A Five-Unit Buffer: San Bernardino County's Sites Can't Get Water

You're looking at a jurisdiction's housing-element sites inventory — maybe as the developer sizing up where lower-income units can actually go, maybe as the planner who has to defend that list. It says these parcels are "adequate": zoned for the right density, credited toward the region's lower-income need, served by water. Then you look closer at one cluster and find they can't connect to water at all.

Here's the thing: HCD's position is that a site that can't get water isn't an adequate lower-income site — it doesn't count toward the RHNA, no matter what the inventory says.

What happened in San Bernardino County

San Bernardino County's 6th Cycle Housing Element inventory credited several sites toward its lower-income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and HCD relied on them in reviewing the element. The sites sit inside the City of Redlands' Sphere of Influence, in the County's RM zone, and the Housing Element represented them as having water service.

They can't get it. The County's own zoning sets a minimum density of 11 dwelling units per acre on those parcels. But Redlands' Measure U caps density at 8 units per acre for any project that wants to connect to City water. A project built to the County's 11-unit floor sits above the City's 8-unit ceiling — so the City can't serve it. The sites are stranded between two numbers.

HCD's July 28, 2026 follow-up Technical Assistance Letter states the finding plainly: it considers the Measure U-impacted "Mentone sites" insufficient to accommodate lower-income households under Government Code § 65583.2(b)(5)(B) "because they are unable to connect to water." That statute requires inventory parcels to have sufficient water available and accessible or planned.

Verified against HCD's San Bernardino County Housing Element Sites Inventory and Sufficient Utilities Technical Assistance Letter (follow-up), dated July 28, 2026.

The five-unit problem

Here is why it matters beyond a paperwork fix. The County's 6th cycle lower-income RHNA allocation is 3,538 units. The County told HCD that even after removing the waterless Mentone sites, it still clears the bar — by five units. From its response letter: "If the sites in Mentone are removed, the County would still have a small surplus in capacity to accommodate its RHNA (282 - 277 = +5)."

A five-unit cushion against a 3,538-unit obligation is barely a cushion at all. Approve one project below the density the inventory assumed, and the surplus is gone.

You can't assume the water-priority law bails you out

The County floated a workaround: maybe the Mentone sites can reach City water anyway, because Government Code § 65589.7 gives developments that include affordable units a priority for water and sewer service. Lean on that priority, the theory goes, and the sites are fine.

HCD rejected it. A site doesn't "have sufficient water available" just because a statute might one day force a provider to serve it — least of all where a local rule like Measure U blocks service outright. HCD drew the line:

"…local governments must ensure sites have sufficient water available and readily accessible or planned without relying upon Government Code Section 65589.7."

If you were counting on the affordable-housing water priority to rescue a hard site, that is the bright line, in HCD's view: the priority is real, but it is not a stand-in for a site that can actually be served.

What No Net Loss now requires

Because the buffer is so thin, HCD turned to No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code § 65863). When a development is approved at a lower density than the inventory assumed, the jurisdiction has to make written findings quantifying its remaining unmet RHNA and its remaining site capacity, by income level. If that accounting shows capacity has gone inadequate, the County has up to 180 days to identify or rezone "sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites" to cover the gap. HCD asked the County to run that accounting and respond by August 28, 2026.

Why this reaches past one county

If you build, buy, or plan on housing-element sites, the lesson travels. A parcel's spot on an inventory is not proof it can be served. A city density cap, a water-district policy, a sphere-of-influence quirk — any of them can quietly turn an "adequate" site undevelopable, and HCD's position is that those sites drop out of the RHNA math. Worth checking before you rely on one.

This is HCD's interpretive position in a Technical Assistance Letter, not a court ruling, and nothing here is legal advice. Confirm the sites inventory, the water-service rules that actually apply, and your No Net Loss exposure with your jurisdiction and your counsel before you act.

What CrossBeam does with it

When the letter lands on your desk, CrossBeam turns it around the same day: what each item is actually asking, the code or law behind it, and a written response you can hand to your team or your attorney — the back-and-forth that used to eat weeks, done in a couple of hours.