V
E
R
VIE
W:

J
T
N
P
A
M
U
L
TI‑U
S
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
The
pro
p
ose
d
multi‑use
pro
p
erty is d
esigne
d to
b
e:

Mission‑driv
en
C
o
m
munity‑fo
cuse
d
E
c
ono
mic
ally sup
p
ortiv
e
E
duc
ational and inclusiv
e
The site
will thoughtfully inte
grate housing,
e
duc
ation, v
olunte
er sup
p
ort, and
c
o
m
munity
g
athering sp
a
c
es.

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
U
S
E
A
N
D
B
E
N
E
FIT
S
H
o
u
sin
g: S
u
p
p
ortin
g th
e
P
ark
W
orkforc
e
The
pro
p
erty
will includ
e:
12 Single
R
esid
ent O
c
cup
anc
y (S
R
O) d
w
ellings
D
e
dic
ate
d housing for N
ational P
ark S
ervic
e
rang
ers and
p
ark staff
B
enefits to the
City:

Pro
vid
es attaina
ble housing for essential p
ark
e
m
plo
y
e
es
R
e
duc
es pressure
on the lo
c
al rental m
arket
Fre
es up housing sto
ck for resid
ents and fa
milies
V
olu
nte
er Villa
g
e
&
E
d
u
c
atio
n
al U
s
e
T
o sup
p
ort v
olunte
ers and
e
duc
ational pro
gra
m
ming,
the site
will includ
e:
2 5–3
0 tent c
a
m
ping sites
5–10
R
V sla
bs
This sp
a
c
e
will serv
e:

P
ark v
olunte
ers
E
duc
ation pro
gra
m
p
articip
ants
S
e
asonal and
proje
ct‑b
ase
d sup
p
ort cre
ws

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
U
S
E
A
N
D
B
E
N
E
FIT
S
C
O
N
TIN
U
E
D
S
h
are
d
C
o
m
m
u
nity
H
u
b
A
c
entral hub
will sup
p
ort b
oth resid
ents and
visitors, fe
aturing:

Kitchen fa
cilities
R
estro
o
ms with sho
w
ers
A sm
all c
o
m
munity living
and
g
athering sp
a
c
e
This hub fosters:

C
onne
ction
C
olla
b
oration
A strong sense
of ste
w
ardship
and
c
o
m
munity

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
U
S
E
A
N
D
B
E
N
E
FIT
S
C
O
N
TIN
U
E
D
Ed
u
c
atio
n
&
C
o
m
m
u
nity Le
arnin
g
S
p
a
c
e
The
proje
ct includ
es a
d
e
dic
ate
d
e
duc
ation sp
a
c
e
that will:

Sup
p
ort Disc
overJTREE and
D
esert Institute
pro
gra
ms
B
e
availa
ble for other c
o
m
munity‑b
ase
d
e
duc
ational servic
es
C
o
m
munity Im
p
a
ct:

Exp
ands lo
c
al scienc
e
c
a
m
ps and le
arning
o
p
p
ortunities
Strengthens p
artnerships with lo
c
al scho
ols
Cre
ates a share
d resourc
e for y
outh and
e
duc
ators
Ev
e
nt &
G
ath
erin
g
S
p
a
c
e
The
pro
p
erty
will also includ
e
an event sp
a
c
e for up
to 10
0 p
e
o
ple, use
d for:

JTN
P
A
org
aniz
ational events
N
ational P
ark S
ervic
e
pro
gra
ms
C
o
m
munity
events and
g
atherings
This sp
a
c
e
enc
oura
g
es:

Civic
eng
a
g
e
m
ent
Cultural pro
gra
m
ming
C
o
m
munity
c
onne
ction

E
C
O
N
O
MIC
&
C
O
M
M
U
NIT
Y
B
E
N
E
FIT
S
This proje
ct offers m
e
aningful b
enefits to the
City:

E
c
ono
mic
driv
er bringing staff, v
olunte
ers, and
visitors into the
d
o
wnto
wn are
a
Incre
ase
d use
of lo
c
al businesses and servic
es
Strengthene
d id
entity
as a
g
ate
w
a
y
c
o
m
munity to Joshua
Tre
e
N
ational P
ark
Long‑term inv
estm
ent in p
e
o
ple, e
duc
ation,
and infrastructure

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
P
A
R
T
N
E
R
S
K
e
y
C
olla
b
oratio
n
s
This proje
ct is built on strong
p
artnerships:

City of Tw
entynine Palms – proje
ct lo
c
ation and land
c
olla
b
oration
N
ational Park S
ervic
e (NPS) – pro
gra
m
m
atic input and housing use
N
ational Park Found
ation - funding resourc
e
and strate
gic
c
olla
b
orator sup
p
orting
e
duc
ation, w
orkforc
e, and
c
o
m
munityfo
cuse
d
p
ark initiatives
U
S
C
S
cho
ol of Archite
cture – d
esign of the 12
S
R
O
d
w
ellings
C
olle
g
e
of the
D
esert /
C
M
C
C
onstruction Tra
d
e
S
cho
ol –
w
orkforc
e
d
evelo
p
m
ent and
c
onstruction sup
p
ort
M
orong
o
Unifie
d
S
cho
ol District – exp
and
e
d
e
duc
ation a
c
c
ess and
c
olla
b
oration
A
d
ditio
n
al p
artn
ers in
clu
d
e:

Cherie
Miller R
e
al Estate – sup
p
ort for a
d
ditional land
a
c
quisition
ne
ar City‑o
wne
d
p
arc
els
Lo
escher M
e
a
che
m
Archite
cts – archite
ctural d
esign and visioning
These
p
artners bring lo
c
al kno
wle
d
g
e, d
esign exc
ellenc
e, and
a
c
o
m
mitm
ent to sustaina
bility and
c
o
m
munity‑fo
cuse
d
d
evelo
p
m
ent.

S
U
S
T
AIN
A
BILIT
Y
&
S
T
E
W
A
R
D
S
HIP
T
h
e
proje
ct prioritiz
e
s:

Clim
ate‑re
s
p
o
n
siv
e
d
e
sig
n
Efficie
nt la
n
d
u
s
e
Lo
n
g‑term
ste
w
ard
s
hip
of p
u
blic
re
s
o
urc
e
s
Alig
n
m
e
nt with th
e
d
e
s
ert e
n
viro
n
m
e
nt
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
nity
c
h
ara
cter

T
H
E
A
S
K
JT
N
P
A re
s
p
e
ctfully re
q
u
e
sts:

City
C
o
u
n
cil a
p
pro
v
al to
o
btain tw
o
City‑o
w
n
e
d
p
arc
els
off A
d
o
b
e
R
o
a
d
C
o
ntin
u
e
d
c
olla
b
oratio
n
with th
e
City
of T
w
e
nty
nin
e
P
alm
s
a
s th
e
proje
ct
m
o
v
e
s into
pla
n
nin
g
a
n
d
d
e
v
elo
p
m
e
nt
p
h
a
s
e
s

T
H
A
N
K
Y
O
U
This multi‑use
pro
p
erty re
presents a share
d inv
estm
ent in:

P
e
o
ple
E
duc
ation
E
c
ono
mic
vitality
The long‑term suc
c
ess of Joshua
Tre
e
N
ational P
ark and the
City
of T
w
entynine
P
alms
W
e
are
e
x
cite
d
a
b
out the
o
p
p
ortunity to
p
artner with the
City
on a
proje
ct that serv
es the
p
ark, the
c
o
m
munity, and future
g
enerations.

