HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-12 Study Session Agenda Packet
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
STUDY SESSION
Agenda
May 12, 2021
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
4:00 p.m.
PURSUANT TO GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM’S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 THIS MEETING WILL
BE HELD AS A TELECONFERENCE MEETING
In response to the Governor's Executive Orders, the San Bernardino County Department of Public
Health requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of our residents by limiting contact that could
spread the COVID–19 virus, there will be no members of the public in attendance at the Planning
Commission Meetings. Members of the Planning Commission and staff will participate in person, but
the public will only be able to participate via teleconference.
In place of in-person attendance, members of the public can observe and offer comments at this meeting
via Zoom:
VIEW MEETING VIA ZOOM APP OR ZOOM.COM AT:
zoom.us/join
using Webinar ID: 965 4237 6556
-or-
YOU CAN DIAL-IN USING YOUR PHONE
UNITED STATES: + 1 (669) 900-6833
Access Code: 965 4237 6556
A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
B. Public Communications
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission on any item listed or not
listed on the agenda. The Commission may not discuss any issue not included on the Agenda but set
the matter for a subsequent meeting.
C. General Business
Discussion of Public Draft General Plan Update.
D. Adjournment to Regular Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
HPC/PC Study Session Agenda – May 12, 2021
Page 2 of 2
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,
given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your
position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson
may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the
audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
For each of the items listed under “PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS”, the public will be provided an opportunity to
speak. To address the Planning Commission via Zoom App, click the “Raise Hand” button when the item
you wish to comment on is being discussed. On Zoom via phone, you can also raise your hand by pressing
star *, then 9 when the item you wish to comment on is being discussed. Comments will be limited to 5
minutes per individual. If a large number of individuals wish to speak on an item, the Chairman may limit the
time to 3 minutes in order to provide an opportunity for more people to be heard. Speakers will be alerted
when their time is up, and no further comments will be permitted.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “PUBLIC COMMENTS.”
As an alternative to participating in the meeting, you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00pm on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed
to the Commissioners and included in the record.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the
Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the
City Clerk’s Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,206 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees
are established and governed by the City Council).
I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee,
hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, May
6, 2021, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
DATE: May 12, 2021
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Matthew Burris, AICP, Deputy City Manager
Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Discussion – General Plan Update: Public Review Draft General Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive the staff report, discuss, and provide comment
on the General Plan Update process and the upcoming release of the public draft General Plan document.
BACKGROUND:
In January of 2020, the City embarked on PlanRC, the City’s General Plan Update process. A general
plan, which is required by state law, is commonly referred to as a city’s blueprint, or constitution, for future
development. It not only documents the city’s long-range vision, but also establishes clear goals, objectives
and actions to guide the community through the next 10 to 20 years of change. The City must update its
General Plan periodically to keep up with changing needs, conditions, and trends of the city and region,
as well as changes in state law. Except for periodic development driven amendments and the required
update to the Housing Element in 2017, the current Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is largely the same
document it was when updated in 2010. The City is preparing this update now to help keep up with some
significant changes in state law regarding general plans, and to build on our success as a world class
community to create a balanced, vibrant, and innovative city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.
The major phases and schedule of this multi-year process are as follows:
1. Spring 2020 – Existing Conditions: Review existing policies and reports, and identify issues and
opportunities.
2. Spring-Summer 2020 – Listening and Visioning: Develop long term vision and guiding principles for
the General Plan.
3. Fall 2020 – Plan Scenarios: Create and refine land use and transportation scenarios.
4. Winter-Spring 2021 – Policy and Plan Development: Develop policy solutions to address a range of
topics covered in the General Plan.
5. Spring-Summer 2021 – Public Review of Draft General Plan: Engage with the public while the Draft
General Plan is available for public review, and revise prior to public hearings.
6. Fall-Winter 2021 – Review and Adopt: Public and decision makers review and consider adoption of the
updated General Plan.
Phases 1 through 4 are complete and the City is now moving into the next phase of the process with the
public review of the draft General Plan. The public draft will become available in the coming weeks, allowing
opportunity for the community to provide thoughts and input on the contents of the General Plan. However,
prior to initiating this next phase, Staff believes it will be beneficial to provide the Planning Commission
2
with a preview of the document and a refresher on the efforts that have occurred to date. The information
that follows provides a walk-through of the draft General Plan for the Planning Commission’s review and
understanding of the efforts thus far and the requirements that are still to come. No action is being
requested at this time. When the Draft General Plan document is released, it will be available on the City’s
PlanRC website at https://www.cityofrc.us/GeneralPlan.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
PlanRC is a community-based process and the City has been conducting a robust engagement effort with
the public since January 2020. Community input was solicited and reflected throughout each phase of the
planning process. To date, PlanRC has received input from over 2,000 community members through online
surveys and virtual meetings, and generated over 675,000 digital impressions through various social media
platforms. Efforts prioritized determining values and ideas for the future of the City and there have been
many opportunities for participants to express their visions, collaborate with neighbors, and explore
possible innovations in housing, transportation, recreation, and economic development throughout each
planning phase.
PlanRC involved longtime residents, new residents, seniors, youth, clubs, organizations, business owners,
and many more. Although in-person outreach was extremely limited due to COVID-19 constraints, the
community adapted and found meaningful ways to get involved in PlanRC through digital engagement
platforms. During, and after engagement, the community had an opportunity to share their thoughts and
engage in live polling to provide additional feedback. Some of the highlights of the PlanRC community
engagement effort are shown below:
• Two internet-based “Forum on Our Future” events were held during the Discovery & Visioning phase.
These interactive small group sessions built on results from the initial online visioning survey and
engaged community members in informal dialogue on specific topics such as housing, resiliency, trails
and mobility, equity and more.
• An informative “dollars and sense” webinar was provided as part of the Forum on Our Future week to
provide more in-depth information about economic development and how it relates to the future of the
built environment.
• The PlanRC Virtual Workshop, a robust and visually engaging online event focused on Character and
Place. The workshop engaged community members in exploring visual images and ideas of what the
City could be in the future. During the week-long online event, participants were able to drop in and
view and rate character images for different community planning areas in the City – collections of
photos represented different housing, activity centers, mobility options, business and job districts, and
more.
• Two online surveys were conducted to guide engagement activities and future outreach. Conducted
during the Discovery & Visioning phase, the surveys asked community members about the vision and
priorities for Rancho Cucamonga and garnered more than 800 responses.
• An online mapping tool was shared as part of the Character & Place online workshop, which allowed
community members to drop pins on a virtual map in areas where they would like to see certain
amenities and activity centers. Participants could further expand on their ideas through a comment
system and by providing photos of what they envisioned.
• The PlanRC General Plan Video Series provided explanations of the General Plan update process,
State requirements and existing conditions. Topics included housing, resiliency, community mobility,
community health and equity, land use and community design.
3
Community Engagement Infographic
Early in the process, initial communication was focused on the purpose of a General Plan, why there is a
need to update the General Plan, and encouraging public participation in this multi-year process. Once
the purpose was established, the City returned to the community for feedback. The online surveys and
multi-day virtual Forum on Our Future events were critical engagements that not only identified issues and
opportunities, but also helped establish a vision and set of core community values – Health, Equity and
Stewardship – which will lead the way in shaping the General Plan. The results of the surveys and virtual
events, along with the established core community values were presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council in August 2020.
This lead PlanRC to the next stage of engagement with a 10-day virtual workshop in September 2020
focused on character and place. This workshop garnered 4,194 views, 829 participants, 42,965 responses,
and 714 total comments. The intent of this workshop was to translate some the emerging themes that were
observed from the forums and other engagement into a visual preference survey. This allowed participants
to rate different images based on how they felt those images represented the community, and in which
neighborhood or part of town they should be located. While each area had distinct preferences for the
types of residential, commercial, and recreational developments participants wanted to see, there were
notable commonalities between all planning areas, which led to the development of three potential future
land use scenarios.
In November 2020, we continued and furthered the discussion with the community by presenting three
land use and transportation options in meetings that were held over the span of a week. This engagement
event was called, “Community Discussions: Considering our Options. Nine virtual community discussions
and an online survey were hosted to explore long term land use ideas. Six sessions were promoted with
the general public, one of which was specifically held for teens and youth, and another of which was
specifically held for Spanish speakers. Three additional focused meetings were also held with the Healthy
RC Steering Committee, NAIOP (Commercial Real Estate Development Association), and the Chamber
of Commerce. Nearly 170 people engaged in the online and virtual conversations. The purpose of this
effort was to define future land use and transportation scenarios to create a framework for discussion about
how and where Rancho Cucamonga plans for change and growth over the next 20 years. The future
scenarios presented to the community were intended to spur dialog about how much reinvestment the City
should plan for; where growth and change should be located; how to meet the needs of future generations;
how to satisfy various State mandates, and what factors are most important to the community when
considering how the City should evolve.
4
As a result of community input on the future land use scenarios, the City developed a preferred scenario
for the General Plan update. The preferred scenario best balances the input received on the three land
use scenarios by: 1) increasing goods, services and amenities in all neighborhoods; 2) focusing investment
along key corridors; and 3) focusing investment at key nodes or centers in the city. It represents a policy
level approach for how and where we target investment and growth for future generations, and effectively
meet many State laws and regulations.
Preferred Scenario
On December 21, 2020, information on the three potential future land use scenarios and how the three
scenarios developed into a preferred scenario was presented to the Planning Commission at a Special
Meeting. Overall, the preferred scenario was well received by the Planning Commission. There was a
strong appreciation for the outreach efforts with the community and how the result of the preferred scenario
plan represented the input and feedback from the community. Additionally, the Commission acknowledged
that the plan represented the overarching theme of the General Plan and put the City’s best foot forward
to thrive by providing more jobs, more vibrancy, and a good balance of future opportunities while protecting
the characteristics that are cherished by the community.
On January 6, 2021, the preferred scenario was presented to the City Council. To further advance the
preferred scenario and build on the themes expressed by the community, the City developed the
Recommended Land Use and Community Design Strategy, which conveys the locations of concentrations
of community activity centers and a framework for multi-modal access to those centers, and became the
Vision Diagram for the General Plan. This strategy diagram was well received by the City Council, and
they provided the direction to continue development of a detailed land use plan and the Draft General Plan
that implements this strategy. This strategy, or Vision Diagram, served as the foundation for the Land Use
Plan and policies for physical improvements in the rest of the Draft General Plan.
5
Vision Diagram
The PlanRC process helped form the content of this Draft General Plan. The importance of community,
understanding of areas where improvement is needed, and validation of the City’s commitment to lead the
region all stem from this foundational process. There will continue to be active community engagement
during this public review period, with virtual public meetings, focused meetings with various stakeholders
groups, and, if possible in the summer months, socially distanced in-person events, including pop-events
around the community and an Open House event on the Draft General Plan.
6
Land Use Plan
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN:
Since its beginning, Rancho Cucamonga has been committed to creating a world-class community. With
each decade and each generation, our idea of what makes a world-class community has evolved, but it
remains grounded in the concepts of excellence, opportunity, and high quality of life. The vision for this
General Plan embodies these concepts in a single sentence:
Build on our success as a world-class community to create a balanced, vibrant, and innovative
city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.
Accordingly, this General Plan lays out a series of strategies to chart a path towards building a 21st century
world-class community. The intent is to create a city with a wide variety of housing, recreation,
entertainment, and employment opportunities that are well connected and accessible to everyone. Through
the implementation of this General Plan, the city will develop so as to be more welcoming and accessible
to both its residents and its visitors. This plan reflects the shared values and common goals of a city
7
abundant in opportunity for all, and a city that has a history of deep appreciation for the differences that
enrich daily life in Rancho Cucamonga.
The Draft General Plan is separated into three volumes that are subsequently divided into topical chapters.
The content of the chapters corresponds to the state requirements for the contents of a general plan. It’s
not uncommon to see some overlap between the subject areas and the state requirements, however state
law allows the City to organize the topics in any fashion that meets the needs of the City. The following is
an outline of the General Plan document.
Volume 1 – Vision
• Chapter 1: Vision & Core Values
• Chapter 2: Context
• Chapter 3: Administration
Volume 2 – Built Environment
• Chapter 1: Land Use & Community Character
• Chapter 2: Focus Areas
• Chapter 3: Open Space
• Chapter 4: Mobility & Access
• Chapter 5: Housing
• Chapter 6: Public Facilities & Services
Volume 3 – Environmental Performance
• Chapter 1: Resource Conservation
• Chapter 2: Safety
• Chapter 3: Noise
Volume 4 – Implementation Strategy
Each of the chapters begins with a brief overview of the contents followed by a summary of the state
requirements. The legal requirements of a general plan are quite lengthy and change regularly and
therefore are not included in the General Plan. General plan law can be found on the California Office of
Planning and Research website (https://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html).
One key component found throughout the entire General Plan document is The Heart of the Matter section.
The Heart of the Matter explains how the topic in each chapter affects people, it raises equity issues the
City hopes to resolve, and suggests methods to achieve such resolution. Since the General Plan places
an emphasis on people, this text has distinctive formatting so that it can be easily identified in each chapter.
The human focus of Heart of the Matter helps set the foundation for the subsequent discussion leading to
the Goals and Policies.
Following the Heart of the Matter discussion are individual topical areas that are important to the chapter,
and to the setting of Goals and Policies. Each chapter concludes with goals and policies that direct action
by the City to implement the vision and follow the core values of the City. Goals are broad in both purpose
and aim but are designed to establish directions and outcomes. Often times goals are aspirational and
express the desired result within the planning horizon. Policies are specific position statements that
support the achievement of goals and serve as guides to the City when reviewing development proposals
and making other decisions. Policies seek to achieve the goals by mandating, encouraging, or permitting
certain actions.
While people make up a city, it is only when people come together and become a community that cities
achieve their full potential. It is no surprise, then, that a good plan is based on the foundational values of a
community and takes input from the wide diversity of people, businesses, community groups, and other
8
organizations that make up the totality of the community. From the robust and authentic community
engagement that is the cornerstone of the General Plan, the core values of health, stewardship, and equity
encompass what the community as a whole finds most important and aspirational. These values are the
pillars upon which the vision rests. Without applying these values to future investments, we will not be able
to achieve our vision for a world class community.
Health
Health is the foundation of human existence and is more than just longevity. Good health and a good
quality of life are the results of a combination of many factors beyond an individual's genetic history and
behaviors. The places we live shape us in ways beyond our values and personal relationships. Community
design, such as street layout and design or location of parks, inevitably determines our ability to access
healthy food choices and health care, a variety of housing types and affordability, clean air and natural
open spaces, and safe neighborhoods and walkable streets. A healthy lifestyle is not simply a matter of
choice, but is fundamentally a matter of access and opportunity. Research shows that chronic health
conditions such as asthma, diabetes, and heart disease, are concentrated in the same neighborhoods as
poverty, environmental hazards, unemployment, and lower educational attainment.
Fostering a healthy community requires a comprehensive approach to creating healthy minds, bodies, and
a clean, sustainable earth, which has been a long-held value of the City and the focus of Healthy RC’s
mission since 2008. Although we cannot change our genes, we can certainly make strategic decisions
about our communities through the General Plan that shape the places where we live, work, and play;
provide a more equitable distribution of resources and services; and ultimately improve our chances for
living long, healthy, fruitful lives. Health is a value that Rancho Cucamonga is built on, and as such, it is
important that the General Plan purposefully include design elements that allow our community to
experience optimal health.
Stewardship
Stewardship is balancing the need to use limited resources today with the knowledge that more will be
needed tomorrow. Being good stewards means taking on the responsibility of ensuring the well-being of
the city by understanding the resources we have and allocating them in ways that consider the future. It
means efficiently utilizing our finite, non-renewable natural and historic resources, and considering how all
decisions we make impact the development or diminishment of these resources. Not only does
stewardship involve the protection of historic and natural resources, but it also ensures the City is fiscally
sustainable to provide the necessary services and infrastructure to weather the impact of both economic
and climate change. A world class city is resilient and adaptable and maintains its significant history,
culture, and values. As a world class city, Rancho Cucamonga must adapt effectively to shifting economic,
social, and demographic trends, and resiliently rebound from environmental, economic, and public health
shocks. Stewardship captures the essence of this responsibility, and is a core value of this General Plan.
Equity
Equity is essential for creating and sustaining a world class community. Everyone should have a fair and
just opportunity to thrive and experience a high quality of life. Whereas equality is giving everyone the
exact same resources, equity involves the distribution and investment of resources based on the unique
needs of each neighborhood. This includes equitable access to goods and services throughout the city,
the ability to live in clean and safe neighborhoods, real opportunities for meaningful work and housing, and
the opportunity to actively and meaningfully participate in the community. As we maintain equity as a core
value, we recognize that everyone has different needs and abilities, and we should strive, through the
General Plan and all decision-making processes, to create a city that meets the unique needs, abilities,
and characteristics of all those within our community.
Past development practices have unintentionally resulted in health and economic impacts that
disproportionately affected groups of people living in specific areas, thus creating and continually affecting
disadvantaged neighborhoods across the nation as well as Rancho Cucamonga. To resolve existing health
and income disparity, some neighborhoods will need more investment in design, public improvements, and
9
services. The intent of this General Plan is for the city to remain a great place to live, work, shop, learn,
and play for all residents and households, and actively address the issues that disproportionately affect
certain neighborhoods and areas of the city. Addressing inequity requires communication, understanding,
and collaboration with those most affected. This means providing opportunity for meaningful neighborhood
input, prioritizing public investment, and collaborating with the neighborhoods. Equity is at the heart of a
world-class community, and is a core value of this General Plan.
To successfully achieve the City’s Vision and uphold the core values identified by the community, the Draft
General Plan is designed around strengthening Rancho Cucamonga’s sense of identity and character by
creating places where people want to be and improving their ability to move around. The overarching
strategy is one of human-scaled design, with buildings and outdoor spaces oriented towards people
connected by safe and comfortable streets, pathways, and trails that provide equitable access for all. Each
chapter of the plan is rooted in the vision and core values, with an expectation that the future can be
harnessed to improve on the past. The following big ideas, as presented in Chapter 1 of the Draft General
Plan, are considered critical to meeting the vision and core values for the community:
Design for People First. Regardless of the type of place designed, the focus must be on people, and
development should be human scale and inviting. The public realm of streets, paths, trails, open space,
and buildings represent the city’s “rooms” and are the first impression of anyone visiting the city. These
spaces should be a sense of pride for residents and be welcoming to everyone. To achieve this, buildings
must be designed to be visually appealing, interesting, and at an appropriate scale that attracts activity,
but is not overwhelming. Open spaces, plazas, and streets must be designed to be safe, convenient, and
comfortable for users of all modes of transportation. All aspects of the public realm should have robust
amenities. By designing for people first, Rancho Cucamonga will continue to thrive as a community with
a high quality of life for residents, employees and visitors.
Provide Connectivity and Accessibility. Creating a community with equitable accessibility and
connectivity between places is an overall priority for the City. People of all abilities and means need to be
able to move about freely in their city and have choices for how they get around. To achieve this, physical
improvements in the city must provide a range of travel options including new opportunities and improved
networks for walking, bicycling, and transit, suited to all residents, employees and visitors. In addition to
connecting streets, developing sidewalks, and building trails, there must also be connections between
similar land uses and essential destinations. Neighborhoods should not be gated or separated from each
other, and should be well connected to commercial centers, entertainment venues, and employment
districts.
Walkable communities and communities with varied transportation options are not only easier to get
around, but they also foster a greater sense of community, provide the opportunity to incorporate more
activity into everyday life, encourage fewer car trips, provide numerous public safety benefits, supports the
local business environment and boost its appeal to visitors by increasing accessibility. The outcomes of
improved accessibility and connectivity increase the social, health, environmental and economic benefits
to the community.
Create Destinations. An overarching theme expressed by the community throughout the public
engagement process was the desire for “More fun places to go, more things to do, and more ways to get
there.” Residents and visitors want places to congregate, gather, and socialize in lively centers, shopping
areas, and entertainment venues. The General Plan should evolve the relatively uniform suburban
environments of the city’s arterial corridors, shopping centers, and business parks into a diverse range of
distinctive places that is welcoming to all people. These places may include small centers near established
neighborhoods, more vibrant and dense centers similar to a downtown scale near Rancho Cucamonga
Station and Victoria Gardens, and larger mixed-use centers along major corridors, such as Foothill
Boulevard and Haven Avenue.
Creating destinations also applies to the outdoors. Maintaining and increasing a variety of quality open
10
spaces in the city was similarly an expressed desire by the community. The city’s open space destinations
will include small neighborhood parks, plazas and paseos, sports fields, and natural areas, such as the
extensive trails system in the foothills and the North Etiwanda Preserve. The General Plan will further our
commitment to providing world-class outdoor destinations and preserving our beautiful natural setting in
the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.
Address Environmental Justice. In Rancho Cucamonga, environmental justice means that everyone in
the city have a fair and just opportunity to thrive and no one, especially those with the least means, should
shoulder the additional health burdens of environmental degradation and pollution. With this General Plan,
the City is striving to reduce and eliminate disproportionate burdens to living, participating and thriving in
this city. A key first step is continuing to improve access to City processes and decision making. While we
have a long history of robust public engagement, we will continue to work hard to improve the ease of
participation by the community. Through this General Plan, it will also be critical to improve everyone’s
ability to get around the city and access the goods, services, jobs, housing, and amenities that contribute
to a quality life. Every neighborhood is different, and the future of each neighborhood will be unique.
Universally, however, the City is committed to engaging those directly impacted by future decisions and
development to collaborate on strategies to reduce disproportionate environmental burdens and strive for
equitable access to amenities and services and equitable protection from environmental hazards and
pollution.
Establish Rancho Cucamonga as the Cultural and Economic Hub of the Inland Empire. The Inland
Empire is similar in size and population as many states, yet it does not have a clear economic or cultural
center. This fact was identified and discussed multiple times during the public outreach process and the
community repeatedly articulated a desire to set the example and lead the region. As the city transitions
from a sprawling suburban growth model to a more sustainable urban growth model, it is important to
remember that people are at the core of what makes a city. Through the community engagement process,
the concept of creating vibrant activity nodes and a “real downtown” resonated deeply with people of all
ages from all areas of the city. A downtown area, or several major activity centers, with varied cultural
opportunities and public art, will provide areas for social, civic, and commercial activity. Few cities in
Southern California have authentic downtowns and lively centers. By creating vibrant, high value places,
Rancho Cucamonga will not only ensure its fiscal sustainability and resiliency, but will also distinguish itself
as the cultural and economic hub of the Inland Empire. This General Plan envisions a future Rancho
Cucamonga with a stronger sense of place, higher quality of life, and more competitive economy.
To be successful, the General Plan must be implemented purposefully, enhancing areas that are already
thriving, and focusing more investment in key opportunity areas where change is desired over time. During
the PlanRC community engagement process, it was clear that residents strongly identify with their
neighborhoods and, with some exceptions, are happy with where they live and how their neighborhoods
function. Accordingly, the Draft General Plan is focused on understanding each area of the city on its own
terms and calibrating the degree and nature of change to the neighborhoods and the people that make up
the neighborhood. Most of the city has already been built. There is very little undeveloped land left and
most of the developed areas will not change. This is both a constraint and an opportunity for the community.
We cannot afford to waste land with changes that do not benefit the community. To achieve the vision, all
future development and investment will need to be strategic. As such, this General Plan provides specific
direction on where to focus future efforts. Some changes will be small and incremental, similar to that
which is already occurring. Other changes will be transformative, through both land use design and
implementation strategies in focused areas of the city where improvements have been suggested by the
community to meet the overall vision of a world class city.
11
Degrees of Change. As mentioned above, the key to the Plan’s success will be focusing investment
strategically. As such, several focus areas are identified where the public support for, and potential value
of, significant near-term change is particularly high. Chapter 2, Focus Areas, in Volume 2 of the Draft Plan,
provides fundamental priorities for strategic implementation of key areas of moderate and significant
change. These key areas are specific parts of the city where the potential value of coordinated private and
public investment is especially high, and near-term improvement is supported by a broad cross section of
the community. A higher level of detail, illustration, and strategic recommendations for the Focus Areas
are provided to prioritize those areas to help “jump-start” implementation of this Plan. The eight Focus
Areas include:
• Focus Area 1: Downtown Rancho Cucamonga (Victoria Gardens & Epicenter)
• Focus Area 2: Civic Center.
• Focus Area 3: Regional Transit Hub
• Focus Area 4: Red Hill Gateway
• Focus Area 5: Cucamonga Town Center
• Focus Area 6: Alta Loma Old Town
• Focus Area 7: Etiwanda Heights Town Center
• Focus Area 8: Modernized Industrial District
HOUSING ELEMENT:
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to
meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this
requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their General Plan. California’s housing-element law
acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand
of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for
(and do not unduly constrain), housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely
on the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements.
Housing elements are required to be updated every 5 years or every 8 years, and the Regional Housing
12
Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating
local housing elements. RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified
planning periods. The 6th cycle RHNA covers the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029.
The main objective of the RHNA is to distribute the need for new housing construction in an equitable
method throughout the state. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) allocates
the needed housing units among four household income categories. These four categories are:
Income Category Percent of Areawide Median Income (AMI)
Very-Low < 50% of AMI
Low 51% - 80% of AMI
Moderate 81% - 120% of AMI
Above-Moderate >120% of AMI
Communities use RHNA in land use planning, in prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how
to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment, and
household growth. RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but rather allows
communities to anticipate growth. Collectively, this intended to help the region and subregion grow in ways
that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promote transportation mobility, and address social
equity and fair share housing needs. The City of Rancho Cucamonga’s RHNA allocation for the 2021-2029
planning period is identified below.