QUALIFICATIONS

PACKAGE

01.23.2026

LOESCHER

MEACHEM

ARCHITECTS

LMA SPECIALIZES

IN THE DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION

OF SUSTAINABLE,

COMMUNITY DRIVEN

PROJECTS ACROSS

MULTIPLE

TYPOLOGIES

AND LOCATIONS

Loescher Meachem Architects 3

FIRM PROFILE
Loescher Meachem Architects was created in 2012 by
architects Ben Loescher and John Meachem. Initially
formed as workplace consultants, they quickly assembled a team of innovators, designers, and subject-matter
experts to extend their skills across multiple project types, synthesizing creativity with technical and problem-solving capabilities.

OUR FIRM
Today, LMA is recognized for their expertise in complex, high-ambition projects. The firm has garnered numerous
awards and earned the respect of both clients and peers alike, owing to its unwavering commitment to excellence.

Over 50% of our team are licensed architects, reflecting a culture dedicated to professional growth.

At LMA, we believe collaboration is the cornerstone of
any successful project. Our projects often involve multiple designers and subject matter experts requiring a high
degree of cooperation to achieve outcomes greater than
that possible using a single-member team.

LMA’s work extends to both urban and rural communities
in Southern California. Our recent desert work includes the design, permitting and documentation for the
restoration of Pioneertown’s historic Red Dog Saloon,
Project Management and fundraising for the Pioneertown
Mane Street National Register Nomination, and the
creation of a proposed Zoning Overlay for Pioneertown’s historic business district. LMA also has several
hospitality and residential projects under construction in development San Bernardino County.

OUR BEGINNINGS

Loescher Meachem Architects 4

SUSTAINABILITY
LMA is committed to centering sustainability in
our work, across scales and construction types.

We have extensive knowledge in re-purposing
structures to respond to new programmatic
needs which preserves virgin materials,
improves energy conservation and minimizes
sprawl. We have completed numerous awardwinning projects that celebrate the inherent beauty in existing structures by contrasting new
architecture with older elements.

We also have extensive knowledge of
alternative low-carbon materials, including
adobe and compressed earth block, and are
actively promoting their use through our current
architectural projects, educational workshops
and political advocacy.

COMMUNITY-DRIVEN
DESIGN
At LMA, we believe a project’s success is
defined by the satisfaction of its end users.

From early stages, we are committed to
understanding specific needs of owners, users
and community members to clearly articulate
the problems that need solving.

We have extensive experience asking thought
provoking questions that lead to rich inquiry
and conversation among user groups and
translating what we hear into clear, thoughtful
design concepts. Investing time at the outset
of each project to carefully listen and engage
stakeholders has proven time and again to
result in architecture that is both specific and
enduring.

Loescher Meachem Architects 5

PROBLEM-SOLVING
Building close relationships with our clients,
asking the correct questions at the right
time and prioritizing collaborative problem
solving helps us guide highly complex
projects through entitlements, design and
construction.

DIRECT PRINCIPAL

INVOLVEMENT
Where many firms would delegate day-today tasks to junior level staff, one of /MA¶s principals will be intimately involved through
the life of the project.

CODE KNOWLEDGE
LMA has extensive knowledge of building
regulation within the Southern California
region, both in standard practices,
exceptions and alternatives. Ben Loescher
is an active member of the International
Code Council participating in the
development of the International Building
Code and International Residential Codes
at the National level.

Due to the nature of the institutions
involved in building regulation, knowledge
of the code is not always sufficient on its
own. LMA routinely engages with building
officials on an informal level to obtain
clarity on interpretive issues before formal
submissions occur.

OUR

DISTINGUISHING

FACTORS

RIGHT-SIZED
As an agile firm without significant overhead
and e[clusively located within the 6outhern
Califronia market, your project is a big deal to
us. The people you see are the people that do
the work.

DESIGN SENSITIVITY
We aim to look beyond current aesthetic trends
and root our designs in clear concepts that
joyfully address the uniTue needs of each
project. Our ability to reali]e challenging design
intentions and complicated detailing efficiently
and on budget has helped us earn awards and
recognition on local and national levels.

TEAM-BASED APPROACH
While each project team member has specific
responsibilities, project success often depends
on the ability of team members to e[tend
themselves beyond narrow contractual
obligations to develop working solutions for all
the project stakeholders, and for all the project
interests: design Tuality, cost, & schedule.

ON-SITE PRESENCE
Our firm is committed to finding solutions in
the field in collaboration with the contractor
rather than developing solutions in the office
which may not hit the mark the first time.

Philosophically, we believe that our clients,
project managers, and contractors are all
members of a common team who can only
achieve individual goals through collective
successes.

Loescher Meachem Architects 6

REPRESENTATIVE

PROJECTS

Loescher Meachem Architects 8
NeueHouse Venice Beach is a private workspace for the westside creative community, which offers spaces to work and dine, as well as elevated cultural programming. The project is composed of two neighboring, unreinforced masonry buildings with a shared party wall, which was opened up to create a single 17,000-sf structure. Great care was taken to preserve the character of the 100-year-old building. Programs include private studios, open workstations interspersed with lounge settings, and specialty programs such as an art gallery, broadcast room, and wellness room. The project features organic materials and locally crafted custom furniture. /arge ground floor windows take up almost the entire street-facing faoade allowing ample, filtered light into the reception area. Retrofitted skylights and clerestory windows in the coworking areas bring controlled natural light deep into the space. A large folding glass garage door opens up the gallery to the sidewalk, a gesture which extends cultural programming to the street and creates a more inviting relationship with the block. The flow between indoor and outdoor space continues on the rooftop patio, with NeueHouse’s in-house food and beverage program ‘Reunion’.

NeueHouse Venice Beach was winner of Interior Design Magazine’s Best of Year Awards in the Co-Working Office category, 0, /os Angeles Business Council Architectural Awards in the Adaptive Reuse category, 0, the ,,DA 6oCal Calibre Awards in the Transformation category, 0.

NEUEHOUSE VENICE BEACH
Venice, CA
Project Type: Restaurant, Coworking TI
Building Type: Adaptive Reuse - Historic
Conversion
Area: 17,000 SF
Completion: 2023
Services: Programming & Visioning, Core
and Shell, Construction Documentation,
Construction Administration
LMA executed this project in collaboration
with interior design firm Design Agency.

Photos by Yoshihiro Makino

Loescher Meachem Architects 10
A prominent multimedia production studio hired /MA and .P6 to create its new e[ecutive offices in Santa Monica. Studio leadership wanted a space that would bolster the culture and brand of the rapidly growing studio while providing state-of-the-art production capabilities. LMA and 11KPS collaborated to develop a design that is elegant and timeless; a thoughtfully crafted experience for both staff and visitors.

The 260,000 square foot campus renovation houses six separate buildings, each facilitating a diverse range of animation, editorial and screening functions. With a headcount of 600 plus employees, the buildings are organi]ed to optimi]e the workflow between departments, streamlining the creative process. The floor plan is designed to accommodate the dynamic workplace by allowing teams to expand and contract as needed through a modular layout of workspaces. The connecting courtyards provide a space for staff to have informal meetings or take a break, and also function as circulation thoroughfares that create a network of indoor/outdoor spaces.

Across the six buildings there are open and closed collaboration areas, private meeting rooms, and highly technical production areas including QA/QC rooms, lighting and review rooms, and voiceover booths. Additionally, the campus includes a 200-seat theater, reception area, commercial kitchen and dining area, coffee shop, and various support spaces.