Income Group Total Housing
Units Allocated Percentage of Units
Extremely/Very Low 3,245 31%
Low 1,920 18%
Moderate 2,038 19%
Above Moderate 3,322 32%
Total 10,525 100%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Note: The City has a RHNA allocation of 3,245 very low income units (inclusive of extremely
low income units). Pursuant to State law (AB 2634), the City must project the number of
extremely low income housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50
percent of the very low income units as extremely low income. However, for purposes of
identifying adequate sites for the RHNA, State law does not mandate the separate
accounting for the extremely low income category.
It is important to note that while the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) distributes
jurisdictional housing needs throughout Southern California based on a methodology that includes data
from the California Department of Finance and California Department of Housing and Community
Development, a city is not required to actually build the number of housing units ascribed to it. Instead, the
city is required to only ensure that the zoning and general plan land use map designations have adequate
capacity to allow for the development of the required units, and ensure the appropriate zoning on sites
offers true development potential and fair processes and fees.
The General Plan Update is facilitating new housing development by introducing a new Land Use Plan
that transforms select areas of the City into specialty districts, corridors, place types and neighborhoods
with a diverse mix of uses. The updated Draft General Plan incorporates a range of housing densities and
significant mixed-use infill that will guide the development of more diverse housing opportunities. The
Housing Element is being adopted concurrently with the General Plan update, and therefore utilizes this
new Land Use Plan for the purpose of the residential sites analysis.
As part of this process, the City will prepare a framework for applying form-based code standards to new
development projects as interim guidelines or regulations to ensure that new projects will generally conform
13
to the new standards before the final Development Code is adopted in early 2022. This framework will
include the form-based zone standards; use tables and use definitions; and, building and frontage types.
Land Use Designation Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
Residential
Allowed*
Feasible for
Low Income
City Center 40 100 50% Y
21st Century Employment
District 24 42 30% Y
City Corridor High 40 60 70% Y
City Corridor Moderate 24 40 70% Y
Traditional Town Center -- 30 50% N
*This is policy for the land use designation, not for individual parcels.
As discussed in the Draft Housing Element (Attachment 1), based on the development potential on vacant
sites and parcels of interest throughout the City, the City can fully accommodate its RHNA for the planning
period 2021-2029.
Summary of RHNA
Extremely
Low/ Very Low (Below 50% AMI)
Low (51-80% AMI)
Moderate (81-120% AMI)
Above
Moderate (Over 120% AMI)
Total
RHNA 3,245 1,920 2,038 3,322 10,525
Remaining Need 3,209 1,864 0 225 5,280
Development Potential 6,623 398 4,284 11,305
Vacant Sites 4,221 398 4,284 8,903
Parcels of Interest 2,402 0 0 2,402
In addition to providing a detailed sites analysis to accommodate the potential for new housing, the updated
Housing Element also includes:
• Comprehensive update to housing and demographics data.
• Addressing changes to housing law since the last update, including new legislation regarding fair
housing, measures to further promote Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to the extent required by state
law, and regulatory changes regarding emergency shelters and supportive and transitional housing.
• Updating/restructuring of housing policies and programs to reflect current direction of the community
and City Council and to:
o Remove policies and programs no longer appropriate to City
o Consolidate programs/actions with similar objectives
o Adjust level of commitments based on past accomplishments
A key factor that sets the Housing Element apart from rest of the General Plan is that the fact that it has to
be updated according to a statutory deadline. This is the only element of the General Plan that has a
statutory deadline and has to be updated every eight years. For the SCAG region, we have deadline of
October 15, 2021 with a 120-day grace period. What also sets the Housing Element apart from the rest of
General Plan is that the Housing Element has to be submitted to a state agency, the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD), for review for compliance with housing element law. It’s a
fairly rigorous review and this review must occur prior to adoption of the Housing Element. HCD takes a
minimum of 60 days to review, and our process accommodates this review period. With the input of the
Planning Commission on the Draft Housing Element, staff will submit the Draft Housing Element to HCD
within the next week to initiate the formal review process with HCD.
14
NEXT STEPS:
The Draft General Plan, including the Housing Element, will be available for public review and comment
through the summer on the PlanRC website, https://www.cityofrc.us/GeneralPlan. During that time, the
PlanRC team will continue to engage with the public to receive input and refine the plan. Technical studies
to support the environmental assessment of the General Plan are underway, with a public review of the
draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) anticipated being available in early summer 2021. A scoping
meeting for the EIR, which is one of the first steps in preparing the document, is scheduled for May 18 at
6:00 PM via Zoom. If COVID-19 restrictions are relaxed, there may be opportunities to integrate pop-up
workshops or other in-person events in the summer. Regardless, the PlanRC team is continuing to provide
a variety of robust virtual and online engagement activities throughout the process to ensure we are hearing
from all segments of the community.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Draft Housing Element
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Exhibit A
DRAFT Housing Element | i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................................ 1
RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN ........................................................................................... 1
COMMUNITY OUTREACH .............................................................................................................................. 2
VIRTUAL COMMUNITY EVENTS AND WORKSHOPS ......................................................................... 2
POP-UP EVENTS / ROADSHOWS ...................................................................................................... 2
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................. 2
ONLINE SURVEYS .............................................................................................................................. 3
VIDEOS ............................................................................................................................................. 3
THE PLANRC WEBSITE ...................................................................................................................... 3
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 3
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................... 4
COMMUNITY PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 4
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 9
SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS .............................................................................................................. 14
HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................. 19
HOUSING PRESERVATION NEEDS .................................................................................................. 24
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS .............................................................................................................................. 31
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................... 31
MARKET CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................................. 60
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................... 63
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING ............................................................................... 63
HOUSING RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................. 68
POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE HOUSING ............................................................................................... 68
CREDITS TOWARDS THE RHNA ...................................................................................................... 69
RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY ..................................................................................................... 70
ADEQUACY OF SITES FOR RHNA .................................................................................................... 74
FINANCIAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................. 76
ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 77
HOUSING PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 79
GOALS AND POLICIES ..................................................................................................................... 79
HOUSING PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................. 82
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC OUTREACH .................................................................................................................. 1
APPENDIX B: SITES INVENTORY .................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX C: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS ................................................................................... 1
DRAFT Housing Element | ii
Table HE-1: Population Growth .................................................................................................................... 4
Table HE-2: Age Distribution ......................................................................................................................... 5
Table HE-3: Racial Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 6
Table HE-4: Unemployment Statistics .......................................................................................................... 7
Table HE-5: Employment Characteristics by Occupation ............................................................................. 7
Table HE-6: Employment Characteristics by Industry ................................................................................... 8
Table HE-7: Employment Status ................................................................................................................... 8
Table HE-8: Poverty Status ............................................................................................................................ 9
Table HE-9: Household Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 10
Table HE-10: Household Income Profile by Household Type ..................................................................... 11
Table HE-11: Overcrowding by Tenure ....................................................................................................... 12
Table HE-12: Housing Cost Burden (>30%) ................................................................................................. 13
Table HE-13: Severe Housing Cost Burden (>50%) ..................................................................................... 13
Table HE-14: Housing Cost Burden (Total Households) .............................................................................. 14
Table HE-15: Incidence of Substandard Factors ......................................................................................... 14
Table HE-16: Disability Status (2014-2018) ................................................................................................. 16
Table HE-17: Large Families by Tenure ....................................................................................................... 18
Table HE-18: Housing Growth ..................................................................................................................... 20
Table HE-19: Housing Unit Type ................................................................................................................. 20
Table HE-20: Housing Tenure...................................................................................................................... 20
Table HE-21: Age of Housing Stock ............................................................................................................. 21
Table HE-22: Change in Median Home Prices ............................................................................................. 22
Table HE-23: Home Value by Unit Type ...................................................................................................... 22
Table HE-24: Median Rent by Unit Size ...................................................................................................... 23
Table HE-25: Housing Affordability in San Bernardino County ................................................................... 24
Table HE-26: Subsidized Multi-Family Housing........................................................................................... 26
Table HE-27: Estimated Market Value of Units At-Risk .............................................................................. 27
Table HE-28: Rental Subsidies Required ..................................................................................................... 28
Table HE-29: Estimated New Construction Cost ......................................................................................... 28
Table HE-30: General Plan Designations and Zoning Districts .................................................................... 32
Table HE-31: Draft Place Types and Residential Densities.......................................................................... 33
Table HE-32: Permitted Housing Types by Zoning District ......................................................................... 34
Table HE-33: Residential Development Standards ..................................................................................... 40
Table HE-34: Standards for Higher Residential Densities ........................................................................... 41
Table HE-35: Residential Parking Standards ............................................................................................... 41
Table HE-36: Master and Specific Plans Allowing Residential Uses ............................................................ 42
Table HE-37: Terra Vista Community Plan Development Standards .......................................................... 44
Table HE-38: Victoria Community Plan Development Standards ............................................................... 45
Table HE-39: Empire Lakes Planning Area 1 Development Standards ....................................................... 46
Table HE-40: Planning Department Application Fees ................................................................................. 51
Table HE-42: Planning, Building, and Development Impact Fees for Typical Residential Development .... 53
Table HE-43: Development Application Review Timelines ......................................................................... 55
Table HE-44: Home Purchase and Improvement Loan Applications, 2017 ................................................ 63
Table HE-45: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity – Entitlement Jurisdictions ................................. 66
Table HE-46: RHNA 2021-2029 ................................................................................................................... 69
Table HE-47: RHNA Credits and Remaining Need ....................................................................................... 69
Table HE-48: RHNA 2021-2029 ................................................................................................................... 70
Table HE-49: Land Use Designations ........................................................................................................... 71
DRAFT Housing Element | iii
Table HE-50: Vacant Sites ........................................................................................................................... 73
Table HE-51: Parcels of Interest .................................................................................................................. 73
Table HE-52: Summary of RHNA ................................................................................................................. 74
Table HE-52: Summary of Quantified Objectives ....................................................................................... 89
Figure HE-1: Population Distribution by Age ................................................................................................ 5
Figure HE-2: Income Levels ......................................................................................................................... 10
DRAFT Housing Element | 1
INTRODUCTION
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
This 2021-2029 Housing Element represents the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s effort in fulfilling the
requirements under State Housing Element law. The California State Legislature has identified the
attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian as the State’s major
housing goal. Recognizing the important role of local planning and housing programs in the pursuit of
this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a housing element as part of
the comprehensive General Plan.
Pursuant to State law, the Housing Element must be updated periodically according to statutory
deadlines. This Housing Element covers the planning period of October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2029.
State Law requires that the Element include the following components:
• An analysis of the City’s population, household, and employment base, and the characteristics of
the housing stock.
• A summary of the present and projected housing needs of the City’s households.
• A review of potential constraints to meeting the City’s identified housing needs.
• An evaluation of opportunities that will further the development of new housing.
• A statement of the Housing Plan to address the identified housing needs.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN
This Housing Element is being updated as part of the comprehensive update to the General Plan
(PlanRC). As such, all elements of the General Plan have been reviewed for internal consistency. As
individual elements are updated in the future, the City will review the various related elements for
consistency.
DRAFT Housing Element | 2
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
To make PlanRC successful, extensive involvement by the community was prioritized to fully understand
their values and ideas for the future. There were many opportunities for members to express their
visions, collaborate with neighbors, and explore possible innovations in housing, transportation,
recreation, and economic development throughout each planning phase. Specifically, during the
Stakeholder Engagement phase, the City conducted stakeholder interviews, online surveys, and virtual
workshops. PlanRC involved longtime residents, new residents, seniors, youth, clubs, organizations,
business owners, and many more. Although in-person outreach was extremely limited due to COVID-19
constraints, the community adapted and found meaningful ways to get involved in PlanRC through
digital engagement platforms. The City made sure to reach out and invite members of the community
through the Healthy RC Steering Committee, Community Champions (Campeones para la Comunidad)
and Healthy RC Youth Leaders to ensure that all segments of the population were included across the
geographic, demographic and socio-economic spectrum. A summary of outreach activities conducted
during the multi-year planning effort is provided below.
VIRTUAL COMMUNITY EVENTS AND WORKSHOPS
Two Zoom-based “Forum on Our Future” events were held. These interactive small group sessions built
on results from the initial online visioning survey and engaged community members in informal dialogue
on specific topics such as housing, resiliency, trails and mobility, equity and more.
The PlanRC Virtual Workshop was a robust and visually engaging character and place online event
designed to engage community members in exploring visual images and ideas of what the City could be
in the future. The week-long online activity allowed participants to drop in and view and rate character
images for different community planning areas in the City – collections of photos represented different
housing, activity centers, mobility options, business and job districts, and more.
Considering Our Options were organized as a series of online presentations and conversations to share
how initial community input had been used to develop three land use and mobility scenarios. During
these workshops, the community had an opportunity to share their thoughts on each scenario and take
engage in live polling to provide additional feedback.
All community events were publicized to all segments of the community. Outreach material was
provided to the public in English and Spanish. Spanish only breakout sessions were provided to
accommodate those for whom English was a second language. In addition, socially distanced live
sessions in the Council Chambers were an option for those who needed support with technology.
POP-UP EVENTS / ROADSHOWS
Roadshows with key community organizations, such as the RC Chamber of Commerce, realtors
associations, industry leaders, and more, were also hosted at various points in the process to share
specific elements of the General Plan and collect input.
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
At the start of the planning effort, 18 stakeholder interviews with Rancho Cucamonga industry leaders,
community-based organizations, public-serving institutions, elected officials, and other stakeholders
DRAFT Housing Element | 3
about issues and opportunities for PlanRC were conducted. These interviews provided some initial
themes and topics to further explore in future engagement activities.
ONLINE SURVEYS
Two formal online surveys were conducted to guide engagement activities and future outreach. The
surveys were available in multiple languages. The surveys asked about community members’ vision and
priorities for Rancho Cucamonga, and earned more than 800 responses.
VIDEOS
The PlanRC General Plan Video Series was designed to explain the General Plan update process, State
requirements and existing conditions. Topics included housing, resiliency, community mobility,
community health and equity, land use and community design. These engaging, short videos provided a
helpful overview for community members to contextualize facets of the eventual General Plan and were
housed on the project website.
THE PLANRC WEBSITE
The PlanRC website contained a wealth of resources for the community. It included project updates and
background information, options to take existing surveys, summaries of all public engagement activities
to reflect back to the community what was heard, and notices of upcoming opportunities to participate.
SUMMARY
Community input was solicited and reflected throughout each phase of the planning process. In total,
PlanRC received input from over 2,000 community members through online surveys and virtual
meetings, and generated over 675,000 digital impressions through various social media platforms.
After extensive outreach and engagement, the following guiding community themes and core
community values emerged.
Guilding Community Themes Core Community Values
These values and themes identified by the community form the foundation of PlanRC, and served as a
guide for the City, by the diverse community members who make up the City, for years to come.
DRAFT Housing Element | 4
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section of the Housing Element discusses the characteristics of the City's population and housing
stock as a means of better understanding the nature and extent of unmet housing needs. The Housing
Needs Assessment is comprised of the following components: 1) Community Profile, 2) Household
Profile, 3) Special Housing Needs, 4) Housing Stock Characteristics, 5) Housing Preservation Needs, and
6) Regional Housing Needs.
COMMUNITY PROFILE
California Government Code §65583(a)(1) requires "[a]n analysis of population and employment trends
and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing
needs for all income levels, including extremely low income households …." This analysis is necessary as
demographic changes, such as population growth or changes in age, can affect the type and amount of
housing that is needed in a community.
Population Characteristics
According to the Department of Finance Population and Housing Unit Estimates, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga had a population of approximately 175,522 as of January 1, 2020 (Table HE-1), representing
an increase of only 6 percent over the past decade and significantly below that for the previous decade.
Between 2000 and 2010 the City's population increased 29 percent, primarily during the first half of the
decade before the collapse of the housing market in 2008. The road to economic and housing market
recovery was long, impacting population growth during the past decade.
Table HE-1: Population Growth
City Population Percent Change
1990 2000 2010 2020 1990–
2000
2000–
2010
2010–
2020
Fontana 87,535 128,928 196,069 213,000 47.3% 52.1% 17.8%
Ontario 133,197 158,007 163,924 182,871 18.6% 3.7% 11.6%
Rancho Cucamonga 101,409 127,743 165,269 175,522 26.0% 29.4% 6.2%
Upland 63,374 68,395 73,732 78,814 7.9% 7.8% 6.9%
San Bernardino County 1,418,380 1,710,139 2,035,210 2,180,537 20.6% 19.0% 7.1%
Source: U.S. Census, 1990, 2000, and 2010; SCAG 2020; DOF Table E-5 2020.
Population and Age Distribution
Age characteristics influence the type of housing needed. The median age for Rancho Cucamonga is
rising, from 32.2 in 2000, to 34.5 in 2010, and 35.7 in 2018 (Table HE-2). From 2014-2018, the largest
age cohorts were older adults, 45 to 64 years, and young adults, 20 to 34 years. Figure HE-1 illustrates a
maturing population, evident by the significant population increases in the 45 to 64 age cohorts and 65
and over age cohort.
Table HE-2 further demonstrates a maturing population. While a significant portion of the City’s
population is relatively young (33.7% under the age of 25), increases in population from 2010 to 2018 in
the 55 to 64 age cohort (24.5%) 65 to 74 age cohort (68.2%), 75 to 84 age cohort (20.9%) and 85 and
over age cohort (20.8%) indicate a shift to a more mature population.
DRAFT Housing Element | 5
Figure HE-1: Population Distribution by Age
Source: U.S. Census 2000 and 2010; American Community Survey 2014-2018.
Table HE-2: Age Distribution
Age Groups 2000 2010 2018 Percent Change
(2010 to 2018) Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent
Under 5 years 8,900 7.0% 10,238 6.2% 11,450 6.5% 11.8%
5 to 9 years 10,984 8.6% 11,190 6.8% 10,593 6.0% -5.3%
10 to 14 years 11,620 9.1% 12,711 7.7% 12,300 7.0% -3.2%
15 to 19 years 10,639 8.3% 13,672 8.3% 12,269 7.0% -10.3%
20 to 24 years 8,622 6.8% 12,104 7.3% 12,534 7.1% 3.6%
25 to 34 years 18,686 14.6% 23,848 14.4% 26,766 15.2% 12.2%
35 to 44 years 23,720 18.6% 24,752 15.0% 22,776 13.0% -8.0%
45 to 54 years 18,391 14.4% 25,883 15.6% 25,380 14.4% -1.9%
55 to 64 years 8,393 6.6% 17,827 10.8% 22,197 12.6% 24.5%
65 to 74 years 4,515 3.5% 7,707 4.7% 12,965 7.4% 68.2%
75 to 84 years 2,583 2.0% 3,845 2.3% 4,647 2.6% 20.9%
85 years and over 690 0.5% 1,492 0.9% 1,802 1.0% 20.8%
Total Population 127,743 1.0% 165,269 100.0% 175,679 100.0% 6.3%
Median Age 32.2 34.5 35.7
Source: U.S. Census 2000 and 2010. American Community Survey 2014-2018.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Under 5 5 to 19 20 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 64 65+
2000 2010 2018
DRAFT Housing Element | 6
Race and Ethnicity
The Census provides a significant number of detailed demographic characteristics for Rancho
Cucamonga. Historically, the City's population consists predominantly of White residents but is
diversifying over time, decreasing from 66.5 percent in 2000, to 62.0 percent in 2010, and 60.5 percent
in 2018. Correspondingly the City's minority population, Hispanics and non-White groups, has increased
from 57.3 percent (94,697) in 2010 to 63.2 percent (110,947) in 2018 (Table HE-3).
Table HE-3: Racial Characteristics
Race 2010 2018
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Population 165,269 100.0% 175,679 100.0%
One Race 156,310 94.6% 165,489 94.2%
White 102,401 62.0% 106,344 60.5%
Black or African American 15,246 9.2% 16,381 9.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native 1,134 0.7% 1,406 0.8%
Asian 17,208 10.4% 22,729 12.9%
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 443 0.3% 527 0.3%
Some other race 19,878 12.0% 18,102 10.3%
Two or more races 8,959 5.4% 10,190 5.8%
HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
Total Population 165,269 100.0% 175,679 100.0%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 57,688 34.9% 66,540 37.9%
Not Hispanic or Latino Race 107,581 65.1% 109,139 62.1%
White alone 70,572 42.7% 64,732 36.8%
RACE ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH ONE OR MORE RACES1
White 109,730 66.4% 114,564 65.2%
Black or African American 17,582 10.6% 19,289 11.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native 2,611 1.6% 4,075 2.3%
Asian 20,512 12.4% 26,371 15.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1,132 0.7% 962 0.5%
Some other race 23,426 14.2% 21,657 12.3%
1. In combination with one or more other races listed. The six numbers may add to more than the total population and the six percentages
may add to more than 100 percent because individuals may report more than one race.
Source: U.S. Census 2010; American Community Survey 2014-2018.
Employment
Employment plays a major role in addressing housing needs because it is highly correlated to income;
those residents with higher incomes have more housing options, and conversely, those persons with
lower income typically have limited housing options. Looking at the employment market in Rancho
Cucamonga as well as major employers and the types of jobs Rancho Cucamonga residents provide
important information relative to housing needs. This is because the local employment market affects
demand for housing and this demand changes the housing market. In 2020, Rancho Cucamonga had an
unemployment rate of 6.7 percent, lower than the 9.0 percent unemployment rate countywide.
DRAFT Housing Element | 7
Table HE-4: Unemployment Statistics
County Statistics Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino County
Population (2020) 175,522 2,180,537
Labor Force (2020) 97,100 988,200
Employed 90,700 898,700
Unemployed 6,500 89,500
Unemployment Rate 6.7% 9.0%
Source: State of California, EED Labor Force Data, October 2020; Department of Finance (DOF) E-1: City/County Population Estimates,
January 2020.
The region and the City's growth are directly correlated to residential and economic development in
Orange and Los Angeles Counties. As land costs increase in the City and sub-region, homebuilders,
developers, and employers continue to look at Rancho Cucamonga for less expensive land than may be
available in Orange or Los Angeles Counties.
Based upon information from the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2019 Rancho
Cucamonga Local Profile, between 2007 and 2017, the number of jobs in the City rose by 31.2 percent,
from 65,504 to 85,922 jobs. Between 2014 and 2018, 85,379 residents, or 61.5 percent of the
population 16 years and over was employed. Table HE-5 and Table HE-6 show the industries in which
these residents were employed and the respective percentage of the labor force. The largest
employment industries were educational, health and social services at 25.8 percent, retail trade at 11.6
percent, and professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services at
9.6 percent. Correspondingly, the two highest occupation sectors are management, business, scientific,
and arts related occupations at 41.4 percent and sales and office occupations at 24.8 percent.
Table HE-5: Employment Characteristics by Occupation
Occupation Number Percent
Management, business, scientific and arts occupations 35,386 41.4%
Service occupations 12,286 14.4%
Sales and office occupations 21,214 24.8%
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 5,838 6.8%
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 10,655 12.5%
Total 85,379 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey 2014-2018.
DRAFT Housing Element | 8
Table HE-6: Employment Characteristics by Industry
Industry Number Percent
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 256 0.3%
Construction 5,306 6.2%
Manufacturing 7,753 9.1%
Wholesale trade 2,875 3.4%
Retail trade 9,933 11.6%
Transportation and warehousing and utilities 6,127 7.2%
Information 1,380 1.6%
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 5,730 6.7%
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, waste management services 8,207 9.6%
Educational, health and social services 22,060 25.8%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 6,962 8.2%
Other services (except public administration) 3,762 4.4%
Public administration 5,028 5.9%
Total 85,379 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey 2014-2018.
Employment Status
The City has a sizeable labor force that increased by 47 percent (44,361) between 2000 and 2018. During
this time the unemployment rate remained relatively stable from 3.7 percent in 2000 to 4.0 percent in
2018. During the same period, the City saw a marginal decrease in the employment rate from 65.7
percent in 2000, to 64.4 percent in 2011, and 61.5 in 2018 (Table HE-7). However, in absolute terms, the
number of employed residents increased by 23,429 persons between 2000 and 2018.
Table HE-7: Employment Status
Employment Status 2000 2007-2011 2014-2018
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Population 16 years and over 94,364 100.0% 126,922 100.0% 138,725 100.0%
In labor force 65,509 69.4% 90,071 71.0% 90,977 65.6%
Civilian labor force 65,482 69.4% 89,910 70.8% 90,925 65.5%
Employed 61,950 65.7% 81,770 64.4% 85,379 61.5%
Unemployed 3,532 3.7% 8,140 6.4% 5,546 4.0%
Armed forces 27 0.0% 161 0.1% 52 0.0%
Not in labor force 28,855 30.6% 36,851 29.0% 47,748 34.4%
Females 16 years and over 47,752 100.0% 64,828 100.0% 71,187 100.0%
In labor force 30,608 64.1% 43,017 66.4% 42,872 60.2%
Employed 28,811 60.3% 39,124 60.4% 40,312 56.6%
Source: U.S. Census, 2000; American Community Survey 2007-2011 and 2014-2018.
Poverty Status
The 2014-2018 ACS identified that there were 2,785 families and 13,696 individuals below the poverty
level (Table HE-8), representing about 6.5 percent of all families and 8.1 percent of the population. By
far, poverty affects female-headed households disproportionately. About 25.4 percent of the female-
headed families, with no husband present, and with children under 5 years of age live below the poverty
level.
DRAFT Housing Element | 9
Table HE-8: Poverty Status
Subject
Number Percent below
poverty level All income
levels
Below poverty
level
Families 42,843 2,785 6.50%
With related children under 18 years 21,648 2,165 10.00%
With related children under 5 years 3,796 338 8.90%
Families with female householder, no husband present 7,809 1,218 15.60%
With related children under 18 years 4,677 1,038 22.20%
With related children under 5 years 838 213 25.40%
All individuals for whom poverty status is determined 172,093 13,969 8.10%
Under 18 years 41,156 4,318 10.50%
65 years and over 19,306 1,127 5.80%
All individuals below:
50 percent of poverty level 7,357 -- --
125 percent of poverty level 19,935 -- --
130 percent of poverty level 25,688 -- --
Source: American Community Survey 2014-2018.
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE
California Government Code §65583(a)(2) requires "an analysis and documentation of household
characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including
overcrowding, and housing stock conditions." Household characteristics play an important role in
defining community needs. Household type and size, income levels, and the presence of special needs
populations all affect the type of housing needed by residents. This section details the various
household characteristics affecting housing needs in Rancho Cucamonga.
Household Type
A household can be defined as all persons living in a housing unit. Families are a subset of households,
and include persons living together related by blood, marriage, or adoption. A single person living alone
is also a household. Other households include unrelated people living in the same dwelling unit. Group
quarters, such as convalescent facilities are not considered households.
Household type, income, and tenure can help to identify the special needs populations as well as other
factors that affect the housing needs of the City. Rancho Cucamonga has a significant number of families
with children, who typically look for larger dwellings. In contrast, single-person households tend to have
smaller housing needs and look for smaller housing options (i.e., condos, apartments, etc.). While
seniors may look for housing that is both affordable and easy to maintain.
Rancho Cucamonga's household profile has seen some important changes with respect to household
types. As shown in Table HE-9, City remains a predominantly family community; family households
increased by 8.8 percent between 2010 and 2018. The majority of these households do not have
children; there has been a significant increase in the number of family households with no children
between 2010 and 2018. The number of “other family” households increased by 16 percent. As of 2020,
the DOF estimated that Rancho Cucamonga has 57,050 occupied housing units, representing a 5 percent
increase since 2010.
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, the average household size is 3.17 for owner-occupied households and
2.95 for renter-occupied households.
DRAFT Housing Element | 10
Table HE-9: Household Characteristics
Household Type 2010 2018 Percent
Change Households Percent Households Percent
Total Households 52,689 100.0% 55,950 100.0% +6.2%
Family Households 39,377 74.7% 42,843 76.6% +8.8%
Married With Children 15,185 28.8% 13,957 24.9% -8.1%
Married No Children 14,336 27.2% 17,440 31.2% +21.7%
Other Families 9,856 18.7% 11,446 20.5% +16.1%
Non-Family Households 13,312 25.3% 13,107 23.4% -1.5%
Singles 10,547 20.0% 10,383 18.6% -1.6%
Other Non-Families 2,765 5.3% 2,724 4.9% -1.5%
Average Household Size 2.98 3.09 --
Average Family Size 3.47 3.53 --
Source: American Community Survey 2006-2010 and 2014-2018.
Household Income
Household income is an important element affecting housing opportunities, as it is the primary factor
determining the ability of households to balance housing costs with other basic necessities. The 2006-
2010 ACS identified the median household income for Rancho Cucamonga at $78,572, increasing to
$86,355 in 2018, which was significantly higher than the San Bernardino County median household
income of $55,845 in 2010 and $60,164 in 2018. For Housing Element purposes, the State Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has established a median income of $75,000 for San
Bernardino County in 2020.
Figure HE-2: Income Levels
Source: U.S. Census 2000; American Community Survey 2006-2010 and 2014-2018.
Income Definitions
For planning and funding purposes, the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) categorizes households into five income groups based on the County Median Area Median
$23,702
$60,931 $66,446
$32,285
$78,572
$87,251
$34,052
$86,355
$94,564
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
Per Capita (Mean)Median Household Median Family
2000 2010 2018
DRAFT Housing Element | 11
Income (AMI). These five income categories include:
• Extremely Low Income – Up to 30 percent of the AMI.
• Very Low Income – 31 to 50 percent of the AMI.
• Low Income – 51 to 80 percent of the AMI.
• Moderate Income – 81 to 120 percent of the AMI.
• Above Moderate Income – Greater than 120 percent of the AMI.
When combined, the extremely low, very low, and low income households are often referred to as
lower income households.
Income by Household Type and Tenure
While housing choices, such as tenure (either owning or renting) and location are income dependent,
household size and type often affect the proportion of income that can be spent on housing. Income
data developed by HUD, based on the ACS, is used to provide an overview of income distribution by
household type and tenure in Rancho Cucamonga. By looking at the breakdown of household type by
income group, the housing needs of special groups can be identified. As shown in Table HE-10, Small
Family households made up the majority of households in all income categories. Roughly 40 percent of
all elderly households are in the extremely low, very low, and low income categories.
Table HE-10: Household Income Profile by Household Type
Household Type
Total
Households Elderly Small Families Large Families Others
HH % HH % HH % HH % HH %
<=30% HAMFI 3,840 6.9% 955 1.7% 1,565 2.8% 465 0.8% 850 1.5%
>30 to <=50% HAMFI 3,820 6.8% 1,550 2.8% 1,245 2.2% 430 0.8% 600 1.1%
>50 to <=80% HAMFI 6,000 10.7% 1,780 3.2% 2,385 4.3% 690 1.2% 1,145 2.0%
>80 to <=100% HAMFI 4,190 7.5% 1,125 2.0% 2,005 3.6% 385 0.7% 720 1.3%
>100% HAMFI 38,015 68.0% 5,490 9.8% 21,385 38.3% 5,325 9.5% 2,540 4.5%
Percent of Total HHs 55,870 100% 10,900 19.5% 28,585 51.2% 7,295 13.1% 5,855 10.5%
Elderly = Household contains at least one person 62 years of age or older
Small Families = Families with two to four members
Large Families = Families with five or more members
Others = Non-elderly, non-family households
HH = Households
HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (American
Community Survey 2013-2017), 2020.
Housing Problems
Typical housing problems include cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing. Many lower
income households (e.g., extremely low, very low, and low income) cope with the housing cost issues
either by assuming a cost burden, or by occupying a smaller than needed, or substandard housing unit.
Specifically, based on Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) statistics, 80.6 percent of
the City's extremely low income, 87.2 percent of the very low income, and 77.9 percent of the low
income households were experiencing one or more housing problems (e.g., cost burden, overcrowding,
and substandard housing) according to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Comprehensive Affordable Strategy (CHAS) data.
In general, the City's housing stock is in good condition. According to the 2000 Census, 42,229 units
DRAFT Housing Element | 12
were available in 2000. A building spurt occurred from 1970-1979 when 21.5 percent, or 12,633 units,
were constructed. A larger spurt occurred during the period from 1980-1989 when 28.5 percent, or
16,693 units, were added to the housing stock. The 1990s saw an increase of 8,853 units, and 14,797
units have been built since 2000 (2014-2018 ACS). According to the Department of Finance Population
and Housing Estimates, 56,618 units were available in 2010 and 59,440 units were available in 2020; a
five percent increase within the 10-year period.
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined by HCD as a household with more than one person per room (excluding
bathrooms, kitchen, etc.). Severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 persons per room. From
2010 to 2018, the incidents of overcrowding increased for all households, including owner- and renter-
households.
As shown in Table HE-11, increased overcrowding appears to disproportionately affect renter-
households. ACS figures estimate that 7.9 percent of the renter-occupied households and 2.4 percent of
the owner-occupied households were living in overcrowded conditions. These conditions can be
attributed to high housing costs relative to income, combined with inadequately sized housing units.
And when considering severely overcrowded conditions, the differences are similar as 2.5 percent of
renter-occupied households and 0.5 percent of owner-occupied households were considered to be living
in severely overcrowded conditions.
Table HE-11: Overcrowding by Tenure
Owner-Households Renter-Households Total Households
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
2010
Total Overcrowded
(>1.0 persons/room) 710 1.9% 1,028 5.9% 1,738 3.2%
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons/room) 103 0.3% 192 1.1% 295 0.5%
2018
Total Overcrowded
(>1.0 persons/room) 826 2.4% 1,688 7.9% 2,514 4.5%
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons/room) 169 0.5% 531 2.5% 700 1.3%
Source: U.S. Census 2010; American Community Survey 2014-2018.
Cost Burden
Employment, household income, and the availability of a wide range of housing types directly relate to
housing affordability. Within Rancho Cucamonga, most owners and renters can afford their housing
costs by the measure of affordability recognized by the Federal government. However, rising home
prices could potentially push more owner and renter households into cost burden. Housing cost burden
is defined as a housing cost that exceeds 30 percent of a household's gross income. A severe cost
burden is a housing cost that exceeds 50 percent of a household's gross income. Housing cost burden is
particularly problematic for the extremely low, very low, and low income households because a high
housing cost typically leaves little resources remaining for a household to cover other living expenses. In
the event of loss of income or employment, or unexpected expenses, these households are most at risk
of becoming homeless.
In renter-occupied households, nearly 50 percent experience cost burden and 22.8 percent experience
severe cost burden. Among owner-occupied households, 31.9 percent experience cost burden and 13.5
DRAFT Housing Element | 13
percent experience severe cost burden. Most notably, among all households 38.8 percent experience
cost burden and 17.1 percent experience severe cost burden.
Table HE-12, Table HE-13, Table HE-14 highlight the total percentage of renter- and owner-households
overburdened by housing costs. Overall, cost burden affects renter-occupied households more severely
than owner-occupied households in all income groups. As market rents are generally affordable to
moderate income households, renters in this income group do not appear to be as impacted by a cost
burden.
Table HE-12: Housing Cost Burden (>30%)
Household
Type
Extremely
Low Income
(<=30% AMI)
Very Low
Income
(30-50% AMI)
Low Income
(50-80% AMI)
Moderate
Income
(80-100%
AMI)
Moderate
and Above
Income
(>100% AMI)
TOTAL
Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent
Elderly 343 400 645 585 750 485 400 275 930 235 8,125 2,775
Small Families 345 1,000 375 790 790 980 725 825 3,010 1,295 17,860 10,725
Large Families 90 335 94 310 275 335 50 49 745 295 4,710 2,585
Others 165 365 100 435 340 645 145 435 595 685 3570 2,285
Total 950 2,095 1,220 2,110 2,155 2,445 1,320 1,590 5,275 2,530 10,920 10,770
>30% = Housing cost that exceeds 30 percent of a household's gross income.
Elderly = Household contains at least one person 62 years of age or older
Small Families = Families with two to four members
Large Families = Families with five or more members
Others = Non-elderly, non-family households
HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income.
Source: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 American Community Survey), 2020.
Table HE-13: Severe Housing Cost Burden (>50%)
Household
Type
Extremely
Low Income
(<=30% AMI)
Very Low
Income
(30-50% AMI)
Low Income
(50-80% AMI)
Moderate
Income
(80-100%
AMI)
Moderate
and Above
Income
(>100% AMI)
TOTAL
Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent
Elderly 335 400 515 395 415 215 175 55 160 75 8,125 2,775
Small Families 295 930 355 595 520 515 340 20 450 30 17,860 10,725
Large Families 75 320 90 125 175 115 15 4 60 0 4,710 2,585
Others 165 355 90 420 165 325 125 12 80 0 3,570 2,285
Total 875 2,005 1,055 1,530 1,280 1,165 655 100 750 130 4,615 4,930
>50% = Housing cost that exceeds 30 percent of a household's gross income.
Elderly = Household contains at least one person 62 years of age or older
Small Families = Families with two to four members
Large Families = Families with five or more members
Others = Non-elderly, non-family households
HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income.
Source: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 American Community Survey), 2020.
DRAFT Housing Element | 14
Table HE-14: Housing Cost Burden (Total Households)
Income
Extremely
Low Income
(<=30% AMI)
Very Low
Income
(30-50% AMI)
Low Income
(50-80% AMI)
Moderate
Income
(80-100%
AMI)
Moderate and
Above Income
(>100% AMI)
TOTAL
Cost Burden >30% >50% >30% >50% >30% >50% >30% >50% >30% >50% >30% >50%
Total
Households 3,045 2,875 3,330 2,585 4,600 2,445 2,905 755 7,805 880 21,685 9,545
>30% = Housing cost that exceeds 30 percent of a household's gross income
>50% = Housing cost that exceeds 50 percent of a household's gross income
HH = Households
Source: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 American Community Survey), 2020.
Substandard Units
The general definition of a substandard unit is a unit that does not meet the Federal Housing Quality
Standards of the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
Development Code. While it is not possible to determine the number of units that meet such criteria,
the number of units may be estimated by evaluating specific factors that indicate a unit is substandard.
Specifically, the ACS identified incidences of substandard factors, including incomplete plumbing, the
lack of complete kitchen facilities, and the lack of available telephone services. Approximately 0.3
percent of households lacked complete plumbing facilities, 0.7 percent lacked complete kitchen
facilities, and 1.2 percent had no telephone service available. However, in today’s technology, many
households no longer subscribe to landline telephone services. Therefore, this is not necessarily an
accurate reflection of housing conditions.
Table HE-15: Incidence of Substandard Factors
Factor Type Owner
% Owner-
Occupied
Units
Renter
% Renter-
Occupied
Units
Total
%
Occupied
Units
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 17 0.05% 141 0.65% 158 0.30%
Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 60 0.17% 352 1.63% 412 0.70%
No Telephone Service Available 124 0.36% 442 2.05% 694 1.20%
Source: American Community Survey 2014-2018.
Overall, the City’s housing stock is in good condition. The Community Improvement division estimates
that approximately 5% percent of the City’s housing stock requires substantial rehabilitation and 1%
percent requires replacement.
SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
California Government Code §65583(a)(7) requires "[a]n analysis of any special housing needs, such as
those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of
households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter."
State law recognizes that certain groups have greater difficulty in finding decent and affordable housing
due to special circumstances. Special circumstances may be related to one's income, family
characteristics, or disability status. In Rancho Cucamonga, special needs populations include the senior
households, persons with disabilities, female headed households, large households, the homeless, and
farmworkers.
DRAFT Housing Element | 15
Senior Households
Senior households have special housing needs due to a variety of concerns, including: a limited or fixed
income, health care costs, transportation, disabilities, and access to housing. Rancho Cucamonga
experienced a nearly 50 percent increase in senior residents from 2010 to 2018 (Table HE-2). The 2014-
2018 ACS indicated that 17.8 percent of Rancho Cucamonga households were senior-headed, increasing
from 11.5 percent in 2010.
Further, according to the 2014-2018 ACS, 19,414 persons 65 years of age and over reside in the City;
representing a significant needs group. A large proportion of elderly renter- and owner-households have
incomes below 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). Within the elderly population, 57.3
percent of all elderly renters and 33.2 percent of all elderly homeowners are within the lower income
categories (e.g., extremely low, very low, and low income). A cost burden greater than 30 percent of
their income is experienced by 71.4 percent of all elderly renters and 37.8 percent of all elderly
homeowners (Table HE-12). Additionally, 41.1 percent of all elderly renters and 19.7 percent of all
elderly homeowners experienced a cost burden greater than 50 percent of their income (Table HE-13).
Many senior citizens have reached their retirement years without adequate resources to meet their
needs. For renters, the problem of living on fixed incomes in a housing market where costs increase
faster than inflation can be difficult. Even those seniors who prepared well for their retirement may
have had their savings depleted as the result of declining interest rates or a lengthy illness.
The special needs of seniors can be met through a range of services, including congregate care, rent
subsidies, shared housing, and housing rehabilitation assistance. As demonstrated in the previous data,
the elderly need assistance with rental housing, and local senior housing projects and Federal Section 8
rental assistance programs address the elderly rental need. Those seniors who own their own homes
may have difficulty when non-housing expenses increase and their income does not. In such cases,
home maintenance needs are often deferred. Elderly homeowners often need housing rehabilitation
services; local repair and rehabilitation programs address the elderly homeowner need.
Persons with Disabilities
A disability is defined as a long lasting condition that impairs an individual's mobility, ability to work, or
ability to care for themselves. There are different types of disabilities that create varying housing needs.
These include the physically disabled, the developmentally disabled, and the mentally disabled. Disabled
persons have special housing needs with regard to accessibility, location, and transportation and
because of their fixed income, shortage of affordable and accessible housing, and higher health costs
associated with their disability often have a reduced ability to afford adequate housing.
The 2014-2018 ACS identifies six different disability categories: 1) hearing difficulty, 2) vision difficulty,
3) cognitive difficulty, 4) ambulatory difficulty, 5) self-care difficulty, and 6) independent living difficulty.
Persons with disabilities often require public assistance, including housing assistance. According to the
2014-2018 ACS, a total of 15,443 persons (8.9 percent of the population) in Rancho Cucamonga have a
disability (Table HE-16). This includes 2.9 percent of those under 18 years old, 6.7 percent of those aged
18 to 64, and 34.8 percent of those aged 65 and older. In absolute terms, the 18 to 64 age group has the
highest number of disabled persons, but in relative terms as a percentage of the population, the
population age group of 65 and older has the highest number of disabled persons with almost half of the
population having at least one disability.
DRAFT Housing Element | 16
Table HE-16: Disability Status (2014-2018)
Disability Type % of Disabilities Tallied
Under 18 Age 18 to 64 Age 65+ Total
With a hearing difficulty 0.1% 1.7% 15.6% 2.9%
With a vision difficulty 0.5% 1.2% 7.0% 1.7%
With a cognitive difficulty 3.1% 2.5% 10.1% 3.5%
With an ambulatory difficulty 0.6% 3.0% 22.3% 4.8%
With a self-care difficulty 2.0% 1.3% 1.0% 9.3%
With an independent living difficulty N/A 2.0% 18.0% 4.3%
Total Persons with Disabilities 1,232 7,491 6,720 15,443
Note: Persons may have multiple disabilities.
Source: American Community Survey 2014-2018.
The City's disabled population needs a range of facilities and services. Facilities include physical access to
buildings and transportation. The minimum requirement is set forth by Federal legislation and the
California Building Code. With keeping the minimum requirements for accessibility in mind, housing
designed for persons in the community with disabilities is needed, especially affordable housing.
Accessibility features include lifts, ramps, grab bars, extra-wide doorways, special kitchen equipment,
and special bathroom design. Such features are generally privately provided on a case-by-case basis.
Disabled renters are permitted to make accessibility improvements, but low income disabled persons
may need public assistance to achieve a livable dwelling unit.
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, 72.5 percent of residents with a disability are not in the labor force.
For low income disabled residents, assistance with accessibility improvements and affordable housing
are primary needs.
The range of services for the disabled includes full institutional care, transitional care, and independent
living. Transitional care may be provided by families or through group quarters. The latter may include
on-site professional or paraprofessional support. The State of California Community Care Licensing
Division identifies a variety of residential care facilities in Rancho Cucamonga, these include: 4 Adult Day
Care Facilities, 11 Adult Residential Facilities, 12 Residential Care for the Elderly Facilities, and 2 Small
Family Home Care Facilities.
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
A developmental disability is defined as a disability that originates before an individual becomes 18
years old, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability
for that individual. Federal law defines development disabilities as a severe, chronic disability that:
• Is attributed to a mental or physical impairment or a combination of mental and physical
impairments;
• Is likely to continue indefinitely;
• Results in substantial functional limitations to three or more of the following areas of major life
activities; self care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self-direction, capacity
for independent living, and economic self-sufficiency; and
• Reflects the individual's need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or
generic services, supports, or other assistance that is of lifelong or extended duration and is
individually planned and coordinated, except that such term, when applied to infants and young
children means individuals from birth to age 5, inclusive, who has substantial developmental
delay or specific congenial or acquired conditions with a high probability of resulting in
developmental disabilities if services are not provided.
DRAFT Housing Element | 17
The U.S. Administration of Development Disabilities estimates that 1.5 percent of a community's
population may have a developmental disability. The California DOF estimated the City's 2020
population at 175,522 persons, which means that there could be approximately 2,633 persons with
developmental disabilities in Rancho Cucamonga.
Some residents with developmental disabilities may live comfortably without special accommodations,
but others require a supervised living situation such as group housing or an assisted living facility.
Rancho Cucamonga residents with developmental disabilities can seek assistance from the Autism
Society Inland Empire in Corona or at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, the largest regional
developmental disability support center in California. The Inland Regional Center provided assistance to
32,404 residents as of June 2020. According to data from the State Department of Developmental
Disabilities Services, about 1,248 Rancho Cucamonga residents accessed services at the Regional Center.
Among these developmentally disabled residents, about 650 were adults over the age of 18.
Some people with developmental disabilities may require modifications that allow freedom of
movement to and from, or within a housing unit. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations
establishes accessibility and adaptability requirements for public buildings. There are also state and
federal minimum standards for multi-family housing; however, as these standards are not mandatory
for single-family homes, in-home accessibility can be an issue for people with disabilities. The City of
Rancho Cucamonga permits encroachments into setbacks for an accessory structure (such as a
wheelchair ramp) and adopted Reasonable Accommodation standards as part of the City's Development
Code update, which allows for reasonable accommodations in the City's zoning and land use regulations,
policies, and practices when needed to provide an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to
use and enjoy a dwelling.
Female-Headed Households
Single-parent households typically have a special need for such services as childcare and health care,
among others. Female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes, which limits their
housing options and access to supportive services. A mother with her own children constitutes a female-
headed household. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, 3,725 households (6.7 percent of all households)
are female-headed households with no husband present, and 1,556 households (2.8 percent) of all
households are male-headed with no wife present; thus, 9.5 percent of all households are single-parent
households. In comparison, the 2006-2010 ACS counted 9.9 percent for all single-parent households, of
which 7.2 percent were female-headed. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, the percentage of families and
people whose income in the past 12 months is below the poverty level for all families is 6.0 percent,
whereas, 20.0 percent of female-headed households were below the poverty level. By comparison, only
2.5 percent of married-couple families were below the poverty level.
In addition to housing assistance, it is reasonable to assume that all households that fall below the
poverty level are in need of social service assistance, including childcare and healthcare, and that many
also need assistance with education and job training. It is also reasonable to assume that high
proportions of poverty level households, particularly single-parent households, are at risk of
homelessness.
Large Households
Large households consist of five or more persons and are considered a special needs population due to
the limited availability of affordable and adequately sized housing. The lack of large units is especially
evident among rental units. Large households often live in overcrowded conditions, due to both the lack
of large enough units, and insufficient income to afford available units of an adequate size.
DRAFT Housing Element | 18
Large households comprise a special needs group because of their need for larger units, which often will
command higher prices that are not affordable to many large households. In order to save for other
necessities such as transportation, medical, food, and clothing, it is not uncommon for lower income
large households to reside in smaller units, which results in overcrowding.
As shown in Table HE-17, in 2010, there were 54,752 households in Rancho Cucamonga; of these, 6,042
were large households. Large households comprised 11.0 percent of all households, of these large
households, 29.8 percent, or 1,801 households are renter-occupied. In 2019, the number of large
households increased to 7,575 (12.7 percent of all households).
Table HE-17: Large Families by Tenure
Occupancy 2010 2019
Total HH Large HH Percent Total HH Large HH Percent
Owner-Occupied 36,141 4,241 7.8% 38,075 5,162 8.7%
Renter-Occupied 18,611 1,801 3.3% 21,422 2,413 4.1%
Total 54,752 6,042 11.0% 59,497 7,575 12.7%
HH = Households.
Source: American Community Survey 2010 and 2019 (1-Year Estimates).
Rancho Cucamonga addresses the affordable housing needs of large households by offering home
ownership assistance and by encouraging the development of affordable housing units with two or
more bedrooms.
People Experiencing Homelessness
An analysis of the City's homeless population can be challenging because of the transient nature of the
population. People can be classified homeless because of a variety of circumstances including: 1) those
persons who are chronically homeless resulting from alcohol or drug use, and 2) those persons who are
situationally homeless resulting from job loss, arguments with family or friends, incarceration, or
violence (both family and domestic).
In 2019, the San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership (SBCHP) completed a point-in-time count and
subpopulation survey to address the prevalence of homelessness in the County. The point-in-time count
identified a total of 2,607 homeless persons, an increase of 489 over the 2018 survey (an increase of
23.1 percent), including 687 sheltered individuals and 1,920 unsheltered individuals. The count also
identified 58 homeless persons in Rancho Cucamonga, 48 of which were unsheltered.
The SBCHP also provided a breakdown of homeless persons throughout the County into subpopulations
including chronically homeless adults (37.5 percent), families (2.2 percent), persons with life threatening
chronic health conditions (18.5 percent), persons with mental health problems (19.7 percent), substance
users (20.4 percent), and unaccompanied women (24 percent).
Of the 48 unsheltered persons in the City, SBCHP was able to survey 31 individuals (64.6 percent). Of the
31 persons surveyed, 11 stated they first became homeless in Rancho Cucamonga, and 21 stated they
currently lived in Rancho Cucamonga. Of those living in the City, 50 percent had been homeless for 1 to
5 years, 40 percent had been homeless for less than a year, 5 percent had been homeless for 6 to 10
years and 5 percent had been homeless for more than 10 years.
To address the City's homeless special needs population, Rancho Cucamonga annually utilizes 15
percent of the City’s CDBG allocation to provide public and supportive services to prevent homelessness
and/or aid those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. As required by Federal regulations,
these funds are directed to those persons in need, especially those with special needs.
DRAFT Housing Element | 19
Homeless supportive and prevention services funded through the City's CDBG program may include:
• House of Ruth – Provides shelter (transitional housing), programs, education, and opportunities
for safe, self-sufficient, healthy living for battered women and their children who are at-risk of
homelessness.
• Foothill Family Shelter – Provides a 90-day transitional housing shelter for homeless families
with children.
• Inland Valley Hope Partners – Food security and family stabilization
• Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board – Addresses fair housing mediation and landlord-
tenant dispute resolution services, which helps prevent homelessness.