CONFIDENTIAL MEDIA CAMPUS
Santa Monica, CA
Project Type: Media Office
Building Type: TI & exterior improvements
Area: 260,000 SF
Completion: June 2025
Services: Programming, Schematic
Design, Design Development, Construction
Documentation, Permitting, Construction
Administration
LMA executed this project in collaboration
with designer Andy Waisler/11kps.

Photography by Here And Now Agency.

Loescher Meachem Architects 12
Occupying one of Los Angeles’ most iconic buildings, the Neuehouse project balanced a respect for the building’s historic architecture with high ambition interiors. Organized around the central atrium, the project consists of co-working suites, enclosed offices, small collaboration spaces, meeting rooms, a commercial kitchen and a private bar and restaurant.

This challenged the infrastructural and code constraints of the existing building. Prior to the project¶s commencement, the building¶s second floor was built-out with a hodge-podge of recent tenant improvements dating from the 70s to 90s which had obscured and buried significant historic fabric inside of wall and ceiling assemblies.

Working closely with Landlord, LMA organized forensic demolition of the non-historic elements to carefully locate and incorporate contributing flooring, moldings, windows, interior doors and fireplaces which had been concealed for decades

NEUEHOUSE BRADBURY
Los Angeles, CA
Project Type: Coworking TI
Building Type: Historic High-Rise
Area: 25,000 SF
Completion: 2020
Services: Construction Documentation
and Constructions Administration
LMA executed this project in collaboration
with interior design firm Design Agency.

Photos by Nikolas Koenig / OTTO

Loescher Meachem Architects 14
Traction is a 40,000 SF adaptive-reuse project which activates the city block, providing retail and restaurant space on the ground level and office space on the second floor, with access to an amenity roof deck. The project consists of six seismically separated buildings; three new and three existing, one of which is a 100-year-old previously unreinforced brick building.

The three new additions are seamlessly positioned to form a solid perimeter and create a central courtyard that can be directly accessed by the retail and restaurant spaces.

Open-air corridors lead from the street to the courtyard, creating a balance between public and private space. Tenants include Concierge Coffee, Alchemy Works, Departamento, and Flamingo Estate.

TRACTION AVE
Los Angeles, CA
Project Type: Office Park Repositioning
Building Type: Adaptive Reuse
Area: 32,600 SF
Completion: 2023
Services: Programming, Design,
Construction Documentation and
Construction Administration
LMA executed this project in collaboration
with project designer Klein Agency.

Photos by Michael Kim and LMA.

As part of a collaboration with Yucca Valley
Material Lab (YVML) as part of a Frankenthaler
Climate ,nitiative, /MA designed this site-specific
and fully accessible new campus for YVML. The
simple design encapsulates the mission of YVML
in its function as well as its construction, made with
harvested on-site soil and constructed through
workshops as part of the school’s mission of arts
and crafts education. The timber roof structure and
north-facing roof monitors bring in ample diffused
lighting for class-time illumination, and will serve
as a beacon of alternative arts education in the
high desert.

Once compelte, it will serve as an ADA-accessible
communal workspace for material experimentation,
alternative learning, habitat restoration, and deep
community engagement.

YUCCA VALLEY MATERIAL LAB
Yucca Valley, CA
Project Type: Commercial
Building Type: Adobe New Build
Size: 1200 SF
Completion: Estimated 2026
Services: Schematic Design,
Design Development, Construction
Documentation, Permitting
Loescher Meachem Architects 16

The Reserve, a 320-acre site managed by UCI, serves as a hub for research, conservation, education, and outreach. It includes two primary structures dating from the 1940s that have been repurposed to support lodging, research, and educational activities for visiting faculty, students, and researchers. A single-story, approximately 3,450 SF former single-family home has been converted into a dormitory and teaching facility, and a freestanding, approximately 1,800 SF shop building has been partially adapted into a classroom and workspace for creative and technical endeavors. All existing buildings need serious refurbishment, and UCI wish to extend the lodging to house more researchers.

The project will be executed in multiple phases to address urgent needs, facilitate stakeholder consensus, and support fundraising efforts for long-term enhancements. The work will span across visioning, programming and master planning through construction.

UC IRVINE - BURNS PIÑON RIDGE RESERVE
San Bernardino County, CA
Project Type: Housing facilities for
researchers
Building Type: Existing 1940’s housing
and research facilities
Area: 320 acres / 5250 SF building area
Completion: Estimated completion 2026
Services: Masterplanning, Visioning
and Programming, Schematic Design,
Design Development, Construction
Documentation, Permitting, Construction
Administration
Photos by LMA

Santiago Adobe is located in the unincorporated community of Landers, in Mojave Desert, California. The client purchased a 10 acre lot to build his own tiny home upon, using his own hands and the ground beneath him.

The 399 SF Adobe is made on-site using local soil harvested from excavation.

The adobe soil is mixed and molded in wooden forms, and the bricks are set in the sun to dry. Phased construction is scheduled, starting with the shading pergola which will provide an area for sheltered construction staging. The depressed slab provides additional earth sheltering and takes advantage of over-excavation usually required by code due to the area’s loose, granitic soils. 6antiago Abode consists of a simple rectangular volume with open floor plan and split-level loft bedroom perched above the bathroom and utility area. As the building is designed around California’s Tiny House Code which limits the building area to less than 00 6F, the layout employs an incredibly efficient use of space, with custom furniture and clever storage solutions which make the most of spatial constraints.

Santiago Adobe has received an AIA Los Angeles Next LA Merit Award, and an AIA Inland California Honor Award.

SANTIAGO ADOBE
Landers, CA
Project Type: Single Family Home
Building Type: Adobe New Build
Size: 399 SF
Completion: Estimated 2025
Services: Schematic Design,
Design Development, Construction
Documentation and Construction
Administration, Landscaping
Loescher Meachem Architects 18

The Morongo Basin Humane Society (MBHS) operates the basin’s only no-kill animal shelter. LMA’s pro-bono work will allow for the expansion and replacement of the existing facility will allow MBHS to continue their ‘no-kill’ mission, providing care for homeless dogs and cats while subsequently arranging for their adoption.

The new facilities include an administration and cat house building, a meet and greet pavilion, a kennel and two dog park areas.

MORONGO BASIN HUMANE SOCIETY
Joshua Tree, CA
Project Type: Animal Shelter
Area: Dog kennel: 1,440 SF, dog
quarantine kennel: 280 SF. Future permit
packages will include the Administration
and Cat Housing building (2,880 SF) and a
Cat Quarantine building (456 SF)
Building Type: Existing Animal Shelter
Completion: Estimated 2025
Services: Entitlement Services
Loescher Meachem Architects 19

The Project is expected to consist of the expansion of the existing Pioneertown Motel at 5240 Curtis Road in Pioneertown, located in unincorporated San Bernardino County.

Built originally as a waypost for movie stars of old Westerns, Pioneertown Motel has stood since 1946.

The proposed expansion would include the development of the parcel where the existing motel is located as well as of the three parcels north of the existing motel. Additions include new amenities and lodging, including a restaurant, retail components, an enclosed event barn, spa areas and an outdoor pool. The project has been submitted for approval to 6an Bernardino County Planning who has classified the project as a Minor Use Permit and has imposed additional submission requirements on the applicant as part of the project’s discretionary approval process.

The existing project site consists of an existing Motel located on an approximately 1.87 acre parcel which has been improved with landscaping and site parking. The Motel has been classified as a contributing resource to a 1ational Register +istoric District which is currently under review
with finali]ation e[pected within the month
by the .eeper of the
1ational Register.

Three additional parcels of approximately 1.27 acres each are also part of the project boundary. The southernmost is largely free of vegetation save for a few Joshua Trees and recently introduced ornamental plants; the remaining parcels are unimproved scrub.

PIONEERTOWN MOTEL
Pioneertown, CA
Project Type: Motel and Grounds
Building Type:Adaptive Reuse
Area: 3.14 acres
Completion: Estimated 2024
Services: Programming, Design,
Construction Documentation and
Construction Administration
Loescher Meachem Architects 20

Designed as a home for a maker, this will be the
first new building constructed on Pioneertown¶s
Mane 6treet since it was recogni]ed as a 1ational
Register +istoric District. Constructed of locally
made adobe bricks and harvested wood, the
structure occupies the footprint and form of the
former *rubstakes Cafe. While the front facade
is harmoni]ed with Mane 6treet¶s historic western
filming environment, the side of the structure and
open dog-trot space create a conversation with the
neighboring Red Dog 6aloon. The interiors, out
of sight from Mane 6treet, are more e[pressive,
demonstrating earth¶s sculptural potential.

MANE STREET RESIDENCE
Pioneertown, CA
Project Type: Single Family Home
Building Type: Adobe New Build
Size: 1100 SF
Completion: Estimated 2026
Services: Schematic Design,
Design Development, Construction
Documentation, Permitting
Loescher Meachem Architects 22

In an effort to develop an earthen-alternative
to the standard-ADU-plan program offered in
Fresno County, this design has been developed
as a 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom adobe build with
age-in-place capabilities in mind. This design
demonstrates and balances the different aesthetic
qualities of adobe, exposing it in some areas and
finishing it with clay plaster in others. This home
references historic adobe building styles while
embracing the need for affordable, small-scale
housing.

ARAMBULA ADOBE ADU
Fresno, CA
Project Type: Residential
Building Type: Adobe New Build
Size: 1200 SF
Completion: Estimated 2027
Services: Schematic Design,
Design Development, Construction
Documentation, Permitting
Loescher Meachem Architects 23

Initiated by LMA, the Mane Street National Register Historic District was the result of a three year community effort to recognize and project Pioneertown’s historic core. The Western town was invented in 1946 as a site to film B Westerns as well as a real estate development. The concept was innovative in that the town was laid out to function simultaneously as both set and city. During a two decade period that concluded in the late 
0¶s, Pioneertown was the site of hundreds of films and shorts, including the *ene Autry 6how, Judge Roy Bean, and the Cisco .id. 1ow one of the last movie ranches remaining from the golden age of the Western, the site’s listing has been instrumental in educating the public and shaping appropriate development in the community.

Building on the success of the Mane 6treet 1ational Register +istoric District, the Mane Street Overlay is a proposed zoning amendment for Pioneertown’s historic core that seeks to align historic preservation, appropriate scaled development, and community interests within new development standards that recognize both Pioneertown’s tourism draw and its infrastructural limitations. Representing a coalition of Pioneertown property and business owners, the Overlay seeks to reform incoherent County land-use regulations that have stymied small businesses and adaptive reuse of Mane Street’s historic structures for decades.

MANE STREET NATIONAL REGISTER

HISTORIC DISTRICT & OVERLAY
Pioneertown, CA
34 25
2 36
24 17
13 34 5 6 7 37 8 9 12 11 3810
39 14
14 40 41 15 16 18 19
26 20
21 28
22 29
33 32
31 30
23 PIONEERTOWN ROAD

PIONEERTOWN ROAD

RAWHIDE ROAD

CURTIS ROAD

MANE STREET

PIONEERTOWN MANE STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT

CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES
1 MANE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
2 THE KLIP ‘N’ KURL HAIR SALOON
3 CAROL BURGESS’ GIFT SHOP
4 PIONEERTOWN LIKKER
5 PIONEER BOWL
6 TRIGGER BILL’S SHOOTING GALLERY
7 THE SILVER DOLLAR
8 THE PIONEERTOWN GAZETTE
9 RED DOG SALOON
10 THE BARBER SHOP & BEAUTY CORRAL
11 MARBLE’S ELECTRONICS
12 THE FROSTED PANTRY
13 O.K. CORRAL
14 WHITE’S HARDWARE
15 GEM TRADER / WOODEN INDIAN
16 ALTHOOF’S FURNITURE STORE
17 PIONEERTOWN CAMPGROUND
18 THE OPEN AIR DANCE FLOOR
19 THE ROCK WATERING TROUGH
20 THE PIONEERTOWN LAND OFFICE
21 PIONEERTOWN DUDS AND SADDLERY
22 PIONEERTOWN PHOTOS
23 THE PIONEERTOWN NICKELODEON
24 THE PIONEERTOWN TOWNHOUSE
25 PARKING AREA

NON-EXTANT RESOURCES / SITES
36 THE GOLDEN STALLION RESTAURANT
37 GRUBSTAKE CAFE
38 OLE’S BARBEQUE CORRAL
39 MAGGIE’S FEED BARN
40 NELL’S ICE CREAM PALACE
41 THE CHUCKWAGON CAFE

RECENT & COMPATIBLE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES
26 RESIDENTIAL GROUPING
27 CAMPGROUND RESTROOM
28 FALSE FRONT GROUPING
29 MANE STREET UTILITY SHED / SOAP GOATS
30 THE PIONEERTOWN LAND OFFICE
31 THE PIONEERTOWN BELL HOUSE
32 THE GENERAL MERCANTILE SHOP
33 ERNIE KESTER’S FILM MUSEUM
34 PIONEERTOWN SERVICE STATION & PONY EXPRESS / PAPPY & HARRIET’S PIONEERTOWN PALACE

ORIGINAL BUT ALTERED

NON-CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES
35 THE PIONEERTOWN GENERATING HOUSE
0 100 300ft
LEGEND

PROPOSED OVERLAY BOUNDARY

POTENTIAL OVERLAY EXPANSION
Project Type: Planning
Completion: 2020 - Ongoing
Services: Project Management, Historic
Preservation, Land-Use Consulting/
Entitlements, Planning, Public Outreach,
Fundraising
Loescher Meachem Architects 24

The Joshua Tree Certified Farmers Market is a beloved weekly community gathering spot and green market located in Joshua Tree 9illage which hosts do]ens of local producers and artisans. Faced with closure due to a pre-e[isting entitlement dispute with the County, /MA¶s pro-bono work won permanent approvals for the Market to remain and e[pand within its previous location.

JOSHUA TREE FARMERS MARKET
Joshua Tree, CA
Project Type: Pro-Bono Entitlement
Services
Area: 20,000 SF
Completion: 2020
Services: Entitlement Services
Loescher Meachem Architects 25

Rimrock Ranch is a 36-acre ranch situated in Pioneertown, originally built in the 1940’s as a weekend retreat for Western actors The ranch consists of four rustic Cabins, retro-fitted Airstream trailers, a lodge and the internationally famous architectural masterpiece known as the +atch +ouse. /MA is providing services in support of Entitlement approvals to hold events such as weddings, retreats, and filmphotography shoots at the Rimrock Ranch.

RIMROCK RANCH
Pioneertown, CA
Project Type: Motel and Grounds
Building Type:Adaptive Reuse
Area: 36 acres
Completion: Estimated 2024
Services: Programming, Design, Construction Documentation and Construction Administration
Loescher Meachem Architects 26

Designed in 1946 by Frank Lloyd Wright, the Joshua Tree Retreat Center at the Institute (JTRC) is a 420-acre spiritual center consisting of accommodations, meeting rooms, extensive landscaped grounds, and a restaurant. As part of a long-term capital improvement plan, the project commenced with work to address deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements, leading to the conversion of four historically preserved Lloyd Wright cabins. LMA is working on interior and e[terior restoration of finishes, new lighting, plumbing fi[tures, eTuipment and systems, selection of furniture, window treatments, and soft goods.