Farmworkers
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, there were 256 persons in the City employed in the agriculture,
forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining industry (Table HE-6), which is less than 0.3 percent of the
85,379 employed persons living in the City. The ACS also estimates that approximately only 20 persons
are employed in farming, fishing and forestry occupations, specifically. Based on the absence of
agricultural production in the City, it is assumed that there are very few such jobs. Citrus and vineyard
agriculture was declining at the time of the City's incorporation and there are currently no agricultural
zones in the City. A few orchards and vineyards remained in production during the transition years
before urban buildup. As a consequence of the small population and rapidly declining agricultural
production, no statistical need for housing has been identified for farmworkers.
HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
Residential growth has fundamentally defined the housing character of Rancho Cucamonga and is one
of the more tangible measures of the quality of life found in each neighborhood. Rancho Cucamonga
comprises eight distinct and unique areas of town that were originally defined by the 1980 General Plan.
These Community Planning Areas reflect the unique history and character of each part of town. Six of
these Community Planning Areas contain residential neighborhoods each distinguished by its own
history, housing type, lot patterns, and street configuration. These include the original three
communities that formed Rancho Cucamonga -- Alta Loma, Cucamonga, and Etiwanda -- and Red Hill,
the Eastside neighborhoods, and Central North, which includes Terra Vista and Victoria neighborhoods.
Housing Growth
Between 2000 and 2010, Rancho Cucamonga's housing units grew by 14,484 housing units, an increase
of 34.4 percent. According to the State Department of Finance (DOF), Rancho Cucamonga has a total of
59,440 housing units as of January 1, 2020 (Table HE-18). This represents an increase of 2,822 housing
units since 2010, an overall increase of 5.0 percent, which is higher than the growth rate experienced by
the County.
DRAFT Housing Element | 20
Table HE-18: Housing Growth
City Housing Units Percent Change
2000 2010 2020 2000-2010 2010-2020
Fontana 35,907 51,857 55,093 44.4% 6.2%
Ontario 45,182 47,449 51,283 5.0% 8.1%
Rancho Cucamonga 42,134 56,618 59,440 34.4% 5.0%
Upland 25,467 27,355 28,000 7.4% 2.4%
San Bernardino County 601,369 699,637 726,680 16.3% 3.9%
Source: U.S. Census 2000; DOF Table E-5 2010 and 2020.
Housing Types and Tenure
A diverse range of housing types helps ensure that all households, regardless of income, age, or
household size, would have the opportunity to find housing suitable to meet their housing needs. As
shown in Table HE-19, of the City's 59,440 housing units in 2020, 68.7 percent are single-family units and
28.7 percent are multi-family units. Rancho Cucamonga also has 8 mobile home parks with 1,550 mobile
home units, which in 2020 make up just 2.6 percent of the housing stock.
Table HE-19: Housing Unit Type
Housing Unit Types
2000 2010 2020 Percent Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 2000-
2010
2010-
2020
Single-Family Detached 29,220 69.4% 35,328 61.9% 37,172 62.5% 20.9% 5.2%
Single-Family Attached 2,532 6.0% 3,504 6.4% 3,685 6.2% 38.4% 5.2%
Multi-Family (2-4 units) 1,794 4.3% 2,731 4.8% 2,763 4.6% 52.2% 1.2%
Multi-Family (5+ units) 7,216 17.1% 13,524 24.2% 14,270 24.0% 87.4% 5.5%
Mobile Homes 1,372 3.2% 1,531 2.7% 1,550 2.6% 11.6% 1.2%
Total 42,134 100.0% 56,618 100.0% 59,440 100.0% 34.4% 5.0%
Vacancy Rate 3.0% 3.9% 4.0% 30.0% 2.6%
Source: U.S. Census 2000; DOF Table E-5 2010 and 2020.
Housing tenure refers to whether a housing unit is owned, rented, or is vacant. Tenure is an important
indicator of the housing climate of a community, reflecting the relative cost of housing opportunities,
and the ability of residents to afford housing. Tenure also influences residential mobility, with owner-
occupied units generally having lower turnover rates than rental housing. Most residents of Rancho
Cucamonga live in owner-occupied housing; renter-occupied housing has become increasingly prevalent
since 2000. As of 2018, approximately 61.5 percent of residents owned their homes, while 38.5 percent
rented (Table HE-20).
Table HE-20: Housing Tenure
Occupied Housing
Units
2000 2010 2018
Households Percent Households Percent Household Percent
Owner Occupied 28,814 70.3% 36,733 67.7% 34,410 61.5%
Renter Occupied 12,162 29.7% 17,520 32.3% 21,540 38.5%
Total 40,976 100.0% 54,253 100.0% 55,950 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census 20000 and 2010; American Community Survey 2014-2018.
Vacancy Rate
A vacancy rate measures the overall housing availability in a community and is often a good indicator of
how efficiently for-sale and rental housing units are meeting the current housing demand. A vacancy
DRAFT Housing Element | 21
rate of 5.0 to 6.0 percent for rental housing and 1.0 to 2.0 percent for ownership housing is generally
considered healthy and suggests that there is a balance between the demand and supply of housing. A
lower vacancy rate may indicate that households are having difficulty in finding housing that is
affordable, leading to overcrowded conditions or a cost burden for households paying more for housing
than they can afford.
Table HE-19 shows that the overall vacancy rate in Rancho Cucamonga in 2020 was 4.0 percent.
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, the overall vacancy rate in the City was 4.6 percent. Specifically, the
vacancy rate for ownership housing was one percent, while the overall rental vacancy rate was 4.7
percent. The City maintains generally healthy vacancy rates for its ownership and rental housing.
Housing Age and Condition
Generally, housing older than 30 years of age will require minor repairs and modernization
improvements. Housing units over 50 years of age are more likely to require major rehabilitation such as
roofing, plumbing, HVAC, and electrical system repairs. After 70 years of age a unit is generally deemed
to have exceeded its useful life.
Nearly 60 percent of the 58,649 housing units in Rancho Cucamonga were built prior to 1990, making
the majority of these units at least 30 years old. The vast majority of these units were built during the
1970s and 1980s, potentially requiring minor repairs. Units older than 50 years comprised about 9.7
percent of the housing stock; these units may require moderate to substantial repairs. Less than two
percent of units are older than 70 years; therefore, few housing units in Rancho Cucamonga are likely to
have exceeded their useful life. The City’s Code Enforcement division estimates that five percent of the
City’s housing stock requires substantial improvement or replacement. Historic preservation programs,
Code Enforcement activity, and CDBG programs are aimed at maintaining older housing stock in
residential areas.
Table HE-21: Age of Housing Stock
Year Structure Built Number Percent
2014 or Later 639 1.1%
2010 to 2013 1,610 2.7%
2000 to 2009 12,548 21.4%
1990 to 1999 8,853 15.1%
1980 to 1989 16,693 28.5%
1960 to 1979 15,637 26.7%
1940 to 1959 2,180 3.7%
1939 or earlier 489 0.8%
Total 58,649 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey 2014-2018.
Housing Costs and Affordability
The cost of housing is directly related to the extent of housing problems in a community. If housing costs
are relatively high compared to household income, housing cost burden and overcrowding occur. This
section summarizes the cost and affordability of housing to Rancho Cucamonga residents.
Homeownership Market
As shown in Table HE-22, in 2020, the median home price in Rancho Cucamonga increased to $575,000,
a 15.0 percent increase from the 2019 median price of $500,000. According to the ACS, the median
home value of owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage was $461,300 from 2006 to 2010 and
DRAFT Housing Element | 22
$481,300 from 2014-2018. During this period, owner-occupied housing unit values have increased by
approximately 4.3 percent.
Table HE-22: Change in Median Home Prices
Jurisdiction # Sold September 2019 September 2020 % Change
(2019-2020)
Claremont 36 $678,500 $724,000 6.7%
Montclair 26 $453,500 $482,750 6.4%
Ontario 212 $451,250 $486,250 7.8%
Rancho Cucamonga 213 $500,000 $575,000 15.0%
Upland 96 $546,750 $595,000 8.8%
Source: Corelogic.com California Home Sale Activity by City, September 2020.
Home prices vary by unit type and size. Condominiums are generally more affordable, compared to
single-family homes. Small condominiums and mobile homes are the most affordable homeownership
option in Rancho Cucamonga. Typical single-family home and condo values are shown in Table HE-23.
Table HE-23: Home Value by Unit Type
Zip Code Single-Family Home Condo/Co-op
91701 $607,138 $369,358
91730 $490,712 $378,907
91737 $717,807 $349,429
91739 $727,177 $447,294
Average $635,709 $386,247
ZHVI = Zillow Home Value Index, typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range.
Source: www.zillow.com Housing Data (9/30/2020), November 2020.
Rental Market
Rents vary depending on unit type (single-family home, townhomes, apartment, etc.), the size and
condition of the unit, and nearby amenities. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, 0.3 percent of units rent
for less than $500 in Rancho Cucamonga; these are most likely units subsidized by affordability
covenants and senior apartments. Approximately 3.6 percent rent from $500 to $999, 10.4 percent rent
from $1,000 to $1,499, 19.9 percent from $1,500 to $1,999, and the remainder rent for more than
$2,000. A local survey of properties provided more detail about current rental rates (Table HE-24).
Monthly rents average between $1,360 for a studio apartment to $5,150 for a four-bedroom unit.
There is a discrepancy with rental unit price as some rental sizes were more prevalent than others and
had a range of affordability based on amenities, location, etc. Within the City, there was one 4-bedroom
unit. The representation of rent for this size is at a higher price point than the 5-bedroom unit because
of the advertised rent.
DRAFT Housing Element | 23
Table HE-24: Median Rent by Unit Size
Size of Rental Apartments
Studio $1,361
1-bedroom $1,950
2-bedroom $2,325
3-bedroom $2,824
4-bedroom $5,150
5+ bedroom $3,500
Average $2,262
Source: Craigslist.com and Zillow.com, December 2020.
Housing Affordability
The real estate boom in southern California has created an unprecedented increase in housing prices
throughout the region, including Rancho Cucamonga and the surrounding communities. Rancho
Cucamonga considers housing affordability to be a critical issue; this is because of the inability of
residents to afford and obtain decent housing can lead to overcrowded living conditions, an over
extension of a households financial resources, the premature deterioration of housing due to a high
number of occupants, and situations where young families and seniors cannot afford to live near other
family members.
Housing affordability can be determined by comparing housing prices and rents to the income levels of
residents in the same community, or within a larger region such as the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
MSA. The Federal government has established an affordability threshold that measures whether or not a
household can afford housing. Typically, a household should pay no more than 30 percent of their gross
income for housing, although a slightly higher cost burden is allowed by the mortgage industry because
of the tax advantages of homeownership.
Table HE-25 compares the maximum housing price and rent that could be afforded by different income
levels in San Bernardino County. As discussed previously (Table HE-23), the average priced single-family
home and condominium sell for $635,709 and $386,247, respectively. Since low and moderate income
households could afford no more than $289,488 for a single-family home, any type of single-family
dwelling and most condominiums would not be affordable at current sales prices.
Apartments, single-family homes, and condominiums typically rent between $1,361 and $5,150 per
month (Table HE-24). Low and moderate income households can afford between $162 and $1,952 in
rent per month, which can potentially push larger households into overcrowded conditions or into cost
burden based on their needs. Most existing apartments and home rentals are not affordable to low
income households. Apartment and home rentals are affordable for moderate income households,
however availability in that price range may be limited for these households.
DRAFT Housing Element | 24
Table HE-25: Housing Affordability in San Bernardino County
Income Levels Income
Limits
Affordable
Monthly
Housing Cost
Utilities
Taxes,
Insurance, HOA
(Ownership)
Affordable
Rent
Affordable
Home Price
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $15,850 $396 $234 $139 $162 $6,180
2-Person (1 BR) $18,100 $453 $259 $158 $194 $9,374
3-Person (2 BR) $21,270 $532 $329 $186 $202 $4,297
4-Person (3 BR) $26,200 $655 $409 $229 $246 $4,385
5-Person (4 BR) $30,680 $767 $488 $268 $279 $2,898
Very Low Income (30-50% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $26,400 $660 $234 $231 $426 $51,362
2-Person (1 BR) $30,150 $754 $259 $264 $495 $60,979
3-Person (2 BR) $33,900 $848 $329 $297 $518 $58,386
4-Person (3 BR) $37,650 $941 $409 $329 $532 $53,421
5-Person (4 BR) $40,700 $1,018 $488 $356 $530 $45,809
Low Income (50-80% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $42,200 $1,055 $234 $369 $821 $119,027
2-Person (1 BR) $48,200 $1,205 $259 $422 $946 $138,280
3-Person (2 BR) $54,250 $1,356 $329 $475 $1,027 $145,537
4-Person (3 BR) $60,250 $1,506 $409 $527 $1,097 $150,207
5-Person (4 BR) $65,100 $1,628 $488 $570 $1,140 $150,304
Median Income (80-100% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $52,700 $1,318 $234 $461 $1,083 $163,994
2-Person (1 BR) $60,250 $1,506 $259 $527 $1,248 $189,885
3-Person (2 BR) $67,750 $1,694 $329 $593 $1,364 $203,351
4-Person (3 BR) $75,300 $1,883 $409 $659 $1,473 $214,660
5-Person (4 BR) $81,300 $2,033 $488 $711 $1,545 $219,682
Moderate Income (100-120% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $63,250 $1,581 $234 $553 $1,347 $209,175
2-Person (1 BR) $72,300 $1,808 $259 $633 $1,549 $241,490
3-Person (2 BR) $81,300 $2,033 $329 $711 $1,703 $261,381
4-Person (3 BR) $90,350 $2,259 $409 $791 $1,850 $279,113
5-Person (4 BR) $97,600 $2,440 $488 $854 $1,952 $289,488
1. Housing affordability assumes 10% down payment, 30-year fixed loan at a 3% interest rate, and 35% for taxes and insurance.
2. Rental payment assumed at no more than 30% of income, after payment of utility.
Source: Veronica Tam & Associates, 2020; San Bernardino Housing Authority Utility Allowances, October 2020; HCD State Income Limits,
2020.
HOUSING PRESERVATION NEEDS
California Government Code §65583(a)(9)(A-D) requires "[a]n analysis of existing assisted housing
developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to
termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage payment, or expiration of restrictions on use." The study
includes units at-risk during the ten-year period from October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2031.
Inventory of Units At-Risk
The inventory of affordable housing projects within Rancho Cucamonga is listed in Table HE-26. This
inventory includes all multiple-family units which are assisted under a variety of Federal, State, and/or
local programs, including HUD programs, State and local bond programs, and previously established RDA
programs, including but not limited to: density bonus or direct assistance. The inventoried units are
DRAFT Housing Element | 25
those eligible to change to market rate housing due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage
prepayment, or expiring use restrictions.
The inventory was compiled by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department through discussions with
the Housing Successor Agency (previously the Rancho Cucamonga RDA), the County of San Bernardino
CDH, the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC), the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (CTCAC), and a review of "Listing of Notices Received Pursuant to Government Code
§65863.10 and §65863.11" prepared by the California Housing Partnership Corporation.
Those units at-risk of converting to market rate prior to October 15, 2031, were assisted by County of
San Bernardino CDH with participation in the County's mortgage revenue bond program, State bond
financing, and HUD; affordable units were restricted for periods of 30 to 40 years. The identified units
were restricted through the property owner's participation with the County's bond program and did not
include the City's participation. Those units not at-risk of conversion to market rate after October 15,
2031 were restricted through regulatory agreements between owners and the Rancho Cucamonga RDA,
with funding by 20 percent Set-Aside funds and CTCAC financing. Affordable units assisted by the RDA
were restricted for a period up to 99 years.
The level of assistance of these units is set to benefit low-income families earning 80 percent, or less, of
the area median income for the San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario MSA.
DRAFT Housing Element | 26
Table HE-26: Subsidized Multi-Family Housing
Development Type Form of
Assistance
Subsidy
Terminates2
# Units Subject
to Control
Status
Units At-Risk of Conversion1
Parkview Place Apartments at Terra Vista
10935 Terra Vista Parkway 91730 Family Mortgage
Revenue Bond
Valid until
bonds are paid 31 At Risk
Mountain View Apartments at Terra Vista
10935 Terra Vista Parkway 91730 Family Mortgage
Revenue Bond
Valid until
bonds are paid 54 At Risk
Sycamore Terrace at Terra Vista
10855 Terra Vista Parkway 91730 Family Mortgage
Revenue Bond
Valid until
bonds are paid 26 At Risk
Evergreen Apartments
10730 Church Street, 91730 Family Mortgage
Revenue Bond
Valid until
bonds are paid 79 At Risk
Villa Pacifica
9635 Base Line Road, 91730 Senior RDA Set-Aside 2027 158 At Risk
Subtotal – Units At-Risk: 348
Units Not At-Risk of Conversion
Villa Del Norte
9997 Feron Boulevard, 91730 Family RDA Set-Aside 2051 87 Not at Risk
Heritage Pointe
3590 Malven Avenue, 91730 Senior RDA Set-Aside 2056 48 Not at Risk
Las Casitas
9775 Main Street, 91730 Family RDA Set-Aside 2086 14 Not at Risk
Olen Jones Senior Apartments
7125 Amethyst Avenue Senior RDA Set-Aside,
HOME, & CTCAC 2092 96 Not at Risk
Rancho Verde Expansion
8837 Grove Avenue, 91730 Family RDA Set-Aside 2104 40 Not at Risk
Sunset Heights
6230 Haven Avenue, 91737 Family RDA Set-Aside 2104 116 Not at Risk
Pepperwood Apartments
9055 Foothill Boulevard, 91730 Family RDA Set-Aside 2105 228 Not at Risk
Rancho Verde Village
8837 Grove Avenue, 91730 Family RDA Set-Aside 2106 104 Not at Risk
Sycamore Springs Apartments
7127 Archibald Avenue, 91701 Family RDA Set-Aside 2106 96 Not at Risk
Monterey Village Apartments
10244 Arrow Route, 91730 Family RDA Set-Aside 2106 110 Not at Risk
Mountainside Apartments
9181 Foothill Boulevard, 91730 Family RDA Set-Aside 2106 188 Not at Risk
San Sevaine Villas
13247 Foothill Boulevard, 91739 Family RDA Set-Aside &
CTCAC 2107 223 Not at Risk
Villagio at Route 66
10220 Foothill Boulevard, 91730 Family RDA Set-Aside &
CTCAC 2107 131 Not at Risk
Day Creek Senior Villas
12250 Firehouse Court, 91739 Senior
LIHTC
FHLB
HACSB
XX 140 Not at Risk
Subtotal – Units Not At-Risk: 1621
Total Subsidized Multi-Family Units 1,969
Source: Rancho Cucamonga Housing Successor Agency, County of San Bernardino Department of Community Development and Housing
(CDH), California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC), California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC)
Preserving or Replacing Units At-Risk
The following discussion examines the cost of preserving units at-risk and the cost of producing new
rental units comparable in size and rent levels as replacement for units which convert to market rate.
The discussion also includes a comparison of the costs of replacement and new production.
DRAFT Housing Element | 27
Preservation Costs
The cost of preserving units includes purchase costs, any rehabilitation costs, and the costs of on-going
maintenance. The age, condition, and maintenance record of housing play a major role in rehabilitation
and maintenance costs. Within the City there are a total of 1,969 subsidized multiple-family housing
units. This includes 348 units at-risk of converting to market rate, and 1,621 units not at-risk of
conversion. Discussions with the County of San Bernardino CDH indicate that of those units at-risk of
conversion to market rate, the subsidy agreements maintaining the affordability on the at-risk units
have expired; however, the mortgage revenue bonds have not been paid off. Although the subsidy
agreements may have expired, the mortgage revenue bonds are still valid and the County of San
Bernardino CDH is maintaining the affordability of those units as long as the bonds are valid. To maintain
the affordability of those affected units, the property owner would have to renew the mortgage revenue
bonds, and pay the County administrative fee for each bond.
Transfer of Ownership or Sale
One way to keep the affected units affordable would be for the City to purchase the units at risk. Using
typical assumptions on revenue and expenses, Table HE-27 estimates the market value of the at-risk
units.
Table HE-27: Estimated Market Value of Units At-Risk
Project Restricted Units
Total At-Risk Units 348
Annual Operating Cost $1,758,096
Gross Annual Income $5,514,408
Net Annual Income $3,756,312
Market Value $46,953,900
1. Average market rent based on Fair Market Rents (FY 2021) established by HUD. Bedroom
data not available, therefore all units are assumed to be two units (Two-bedroom unit =
$1,390).
2. Annual income is calculated on a vacancy rate = 5%
3. Annual operating expenses per unit = $5,052
4. Market value = Annual net project income*multiplication factor
5. Multiplication factor for a building in good condition is 12.5.
Sources: HUD Fair Market Rents (FY 2021)
*= Income brought in by the project annually.
Purchase of Affordability Covenants
Another option to preserve the affordability of an at-risk project is to provide an incentive package to
the owner to maintain the project as affordable housing. Incentives could include bonds, writing down
the interest rate on the remaining loan balance, providing a lump-sum payment, and/or supplementing
the rents to market levels. The feasibility and cost of this option depends on whether the complex is too
highly leveraged and interest on the owner’s part to utilize the incentives found in this option. By
providing lump sum financial incentives or ongoing subsides in rents or reduced mortgage interest rates
to the owner, the City could ensure that some or all of the units remain affordable.
Rental Assistance
Tenant-based rent subsidies could be used to preserve the affordability of housing. Similar to Housing
Choice Vouchers, the City, through a variety of potential funding sources, could provide rent subsidies to
tenants of at-risk units. The level of the subsidy required to preserve the at-risk units is estimated to
equal the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a lower income
DRAFT Housing Element | 28
household. Table HE-28 estimates the rent subsidies required to preserve the affordability of the 348 at-
risk units. Based on the estimates and assumptions shown in this table, approximately $3.6 million in
rent subsidies would be required annually.
Table HE-28: Rental Subsidies Required
Total Units
(2 BR)
Fair
Market
Rent
Household
Size
Household
Annual Income
Affordable Cost
(Minus Utilities)
Monthly per
Unit Subsidy
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Very Low Income (30-50% AMI)
348 $1,390 3 $33,900 $519 $871 $303,108
1. Fair Market Rents (FMR) FY 2021 are determined by HUD.
2. San Bernardino County 2020 Area Median Income (AMI) limits set by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD).
3. Affordable cost = 30% of household income minus utility allowance.
Replacement Costs
The cost of developing new housing depends upon a variety of factors including, but not limited to,
density, number of bedrooms, location, land costs, and type of construction. In general, land costs in
Southern California are quite high. Unit replacement cost provides a range of cost estimates depending
on unit size for multi-family rental housing. Based on the range shown, it would cost approximately
$208,000 to construct one new multiple-family housing unit.
For the identified 348 units at-risk, new construction would cost approximately $72.4 million. This
estimate does not include the cost of land acquisition; therefore, the estimates shown in Table HE-29
are conservative.
Table HE-29: Estimated New Construction Cost
Total Units Estimated Average
Unit Size
Estimated Gross
Building Size
Estimated Gross
Building Cost
348 850 354,960 $72,425,151
Average Cost per Unit $208,118
(C) = (A) x (B) x 1.20 (i.e. 20% inflation to account for hallways and other common areas)
(D) = Estimated Valuation x 1.25 (i.e. 25% inflation to account for parking and landscaping costs)
Source: San Bernardino County Fee Estimator, accessed December 2020.
Preservation vs. Replacement
The above analysis attempts to estimate the cost of preserving the at-risk units under various options.
However, because different projects have different circumstances and therefore different options
available, the direct comparison would not be appropriate. In general, providing additional
incentives/subsidies to extend the affordability covenant would require the least funding over the long
run, whereas the construction of new units would be the most costly option. Over the short term,
providing rent subsidies would be least costly but this option does not guarantee the long-term
affordability of the units.
The cost of constructing 348 housing units to replace the currently at-risk units is high, with an
estimated total cost of nearly $72.4 million, excluding land costs. This cost estimate is higher than the
cost associated with the transfer of ownership option ($47 million). While the annual cost of providing
rent subsidies similar to Housing Choice vouchers ($3.6 million annually) appears low, once amortized
over a long period of affordability, provision of rent subsidies may be equally costly.
DRAFT Housing Element | 29
Available Resources
Preserving or replacing units at-risk requires qualified entities to acquire and manage the affordable
housing units and have available funding sources to do so. These funding sources are the primary
resource for conservation and are summarized below:
• Owner refinancing as allowed under terms of the County's bond program;
• Owner refinancing under a City bond program;
• Sale to non-profit entities with the interest and ability to purchase and/or manage affordable
housing units; and
• Sale to public entities with the interest and ability to purchase and/or manage affordable
housing units.
County of San Bernardino Bond Program
On a case-by-case basis, the County of San Bernardino bond programs have structured their regulatory
agreement to permit refinancing with an extension of the term of affordability for the conservation of
affordable housing. Current low interest rates make refinancing a viable option; where this option
exists, it should be encouraged.
City Bond Program
When the City reached a population of 50,000 it exercised its option to directly receive State and
Federal grants, including CDBG funding. By becoming an "entitlement city," Rancho Cucamonga became
ineligible to participate in the County's multiple-family bond program for the development of affordable
housing. However, the City gained the right to institute a local bond-financing program. Bond programs
can be instituted on a project-by-project basis. This option is typically used as a leveraging strategy in
conjunction with private financing. It is contingent upon the availability of State and Federal funds.
Private Non-Profit Agencies
Three non-profit agencies previously worked with the RDA to construct, purchase, and/or manage low
income housing units. Other nonprofit agencies are expected to express interest and work with the City
on affordable housing development.
National Community Renaissance (National CORE) (previously Southern California Housing Development
Corporation): This organization was incorporated in 1992 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing,
maintaining, and managing housing units for low-income households.
National CORE, with assistance from the RDA, acquired 6 apartment complexes with a total of 1,442
total units and 850 held as affordable. The complexes include: Day Creek Villas (140 of 140 units),
Sycamore Springs Apartments (96 of 240 units), Mountainside Apartments (192 of 384 units), Monterey
Village Apartments (112 of 224 units), and Rancho Verde Village Apartments (144 of 288 units), Heritage
Pointe Senior Apartments (49 of 49 units), and Woodhaven Apartments (117 of 117 units). The RDA
committed $1.8 million a year for 30 years to National CORE for the acquisition of affordable housing.
National CORE, with funding commitments from the RDA, is also working in partnership with the NHDC.
Workforce Homebuilders: This organization incorporated in 2005, with the purpose of establishing,
maintaining, and operating housing units for lower-income households. In February 2008 Workforce
Homebuilders, in a joint venture with National CORE, obtained entitlements for the Villagio multi-family
housing complex, a 166-unit (80 percent affordable), located at the northwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Center Avenue.
DRAFT Housing Element | 30
LINC Housing: Since 1984, LINC Housing has had a hand in building more than 6,000 affordable homes
throughout California. LINC provides housing for people underserved by the marketplace. LINC worked
with the City to acquire and rehabilitate the 228-unit Pepperwood Apartments located at 9055 Foothill
Boulevard.
DRAFT Housing Element | 31
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
The issue of housing constraints refers to land use regulations, housing policies and programs, zoning
designations, and other factors that may influence the price and availability of housing opportunities in
Rancho Cucamonga. These housing constraints may increase the cost of housing, or may render residential
construction economically infeasible for developers. Additionally, constraints to housing production
significantly impact lower income households and those with special needs.
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
California Government Code §65583(a)(5) requires "[a]n analysis of potential and actual governmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all incomes levels, …
including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other
exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures." The following discussion
reviews the policies, regulations, and procedures of the City of Rancho Cucamonga with respect to their
potential to constrain housing development within the City.
Land Use Policies
General Plan and Development Code Land Use Designations
The City’s existing General Plan Land Use Element was adopted in 2010 and establishes the allowable
land uses in Rancho Cucamonga. These land use categories are then implemented through development
standards contained in the Development Code. Land use categories are provided to guide the development,
intensity, or density of allowable development, and the permitted uses of land. The current General Plan
sets forth six primary residential land use categories and one mixed use residential-commercial land use
category. The Development Code implements the General Plan by establishing specific criteria for land
development within each land use designation. These development criteria include, among others,
building set back, height, parking, and land uses for each land use designation. Table HE-30 summarizes
the General Plan Land Use Designations and corresponding Zoning Districts that allow for residential
development.
DRAFT Housing Element | 32
Table HE-30: General Plan Designations and Zoning Districts
General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Development
Code Zoning
District
Density1
(Dwelling Units
per Acre2)
Allowable Residential Uses
Very Low VL Up to 2 du/ac
Accommodates very low density single-family
detached homes, with a minimum lot size of 20,000
square feet.
Low L Up to 4 du/ac
Accommodates low density single-family detached
homes,
with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet
Low Medium LM 4 to 8 du/ac
Accommodates low-medium density single-family
detached homes, single-family attached homes, or
multiple-family uses (i.e., apartments, townhomes,
and condominiums).
Medium M 8 to 14 du/ac Accommodates medium density multiple-family uses
(i.e., apartments, townhomes, and condominiums).
Medium High MH 14 to 24 du/ac
Accommodates medium high density multiple-family
uses (i.e., apartments, townhomes, and
condominiums).
High H 24 to 30 du/ac
Accommodates high density multiple-family
uses
(i.e., apartments, townhomes, and condominiums).
Mixed Use MU Up to 50 du/ac Accommodates a mix of residential and non-
residential uses, with development regulations that
ensure compatibility with nearby lower density
residential development, as well as
internal compatibility among varying uses.
1. The overall density of each development proposal must by itself fall within the applicable density range – a development that falls
below the minimum density cannot be offset by another development that exceeds the maximum density.
2. Excluding land necessary for secondary and arterial streets.
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, General Plan and Development Code
The City is currently in the process of conducting a comprehensive update to the General Plan. As part of
the update, the City is transitioning from a traditional Euclidean land use and zoning system to a “form-
based” system. Under the form-based system, the Land Use Element will divide the City into residential
neighborhoods, corridors, centers, and districts with designated “place types”. Table HE-31 provides the
draft Place Types that are being developed as part of the update along with the corresponding
residential densities. As shown, the draft Place Types, particularly the City Corridor and City Center Place
Types, allow for significantly higher residential densities than what is allowed in the current Land Use
Element. In addition, there will be more flexibility in where new housing units can be constructed,
which should result in more choices in housing types and locations, particularly for residents looking for
more urban options. Due to the significant changes in the Land Use Element with the transition to a
form-based system, a comprehensive update of the Development Code is being prepared to implement
the new Land Use Element. The Development Code updates are set to be completed by the second
quarter of 2022. Until the updates are adopted, the interim guidelines will be in place to implement the
new Land Use Element.
DRAFT Housing Element | 33
Table HE-31: Draft Place Types and Residential Densities
Place Type Residential Density
Open Space Place Types
Rural Open Space Max. 2.0 du/ac
Neighborhood Place Types
Semi-Rural Neighborhood Max. 2.0 du/ac
Traditional Neighborhood Low Max. 4.0 du/ac
Traditional Neighborhood Moderate Max. 8.0 du/ac
Traditional Neighborhood High Max. 14.0 du/ac
Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Max. 4.0 du/ac
Suburban Neighborhood Low Max. 14.0 du/ac
Suburban Neighborhood Moderate Max. 30.0 du/ac
Urban Neighborhood 20.0-50.0 du/ac
Corridor Place Types
Neighborhood Corridor Max. 30.0 du/ac
Neighborhood Corridor Low Max. 4.0 du/ac
City Corridor Moderate 24.0-40.0 du/ac
City Corridor High 40.0-60.0 du/ac
Center Place Types
Neighborhood Center Max. 24.0 du/ac
Traditional Town Center Max. 30.0 du/ac
City Center 40.0-100.0 du/ac
District Place Types
21st Century Employment District 24.0-42.0 du/ac
Office Employment District 18.0-30.0 du/ac
Neo-Industrial Employment District 14.0-24.0 du/ac
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department
Provisions for A Variety of Housing Types
State Law pertaining to the Housing Element requires that cities’ land use policies and development
standards allow for the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels, including single-
family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, manufactured homes, and transitional and supportive housing.
The City’s General Plan Land Use Element and Development Code designate particular areas within the
City for residential development and accommodate various types of housing as discussed in the
following section.
DRAFT Housing Element | 34
Table HE-32: Permitted Housing Types by Zoning District
Housing Type VL L LM M MH H MU HR
Single-Family Detached P P P P NP NP NP P
Two-Family Dwelling NP NP P P P P P NP
Multiple-Family Dwellings NP NP P P P P P NP
Accessory Dwelling Unit1 P P P P P P P P
Manufactured Home1 P P P P NP NP NP P
Mobile Home Parks1 C C C C C C NP NP
Group Residential C C C C C C C C
Live-Work Facility NP NP NP NP NP NP P NP
Residential Care Facility (6 or fewer) P P P P P P NP P
Residential Care Facility (7 or more) NP C C C C C C NP
Single-Room Occupancy Facility NP NP NP P P P P NP
Transitional Housing P P P P P P P P
P = Permitted by right C = Conditionally Permitted Use NP = Not Permitted
1. Subject to Specific Use Requirements
Source: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Rancho Cucamonga Development Code.
Conventional Housing
The City of Rancho Cucamonga allows conventional single- and multiple-family housing in a wide variety of
residential zones. Single-family housing is permitted in four residential zones (VL, L, LM, M) and provides a
density range of two to 14 dwelling units per gross acre. Single-family residential development is also
permitted in one open space zoning district, the Hillside Residential (HR) zone. After environmental
impacts are determined and mitigated, the Hillside Residential designation permits up to two dwelling
units per acre. Two-family dwellings are permitted in the LM, M, MH, and H residential zones. They are
also permitted in the MU zone. Multi-family housing consisting of three or more units is permitted in the
LM, M, MH, H, and MU zones. The City also contains several specific plans and community plans that
allow for single-family and multi-family development. These plans are discussed in greater detail later on
in this section.
Mixed-Use Housing
Mixed use residential development is permitted within the Mixed Use zone as well as the Town Square
Master Plan area. A mixed use development means an area of development that contains both
residential and commercial (i.e., retail and office) land uses and is typically located along major
boulevards (e.g., Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue). Mixed use developments are often utilized as a
buffer between more intense and less intense land uses. A mixed use development can include multi-
story buildings where the first floor is dedicated to commercial land uses and the upper stories contain
residential uses; however, mixed use development can also include parcels where commercial
developments are located along the major street and residential uses are located behind or adjacent to
the commercial use.
Section 17.36.020 of the City’s Development Code includes development standards for Mixed Use Zoning
Districts. Multi-family housing within mixed-use developments is permitted at a density of up to 50
dwelling units per acre.
DRAFT Housing Element | 35
Accessory Dwelling Units (Second Dwelling Units)
Accessory dwelling units can provide an important source of affordable housing for persons and families of
low and moderate income. Per the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, an accessory dwelling unit is
defined as “an attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent
living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating,
cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as a single-family or multi-family dwelling is situated.”
Accessory dwelling units may also include efficiency units and manufactured homes as defined by the
California Health and Safety Code.
Numerous new State laws in recent years have impacted the way that local jurisdictions regulate
accessory dwelling units, including AB 68, AB 587, AB 881, and SB 13. With the goal of increasing
accessory dwelling unit production, these bills have modified allowable fees, application procedures,
and development standards that cities are permitted to employ. In response to this legislation, the City
adopted an updated accessory dwelling unit ordinance in 2020 which complies with State requirements.
Per the ordinance, accessory dwelling units are permitted by-right in any zone in which residential
development is permitted and on any parcel with an existing or proposed single or multi-family
residence.
Mobile Home Parks and Manufactured Housing
The City permits mobile home units in VL, L, LM, M, and HR zoning districts, subject to the same
property development standards and permitting process as a single-family detached home. The
Development Code contains a definition for “manufactured home” that is consistent with the California
Health and Safety Code. Chapter 17.96 of the Development Code lays out additional standards for
mobile homes and mobile home parks. Mobile home units must be placed on a permanent foundation,
the unit must be certified under the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Act of 1974, and the
placement is subject to Design Review Committee review to ensure that the design of the unit is similar in
character and appearance to other dwellings in the area and that all development standards of the base
district have been met.
Mobile home parks are permitted in all residential zones subject to the approval of a conditional use
permit. Pursuant to Chapter 17.96 of the Development Code, mobile home parks must comply with all
development standards of the base zone except for the following:
a) There shall be no minimum side area for a mobile home park
b) There shall be no minimum area, width, or depth requirement for individual lots or spaces
c) There shall be no minimum yard requirement for individual lots or spaces
d) There shall be no minimum size for individual mobile home units
Residential Care Facilities
California law states that persons who require supervised care are entitled to live in normal residential
settings and preempts cities from imposing many regulations on State-licensed residential care facilities.
California Health and Safety Code §1500, Et seq., establishes that State-licensed residential care facilities
serving six or fewer persons be: 1) treated the same as any other residential use, 2) allowed by right in all
residential zones, and 3) be subject to the same development standards, fees, taxes, and permit
procedures as those imposed on the same type of housing in the same zone.
Rancho Cucamonga allows State-licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons by right in all
residential zones. In compliance with State law, these facilities are treated like any other residential use in
DRAFT Housing Element | 36
the same single-family or multiple-family residential zones. The City also permits large residential care
facilities serving seven or more residents in all residential zones except the VL zone, subject to the
approval of a conditional use permit. T his Housing Element includes a program to amend the City’s
Zoning Code to permit large residential acre facilities in all residential zones by right.
The Development Code defines residential care home as follows: Consistent with the definitions of state
law (Health and Safety Code section 1502), a residential care facility is a home that provides 24-hour
nonmedical care for six or fewer persons 18 years of age or older, or emancipated minors, with chronic,
life-threatening illness in need of personal services, protection, supervision, assistance, guidance, or
training essential for sustaining the activities of daily living, or for the protection of the individual. This
classification includes rest homes, residential care facilities for the elderly, adult residential facilities,
wards of the juvenile court, and other facilities licensed by the State of California. Convalescent homes,
nursing homes, and similar facilities providing medical care are included under the definition of “medical
services, extended care.”
Large residential care facilities are similarly defined, except that they are intended to house seven or
more persons. Although the definitions state that they are consistent with State law, the requirement
that residents within the facilities have “chronic, life-threatening illness” is not consistent with State law
and may represent a constraint to the development of some types of residential care homes and
facilities within the City. Therefore, a Housing Program has been added to update the definitions in the
Development Code to comply with State law.
Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters are the first step in a continuum of care and provide shelter to families and/or
individuals experiencing homelessness on a limited short-term basis. The Development Code defines
emergency shelters as "a facility for the temporary shelter and feeding of indigents or disaster victims
and operated by a public or nonprofit agency."
Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), codified at Government Code §65583, was enacted by the State Legislature in 2007
to address the State’s growing problem of homelessness. SB 2 requires local governments to identify
one or more zoning categories that allow emergency shelters without a Conditional Use Permit or other
discretionary permit. Cities may apply limited conditions to the approval of ministerial permits for
emergency shelters, however, the identified zone must have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
shelter need, and at a minimum provide capacity for at least one year-round shelter. Permit processing,
development, and management standards for emergency shelters must be objective and facilitate the
development of, or conversion to, such use.
Emergency shelters are permitted by-right in the General Commercial (GC) zone and with a conditional
use permit in the General Industrial (GI) zone. While State law allows jurisdictions to impose specified
standards to enhance the compatibility of emergency shelters, the Development Code contains no
special provisions regulating emergency shelters.
Properties in the GC District are generally located throughout the City and include locations at the
intersections of Base Line Road and Amethyst Avenue, Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, Arrow Route
between Hermosa Avenue and Archibald Avenue, Grove Avenue between Arrow Route and 9th Street, and
Beech Avenue at the I-15 Freeway. The GC District does not permit residential land uses, but does permit,
either by right or subject to a Conditional Use Permit, a wide variety of commercial, professional services
(medical and dental), hospitals, and transportation facilities. These uses are compatible with emergency
shelter land uses and provide necessary supportive services for the homeless population, particularly those
with special medical and health care needs.
DRAFT Housing Element | 37
The GC District is characterized by a mix of small (less than 1 acre), medium (1 to 5 acres), and large (over 5
acres) sized parcels. The GC District contains 470 acres, 330 of which are developed with a variety of
commercial developments, and some properties are underutilized and suitable for renovation/conversion to
an emergency shelter. Currently, the GC District includes over 100 acres of vacant land. This land use
designation provides excellent flexibility and therefore numerous options to parties interested in
operating emergency shelters. Therefore, the GC District has adequate capacity to accommodate 2,607
homeless individuals, the point-in-time homeless population, either in one large shelter or several small
shelters.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Adopted in 2019, AB 101 defines a Low Barrier Navigation Center as “a Housing First, low-barrier,
service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary
living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public
benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Low Barrier shelters may include options such as
allowing pets, permitting partners to share living space, and providing storage for residents’ possessions.
AB 101 requires jurisdictions to permit Low Barrier Navigation Centers that meet specified requirements
by-right in mixed use zones and other nonresidential zones permitting multifamily residential
development. The bill also imposes a timeline for cities to act on an application for the development of a
Low Barrier Navigation Center. The provisions of AB 101 are effective until 2026 when they sunset. The
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code has not been updated to permit this type of development;
therefore, a Housing Program has been added to amend the Development Code consistent with AB 101.
Transitional Housing
Transitional housing facilities are designed to accommodate homeless individuals and families for a longer
stay than in emergency shelters, as the residents stabilize their lives. California Health and Safety Code
§50801 defines "transitional housing" and "transitional housing development" as buildings configured as
rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of
assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some
predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months. Residents of transitional
housing are usually connected to supportive services designed to assist the homeless in achieving
greater economic independence and a permanent and stable living situation. Transitional housing may
take several forms, including group quarters, single-family homes, and multi-family housing, and
typically offers case management and supportive services to help return people to independent living.
In 2012, the City amended its Development Code to define transitional housing consistent with the
California Health and Safety Code and to permit transitional housing facilities by right in all residential
districts and the MU district and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of
the same type in the same district.
Supportive Housing
Supportive housing is affordable housing with onsite or offsite services that help a person or family with
multiple barriers to employment and housing stability. Supportive housing is a link between housing
providers and social services for the homeless, people with disabilities, and a variety of other special needs
populations. California Health and Safety Code §50675.2 defines “supportive housing” as housing with no
limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population (i.e., persons with low incomes having one
or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health
DRAFT Housing Element | 38
conditions, or individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities
Services Act), and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in
retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when
possible, work in the community.
The 2012 Development Code Update included updates to address supportive housing. Similar to transitional
housing, supportive housing can take several forms, including group quarters, single-family homes, and
multi-family housing complexes. The Development Code was amended to permit supportive housing
facilities by right in all residential districts and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other
residential dwellings of the same type in the same district.
AB 2162, adopted in 2018, requires that supportive housing developments with 50 or fewer units be
permitted by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted, provided
the development meets certain requirements. Additionally, the bill prohibits jurisdictions from imposing
parking requirements based on the number of units for supportive housing developments within one
half mile of a public transit stop. A program has been added to the Housing Plan to amend the
Development Code to ensure its supportive housing provisions are compliant with State law.
Single-Room Occupancy
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units provide affordable housing opportunities for certain segments of the
community such as, seniors, students, and single workers and are intended for occupancy by a single
individual. They are distinct from a studio apartment or efficiency unit, in that SRO units may either have
shared or private kitchen and bathroom facilities. SROs are typically rented on a monthly basis and
generally do not require a rental deposit, making them accessible to extremely low income and formerly
homeless individuals.
To address this potential housing need, the City amended the Development Code in 2012 to facilitate the
provision of SRO units consistent with SB 2. SRO units are permitted in the Medium (M) Residential
District, Medium-High (MH) Residential District, High (H) Residential District, and Mixed-Use (MU)
Districts. Conditions of approval for SRO units will relate to the performance characteristics of a
proposed facility, such as parking, security, management, availability of public transportation, and
access to commercial land uses.
Development Standards
Environmental Assessment Requirements
An environmental assessment is required for each project and is used to determine whether further
CEQA analysis is required. The site-specific assessment is tiered from the Master Environmental
Assessment (MEA) that was prepared for the 2010 update of the General Plan. For instance, the City's
Hillside Development Regulations were enacted to address grading and design issues on parcels with
slope issues. In most instances, these instruments clearly set the environmental constraints on the site,
including the potential maximum density, and serve to expedite development. Where additional site-
specific information is needed, special studies are requested. (A new environmental assessment is being
prepared for the 2020 update of the General Plan. Any new information that becomes available prior to
certification of the new environmental assessment will be considered in the drafting of this Housing
Element).
Residential Development Standards
The Development Code, as well as any applicable specific plans, utilizes a performance standard of
DRAFT Housing Element | 39
development through a use of density ranges. The density achieved is based on an analysis of environmental
constraints and design criteria (i.e., setback, lot coverage, parking, and landscaping). Development
standards for development within the City’s residential zones are presented in Table HE-33.
Minimum lot size requirements range from 20,000 square feet in large estate residential areas (VL zone)
to 5,000 to 7,200 square feet for most single-family residential areas. For multi-family development (M,
MH, and H zones), a minimum lot size of three acres is required. However, existing legal parcels less
than 3 acres may be developed at the minimum of the density range.
Residential densities range from a maximum of two units per acre in the VL zone up to 30 units per acre in
the H zone. However, the City has set forth special development standards for higher density projects
(see Table HE-34). Specifically, multi-family projects in the LM zone and single-family projects in the M
zone proposed at the maximum allowable density must comply with these standards, which include
requirements for more open space and recreational facilities. Projects proposed at the lower end of the
density range must only comply with the general residential development standards.
Lot coverage (i.e., the area of a lot covered by the building footprint, plus roof overhang) is permitted up to
25 percent in the VL Zone. The L zone allows for a maximum of 40 percent lot coverage while the LM, M,
MH, and H zones allow up 50 percent lot coverage.
The maximum building height for the VL, L, LM, M zones is 35 feet, while the maximum permitted in the
MH and H zones is 40 feet and 50 feet, respectively. However, for multi-family projects within 100 feet
of the VL or L zone, building height is limited to one story. For safety purposes, building height is also
limited in hillside areas, with a maximum of 30 feet.
Overall, the City’s development standards are based upon acceptable provisions, are not exceptional or
unusual, and are generally consistent with those of surrounding communities. Building standards, such
as setback and height requirements, generally do not provide a constraint to development. Typically,
building heights are permitted to increase as density increases. The variability of these development
standards permits a wide variety of housing types, including single-family and multi-family, rental and
ownership, and mobile homes.
DRAFT Housing Element | 40
Table HE-33: Residential Development Standards
Development Standard Zoning District
VL L LM M (SFR)14 M (MRF) 14 MH H
Lot Area (min.) 20,000 SF 7,200 SF 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3 AC1 3 AC1 3 AC1
Lot Area (min. net avg.) 22,500 SF 8,000 SF 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3 AC1 3 AC1 3 AC1
Lot Width (min.) 90 ft.2 65 ft. 2 50 ft. 2 45 ft. n/a n/a n/a
Lot Width (corner lot) 100 ft. 70 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. n/a n/a n/a
Lot Depth (min.) 200 ft. 100 ft. 90 ft. 80 ft. n/a n/a n/a
Min. Frontage 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.
Min. Frontage (flag lot) 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.
Allowed Density
Min. Density3 n/a n/a 4 du/ac 8 du/ac 8 du/ac 14 du/ac 24 du/ac
Max. Density 2 du/ac 4 du/ac 8 du/ac4 14 du/ac 14 du/ac4 24 du/ac 30 du/ac
Minimum Setback5
Front Yard6 42 ft. 37 ft. 32 ft. 27 ft. 37 ft. n/a n/a
Corner Side Yard 27 ft. 27 ft. 22 ft. 17 ft. 27 ft. n/a n/a
Interior Side Yard 10/15 ft. 5/10 ft. 5/10 ft. 5/5 ft. 10 ft.7 n/a n/a
Rear Yard 60 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft.7 n/a n/a
At Interior Site Boundary
(dwelling/accessory building) NR8 15/5 ft.7 15/5 ft.7 15/5 ft.7
Maximum Building Height9 (feet)
Primary Buildings 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.10 40 ft. 10 55 ft. 10
Maximum Lot Coverage (buildings as a percentage of the parcel or project)
Lot Coverage 25% 40% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Minimum Open Space Requirement (percentage of open space per parcel or project)
Private Open Space (ground
floor/upper story) 300/150
SF 225/150
SF
150/100
SF
150/100
SF
Open Space (common and
private) 40% 35% 35% 35% 35%
Minimum Patio/Porch Depth11 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft.
Min. Dwelling Unit Size12
Single-family (attached and
detached) 1,000 SF
Multi-family13 550 SF
Efficiency/studio 650 SF
One-bedroom 800 SF
Three or More Bedrooms 950 SF
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Table 17.36.010-1 – Development Standard for Residential Zoning Districts
Notes:
1. On existing lots of record, parcels less than 3 acres or less than the required minimum frontage shall be developed at the lowest end
of the permitted density range.
2. Average width, which shall vary accordingly: VL= +/- 10 ft.; L & LM = +/- 5 ft.
3. Excluding land necessary for secondary streets and arterials; in hillside areas shall be dependent on the slope/capacity factor (see
RCMC Chapter 17.52)
4. Developing multi-family in the LM district and single-family in the M district at the maximum density requires compliance with RCMC
Section 17.36.020.D, Standards for Higher Residential Densities
5. Setbacks are measured between the structure and curb face in front and corner side yards. Setbacks are measured between the
structure and property line in rear and interior side yards.
6. Average setback, which shall vary +/- 5 ft.
7. Add 10 ft. to minimum setback if adjacent to LV, L, or LM district.
8. Applies to buildings two or more stories in height. Add ten more feet for each story over two stories.
9. In hillside areas, heights shall be limited to 30 ft.
10. Multi-family dwellings are limited to one story within 100 ft. of VL or L district.
11. Free and clear of obstruction.
12. Senior projects are exempt from this requirement.
13. To assure that smaller units are not concentrated in any one area or project, the following percentage limitations of the total number
of units shall apply: Ten percent for efficiency/studio and 35 percent for one bedroom or up to 35 percent combined. Subject to a
DRAFT Housing Element | 41
conditional use permit, the planning commission may authorize a greater ratio of efficiency or one-bedroom units when a
development exhibits innovative design qualities and a balanced mix of unit sizes and types.
14. M (SFR) = standards for single-family development in the M zone; M (MFR) = standards for multi-family development in the M zone.
Table HE-34: Standards for Higher Residential Densities
Development Standard Zoning District
LM M MH H
Min. Site Area (gross) n/a n/a n/a n/a
Density Up to 8 du/ac Up to 14
du/ac
Up to 24
du/ac
Up to 30
du/ac
Public Street Setback 45 ft. avg.;
Vary +/-5 ft.
42 ft. avg.;
Vary +/-5 ft.
42 ft. avg.;
Vary +/-5 ft.
47 ft. avg.;
Vary +/-5 ft.