Infrastructure improvements included work to replace the facility’s drinking water supply system with a state-of-the-art water treatment plant that uses biological processes to remove nitrates without the creation of hazardous distillates or reTuiring large amounts of energy. /MA¶s pro-bono services have identified a cost-effective and innovative solution for long-standing and vexing water treatment issues and will conclude with the installation of a 40-gallon-per-minute treatment plant.

JOSHUA TREE RETREAT CENTER
Joshua Tree, CA
Project Type: Motel and Grounds
Building Type: Adaptive Reuse
Area: 420 acres
Completion: Estimated 2024
Services: Programming, Design, Historic
Preservation, Construction Documentation
and Construction Administration,
Landscaping
Loescher Meachem Architects 27

This A-frame cabin is tucked into the foothills of Burns Canyon in the High Desert, fully off the grid. The two-story 3 bed/2 bath has a generous living space and is enclosed by several decks and pergolas to extend living areas outdoors. The house is suited to work with the existing topography and capture prominent views of San Bernardino Mountains.

BURNS CANYON
Pioneertown, CA
Project Type: Single Family Home
Building Type: New Build A-Frame
Size: 1857 SF
Completion: Estimated 2025
Services: Schematic Design,
Design Development, Construction
Documentation
Loescher Meachem Architects 28

Designed for a couple to age-in-place, the Welch-Kucheck home is a compressed earthen block (CEB) residence and ADU in Joshua Tree. The design uses CEB and hempcrete exterior walls, is passive-solar in design, and will feature rooftop photovoltaic panels to provide electricity. Additionally, the blocks are being made on site by the client using dirt from the site with some additional imported clay. The main house consists of two primary suites on either side of a large shared living and dining space, with several outdoor patios and a rooftop sunroom, totaling 2 beds, 3 baths. The ADU is a one bed one bath with a generous living room and full kitchen.

WELCH-KUCHECK RESIDENCE
Joshua Tree, CA
Project Type: Single Family Home
Building Type: CEB New Build
Size: 1000 SF
Completion: Estimated 2025
Services: Schematic Design,
Design Development, Construction
Documentation
Loescher Meachem Architects 29

The Lonely Dove Motel is an existing 8-unit Motel
located in Flamingo Heights between Yucca Valley
and Landers. The project will renovate and expand the
existing motel with additional guest rooms and camping
facilities, as well as a restaurant and amenities for
guests. The project uses exclusively native landscaping, greywater reuse, and on-site renewable energy
generation to demonstrate a model for sustainable
tourism.

Situated in the midst of Joshua Tree Village, this project converts a neglected apartment building into a three key boutique micro hotel. Taking advantage of previously
forgotten landscape around the building, the design
expands the guest experience from inside to out,
featuring private courtyards, a small pool, and shaded
outdoor gathering areas within regionally appropriate
landscaping.

LONELY DOVE MOTEL

VALLEY VIEW MOTEL

SELECT LODGINGS
Loescher Meachem Architects 30

Loescher Meachem Architects has unparalleled experience in design and consulting of new adobe construction within modern building codes, including seismic resistance, low-embodied carbon construction, and the use of modern stabilizers. Notable achievements include:
• Design, documentation and engineering strategy for Joshua Tree¶s Edhlund Residence, the first adobe building permitted in California since 2003.
• Design and consulting on multiple low-income and attainable housing projects for Adobe in Action, a New Mexicobased housing non-profit. • Public education and Instruction through Adobeisnotsoftware. • Design and construction assistance on the Capilla San Jose de los Nieves in Abiquiu, New Mexico, utilizing a technically challenging load bearing Nubian vault.
• LMA founder Ben Loescher is acknowledged as an expert in adobe construction. Loescher was Principal author of the building code proposal that created the current adobe provisions in the International Building Code; he currently serves as President and Chair of The Earthbuilders’ Guild, the American trade association for earthen construction.

CONTINUING ADOBE WORK
Loescher Meachem Architects 31

CLIENT LIST
& REFERENCES

Loescher Meachem Architects 33

CLIENT LIST

ENTERTAINMENT & STUDIO
Warner Bros. Digital Networks Group
Warner Bros. Machinima, Inc.

Annapurna Pictures
Illumination Entertainment
Bootleg Theater
Benchmark Post Production
Survios Active VR
Media Technology Campus / KCRW Headquarters, Santa Monica College (with CWa)
Skydance Pictures

EDUCATION
Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising (FIDM), multiple campuses
BrandCenter, Virginia Commonwealth
University (with CWa)

WORKPLACE
BUCK Los Angeles
NeueHouse
Apple Inc
Team One
Saatchi & Saatchi
Beats by Dre
The ROW, Arts District
Media Arts Lab, a division of TBWA\Chiat\Day
Nasty Gal Inc.

Associates Purchasing
Bizhaus, multiple locations
Framestore LA
WCM Investment Management
Loot Crate
TJX California Buying Office
Weingart Foundation
Foxhead
JWT New York (with CWa)
Disney Children’s Place (with CWa)
Google Headquarters (with CWa)
Macquarie Group Limited (with CWa)

AEROSPACE
Virgin Orbit
Relativity
Varda Space Industries
Vast Space
Firefly Aerospace

RELIGIOUS/INSTITUTIONAL
Valley Outreach Synagogue

FOOD & BEVERAGE
Damian/Ditroit by Enrique Olvera
ATLA Venice by Enrique Olvera
Tartine Bakery at Fred Segal
Red Dog Saloon
Our / LA Vodka Distillery
Pura Vida
Clarks Oysters

HISTORICAL/RESIDENTIAL
Silvertop, John Lautner
Pioneertown Motel
Red Dog Saloon
Joshua Tree Retreat Center
RETAIL
Phillip Lim Store
Fred Segal
KITH
Shades of Grey
Highbrow Hippie (Salon)
Free Market
Frankies Bikinis

Loescher Meachem Architects 34

REFERENCES
LUKE WOOD Former President
Beats by Dr. Dre
8550 Higuera Street
Culver City, CA 90232
[email protected]
AMY MACKINNON Operations Director
Saatchi & Saatchi
2021 McKinney Ave
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: 310.466.2394
[email protected]
ALYSON BERGET Project Director
Hardy Group
4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 231
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 320.288.6270
[email protected]
ANTONY BIDDLE, LEED AP Principal
Pacific Edge Projects
3423 West Jefferson Blvd, Suite C
Los Angeles, CA 90018
Tel: 310.694.6020
www.pacificedgeprojects.com
JOE VAZQUEZ Managing Principal
Cushman & Wakefield
10250 Constellation Blvd #22,
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: 310.943.5133
[email protected]
TONIAN HOHBERG Founder and President
FIDM/Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising
919 Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Tel: 213.624.1200
[email protected]

MADISON WHARTON COO
BUCK
33 35th Street, Suite A600
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Tel: 212.668.0111
[email protected]
JAMES BYERS Principal
Pacific Edge Projects
3423 West Jefferson Blvd, Suite C
Los Angeles, CA 90018
Tel: 310.651.0026
[email protected]
ALLISON SAMEK Former President / CEO
Fred Segal
8500 Sunset Blvd
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Tel: 310-246-3451
[email protected]

JULIE MICHAEL CEO
Team One
13031 W. Jefferson Blvd., LA, CA 90094
Mobile: 310-466-1881
teamone-usa.com

LOESCHER MEACHEM ARCHITECTS
353 S. Broadway, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90013
t: 213.948.2888
www.lma.la

ANA Projects Mojaveland Lease Agreement
This Lease Agreement ( this " Agreement" nis made effective as of October 1, 2024 by and between the CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS, a California municipal corporation / LESSOR and AHA PROJECTS a California nonprofit public benefit corporation / LESSEE described and defined below:

1. BASIC PROVISIONS

1. LESSOR: City of Twentynine Palms, a California municipal corporation CITY"}

1. 2 LESSEE: AHA Projects (" LESSEE"), a Califomia nonprofit public benefit corporation a miniature golf course and art gallery

1. 3 LEASE LOCATION: 73637 Sullivan Road, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277

1. 4 LEASED PREMISES: The Parties agree that LESSEE shall have exclusive use of the outdoor space as shown on Exhibit "A" for primary use by LESSEE in providing outdoor recreation. LESSEE will be able to use the facilities 24 hours a day 7 days per week,

1. 5 TERM: Commencement Date: October 1, 2024
Termination Date: September 30, 2029

1. 6 PAYMENT: Beginning October 1, 2024, LESSEE shall pay to CITY/ LESSOR $ 1. 00 per year as rent The LESSOR shall be responsible for payment for all utilities related to the LEASED PREMISES.

1. 7 NOTICE: Notice for all communications pursuant to this agreement shall be given in writing to the respective Parties at the following addresses, e -mails or facsimile:

LESSOR' SADDRESS: City of Twentynine Palms
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
Email:

Phone: 760 367 6799
LESSEE' SADDRESS: AHA Projects
2501 125 Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90018
Email: ahaprojects1@gmail. com
Phone: 310 926 6657

1. 8 SCOPE OF SERVICES: LESSEE will conduct its business as a non- profit, charity. In general, AHA Projects/ LESSEE agrees to operate a miniature golf course and related art gallery. CITY/ LESSOR agrees that ultimate hours of operation will be determined by the AHA Projects LESSEE based upon demand for programming as defined in Section 2.

LEASE DEFINITION. AHA Projects / LESSEE may add or change

services with CITY/ LESSOR approval. CITY/ LESSOR reserves the right to refuse additions or changes to services if the proposed additions or changes negatively impact community access to the LEASED PREMISES.

2. 1 EASE DEFINITION

2. 1 GRANT OF LEASE: CITY/ LESSOR hereby grants to AHA Projects LESSEE, an exdusive Lease to utilize the LEASED PREMISES for the purpose described in the SCOPE OF SERVICES for the TERM of this Agreement. The LEASED PREMISES shall be delivered and made available to AHA Projects / LESSEE on the Commencement Date of the original contract ( October 1, 2024) through the end of the current contract (September 30, 2029).
2, CITY UTILIZATION: The AHA Projects / LESSEE agrees to grant access to the CITY/ LESSOR for the leased area at no cost each year, on dates and at times determined by the CITY/ LESSOR, and AHA Projects LESSEE. CITY/ LESSOR and Theatre29 shall endeavor to provide at least 30 days' prior written notice to AHA Projects / LESSEE of the dates and time for CITY' s/ LESSOR' suse of the facility.

2. 3 At a minimum, AHA Projects / LESSEE agrees to offer the following programs:
miniature golf course and related art gallery/ studio.

2. 4 AHA Projects / LESSEE agrees to designate a staff member to become a City Liaison for rentals and other community groups.

3. TERM & TERMINATION

3. 1 Term. The Term of this Agreement is sixty ( 60) months. The Agreement will commence on the Commencement Date and expire on the Termination Date, as set forth in paragraph 1. 5.

3. 2 Option to Terminate. Either party shall have the option to terminate the Agreement at any time with 6 months advance written notice rTermination Notice"), which Termination Notice shall be effective upon the date the party receives the Termination Notice. The Termination Notice shall indude the termination date (" Termination Date"). Upon the Termination Date, AHA Projects / LESSEE shall surrender au of its right, title and interest in and to the LEASED PREMISES to CITY/ LESSOR as though said Termination Date was the date set forth in the Agreement as the expiration of the term of the Agreement and will remove any personal property not then granted to the CITY/ LESSOR.

4. EXTENSION gf AGRAT
This Agreement may be renewed or extended with mutual consideration and agreement of the CITY/ LESSOR and AHA Projects / LESSEE for an additional one ( 1) year term pursuant to the following process.
2

4. 1 AHA Projects / LESSEE may seek an extension of this Agreement by submitting on or before September 1, of the year before the lease is otherwise set for termination ( 2029), a letter of intent requesting extension.

4. 2 Within 30 days of receipt of the request. CITY/ LESSOR shall respond in writing to AHA Projects / LESSEE setting forth its decision.

4. 3 In the event AHA Projects / LESSEE holds over beyond the Term herein provided with the express consent of the CITY/ LESSOR, such holding over shall be from month -to -month. Such holding over shall not be construed as a renewal of this Lease.

OPERATING RESPONSIBILITI1

5. 1 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: During the Term, AHA Projects / LESSEE shall comply, at its own cost and expense, with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, rules, regulations, orders, and other lawful requirements of the governmental bodies having jurisdiction, which are applicable to, or by reason of, AHA Projects / LESSEE' s particular use of the FACILITIES.

5. 2 SIGNS: AHA Projects / LESSEE shall not install permanent signs in the LEASED PREMISES or improvements thereon, unless prior written approval is obtained from CITY/ LESSOR and only in compliance with all local regulations.

5. 3 Non -Profit status must be active at all times during the term of the lease.

5. 4 MAINTENANCE:

5. 4. 1 AHA Projects / LESSEE shall keep LEASED PREMISES free and dear of trash, litter, graffiti or other matter which is unsafe or unsightly.

5. 4.2 AHA Projects / LESSEE shall provide CITY/ LESSOR with a Maintenance Report monthly, detailing the maintenance work performed on the facility and dollar amount associated with the work performed. AHA Projects ( LESSEE shall also provide CITY/ LESSOR with maintenance plans/ records for LEASED PREMISES as requested.

5. 4. 3 AHA Projects / LESSEE shall be the sole party responsible for all maintenance of the LEASED PREMISES, described in Paragraph 1.4, to indude but not be limited to, daily and operational cleaning and maintenance.

5. 4. CITY/ LESSOR is responsible for the repair or replacement of capital items and improvements, but not items related to maintenance or operations or equipment owned by AHA Projects (LESSEE.

5. 4. AHA Projects / LESSEE shall submit a request in writing to CITY/ LESSOR for any improvements or repairs needed.

5. 4. 6 AHA Projects / LESSEE agrees that any permanent improvement, repair or replacement done within the LEASED PREMISES by AHA Projects / LESSEE upon termination of the Lease will be owned by the CITY/ LESSOR.

5. 4. 7 CITY/ LESSOR will be able to access and/ or dose the facilities for any needed repairs on any date mutually agreed to by the AHA Projects LESSEE and CITY/ LESSOR.

5. SAFETY: AHA Projects / LESSEE shall immediately notify CITY/ LESSOR of any unsafe condition of the FACILITY, as well as any unsafe practices occurring thereon, whether under AHA Projects / LESSEE' s or a sub -lessee' soperation. AHA Projects / LESSEE shall cooperate fully with CITY/ LESSOR in the investigation of any crime, injury or death occurring on the LEASED PREMISES, including a prompt report thereof to the City Manager or designee.