Private Street or Driveway Setback 15 ft. avg.;
Vary +/-5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
Corner Side Yard Setback (min.) 10 ft. 5 ft. - -
Interior Side Yard Setback (min.) - 10 ft.1,2 - -
Interior Site Boundary (Dwelling Unit/Accessory
Building) 15/5 ft 20/5 ft.1 20/5 ft.1 20/5 ft.1
Maximum Height 35 ft.3 35 ft.3 40 ft.3 50 ft.3
Private Open Space (Ground Floor/Upper Story) 300/150 SF 225/150 SF 150/100 SF 150/100 SF
Open Space (Private and Common) 45% 40% 40% 40%
Min. Patio/Porch Depth4 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft.
Recreational Facilities Required per RCMC Section 17.36.010.E
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Table 17.36.010-2
Notes:
1. Add 10 feet to the minimum if adjacent to VL, L, or LM district.
2. Zero lot line dwellings permitted pursuant to RCMC Subsection 17.36.010.D.
3. Multi-family dwellings are limited to one story within 100 ft. of VL or L district.
4. Free and clear of obstructions.
Parking Standards
Like most cities in the region, Rancho Cucamonga’s parking standards require two spaces within a garage
for single-family detached units, and utilize a sliding scale, based on the number of bedrooms, for multi-
family, attached single-family, and mobile home parks. These standards are summarized in Table HE-35.
Table HE-35: Residential Parking Standards
Unit Type Parking Requirement
Single-family detached 2-car garage
Multi-family development (including condominiums, townhomes, etc.), semi-detached
single-family (zero lot line, patio homes, duplexes, etc.), and mobile home parks
Studio 1.3 spaces per unit (1 in garage/carport)
One Bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit (1 in garage/carport)
Two Bedrooms 2.0 spaces per unit (1 in garage/carport)
Three Bedrooms 2.0 spaces per unit (2 in garage/carport)
Four or More Bedrooms 2.5 spaces per unit (2 in garage/carport)
Guest Parking 1 space per 3 units
Source: Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
Note:
1. 50 percent of the total required covered spaces shall be within enclosed garage structures. The use of carports requires
approval from the design review committee.
Under these standards, for studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom units, one space is required to be
located in a garage or carport. Three and four bedroom units require two spaces to be in a garage or
carport. Guest parking spaces are required at a ratio of one parking space for each three multi-family
units.
DRAFT Housing Element | 42
To mitigate the impact that parking requirements may have upon affordable housing projects, the City
adopted Density Bonus Provisions in compliance with state law (last updated in 2012). Under these
standards parking requirements do not hinder the availability and affordability of housing as the City
permits a reduction of these on-site parking requirements, among other standards, in the development of
affordable housing projects. The Density Bonus Provisions are discussed in further detail later in this
section. The Density Bonus Provisions will need to be updated to be consistent with new state laws and
is included in the Housing Programs.
As part of the General Plan update, the City has prepared a framework for applying the form-based code
standards to new development projects as interim guidelines or regulations to ensure that new projects
will generally conform to the new standards before the final Development Code is adopted. This
framework will include the form-based zone standards; use tables and use definitions; and, building and
frontage types.
The interim guidelines are in place to ensure that development occurring in the City between the time of
the General Plan adoption and the Development Code update are consistent. A full Development Code
update will be adopted before the end of the second quarter in 2022.
Planned Communities, Master Plans, and Specific Plans
The purpose of master plans and specific plans is to provide a clear vision and implement
comprehensive standards which reflect the unique characteristics of the planning area. The City has
several planned communities and specific plans which allow for residential development at various
densities. Table HE-36 lists the Planned Communities, Master Plans, and Specific Plans within the City
that allow for residential development along with their permitted densities. As shown, the Plans allow
for the development of a variety of housing types from very low density single family residential (i.e.
Etiwanda North and Etiwanda Highlands) to high density multi-family and mixed use developments (i.e.
Empire Lakes). The following discussion highlights some of the distinctive characteristics of the Plans
that encompass larger areas of the City.
Table HE-36: Master and Specific Plans Allowing Residential Uses
Master Plan/Specific Plan Residential Type
Permitted Density Range Permitted
Caryn Planned Community Single Family
One SFR per lot; Lots range
in size from 4,000 to
11,000 SF
Empire Lakes Specific Plan Multi-family; Mixed Use 14-80 du/ac
Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan Single Family attached
and detached
2,700-3,000 permitted
within the Specific Plan
area
Etiwanda Highlands Specific Plan Single Family
0.9-3.4 du/ac; 546 units
permitted within the
Specific Plan area
Etiwanda North Specific Plan Single Family Up to 4 du/ac
Etiwanda Specific Plan Single Family; Multi-
Family Up to 14 du/ac
Terra Vista Community Plan Multi-Family
Single Family
24-30 du/ac
Up to 14 du/ac
Town Square Master Plan Multi-Family; Mixed Use 24-30 du/ac
University Property Planned
Development Single Family 6 du/ac
DRAFT Housing Element | 43
Victoria Community Plan Single Family; Multi-
Family Up to 30 du/ac
Victoria Arbors Master Plan Single Family; Multi-
Family Up to 30 du/ac
Victoria Gardens Master Plan Single Family; Multi-
Family Up to 30 du/ac
Etiwanda, Etiwanda Heights, Etiwanda North, and Etiwanda Highlands
Rural character is a dominant feature of the historic Etiwanda community. Although low-density housing is
encouraged, zoning includes areas for all income levels and medium density multi-family housing is
permitted within the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
The rugged, natural open character of the Etiwanda North and Etiwanda Heights planning areas provide
constraints to development. These Specific Plans primarily serve as a pre-zone for the City's Sphere-of-
Influence. Safety hazards and the high cost of extending infrastructure to the area make it most suitable
for lower density single-family housing. No multi-family housing is proposed in either of these areas.
Terra Vista Community Plan
The Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP) was originally approved by the City Council on February 16, 1983.
This Community Plan is primarily built out. Table HE-37 summarizes the development standards for the
TVCP. Development standards are generally more flexible than typical Development Code standards in
order to allow for a creative and cohesive design throughout the planned community for each land use
density. No maximum lot coverage is required for development provided that setback and open space
requirements are met. Additionally, the plan was designed to allow flexibility in trading densities among
different areas within each plan without requiring a General Plan Amendment, as long as the maximum
density permitted by the plan is not exceeded. The Plan permits each residential land use designation to
be stepped up or down one category, except for the Medium residential category that allows two steps up,
to either the Medium-High or High density range.
Based on the development criteria outlined below, the TVCP does not preclude the feasibility of
achieving maximum densities, and when coupled with a Density Bonus Housing Agreement would exceed
allowable TVCP densities for the development of affordable housing units.
DRAFT Housing Element | 44
Table HE-37: Terra Vista Community Plan Development Standards
Development Standard H
Building Site Area 2 ac
Dwelling Units (Permitted per acre) 24-30
Setbacks
Building Setback (from curb face) Varies from 22 ft average, 20 ft minimum to 43 ft average, 38 ft minimum, depending on
street classification
Building Setback (from property line) Varies from 0 ft, to 6 ft with 35 ft separation, depending on alley or trail
Garage, Carport and Accessory Building
(from curb face)
Varies from 22 ft average, 17 ft minimum to 38 ft average, 28 ft minimum, depending on
street classification
Garage, Carport and Accessory Building
(from property line)
Varies from 0 ft, to 6 ft with 35 ft separation, depending on alley or trail
Uncovered Parking Setback (from curb
face)
Varies from 22 ft average, 11 ft minimum to 38 ft average, 19 ft minimum, depending on
street classification
Uncovered Parking Setback (from
property line)
0 ft
Open Space 0 ft
Other Conditions 0 ft (10 ft if adjacent to VL or L District)
Building Site Width and Depth As permitted by required setbacks.
Building Site Coverage No Maximum subject to Development Review Process.
Building Height 65 ft
Private Open Space Not applicable
Building Separations The standards from the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code shall apply.
Note: The only vacant residential land within the TVCP is within the High Residential Districts, so only those standards were discusse
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Terra Vista Community Plan
Victoria Community Plan (Including Victoria Arbors and Victoria Gardens)
The Victoria Community Plan (VCP) was originally approved by the City Council on May 20, 1981. Since its
approval, the majority of the VCP has been constructed with only a few sites remaining before build-out.
Currently, only one site remains in the VCP that is zoned High Residential (24-30 units). The VCP provides for
typical lot development, as well as innovative and cluster housing standards, which allows for more creativity
and flexibility in achieving maximum density yields.
Adopted in 2002, the Victoria Arbors Master Plan was adopted to develop the final “village” of the
Victoria Community Plan. Victoria Arbors is distinguished by its “wine county” design theme and the
historic Regina Winery is located within the Master Plan area. The Victoria Gardens Master Plan was also
adopted in 2002 and most recently amended in 2018. The intent of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan is
to set forth a vision for the new downtown of Rancho Cucamonga. The Plan area is intended to be a
mixed-use center within the Victoria Arbors Village and is planned for residential development of up to
30 units per acre for up to 600 units within the Plan area. These two Master Plans are consistent with
the Victoria Community Plan while providing additional vision, standards, and design guidelines for
these unique areas.
Like the Terra Vista Community Plan, the standards for the Victoria Community Plan generally provide
more flexibility and encourage innovation in development. The Victoria Community Plan was also
designed to allow flexibility in trading densities among different districts of the Plan. The Plan allows
each residential district to be stepped up or down one to two categories in density without requiring a
General Plan Amendment, as long as the maximum density permitted by the plan is not exceeded.
DRAFT Housing Element | 45
Table HE-38: Victoria Community Plan Development Standards
Development Standard LM (Cluster Development) H
Building Site Area 3 ac 3 ac
Dwelling Units (Permitted per acre) 4-8 24-30
Building site coverage As permitted by required setback and private open space
60%
Building Setbacks Front, Side and Rear Setback:
Varies from 5 ft, to 20 ft minimum,
25 ft average depending on street classification.
Front, Side and Rear Setback:
Varies from 5 ft, 25 ft minimum
depending on street classification.
Building Separation Building height 35 feet or less, 10 ft min Building height 35 feet or greater, 15 ft min
Building height 35 feet or less, 10 ft min Building height 35 feet or greater, 15 ft min Building height 40 ft 50 ft
Building Site Width and Depth As permitted by required setbacks N/A
Private Open Space 300 sq ft N/A
Note: The only vacant land within the VCP is within the Low Medium and High Residential Districts, so only those standards were
discussed.
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Victoria Community Plan
Empire Lakes Specific Plan
Initially adopted in 1994, the Empire Lakes Specific Plan was created in response to the pending vacancy
of the General Dynamics property within the City, which included approximately one million square feet
of office space. Amendments to the Specific Plan in the early 2000s expanded the permitted uses within
the planning area to allow for multi-family residential uses within various sub-areas of the Specific Plan
Area. Most recently, following changing market conditions, in 2016 the Specific Plan was amended to re-
purpose the Empire Lakes golf course to support the mixed use infill development goals of the Specific
Plan. This amendment consolidated several of the previous sub-areas into one Planning Area 1 (PA1).
Due to its close proximity to the Metrolink Rancho Cucamonga Station, the Specific Plan area is well-
situated for high density, transit-oriented development.
Table HE-39 summarizes the development standards for PA1 of the Specific Plan. PA1 allows for
densities ranging from 16-28 units per acre in the Village Neighborhood District up to 24-80 units per
acre in the Urban Neighborhood District. The development standards offer a great deal of flexibility,
with no minimum requirements for lot size, frontage, lot coverage, or floor area ratio. Dwelling unit size
and open space requirements also allow for more flexibility. The combination of higher densities, a
minimum unit size of only 450 square feet, and other relaxed standards increase the potential for
affordable housing to be developed in this area.
DRAFT Housing Element | 46
Table HE-39: Empire Lakes Planning Area 1 Development Standards
Development
Standard
Zoning District (Place Type)
Village
Neighborhood Core Living Urban
Neighborhood Mixed Use Mixed Use Overlay
Lot Area No Minimum
Lot Width No Minimum
Lot Depth No Minimum
Min. Frontage No Minimum
Allowed Density
Min. Density 16 du/ac 18 du/ac 24 du/ac Regulated on an
individual parcel
basis, ranges from 14-
55 du/ac
Consistent with
underlying
Placetype. Max. Density 28 du/ac 35 du/ac 80 du/ac
Lot Coverage No Maximum
Floor Area Ratio No Maximum
Minimum Building Setbacks from Property Lines1
Front Yard/
Rear Yard 0 ft.
From Vine ROW 5 ft.
From Private
Drive Aisle/Alley 0 ft.
Corner Side Yard
(interior to a
parcel)
5 ft.
Interior Side
Yard 0 ft. (or consistent with adopted CRC or CBC)
Building Height
Primary
Buildings
North of 6th St: 70 ft.; South of 6th St: 60 ft.; Adjacent to existing residential uses along eastern
perimeter of PA1: 45 ft. within 20 ft. of the PA1 boundary line.
Open Space Requirements
Private and
Common Open
Space
150 SF per unit combined; may be provided in private, common, or a combination of these spaces.
Minimum Dwelling Unit Size2
Single-family
450 SF; excludes required parking and open space
Multi-family
Efficiency/Studio
One bedroom
Two bedroom
Three or more
bedrooms
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Empire Lakes Specific Plan
Notes:
1. Setbacks from the Planning Area 1 boundary are determined by parcel. For more information, refer to Table 7.5 of the Specific
Plan.
2. Senior housing developments are exempt from this requirement.
Performance Standards and Design Criteria Analysis
Performance standards and design criteria such as open space and landscaping requirements are
important to maintaining quality of life in residential developments. As previously noted, the City has
implemented additional performance standards for projects proposing to be developed at the maximum
of the density range (see Table HE-34). The following analysis demonstrates that the imposition of the
City's Performance Standards is not an impediment to the development of residential units at the upper
range of maximum allowable densities.
DRAFT Housing Element | 47
Open Space
Building setbacks and open space requirements are established to ensure that sufficient privacy and open
space are provided to enhance and maintain the quality of life within residential neighborhoods. These
requirements are necessary to mitigate traffic noise, provide privacy from neighbors, and offer residents
opportunities to recreate.
Multi-family projects subject to the base development standards must provide 35-40% open space,
dependent upon zone. Private open space requirements are greatest in the LM zone, with a
requirement of 300 square feet per ground floor unit and 150 square feet for upper story units. This
requirement is incrementally decreased as density increases, with projects in the H zone requiring 150
square feet per ground floor unit and 100 square feet per upper story unit.
Multi-family projects proposed at the maximum of the density range are subject to different open space
requirements; however, they are minimally more stringent than the base requirements. These projects
must provide 40-45% open space, dependent upon the zone, but the required private open space per
unit remains the same as the base requirement. Therefore, these additional requirements do not
constrain higher residential development; rather, they enhance the project and quality of life for
residents.
Recreation Area/Facility
Recreational amenities in conjunction with common open space are required for development under the
Medium to High residential densities. These amenities are required to provide for active recreation
opportunities for residents. Recreational amenity requirements are based upon the size of the project,
with larger projects required to provide more amenities. The types of amenities that may be provided
include open lawn areas, enclosed tot lots, pools or spas, barbeque facilities, community multi-purpose
rooms, court facilities, and jogging/walking trails. Projects with 30 units or less are required to provide
three recreational amenities, while projects of 100 to 200 units must provide five amenities which are
generally more robust than those required for a smaller project (i.e. multiple tot lots for a larger project
compared to just one for a smaller project). The Development Code provides flexibility in this
requirement by allowing other amenities to be considered as part of Planning Commission review.
For qualifying affordable housing projects, Rancho Cucamonga's Density Bonus Provisions provide that
the Planning Commission may approve development incentives (i.e., a reduction in certain development
standards such as reduced building setbacks, reduced public/private open space, increased maximum
lot coverage, increased building height, etc.), but only when provided as part of a Density Bonus Housing
Agreement. In general, the discretion given to the Planning Commission in approving "other"
recreational amenities demonstrates how zoning encourages flexibility and creativity in meeting the
City's development criteria. The City has found that the requirement for recreational facilities does not
preclude the ability to achieve maximum densities, particularly in relation to the development of
affordable housing, when combined with a Density Bonus Housing Agreement.
Landscaping
Landscaping is required for both single-family and multi-family projects and is provided for aesthetic as
well as functional reasons. For multi-family projects, particularly in the Medium to High Residential
Districts, landscaping is provided as a percentage of the project site and provides many essential
functions for the community including: beauty, shading, wind protection, screening, noise buffering, and
air filtering. Within the Low Medium to High Residential Districts, the City's landscape standards require
a number of trees per gross acre; however, these trees are dispersed throughout the project in areas
DRAFT Housing Element | 48
that include setback areas, in building to building separation areas, around the project perimeter,
throughout the parking lot, and around both passive and active recreation areas. This requirement has
no impact on achieving maximum density as there are sufficient areas within a project to provide project
landscaping.
In addition, the City's Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions include incentives that
could allow a reduction in "other site or construction conditions applicable to a residential development",
which could include a reduction in project landscaping.
Energy Conservation
Energy conservation standards establish requirements for energy conservation features as part of multi-
family development when utilizing the City's Optional Development Standards. The energy conservation
standards require that new residential developments be provided with an alternative energy system to
provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spas, and that solar
energy shall be the primary energy system unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be
of equivalent capacity and efficiency. Additional requirements provide that all appliances and fixtures shall
be energy conserving. Energy conservation standards are approved through Planning Commission review
and do not impact the ability to achieve maximum density. Energy conservation standards may have short
term costs associated with the installation of the alternative energy system; however, operation costs and
per unit costs will be lower due to the energy savings associated with the operation of the equipment.
Energy conservation standards requiring energy efficient appliances do not impact project density and will
not impact project development costs. Operation costs to the tenants will be significantly lower with the use
of energy efficient appliances.
Other Amenities
In addition to recreational amenities, multi-family developments are required to provide a minimum of
125 cubic feet of exterior lockable storage space per unit and hook-ups for a washing machine and
clothes dryer in the interior of each unit. The purpose of these amenities is essentially to improve the
livability and functionality of each residential unit. These amenities are approved through Planning
Commission review, do not impact the ability to achieve maximum density, and have a negligible impact
on housing development and costs.
Building Codes and Their Enforcement
Building Code Requirements
The City has adopted the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), which is largely based on the International
Building Code, to address building code requirements. Under State law, this code can be amended by local
governments only for to geological, topographical, or climatological reasons. These codes are
considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and are not
considered an unnecessary constraint to housing.
Through the use of the State Historic Building Code (Health and Safety Code §18950, Et seq.) the City
encourages the preservation of significant historic structures. The State Historic Building Code permits the
use of original or archaic materials in reconstruction with the purpose of providing "alternative regulations
and standards for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration (including related reconstruction), or
relocation of qualified historical buildings or structures." The City has also enacted a Mills Act ordinance to
provide tax incentives for the preservation of historic homes.
As discussed previously, the housing stock is in relatively good condition. For those structures that do need
DRAFT Housing Element | 49
repair, the City enforces those standards and regulations that ensure reasonable and adequate life safety.
The application of these standards allows for the exercise of judgment, as permitted in the code, so that
older buildings built under less demanding regulations are not unduly penalized.
Community Improvement
The Community Improvement Division is tasked with enforcing the provisions of the Municipal Code
which relate to property maintenance and aesthetics as well as land use and zoning compliance. Types of
violations enforced include weed abatement, graffiti removal, inoperative vehicles and other parking
issues, and vector control, among others. The Community Improvement Division primarily operates on a
complaint response basis.
Once a violation is reported, a Community Improvement Officer makes contact and issues notice
requesting correction of the violation. If progress toward compliance is not observed within a specified
amount of time, a multi-step process begins that involves additional notices. As a last resort, a formal
nuisance abatement process is followed, an Administrative Citation may be issued, or criminal
proceedings may be sought. The overall emphasis of the Community Improvement program is to ensure
that progress toward correction of violations is achieved on a voluntary basis. The Community
Improvement Division also partners with social service agencies and community-based organizations to
work with the most vulnerable residents to assist them with property maintenance and nuisance issues
in a humane manor.
Overall community awareness is a goal of the Code Enforcement Division. The City has initiated
proactive neighborhood conservation programs which focus on specific neighborhoods that are
beginning to show early signs of deterioration. Community education, neighborhood cleanups, yard
maintenance, and abandoned vehicle abatement are emphasized during such programs. These
neighborhoods are often low income neighborhoods eligible for CDBG funding for capital
improvements, including street resurfacing, storm drains, streetlights, and water and sewer upgrades.
Off-Site Improvements
New construction within the City triggers compliance with Ordinance No. 58, which requires as a condition
of project approval, the completion of all street frontage improvements. These improvements are
primarily street and storm drain improvements; although the undergrounding of utilities may also be
required. While the undergrounding of utility lines provides an aesthetic benefit, the primary reason for
imposing the requirement is to address public safety concerns. Rancho Cucamonga is subject to
extremely high winds, and hazardous conditions can be created when utility poles or utility lines break.
Therefore, site improvement requirements are the minimum necessary for public safety and cannot be
viewed as a constraint to development.
The requirements for on- and off-site improvements vary depending on the location of the project, the
presence of existing improvements, as well as the size and nature of the proposed development. In general,
most residential areas in Rancho Cucamonga are fully served with existing infrastructure improvements. The
Development Code requires developers proposing to construct any building, parking lot or developing area
to provide for a number of improvements within the public rights-of-way including: concrete curb and gutter,
asphalt concrete street pavement, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. Typical residential development
requires a 60-foot minimum public street right-of way, which includes a 36-foot street width measured from
curb to curb; private streets may have a reduced right-of-way, however the curb to curb dimension remains
consistent with public streets.
DRAFT Housing Element | 50
Fees and Other Exactions
The City charges a range of development fees to recover the costs of providing services to new
development. Fees are designed to ensure that developers pay a pro-rata fair share of the cost of
providing infrastructure and to compensate the City for the cost of processing the application. While
these fees do increase the cost of housing development, they are necessary to ensure public health and
safety, as well as to maintain a high quality of life for the City’s residents. Additionally, application
processing fees are necessary to facilitate thorough and consistent project review and orderly
development within the City.
Planning Fees
Planning application fees are established by a Fee Study, which analyzes a number of factors including
processing time and number and experience level of people needed to review an application. The
purpose of the fee study is to determine fee levels that accurately cover the cost of application review,
which are then reviewed and adopted by the City Council. The most recent update to the fee schedule
became effective on July 1, 2020. These fees are not considered excessive and are comparable to
surrounding communities. Table HE-40 summarizes the Planning Department fee requirements for
residential development applications.
DRAFT Housing Element | 51
Table HE-40: Planning Department Application Fees
Application Application Fee
Annexation $15,000 (Deposit)
Conditional Use Permit (Administrative/Planning
Commission) $4,590 (Flat)/$8,116 (Flat)
Development Agreement $50,000 (Deposit)
Development Code Amendment $10,000 (Deposit)
Design Review
Single Family Residential (5-10 Units) $17,455 (Flat)
Single Family Residential (11-25 Units) $23,049 (Flat)
Single Family Residential (26+ Units) $32,650 (Flat)
Multi-Family Residential (2-10 Units) $17,618 (Flat)
Multi-Family Residential (11-75 Units) $23,626 (Flat)
Multi-Family Residential (76+ Units) $35,067 (Flat)
Environmental Review
IS/ND/MND
Performed by City Staff $10,000 (Deposit) + City Attorney Fee (Actual Cost)
Submitted by Developer $2,000 (Flat, Administrative Processing Fee) +
Consultant and City Attorney Fees (Actual Cost)
City Facilitation of Consultant $4,000 (Flat, Administrative Processing Fee) +
Consultant and City Attorney Fees (Actual Cost)
Environmental Impact Report
Submitted by Developer $2,000 (Flat, Administrative Processing Fee) +
Consultant and City Attorney Fees (Actual Cost)
City Facilitation of Consultant $45,000 (Deposit, Administrative Processing Fee) +
Consultant and City Attorney Fees (Actual Cost)
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program $1,090 (Flat)
General Plan Amendment $15,000 (Deposit)
Hillside Design Review
1 Unit $9,831 (Flat)
2-4 Units $12,000 (Deposit)
5+ Units $20,000 (Deposit)
Minor Exception (Administrative, Residential/PC
Approval) $926 (Flat)/$4,958 (Flat)
Pre-Application Review (Planning Commission) $4,324 (Flat)
Preliminary Review $5,187 (Flat)
Specific/Community/Master Plan, New $25,000 (Deposit)
Specific/Community/Master Plan Amendment $10,000 (Deposit)
Tentative Parcel Map $8,039 (Flat)
Tentative Tract Map
5-10 lots $10,580 (Flat)
11-25 lots $13,054 (Flat)
26+ lots $15,000 (Deposit)
Time Extension (Administrative/PC Approval) $2,729 (Flat)/$9,142 (Flat)
Variance $5,325 (Flat)
Zoning Map Amendment $13,646 (Flat)
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Development Department, 2020.
Building Permit and Development Impact Fees
Table HE-41 itemizes fees charged for a typical single-family residence and a typical multi-family project
in Rancho Cucamonga. Building permit and plan check fees are intended to cover the City’s costs in
DRAFT Housing Element | 52
reviewing and issuing permits, as well as completing inspections. Local impact fees, including drainage,
transportation, beautification, and park development fees, are intended to cover the cost of the
construction and maintenance of infrastructure to serve new housing. Regional impact fees (schools,
water, and wastewater) are charged by regional or government entities other than the City of Rancho
Cucamonga to provide infrastructure and services for new development. Fire Department plan check
fees are incorporated into the Building and Safety Plan Check fee and are not assessed separately.
These fees are based upon the cost to the City to provide the identified services, are consistent with those
fees charged by neighboring jurisdictions in the western San Bernardino County region, and do not
impose an impediment to the supply or affordability of SFR and MFR housing. It is important to note
that about 57 percent of those identified fees are levied by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD),
not the City. CVWD fees for each housing unit (both SFR & MFR) include the water meter, meter box,
water capacity fee, sewer capacity fee, and capital capacity fee (paid to the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency (IEUA)).