5. 6 NUISANCES AND ANNOYANCES: AHA Projects / LESSEE shall not use or permit the use of the FACILITY for any purpose which would constitute a nuisance or unreasonable annoyance to adjacent properties, including, without limitation, live, recorded or broadcast entertainment or the use of loudspeakers or sound or light apparatus other than as may be required by law or necessary or advisable for safety purposes.

5. 7 ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS: AHA Projects LESSEE may distribute or cause to be distributed any advertising, or promotional materials regarding its use of or operation on the FACILITY; copies of all advertising or promotional materials must be provided to the CITY/ LESSOR prior to distribution.

6. LEASE PAYMENTS. TAXES AND FEES
AHA Projects / LESSEE agrees to pay to CITY/ LESSOR, without demand, deduction or setoff, the rent as set forth in Paraaraoh 1. 6,.

7. SSOR RESPONSIBLE FOR UTIUT
CITY/ LESSOR shall pay utility bilis for telecommunications, cable television, water, gas, electric service and any other utilities that are related to the operation of the facility.
t;. INSURANCE
Insurance Requirements for Long Terrn Lessees
Lessee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the Lessee' s operation and use of the leased premises. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by the Lessee. 4

Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

8. 1 Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an • occurrence" basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2, 000,00 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this projectllocation ( ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

8. 2 Workers` Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer' sLiability Insurance with limits of no less than 1, 000,00 per accident for bodily injury or disease. (for lessees with employees).

8. 3 Property insurance against all risks of loss to any tenant improvements or betterments, at full replacement cost with no coinsurance penalty provision. tithe Lessee maintains broader coverage and/ or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Entity requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/ orhigher limits maintained. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Entity.

8. 4 Other Insurance Provisions:

The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain. the following provisions:

Additional insured Status
The Entity, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Lessee including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Lessee' s insurance ( at least as broad as ISO Form CG 2010.)
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Lessee' sinsurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the Entity, its officers, officials. employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the Entity, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Lessee' sinsurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation
Lessee shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self -insured retention is increased. In the event of any 5

cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance. Lessee shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance.

Waiver of Subrogation
Lessee hereby grants to Entity a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Lessee may acquire against the Entity by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Lessee agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the Entity has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. However, Lessee must obtain a workers' compensation endorsement waiving subrogation against the Entity.

Acceptability of insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A. M. Best' srating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the Entity.

Self -insured Retentions
Self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Entity. At the option of the Entityy, either: the Lessee shall obtain coverage to reduce or eliminate such self -insured retentions as respects the Entity, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Lessee shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the Entity guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration. and defense expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self -insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or Entity.

Verification ofCoverage
Lessee shall furnish the Entity with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements ( or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this dause) and a copy of the Dedarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to Entity before work begins. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Lessee' sobligation to provide them. The Entity reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements, required by these specifications, at any time.

Special Risks or Circumstances
Entity reserves the right to modify these requirements at any time, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

9. INDEMNITY
6

AHA Projects / LESSEE hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY/ LESSOR, its City Council, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability for property damage or for personal injury, including death, which may arise from AHA Projects / LESSEE' s use or any sublessee' s use of LEASED PREMISES, except to the extent arising from CITY' s/ LESSOR' s or its employees' or agents' sole negligence or willful misconduct. The parties agree that CITY/ LESSOR, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers should, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be protected from any and an loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, expense, attorney' sfees, litigation costs, or any other cost arising out of or in any way related to the performance of this Agreement.

Accordingly, the provisions of this indemnity provision are intended by the parties to be interpreted and construed to provide the CITY/ LESSOR with the fullest protection possible under the law. AHA Projects / LESSEE acknowledges that CITY/ LESSOR would not enter into this Agreement in the absence of AHA Projects / LESSEE' scommitment to indemnify and protect CITY/ LESSOR as set forth herein. AHA Projects / LESSEE fully assumes the risk of any and all loss, damage or theft of AHA Projects / LESSEE' sproperty located at the LEASED PREMISES that arise out of its own neglect, or misconduct. This Section shall survive the termination of or withdrawal from this Agreement.

DEFAULT AND REMEDIES

10. DEFAULT: The occurrence of any one or more of the following shall be deemed a " Default" by AHA Projects / LESSEE or CITY/ LESSOR and a material breach of this Agreement:
a) Nonpayment of Rent AHA Projects / LESSEE' Sfailure to pay when due any Rent or to timely make any other monetary
payment ( incuding, but not limited to utilities) imposed under the terms of this Agreement.
b) Other Obligations: Either Party' s failure to perform any other obligation under this Agreement for five ( 5) days after written notice from the non -defaulting party; however, if more than five ( 5) days are reasonably required for cure, the defaulting Party shall not be in default hereunder if they shall promptly (and in any event within five ( 5) days after receipt of notice except in case of emergency) commence the cure of the default and diligently prosecute the same to completion, so long as cure is substantially completed within thirty ( 30) days after receipt of CITY/ LESSOR notice.

10. 2 NO DEFAULT Closure of the LEASED PREMISES due to a federal, state, or local emergency order will not constitute a default under this Agreement. AHA Projects / LESSEE shall not be responsible for any payments for the duration of such closure.

10. 3 REMEDIES: In the event of a Default, CITY/ LESSOR and AHA Projects LESSEE shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, and/ or exercise any other remedies that CITY/ LESSOR or AHA Projects LESSEE may have under this Agreement, or at law or in equity, by reason of the Default.

11. SUBLEASES
AHA Projects / LESSEE shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet, or otherwise transfer or encumber all or any part of AHA Projects LESSEE' sinterest in the Agreement, except as expressly permitted by the CITY/ LESSOR in writing.

12. NOTICES
All notices, demands, request. payments or other communications made in connection with this Agreement ( inducting any service of process) shall be in writing and delivered, via personal delivery, certified mail, postage prepaid, or nationally recognized overnight courier such as Federal Express, or by e- mail and/ or facsimile to the addresses and contact information set forth in earagrarft A notice so delivered shall be deemed given on the first date indicated on the receipt of the carrier that delivery has been made or delivered ( or was attempted to be made or delivered) to the address of the intended redpient. It is AHA Projects ILESSEE' sresponsibility to notify CITY/ LESSOR of any address changes. The foregoing method of service shall be exclusive, and AHA Projects LESSEE waives, to the fullest extent permitted under law, the right to any other method of service required by any statute or law now or hereafter in force.

14. 15.

NO WARRANTY ON CONDITION OF LEASED PREMISES
Prior to signing this Agreement. AHA Projects / LESSEE shall fully inspect the LEASED PREMISES and ask any questions regarding its condition and use. By signing this Agreement, AHA Projects ! LESSEE shall be deemed to have inspected the LEASED PREMISES and accepted the LEASED PREMISES ° as is" with no representation or warranty by CITY/ LESSOR as to the condition of the LEASED PREMISES or the suitability of the LEASED PREMISES for AHA Projects / LESSEE' sproposed use. As of the date of signature on this Agreement CITY/ LESSOR is not aware of nor been informed of any dangerous conditions, defects or attractive nuisances in the LEASED PREMISES.