These fee increases also affect typical multi-family development as the building permit fee calculations are
the same for both single family and multifamily projects. As discussed above, these fees are consistent with
those of other cities in the western San Bernardino County region and do not preclude or significantly impact
the supply or affordability of housing. Based upon the following table, fees charged for multi-family
development average $11,822 per unit, which, based on analysis of other cities in western San Bernardino
County is less than or comparable to the fees of other cities in the area. These fees do not preclude or
significantly impact the supply or affordability of housing.
DRAFT Housing Element | 53
Table HE-41: Planning, Building, and Development Impact Fees for Typical Residential Development
Type of Fee Single Family1 Multiple-Family2
Design Review3 $17,455.00 $23,626.00
WQMP $239.00 $239.00
Sewer and Water $1,139.00 $18,224.00
Transportation Development Fee $12,131.00 $116,464.00
Park Improvement Impact Fee $2,808.00 $30,608.00
School Fees Calculated by applicable School District
Total4 $33,772.00 $189,161.00
1. Fees based on a proposed 1,265 square foot residence, 2-car garage, 8,000 square foot lot, no decks or patios, and located in the
Low Density Residential District of a 5 unit project.
2. Fees based on a proposed 2 acre, 16 unit complex, with an average 1,050 square feet in the Medium Residential District.
3. Fee based on a total of 5 units in the development.
4. Does not include school fees.
Source: Rancho Cucamonga 2020 City Fee Schedule and CVWD
Water and Sewer Service
Water and sewer services are provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). Based upon
CVWD's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), current water supplies and delivery systems are
adequate and present no constraints to housing development. Rancho Cucamonga accounts for
approximately 84 percent of CVWD's 47 square mile water service area. The total available water supply
for the District was 42,678 acre feet in 2015. CVWD projects that water demand (based on projected
population increases within its service area) will increase from 58,900 acre feet in 2020 to 63,700 acre
feet in 2030. The UWMP addresses water supply and water delivery capability and provides a schedule
for increasing capacity to keep pace with development. CVWD projects that available water supply will
be 60,500 acre feet in 2020 and 65,700 acre feet in 2030. Therefore, there is adequate supply to support
residential development through the end of the current planning cycle.
New development is charged a facilities fee and connection charges, these fees reflect a need for increased
capacity in CVWD's capital improvement requirements. The water service fee for single-family residential
development is $15,193 per unit (for a 1” meter size).
The sewer system within the City of Rancho Cucamonga is also owned and operated by CVWD.
However, wastewater generated and collected within its service area is conveyed to regional sewers
which are owned and operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), and ultimately treated at
IEUA owned treatment facilities. Based upon CVWD's UWMP, planned expansion, upgrade, and timely
maintenance of the sewer system will provide adequate sewer service through 2035. Projected
treatment plant flow is 69 million gallons per day in 2035, while system’s capacity is 85.7 million gallons
per day.
For the typical dwelling unit, CVWD charges $1,239 in sewer connection fees. Where no sewer
infrastructure exists and is required as a condition of development, the development is required to
provide master planned facilities. Additionally, CVWD passes along the IEUA facilities fee of $6,955 per
dwelling unit (as of July 2019) as a sewer system capacity fee. While these fees represent an increase in
the cost of housing development, they are necessary to ensure that adequate capacity and facilities are
maintained within CVWD’s service area.
School Facilities
A total of five school districts serve the City. As a result of the rapid growth prior to incorporation
several of the local school districts have faced severe overcrowding in the past. Under AB 2926 (1989),
DRAFT Housing Element | 54
the State requires written certification regarding classroom availability prior to project approval.
Therefore, as an absolute policy, the City requires that school facilities shall be provided for each
residential development. The Development Code states in part, "[t]he project includes school facilities
or adequate school facilities exist which are or will be capable of accommodating students generated by
this project." AB 2926 also regulates the collection of developer fees by the school districts under
subdivision processing. Additionally, when a legislative action, such as a General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan, or Development Agreement is requested, a condition may be added to require completed
school facilities or provide in lieu fees.
State mandated fees produce insufficient revenue to buy land and build new schools. Therefore, two
elementary school districts, i.e., Cucamonga and Etiwanda, impose a per unit fee on new construction
and one elementary school district, i.e., Etiwanda, utilizes a variety of measures that include both Mello-
Roos and Community Facilities District bond financing for new schools.
In general, schools in the City are at capacity or are experiencing declining enrollment and are projected
to continue in this trend. However, as most of the vacant land available for residential development is
located in the northeast section of the City, the Etiwanda School District has been and will continue to
be the school district most impacted by future residential development.
Financing Options for Required Infrastructure
Generally, the cost to extend urban infrastructure and services continues to serve as a constraint on
development, including residential development. This is especially true in Rancho Cucamonga, which
incorporated post-Proposition 13 where the City's share of the property tax is very low compared to
surrounding cities. Other sources of funding for capital improvements and operating and maintenance costs
are extremely limited.
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) financing is an alternative. Through the Mello-Roos
mechanism a property owner/developer can use bonded indebtedness to finance capital improvements
needed for development. The new homeowners will be obligated to repay the bonds. One school district,
(Etiwanda) uses Mello-Roos bond financing in portions of their district. The City has supported two
developer initiated CFDs. CFD 88-1 provided for the construction of a new fire station in the northeast area
of the City. CFD 88-2 financed facilities to remove flood hazards required to protect the public's safety prior
to development of three subdivisions located in the northeast area of the City.
Based on the previous experiences, the City expressed several concerns about Mello-Roos financing. The
total burden on any individual's property tax should not exceed 1.8 percent of assessed value. There is a
potential for perceived inequity when one property owner pays 1.0 percent of assessed value and another
property owner is obligated to pay 1.8 percent as a result of Mello-Roos obligations. As a result, the
potential for an unintended increase in tax burden on homeowners may occur when the market absorption
schedule exceeds the absorption rate.
The City has supported the use of Mello-Roos financing for more expensive, low-density residential
development. The Mello-Roos districts for schools impact all new housing and therefore have a potential
impact on development of new affordable housing. Mello-Roos Community Facilities bonding is a potential
constraint on housing. In general, lack of funding for capital improvements will remain as a potential
constraint on future development.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures
Development permits typically must undergo a variety of City approval processes depending upon the scope
and scale of a residential project. The purpose of the development review process is to encourage
DRAFT Housing Element | 55
development that is compatible and harmonious with neighborhoods; foster sound design principles
resulting in creative and imaginative solutions; utilize quality building design that avoids monotony;
promote and maintain the public health, safety, general welfare; and implement General Plan policies
that encourage the preservation and enhancement of the unique character of the City. Article II of the
Development Code sets forth the procedures for the various development permits and reviews required
by the City. These processes are critical to ensuring quality residential projects that are consistent with
City design goals and standards. Table HE-42 indicates the approximate review timeline and approval
authority for various application types.
Table HE-42: Development Application Review Timelines
Application Type Time Line Approval Authority
Design Review 3 to 6 Months Minor: Planning Director
Major: Planning Commission
Hillside Design Review 3 to 6 Months Planning Director
Tract or Parcel Map 3 to 6 Months Planning Commission
Variance 1 to 2 Months Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 2 to 3 Months Planning Director
General Plan Amendment 3 to 6 Months City Council
Zoning Map/Development Code
Amendment 3 to 6 Months City Council
Development Agreement 4 to 8 Months City Council
Building Plan Check and Permit Issuance 1 to 2 Months Building Official
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Overview of the Development Review Process
Typically, an applicant will consult with planners at the public counter regarding development standards
and design guidelines prior to submitting a formal application. The applicant then prepares an
application submittal package consisting of site plans, grading plans, elevations, and floor plans; these
plans are then submitted to the Planning Department as a formal development review application. Plans
are then routed to different departments, i.e., Engineering, Building and Safety, Fire, and Police, for their
review. The following week the application is scheduled for a Planning and Engineering staff meeting in
which comments and issues are discussed by each reviewing department. The application is then
determined to be either incomplete for further processing and a comment letter is sent outlining
corrections and design issues, or is deemed complete. Following a completeness determination, the
application is scheduled for Committee review, i.e., the Design Review Committee. Once the Committee
have reviewed the application it is forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action and adoption of
environmental determinations, as applicable. Legislative actions, such as General Plan or Development
Code Amendments, also require City Council review and approval. The applicant then submits working
drawings to the Building and Safety Department to begin the building plan check process, which allows
for 15 days for a first check and 10 days for a second check.
The following sections outline the review processes for various planning permit applications for
residential development projects.
Design Review
Per Section 17.20.040 of the Development Code, the purpose of Design Review is “to ensure that
development projects comply with all applicable local design guidelines, standards, and ordinances; to
minimize adverse effects on surrounding properties and the environment; and to maintain consistency
DRAFT Housing Element | 56
with the general plan, which promotes high aesthetic and functional standards to complement and add
to the physical, economic, and social character of the city.” Design Review is required for all new
construction projects with proposed buildings over 10,000 square feet in size and additions or
reconstruction projects which are equal to 50 percent or greater of the existing building floor area or
exceed 10,000 square feet. Additionally, all projects within the Mixed Use zoning district require Design
Review. Proposed projects submitted for Design Review are first reviewed by the design review
committee, which then provides recommendations to the Planning Director, who ultimately presents a
recommendation to the Planning Commission, the final approval body.
Minor Design Review is required for residential projects involving four or fewer units. The Planning
Director is the approval authority for minor design reviews; however, projects may be referred to the
design review committee to provide recommendations to the Planning Director.
Per Development Code Section 17.16.130, the following criteria shall be utilized for design review
(including Minor Design Review):
1. Design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of
the city’s general plan, design guidelines of the appropriate district, and any adopted
architectural criteria for specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme areas,
specific plans, community plan, boulevards, or planned developments.
2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the
use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing, or future developments, and will not create traffic
or pedestrian hazards.
3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly, and attractive
development contemplated by this section and the general plan of the city.
4. The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its
occupants and the visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of
materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably
adequate level of maintenance.
The City has prepared and adopted Design Guidelines for both Commercial/Industrial and Residential uses.
These Design Guidelines are available at the public counter and online for applicants to better understand
the City's design criteria and the quality expected by City staff and the Planning Commission.
Hillside Design Review
Hillside Design Review is required for the construction of one or more units for property located within the
Hillside Overlay District or any parcel with an average slope of eight percent or greater. This district
requires additional development criteria with the intent of maintaining existing vegetation, slopes, and
drainage patterns, and to limit the impact of grading activities. The Planning Director has the authority to
review and approve Hillside Design Review applications unless extensive grading is required then the
Planning Commission is the approval authority.
Tract or Parcel Maps
Tract or Parcel Map applications are typically filed and processed concurrently with a Design Review or
Hillside Design Review application. These applications are evaluated based on the applicable
development standards of the base zoning district, which typically includes minimum lot size, lot width, lot
depth, and frontage width. A tract or parcel map processed concurrently with a Development Review
DRAFT Housing Element | 57
application does not lengthen or increase the time period for staff to review the application. The
Planning Commission is the approval authority for Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps.
Conditional Use Permits
Conditional use permits are required for uses “whose effects on adjacent sites and surroundings need to
be evaluated in terms of specific development proposal for the specific site”. Residential uses that
currently require a conditional use permit are mobile home parks, large residential care facilities, and
group residential uses. The Planning Director is authorized to review and approve conditional use
permits; however, the Director may also refer applications for conditional use permits to the Planning
Commission at his or her discretion. The Director or Planning Commission must make the following
required findings when approving a conditional use permit:
1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other
applicable provisions of this zoning code, Municipal Code, general plan, and any applicable
specific plans or city regulations/standards.
2. The site is physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use including
access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints and can be conditioned to meet all
related performance criteria and development standards.
3. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the
vicinity in which the project is located.
Variances and Minor Exceptions
Variance applications are typically filed concurrently with Design Review or Hillside Design Review, and
request a deviation from applicable development standards where unique property characteristics would
create a hardship in complying with the Development Code. The characteristics must be unique to the
property, and in general, not shared by other adjacent parcels. The Planning Commission has the
authority to review and approve Variance requests at a public hearing. The Planning Commission must
make the following findings in order to approve the Variance request:
1. That the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the
Development Code.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone.
3. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone.
4. That the granting of a Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone.
5. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Similar to a Variance, Minor Exception procedures allow deviations of up to a 10 percent reduction in
applicable development standards and a 25 percent reduction in parking. Minor exceptions can be
approved administratively by the Planning Director. Deviations greater than 10 percent (or 25 percent
DRAFT Housing Element | 58
for parking), must be reviewed by the Planning Commission through the Variance process.
General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendments, and Zoning Map Amendments
In some cases, developers of very large residential projects may propose legislative amendments,
particularly for housing units proposed on underutilized sites zoned for non-residential uses. In these
cases, the timeframe for approval can be considerably longer; however, the City typically processes
these applications concurrently with other discretionary applications in an effort to reduce approval
timeframes.
With the comprehensive General Plan update and move toward a “form-based” land use policy, the City
would offer increased flexibility in the types of uses and development standards. The need for General
Plan and Zoning amendments should be less frequent in the future.
Building Plan Check and Permit Issuance
Following the required appeal period for the approval of discretionary applications, applicants may submit
for building plan check. The City makes a strong effort to review first plan checks within 15 days, and within
10 days for subsequent plan check submittals. The City utilizes a computer-based permit tracking system
that allows applicants to check the status of their plan check applications on-line and obtain corrections
when they become available from each reviewing department.
Density Bonus
The City's Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions assist in the development of affordable
housing opportunities in accordance with Government Code §65915-65918. These provisions allow a density
bonus and other regulatory concessions to provide incentives for "the production of housing for very low
income, lower income, moderate income, and senior households" to "facilitate the development of
affordable housing" within the City. The provisions function by allowing a reduction in development
standards in exchange for the development of affordable housing units. Based on the number of units
provided and the percentage of those units designated for low, very low, and senior households, the
applicant may request a density bonus and/or other regulatory concessions to facilitate the development.
Regulatory concessions act as incentives, which can include reduced building setbacks, reduced open space,
increased lot coverage, increased maximum building height, reduced on-site parking standards, reduced
minimum building separation requirements, or other site or construction conditions applicable to residential
development. However, the caveat regarding the density bonus is that the development incentive granted
shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of providing the target units.
The City’s Density Bonus provisions are contained in Chapter 17.46 of the Development Code and were
last updated in 2012. However, a number of new regulations have been enacted by the State legislature
since that time to further incentivize the production of affordable housing. AB 1763, enacted in 2019,
requires a density bonus to be granted for projects that include 100 percent lower income units, but
allows up to 20 percent of total units in a project that qualifies for a density bonus to be for moderate-
income households. Under the revised law, density bonus projects must be allowed four incentives or
concessions, and for developments within ½ mile of a major transit stop, a height increase of up to three
additional stories or 33 feet. A density bonus of 80 percent is required for most projects, with no
limitations on density placed on projects within ½ mile of a major transit stop. The bill also allows
developers to request the elimination of minimum parking requirements for rental units affordable to
lower-income families that are either supportive housing or special needs housing, as defined. AB 2345
signed by the Governor in September 2020 further incentivizes the production of affordable housing by
increasing the maximum available density bonus from 35 percent to 50 percent for qualifying projects
DRAFT Housing Element | 59
not composed exclusively of affordable housing.
A Housing Program has been added to update Development Code Chapter 17.46 in order to comply with
the new State provisions related to affordable housing density bonuses.
Transparency in the Development Process
To increase transparency and certainty in the development application process as required by law, the
City has a variety of tools available for developers. The City’s community Development home page
provides links to an online permit center, development fees, the development code, and other
development information at https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities often have special housing needs; therefore, housing options for persons with
disabilities are often limited. To ensure adequate housing for persons with disabilities, State law requires
cities to analyze constraints to the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons
with disabilities; demonstrate efforts to remove governmental constraints; and include programs to
accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Allowable Housing Types
Rancho Cucamonga complies with applicable State law requirements and permits Residential Care Facilities,
serving six or fewer persons, to be located in all residential districts. Residential Care Facilities, serving
seven or more persons, are permitted in all residential districts except the VL zone, subject to the approval of
a Conditional Use Permit. There are no Development Code requirements establishing a maximum
concentration of these facilities, nor are there separation requirements (other than those established by
State law), nor parking, set back, or site planning requirements other than those that are applicable to
residential development within the base zone.
The Development Code defines and clearly distinguishes between a Residential Care Facility, Group
Residential, and Day Care Facilities. These uses are either permitted, or conditionally permitted,
depending on the age of the person to be assisted, the level of assistance provided, the duration of
assistance, and the number of persons assisted. As noted previously, the existing definition of
Residential Care Facility may be limiting in that it requires occupants of these facilities to have “chronic,
life-threatening illness”. A program has been added to amend this definition to be more inclusive.
Definition of Family
The Rancho Cucamonga Development Code defines Family as, “one or more individuals occupying a
dwelling unit and living as a single household unit.” The Code further defines a Single Household Unit as,
“the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons
jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas,
and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and
expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents are parties to one written lease or rental
agreement with joint responsibility for payment of rent.”
These definitions do not regulate the number or relationships of occupants in a home (i.e. blood
relation), nor distinguish residential uses by the type of occupant or disability. Therefore, there are no
constraints to the development of housing for persons with disabilities based on household size or type,
type of disability or medical condition, or any other arbitrary grouping.
DRAFT Housing Element | 60
Rehabilitation and New Construction
Rancho Cucamonga's housing stock is relatively young, as only roughly 28.4 percent of the housing stock was
built prior to 1980 and 55.5 percent was built prior to 1990. As such, a large percentage of homes were built
utilizing modern accessibility standards. However, in cases where rehabilitation is necessary, the City can
allow a property to install accessibility improvements, such as, building a handicap ramp to allow for
improved entrance to a single-family home. The Development Code currently permits projections into yards
where decks, platforms, and landing places which do not exceed a height of 48 inches, which may project
into a required front or corner side yard up to a maximum distance of six feet, and may project into any rear
or side yard up to the property line. However, this standard is not established as an accessibility
accommodation and does not allow for the installation of improvements where a greater projection into a
required building setback may be necessary.
The City also makes Home Improvement Program funds, funded through the City's CDBG program, available
for income eligible homeowners for accessibility improvements.
Reasonable Accommodations
Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative
duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their
zoning and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled
persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
The 2012 Development Code Update included the establishment of procedures for reasonable
accommodations in Section 17.16.150 in compliance with state and federal fair housing laws.
Applications for reasonable accommodations are submitted to the Planning Department and approved
through administrative action of the Planning Director. Applications for reasonable modifications require the
applicant to identify that they are an individual with a disability, or is submitted on behalf of an individual
with a disability, the identification of the specific exception or modification requested, documentation that
the specific exception is necessary to provide the individual with a disability an equal opportunity to use and
enjoy their residence, and any other necessary and appropriate information to approve the requested
accommodation. The decision to approve a reasonable accommodation requires the making of specific
findings related to the accommodation, the identification of consideration factors that determine whether
the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the individual with a disability an equal opportunity to
use and enjoy their residence, and whether a fundamental alteration to the nature of the City’s zoning
program is necessary.
The City’s reasonable accommodation procedures are compliant with fair housing laws and sufficient to
prevent constraints to development of housing for persons with disabilities by facilitating modifications
or exceptions to development standards when necessary.
MARKET CONSTRAINTS
California Government Code §65583(a)(6) requires an "analysis of the potential and actual
nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all
income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction."
Economic Climate
Regional economic conditions provide the overall context for housing development and availability. An
analysis of the relationship of the economy to housing production indicates that a strong economic climate
results in an increase in housing production.
DRAFT Housing Element | 61
Beginning in 1996, new housing construction began to rise, not to the levels of the late 1980s, but steadily
increasing. Housing prices for existing homes raised dramatically, interest rates dropped, thereby
stimulating housing sales for new and existing homes. Housing construction remained strong through early
2006, and was then followed by a steady decline due to the sub-prime loan crisis, market saturation, high
levels of foreclosure, and a severe economic recession. Housing prices have increased steadily after the
low of the Great Recession. Although the Covid-19 pandemic has caused high levels of unemployment
and recession in many segments of the market, the housing market has overall been untouched by the
pandemic thus far. Throughout 2020, as interest rates have been lowered by the Federal reserve in
response to the pandemic, housing prices have continued to rise. However, the long-term impacts of the
pandemic on the economy and the housing market are still unknown.
Cost of Land
Non-governmental market constraints can also include timing between project approval and requests
for building permits. In most cases, this may be due to developers’ inability to secure financing for
construction. In Rancho Cucamonga, the average time between project approval and request for
building permit is typically three to six months, though there may be extenuating circumstances that
delay projects for different reasons not in the City’s control.
As detailed in the Housing Resources section of this Housing Element, development projects in Rancho
Cucamonga have been approved with a high average density, comparable to the allowable density.
Cost of Land
The two biggest expenses in housing development are land costs and construction costs. Construction
costs tend to correlate with the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and thus remain somewhat consistent.
Although construction costs have increased along with the CPI, the cost of land has escalated to the
largest item associated with the cost of housing.
In Rancho Cucamonga, residential land costs vary depending on the availability of land and the cost of
grading and infrastructure (off-site improvements) associated with development of a proposed project.
According to the City’s 2010 General Plan Land Use Element, the boom period of the early 2000s resulted in
an increase of the build-out of the City. In the years following, development slowed dramatically, along with
land and housing prices, due to the Great Recession. Throughout the recovery from the Great Recession
land values have overall continued to rise. A survey of vacant land listed for sale on Zillow.com was
conducted in February 2021. The survey found 25 listings for vacant land within Rancho Cucamonga with a
median listing price of $735,000 per acre. It is also important to note that many vacant sites located in the
City or within its sphere of influence are in hillside areas that may require additional infrastructure and
grading considerations which further increase costs.
Therefore, market conditions and land scarcity greatly impact the cost of land available for residential
development and can act as a non-governmental constraint on housing development.
Cost of Construction
Construction costs may vary based on the types of material used, location of development, structural
features present, and other factors. According to the National Association of Home Builders 2017
Construction Cost Survey, construction costs (including labor and materials) account for over 55 percent
of the sales price of a new single family home. The Construction Cost Survey found that the average
construction cost for a single family home was $85.37 per square foot. However, it should be noted that
the Construction Cost Survey is a national survey and may not be completely representative of Rancho
DRAFT Housing Element | 62
Cucamonga or western San Bernardino County. While it does not collect data for San Bernardino
County, the construction management company Cumming’s 2020 Construction Market Analysis found
constructions costs for Los Angeles to range from $65 to $241 per square foot for single-family
construction and $294 to $529 per square foot for mid-rise multi-family construction. These analyses
illustrate that construction costs comprise a significant proportion of the ultimate sales price of
residential development. While significant, construction costs are consistent throughout the region and
therefore would not specifically constrain housing development in Rancho Cucamonga when compared
to other cities in the region.
Prevailing wages may also be an additional constraint on construction costs for affordable housing
projects. In California, all public works projects must pay prevailing wages to all workers employed on
the project. A public works project is any residential or commercial project that is funded through public
funds, including Federally funded or assisted residential projects controlled or carried out by an awarding
body. The prevailing wage rate is the basic hourly rate paid on public works projects to a majority of
workers engaged in a particular craft, classification, or type of work within the locality and in the nearest
labor market area. A prevailing wage ensures that the ability to get a public works contract is not based
on paying lower wage rates than a competitor, and requires that all bidders use the same wage rates
when bidding on a public works project. The DIR provides links to the current prevailing wages for a
journeyman craft or classification for each county in California. Prevailing wages may constrain construction
of affordable housing because they are often higher than normal wages.
Availability of Financing
The availability of financing depends on many factors, including current interest rates and fees, laws and
regulations governing financial institutions and lending practices, and the types of lending institutions
available within a community.
For instance, home mortgage rates of the late 1990s and early 2000s were relatively low with 30-year
fixed rates as low as five percent. However, the burst of the housing bubble and the Great Recession led
to changes in lending practices and regulations. While necessary to prevent predatory lending practices
and foreclosures, these changes made it more difficult for lower income households to qualify for
standard mortgages. More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic has impacted the lending industry as the
Federal Reserve lowered interest rates in response. As of February 2021, interest rates are below three
percent for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage.
Financing for both construction and long-term mortgages is generally available in Rancho Cucamonga
subject to normal underwriting standards. However, a more critical impediment to homeownership
involves both the affordability of the housing stock and the ability of potential buyers to fulfill down
payment requirements. Typically, conventional home loans will require ten to twenty percent of the sale
price as a down payment, which is the largest constraint to first-time homebuyers.
Table HE-43 summarizes home purchase and improvement loan applications in Rancho Cucamonga for
2017. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HDMA), lending institutions are required to disclose
information on the disposition of loan applications along with the income, gender, and race of loan
applicants. In 2017, there were a total of 8,943 loan applications within the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
with an overall approval rate of 63 percent. The majority of applications were for refinance, which had
the highest denial rate at 17 percent. Applications for conventional purchase loans had an approval rate
of 76 percent. Government backed loans had a slightly lower approval rate of 73 percent.
DRAFT Housing Element | 63
Table HE-43: Home Purchase and Improvement Loan Applications, 2017
Loan Type Total Applications Approved Denied Other
Conventional Purchase 2,576 76% 9% 15%
Government-Backed Purchase 375 73% 9% 18%
Home Improvement 781 57% 11% 19%
Refinance 5,211 57% 17% 26%
Total 8,943 63% 14% 22%
Note: “Other” includes files closed for incompleteness and applications withdrawn.