WAIVER OF RESPONSIBILITY
CITY/ LESSOR shall not be liable for, and AHA Projects / LESSEE waives, ail daims for loss or damage to AHA Projects / LESSEE' Sbusiness or damage or injury to person or property sustained by AHA Projects / LESSEE or any person claiming by, through or under AHA Projects / LESSEE, resulting from any accident or occurrence in, on or about the Lease Area or any other part of the LEASED PREMISES except
sole negligence, gross negligence
for those
or willful
claims
misconduct.
that arise out
To
of
the
CITY' s/ LESSOR' s
maximum extent
permitted by law, AHA Projects / LESSEE agrees to use the LEASED PREMISES and to use such other portions of the Project as AHA Projects /LESSEE is herein given the right to use, at AHA Projects / LESSEE' sdiscretion. AHA Projects / LESSEE fully assumes the risk of any and all loss, damage or theft of AHA Projects / LESSEE' s property located at the Project that arise out of its own neglect, or misconduct.
8

16. CASUALTY
In the event any portion of the LEASED PREMISES is damaged by fire or other casualty, this Agreement shall terminate at the option of CITY or LESSEE. All insurance proceeds shall be the exclusive property of CITY/ LESSOR.

17. SEVERABILITY
tf any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, then such term or provision shall be amended to, and solely to, the extent necessary to cure such invalidity or unenforceability, and in its amended form shall be enforceable.

In such event, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
This Agreement shall be govemed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement may be modified only in writing by CITY/ LESSOR and AHA Projects / LESSEE. This Agreement is the only Agreement between the parties hereto. All prior negotiations. representations and agreements between the parties are merged herein. This Agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the State of California. The substantially prevailing party in any action arising out of this agreement in any action, at law or in equity, to enforce the terms of this agreement shall be entitled to the reimbursement of its costs, litigation expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees from the losing party.

If any provision in this Agreement is held by any court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect. Waiver by CITY/ LESSOR of any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained.

Time is of the essence with this Agreement and with every term, covenant and condition hereof. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 9

CITY: City of wentynine Palms
ames, DPPD,
Manager
Date: 10 _a, ct-.'{
LESSEE: AHA Projects
mita- Soudir
Cheyenne Sauter
Executive Director, AHA
ProjectsJune 18, 2024
Date;

1. 0

City Council - Regular Meeting - 26 Mar 2024 - Minutes - Adopted 10129/ 24, 5: 17 PM

TWENTYNINE PALMS CITY COUNCIL
City Council - Regular Meeting MINUTES
City Hall, 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
March 26, 2024
CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Bilderain called the meeting to order at 6: 01 p. m.

Pledge of Allegiance - Boy Scout Thomas Elkins led the Pledge of Allegiance. invocation - Pastor Michehe Ronia - Oasis Community Church, gave the Invocation.

RoII Call - The following Councilmembers were present: Klink, Scott, Wright, Bilderain. Mintz had an excused absence.

Closed Session Announcements - None.

Changes to the Agenda - None_

ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Bilderain announced that these proceedings may be viewed on demand on the City of Twentynine Palms website at iriegaizalmfesa, You may also Live Stream this meeting by going on our website and dicking on the "Meeting Agendas" link.

AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS — None.

COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REPORTS OF MEETINGS ATTENDED
Councilmember Scott mentioned that he attended a couple of community meetings regarding potential grant applications for the City, as well as food for the unhoused population.

Councilmember Wright commented that he attended the Rotary Carnival and the All -Star Basketball Tournament. He
commented " hats of " to the Park n Rec crew for ail their hard work this past weekend.

Mayor Pro Tem Klink mentioned that he attended a Coachella Valley Firebirds Hockey game at Acrisure Arena in Palm Desert, and he thanked Ms. Minatrea and her Staff for all their hard work this past weekend.

Mayor Bilderain commented that he attended the All -Star Basketball Tournament, the Rotary Camival, a few meetings with citizens and he wished everyone a Happy Easter.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Waive the Reading of Ordinance and Approve the Reading by Title Only. https: llcitwentynine-» aInSC1 c' 1 w eh. let' cu. i.nen11126674/ Page 1 of $

City Council - Regular Meeting - 26 Mar 2024 - Minutes - Adopted 10! 29!4, 5: 17 PM

2. Approval of Minutes of the City Council Meeting_ Held on February 22, 2. 024. February 27, 2024, and March 12, 2024.

3. Reit st T V rtion of Fn- ot# lill Drive on P reel Mao 2036Q.

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 24- 02, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Twentynine Palms, California, giving notice of the City Council' sintention to vacate Foothill Drive from the easterly boundary of Bullion Avenue to the westerly boundary of Split Rock Avenue shown on Parcel Map 20360, a length of 813. 36', and fixing the time and place for Public Hearing thereon."

4. investment Polio
RECOMMENDATION. The City Council review and approve the City' sInvestment Policy for Fiscal Year 2023-4.

5. Aha Projects!
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve the deal points for the lease agreement with Aha Projects! for the property located on 73637 Sullivan Road for a term of 5 years for $ 1 / year and authorize the interim City Manager to negotiate and sign the agreements.

ACTION: A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tern Klink, seconded by Councilmember Wright to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted.

The above mQti was carried ty theJollowing
ROLL CALL- vcLT:

AYES; KLINK, SCOTT, WRIGHT,, BILDERAIN
NOES: NONE

ABSTAIN NONE

ABSENT MINTZ
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION - None.

PUBLIC HEARING - None.

DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS

6. Project Phoenix -- Treatment System Improvements.

RECOf WENDEhT: CN: That the City Council:

1. Adopt the design of the project represented by the Plans and Specifications for the Project Trea*+ rnt System Improvements;

2. Award a contract for the "Project Phoenix — Treatment System Improvements to 316 Engineering & Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1, 999,34 and authorize a Ten Percent 11Y') Cnitt"- gtncy it the amount of $199, 93, for a total contract amount of $2, 199, 927;

3. Authorize the Interim City Manager to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto.

Mille pod. r cz Charles Abbott and Associates presented the Staff Report.

Eileen Leslie Twentynine Palms, spoke about the phases of this project. She mentioned there are neatth concerns for the businesses in the area and the environmental impacts have changed in the last five years when the Mitigated Negative Declaration was done. She suggested looking at Phase 1 first.
veno Nathiej. Twentynine Palms, mentioned that he has cancems about the project. He httpalkitwentynine- palms-. .- nrt/ 126574/ Page 2 of 5

STAFF REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
FOR MEETING: Apr 14 2026
SUBJECT: Councilmembers Use of City Letterhead.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City Council discuss individual Councilmember's use of City letterhead on projects or initiatives that have not gone before the entire City Council for consideration.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE:

Request Staff Report (City Manager Presenting)
Council Question of Staff
Request Public Comment
Council Discussion
Motion/Second
Discussion of Motion
Call the Question
BACKGROUND:

City Councilmembers are often approached with requests to support a variety of worth-while causes. Whether it be applying for a grant or recommending someone or an organization for a recognition award or providing a letter of support (or opposition) to a State initiative, City Councilmembers may want to put their letter on City letterhead.

The City does not have a policy regulating use of City letterhead by individual Councilmembers.

Tonight's agenda item is an opportunity to discuss the City Council's general openness to allowing or restricting use of City letterhead in the aforementioned situations.

Potential policy directions could include allowing individual Councilmembers to use City letterhead in situations where:
1)The outcome of the letter would not obligate the City in any way financially, legally, or administratively. 2) The Councilmember states the letter is only from the individual Councilmember and does not represent the position of the full City Council.
3) New letterhead is created for individual Councilmembers and does not contain the names of the rest of the City Council.
4) Individual Councilmembers are NOT allowed to use City letterhead unless the item goes before and is approved by the entire City Council.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

This agenda item addresses the following strategic plan goals: Page 311 of 312  Goal D: Access to resources
o Strategy 1: Improve services that support health and well being. o Strategy 2: Grow and enhance organizational development and capacity. o Strategy 4: Ensure best-in-class municipal services to residents.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could take no action.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.