Source: www.lendingpatterns.com, 2017
Residential Foreclosures
Between 2000 and 2005, the availability of lower interest rates, "creative" financing, and predatory lending
practices (e.g., extremely aggressive marketing, hidden fees, and negative amortization), many Rancho
Cucamonga households purchased homes that, ultimately, were beyond their financial means. Many homes
were purchased under the false assumption that refinancing options to a lower interest rate would be
available and that home prices would continue to rise at double-digit rates. Households were often
unprepared for the potential hikes in interest rates, expiration of short-term fixed rates, and a decline in
sales prices beginning in 2006. Many homeowners were suddenly faced with significantly inflated
mortgage payments and mortgage loans that were larger than the value of the home (i.e., commonly
referred to as being "upside down" or "underwater"), resulting in large numbers of foreclosures during
the Great Recession.
Throughout the economic recovery of the 2010s, foreclosures in Rancho Cucamonga have steadily
declined. In November 2009, there were 1,805 homes in Rancho Cucamonga in the foreclosure process,
compared to 420 homes in March 2013. As of February 2021, there were 42 homes in the foreclosure
process (including 19 in pre-foreclosure, 14 in auction, and 9 bank owned)1.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
[Placeholder for a summary from Safety Element?]
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
In January 2019, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing
(AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking
meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and
foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color,
persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to
the Housing Element which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and
assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation
patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an
identification of fair housing goals and actions.
1 Source: RealtyTrac.com
DRAFT Housing Element | 64
Fair Housing Services
The City contracts with Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB) to provide a variety of fair
housing and tenant/landlord services, including:
• Mediation of tenant/landlord disputes
• Fair housing education and outreach
• Senior services
• Alternative dispute resolution
• Mobile home mediation
IFHMB provides comprehensive and extensive education and outreach programs and services
throughout their service area. The purpose of these programs is to educate tenants, landlords, owners,
realtors, city staff, code enforcement, elected officials, and property management companies on fair
housing laws; to promote media and consumer interest in fair housing, and to secure grass roots
involvement within the community. IFHMB conducts outreach and education activities that are vital to
improve compliance with the law.
Access to Opportunities
While the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule has been repealed, the data and
mapping developed by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) can still
be useful in informing communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as
disparities in access to opportunity. This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on
nationally available data sources to assess Rancho Cucamonga residents’ access to key opportunity
assets. Table HE-44 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following
opportunity indicator indices:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The
poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to
poverty in a neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the
performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-
performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary
schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary
description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a
neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and
educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force
participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets
the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the
DRAFT Housing Element | 65
median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher
the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a
family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50
percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower
the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential
neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger
employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to
employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to
harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins
harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality
of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.
Compared to the County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga residents are less exposed to poverty as
a whole but are more exposed to poorer quality schools within their own neighborhoods. Residents in
the City also utilize public transit more often than the County as a whole, which may be because the cost
of transportation within the City is less expensive than elsewhere in the County. There is also more
access to jobs within a residents’ own neighborhood. However, the quality of neighborhoods is lower
on the environment health index than the rest of the county.
DRAFT Housing Element | 66
Table HE-44: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity – Entitlement Jurisdictions
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Region
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 50.83 46.43 33.94 48.57 42.13 45.92 48.02
Black, Non-Hispanic 41.38 35.44 26.46 53.65 45.13 45.67 38.89
Hispanic 36.39 33.26 24.37 55.76 46.31 46.90 37.84
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 58.83 51.51 42.31 55.92 42.65 53.56 35.12
Native American, Non-Hispanic 39.48 35.90 24.58 47.70 43.26 43.36 49.90
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 37.75 37.30 25.07 48.70 45.70 43.28 51.53
Black, Non-Hispanic 26.43 25.68 16.85 53.16 48.28 41.83 42.21
Hispanic 24.29 26.74 16.85 57.51 49.70 45.50 39.29
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 41.94 35.76 29.56 58.72 49.53 57.38 34.87
Native American, Non-Hispanic 29.25 30.43 19.72 50.03 46.34 44.62 44.78
Rancho Cucamonga
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 71.41 68.49 57.32 66.85 47.37 62.83 36.79
Black, Non-Hispanic 66.74 63.99 54.92 70.71 52.94 72.81 32.30
Hispanic 65.77 61.92 53.16 70.41 51.99 70.40 33.91
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.79 69.20 60.84 66.86 48.13 68.56 34.95
Native American, Non-Hispanic 69.03 63.92 56.25 69.54 50.59 68.41 35.38
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 68.06 64.47 58.06 70.53 54.00 69.48 34.93
Black, Non-Hispanic 60.01 49.99 49.35 77.24 61.65 78.28 30.62
Hispanic 48.50 46.50 43.93 76.64 60.06 74.45 33.71
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.34 69.27 61.47 67.09 48.09 66.32 35.14
Native American, Non-Hispanic 42.94 35.55 39.13 73.00 55.15 83.94 32.63
Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T), 2020
DRAFT Housing Element | 67
Key Impediments
In the City’s 2020 Analysis of Impediments, there was one impediment to fair housing choice which was
discrimination against persons with disabilities. It is recommended that the City and its contracted fair
housing service provider should facilitate educational opportunities for property owners, property
managers, and residents in Rancho Cucamonga to provide information concerning the law as it pertains
to reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications. This initiative may be fulfilled through
workshops, public service announcements, literature distribution and the provision of landlord-tenant
mediation services.
DRAFT Housing Element | 68
HOUSING RESOURCES
Housing resources refer to the land, financial, and administrative resources that are available to meet
Rancho Cucamonga's housing needs to mitigate the housing constraints identified in earlier sections of this
Housing Element. This section provides an inventory, analysis, and assessment of the City's resources to
address its housing needs, including the City's share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE HOUSING
State law requires that jurisdictions provide an adequate number of and properly zoned sites to
facilitate the production of their regional share of housing. To determine whether a jurisdiction has
sufficient land to accommodate its share of regional housing needs for all income groups, that
jurisdiction must identify “adequate sites.” Under State law (California Government Code section
65583[c][1]), adequate sites are those with appropriate zoning designations and development
regulations —with services and facilities—needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a
variety of housing for all income levels. The land resources available for the development of housing in
Rancho Cucamonga are addressed here.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
California General Plan law requires each city and county to have land zoned to accommodate its fair
share of the regional housing need. HCD allocates a numeric regional housing goal to the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is then mandated to distribute the housing goal
among the cities and counties in the region. This share for the SCAG region is known as the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment, or RHNA. The SCAG region encompasses six counties (Imperial, Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura) and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000
square miles. The major goal of the RHNA is to assure an equitable distribution of housing among cities
and counties within the SCAG region so that every community provides for a mix of housing for all
economic segments. The housing allocation targets are not building requirements; rather, they are
planning goals for each community to accommodate through appropriate planning policies and land use
regulations. Allocation targets are intended to assure that adequate sites and zoning are made available
to address anticipated housing demand during the planning period.
The current RHNA for the SCAG region covers an eight-year planning period (June 30, 2021 to October
15, 2029)2 and is divided into four income categories: very low, low, moderate and above moderate. As
determined by SCAG, the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s allocation is 10,525 units divided among the four
income categories shown in Table HE-45.
2 The Housing Element planning period differs from the RHNA planning period. The Housing Element covers the
planning period of October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2029.
DRAFT Housing Element | 69
Table HE-45: RHNA 2021-2029
Income Group Total Housing Units Allocated Percentage of Units
Extremely/Very Low 3,245 31%
Low 1,920 18%
Moderate 2,038 19%
Above Moderate 3,322 32%
Total 10,525 100%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Note: The City has a RHNA allocation of 3,245 very low income units
(inclusive of extremely low income units). Pursuant to State law (AB
2634), the City must project the number of extremely low income
housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50
percent of the very low income units as extremely low income.
However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites for the RHNA, State
law does not mandate the separate accounting for the extremely low
income category.
CREDITS TOWARDS THE RHNA
State law allows local governments to receive credits towards its RHNA housing goals with housing units
constructed, building permits issued, and projects approved in the time from the start of the RHNA planning
period. Table HE-46 summarizes Rancho Cucamonga’s RHNA credits and the remaining housing need
through October 15, 2029. The City would be able to meet most of its moderate and above moderate
income RHNA with anticipated ADUs and entitled projects. The City must accommodate the remaining
RHNA of 5,440 lower and moderate income units with vacant and nonvacant sites with development
potential.
Table HE-46: RHNA Credits and Remaining Need
Extremely Low/
Very Low
(Below 50% AMI)
Low
(51-80% AMI)
Moderate
(81-120% AMI)
Above
Moderate
(Over 120% AMI)
Total
RHNA 3,245 1,920 2,038 3,322 10,525
Potential ADUs 36 56 56 12 160
Entitlements 0 0 2,000 3,085 5,085
The Resort 0 0 2,000 0 2,000
Victoria Gardens 0 0 0 385 385
Etiwanda Heights 0 0 0 2,700 2,700
Remaining Need 3,209 1,864 0 225 5,280
Potential ADUs
SCAG has conducted analysis that provides jurisdictions in the region with assumptions for ADU
affordability that can be used to assign ADUs to income categories for RHNA. The analysis examined
current market rents for reasonably comparable rental properties. The analysis relied on a survey of
150 existing ADUs between April and June of 2020. Based on the rent survey, SCAG developed an
appropriate income distribution for potential ADUs by county. This income distribution has already
been approved by HCD for use in the 6th cycle Housing Element.
Between 2018 and 2020, Rancho Cucamonga permitted 60 ADUs:
• 11 units permitted in 2018
DRAFT Housing Element | 70
• 31 units permitted in 2019
• 18 units permitted in 2020
Based on this trend, it is reasonable to anticipate an annual average of 20 ADUs between 2021 and
2029, 160 over the planning period.
Table HE-47: RHNA 2021-2029
Income Group
SCAG Affordability Assumption (Percentage of Total ADUs)
Potential ADUs
Extremely Low 15.0% 24
Very Low 7.7% 12
Low 34.8% 56
Moderate 34.8% 56
Above Moderate 7.7% 12
Entitled Projects
There are currently three existing entitled projects in the City with remaining capacity that can be
credited towards the moderate and above moderate income RHNA:
• The Resort: This project has an original approved site plan that allows for a maximum of 3,450
units (1,450 in the south below 6th street and 2,000 in the north above 6th street). The southern
portion of the sites has already gone through the process of entitlement, construction and plan
check. The remaining 2,000 sites in the northern portion are current entitlements. There are 91
acres with an average density of 22 units per acre. The 2,000 units entitled are being credited
towards the City’s moderate income RHNA.
• Victoria Gardens Master Plan: The Victoria Gardens Master Plan allows for 600 residential units
in the designated planning areas. All 600 were entitled, with 215 already constructed. There
are currently 385 units yet to be constructed and will be credited towards the City’s above
moderate income RHNA.
• Etiwanda Heights: This project is currently entitled and allows for 2,700 units of housing in a
790-acre Neighborhood Area with an average density of 29 units per acre.
Remaining RHNA
Accounting for potential ADUs and current entitlements, the City has a remaining RHNA of 5,280 units.
Specifically, 5,073 extremely low/very low and low income units and 225 above moderate income units.
The City has already been able to meet its moderate income RHNA with entitlements and potential
ADUs.
RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY
Government Code §65583(a)(3) and §65583.2 requires "an inventory of land suitable for residential
development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the
relationship of zoning and public facilities and services for these sites". The availability of vacant
residential land is the primary resource needed to meet the City's affordable housing needs.
State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate that the land inventory is sufficient and adequate to
accommodate that jurisdictions share of the regional housing need. The Housing Element must identify
those sites within the City that can accommodate the RHNA. Potential development sites at adequate
DRAFT Housing Element | 71
densities and appropriate development standards must be made available to accommodate these
remaining units. Pursuant to State law, the default density of 30 units per acre is considered an adequate
density to facilitate and encourage the development of lower income housing.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga’s General Plan Update, PlanRC, is facilitating development by introducing
a new Land Use Plan that transforms select areas of the City into specialty districts, corridors, place
types and neighborhoods with a diverse mix of uses. The updated General Plan will incorporate a range
of housing densities and significant mixed-use infill that will guide the development of more diverse
housing opportunities.
The Housing Element is being adopted concurrently with the General Plan update, and therefore utilizes
this new Land Use Plan for the purpose of the residential sites analysis. As discussed in Residential
Development Standards section under Governmental Constraints, the City has prepared a framework for
applying the form-based code standards to new development projects as interim guidelines or
regulations (see ) to ensure that new projects will generally conform to the new standards before the
final Development Code is adopted. This framework includes the form-based zone standards; use tables
and use definitions; and, building and frontage types.
The vacant sites and underutilized parcels of interest are located in the land use designations as
presented in Table HE-48. All land use designations identified in the sites inventory are feasible for
lower income based on the allowable density, except for the Traditional Town Center because there is
no minimum density, in order to facilitate a range of housing options. Sites identified in the Traditional
Town Center are therefore used to accommodate the remaining RHNA for moderate income units.
Table HE-48: Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation Minimum Density Maximum Density Residential Allowed1 Feasible for Low Income
City Center 40 100 50% Y
21st Century Employment District 24 42 30% Y
City Corridor High 40 60 70% Y
City Corridor Moderate 24 40 70% Y
Traditional Town Center -- 30 50% N
1. This is policy for the land use designation, not for individual parcels.
Methodology
The development of the sites inventory started with vacant sites that were identified using GIS and
assessor data that were labeled with an existing use of vacant. The status of vacant parcels was then
confirmed with aerial photos and staff knowledge. Then parcels of interest were identified using the
following locational criteria, and economic and physical characteristics (based on data from CoStar):
• Dedicated for parking use or not taking advantage of their value based on location and size
• Located along a major corridor, especially along Haven and Foothill
• Located within a contiguous group of parcels of interests
• Potential to create walkable neighborhood centers or fabric due to their centrality in a
neighborhood and compatible relationship to adjacent uses
• Rent below Inland Empire average ($2.00/square foot/month triple net), which may indicate
subpar performance
• Vacancy above the regional average of 9.0 percent
DRAFT Housing Element | 72
• Year built/renovated more than 30 years ago (before 1990)
• Tenant mix, i.e., unanchored centers are generally more susceptible to redevelopment
Development Potential
When estimating residential development potential, several factors were considered:
• Not all vacant sites and parcels of interest will be redeveloped over the eight years
• Not all parcels of interest will develop as mixed-use development with a residential component
• Not all vacant sites and parcels of interest will redevelop at the maximum density permitted
Taking these factors into consideration, the residential sites inventory for this Housing Element was
compiled using a conservative assumption that development will occur at 70 percent of the maximum
density allowed in each land use designation. Each individual site’s development potential was
calculated using 70 percent of the maximum density allowed as well as the percent of residential
allowed in the land use designation. Further analysis was done to identify sites feasible for low income
that are larger than 0.5 acre and smaller than 10 acres.
Vacant Sites
There are 96 vacant sites that make up approximately 329 acres of land suitable for the development of
housing (Table HE-49). These vacant sites will account for a majority of the City’s remaining RHNA. All
of the vacant sites selected are suitable and appropriately designated under the General Plan update for
development of more intense residential uses. Appendix B includes a listing of individual sites and
identifies the size, new land use plan designation, allowable densities, and realistic capacity for each.
The most significant potential for new residential development occurs in areas that are designated as
City Center and City Corridor High. These two land use designations have the potential to provide a
wide range of housing opportunities affordable to above moderate income as well as low income based
on the size and density of the sites.
DRAFT Housing Element | 73
Table HE-49: Vacant Sites
Income/
Affordability1 Land Use Designation Total Acres Maximum
Density
Residential Allowed
Net Potential Units2
Above Moderate
Income
(>120% AMI)
(Parcels <0.5 acre
and > 10.0 acres)
City Center 82.01 100 50% 2,870
City Corridor High 35.32 60 70% 1,035
City Corridor Moderate 19.51 40 70% 379
Subtotal: 136.84 -- -- 4,284
Moderate Income
(81-120% AMI) Traditional Town Center 39.59 30 50% 398
Subtotal: 39.59 -- -- 398
Lower Income
(0-80% AMI)
(Parcels 0.5-10.0
acres)
City Center 23.90 100 50% 834
21st Century
Employment District 8.79 42 30% 76
City Corridor High 98.85 60 70% 2,889
City Corridor Moderate 21.71 40 70% 422
Subtotal: 153.25 -- -- 4,221
Total: 329.68 -- -- 8,903
1. Based on density level, all land use designations identified in this table can facilitate lower income housing,
except for Traditional Town Center, which has no minimum density. However, parcels that are smaller
than 0.5 acre and larger than 10.0 acres in the City Center, City Corridor High, and City Corridor Moderate
designations are assumed to be feasible for above moderate income housing.
2. Net Potential Units is based on the overall yield in the land use designation taking into account the
following: A) assuming only development up to 70 percent of maximum density; and b) discounting a
percentage of residential development in each land use designation as specified by the Land Use Plan.
Parcels of Interest
Parcels of interests were selected based on the elaborate methodology described above. The list was
narrowed down to parcels that were feasible for lower income housing based on allowable density and
size. Furthermore, all sites that had existing housing units on them were also removed from the list. All
of the parcels of interest included in the sites inventory are larger than 0.5 acre and smaller than 10
acres and allow for a density of at least 30 units per acre. Details of the parcels of interest are described
in Table HE-50 and in Appendix B. In total there are approximately 87 acres of parcels that have the
potential to provide 2,402 low income units in the new land use plan designations of City Center or City
Corridor Moderate (Table HE-50).
Table HE-50: Parcels of Interest
Income/Affordability Land Use Designation Total Acres Maximum
Density
Residential Allowed
Net Potential Units1
Lower Income
(0-80% AMI)
(Parcels 0.5-10.0 acres)
City Center 46.77 100 50% 1,618
City Corridor
Moderate 40.40 40 70% 784
Total: 87.17 -- -- 2,402
1. Net Potential Units is based on the overall yield in the land use designation taking into account the
following: A) assuming only development up to 70 percent of maximum density; and b) discounting a
percentage of residential development in each land use designation as specified by the Land Use Plan.
DRAFT Housing Element | 74
ADEQUACY OF SITES FOR RHNA
Based on the development potential on vacant sites and parcels of interest throughout the City, the City
can fully accommodate its RHNA for the planning period Table HE-51.
Table HE-51: Summary of RHNA
Extremely Low/
Very Low
(Below 50% AMI)
Low
(51-80% AMI)
Moderate
(81-120% AMI)
Above
Moderate
(Over 120% AMI)
Total
RHNA 3,245 1,920 2,038 3,322 10,525
Remaining Need 3,209 1,864 0 225 5,280
Development Potential 6,623 398 4,284 11,305
Vacant Sites 4,221 398 4,284 8,903
Parcels of Interest 2,402 0 0 2,402
Availability of Site Infrastructure and Services
All sites identified in the inventory are located within urbanized areas where infrastructure and public
services are readily available or can be extended. Lateral water and sewer lines would be extended onto
the properties from the adjoining public rights-of-way as development occurs. Any missing public
improvements (e.g., curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc.) along property frontages would also be constructed
at that time. None of the housing sites are subject to significant environmental constraints that would
prevent development of these sites into housing.
DRAFT Housing Element | 75
DRAFT Housing Element | 76
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The ability of a City to provide affordable housing opportunities requires substantial public subsidies. The
City of Rancho Cucamonga has access to a number of local, State, and Federal resources. The key funding
sources are described below.
SB2 Grants
In 2017, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the State’s housing
shortage and high housing costs. Specifically, it included the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2, 2017),
which establishes a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable
homes in California. Because the number of real estate transactions recorded in each county will vary
from year to year, the revenues collected will fluctuate.
The first year of SB 2 funds are available as planning grants to local jurisdictions. The City of Rancho
Cucamonga received $310,000 for planning efforts to facilitate housing production. For the second year
and onward, 70 percent of the funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing
purposes. A large portion of year two allocations will be distributed using the same formula used to
allocate federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). The City is anticipated to receive
approximately $450,000 annually. HCD is in the process of closing out the Year One planning grant
allocations and has not begun the process of allocating the Year Two affordable housing funds.
Community Development Block Grant
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and are based on a formula that considers census data, extent of poverty, and
age of the housing stock. Based upon these criteria, the CDBG program allows local governments to utilize
Federal funds to alleviate poverty and blight. The CDBG program provides funds for a wide range of
community development activities, including the acquisition and/or disposition of property, public facilities
and improvements, relocation, housing rehabilitation, homeownership assistance, and support to public
services.
In 2020, the City of Rancho Cucamonga received approximately $1,000,000 in CDBG entitlement funding.
The City's CDBG program provides funding for: 1) public improvements to lower income areas of the
City, 2) the Home Improvement Program, which provides loans up to $30,000 and grants up to $15,000 to
income eligible single-family and mobile homeowners, and 3) public service groups, including fair
housing services.
Housing Choice Vouchers
The Housing Choice Voucher program is rental assistance provided to a household which bridges the gap
between 30 percent of the household's gross monthly income and the fair market rent of a unit. Although
this longstanding, federally funded program is not expected to increase in size or scope, it remains an
important affordable housing program by helping to balance a household's income and the cost of
housing. Rancho Cucamonga is withing the service area of the San Bernardino County Housing Authority
for Housing Choice Voucher assistance.
Home Investment Partnerships Program
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), similar to CDBG, is a formula-based block grant
program funded through HUD. HOME funds are provided to eligible state and local governments for the
creation of affordable housing opportunities for low-income families. HOME funds must be spent only on
DRAFT Housing Element | 77
housing, and are intended to provide incentives for the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of
affordable rental and home ownership properties. Rancho Cucamonga participates in the HOME
Consortium administered by the County of San Bernardino Department of Community Development and
Housing.
ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES
The City of Rancho Cucamonga actively works with a number of nonprofit organizations to expand and
preserve affordable housing in the City. The following nonprofit agencies are either actively providing or
preserving affordable housing in the City or have expressed interest in working in San Bernardino County.
These include:
• National CORE: National CORE, located in Rancho Cucamonga, is one of the largest nonprofit affordable
housing developers in Southern California.
• Northtown Housing Development Corporation: The purpose of the organization is to establish, maintain,
and operate housing units for low-income households in the Northtown Neighborhood of Rancho
Cucamonga.
• Workforce Homebuilders: Incorporated with the purpose of establishing, maintaining, and operating
housing units for lower-income households.
• LINC Housing: LINC Housing has built affordable homes throughout California and provides housing for
people underserved by the marketplace.
Opportunities for Energy Conservation
California Government Code §65583(a)(8) requires "[a]n analysis of opportunities for energy conservation
with respect to residential development."
Water Conservation
In 2009, the City adopted a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance pursuant to State of California
Government Code §65595 which regulates the efficient use of water resources. The Ordinance was
incorporated into the Development Code as part of the 2012 Development Code update and requires
projects to develop a water budget based on the total landscape area. In 2015, Executive Order B-29-15
required additional updates to the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) to
further increase water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes as a result of severe
drought conditions throughout the state. The California Department of Water Resources updated the
MWELO in late 2015 and were incorporated by reference into the City’s Development Code in 2017.
The Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance applies to new construction and rehabilitated landscapes for public
agency projects, private developers submitting projects with a total landscape area equal to or greater than
500 square feet, and homeowners submitting projects in excess of 2,500 square feet that require a building
permit, plan check, or design review.
Building Code Title 24
The City's Building and Safety and Development Codes are in compliance with Title 24 of the California
Building Code, CalGreen, and the Rancho Cucamonga Green Building Code. The California Energy
Commission has established and adopted energy improvement specifications for both single-family and
multiple-family structures under four stories. These specifications require both active and passive energy
features for all residential developments. Rancho Cucamonga's Building and Safety Department enforces
State adopted Energy requirements for Climate Zone 10.
DRAFT Housing Element | 78
Green Development
The City’s General plan outlines goals related to Sustainable Development, Green Building, Healthy
Communities, Smart Growth, and Global Warming (AB32). As part of the 2012 Development Code update,
the City implemented a Green Building Code to encourage developers to go above and beyond typical
development practices by creating incentives for compact, mixed-use developments, encourage the use of
alternative energy resources, promote alternative means of transportation, create incentives to reduce
energy use, and facilitate low impact development techniques.
The provisions outlined in the Green Building Code provide two levels of incentives available to developers
that exceed the requirements outlined in the State of California CalGreen Building Code. The City has
developed a Green Building Code Compliance Matrix (GBCCM) which implements a point system to
determine whether projects are compliant with the Green Building Code and quantifies the level they have
gone beyond the minimum requirement. Projects that achieve CalGreen Tier 1 or 100 points or more on the
GBCCM (RC Green 100) are eligible for priority processing. Projects that achieve CalGreen Tier 2 or 200
points on the GBCCM (RC Green 200) are eligible for priority processing along with reductions in
Development Code standards. These provisions encourage energy conservation in context of flexibility and
creativity in residential building designs. Because they tend to reduce the cost of monthly utility bills, they
also contribute to housing affordability.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant
Rancho Cucamonga received an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) allocation through
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The stated purposes of the EECBG program are to assist eligible
entities in creating and implementing strategies to reduce fossil fuel emissions, reduce the total energy use,
and improve energy efficiency. As part of the City's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (EECS) the
City adopted two programs specifically designed to improve residential energy efficiency. These include a
residential revolving loan program to encourage and fund energy saving projects for low income
homeowners, providing funding to replace inefficient heaters, air conditioners, and water heaters, and a
financial incentive program providing homeowners with a rebate for the installation of energy efficient
appliances and other mechanical and electrical equipment.
The City spent all funding associated with the initial allocation in accordance with DOE grant procedures. The
Revolving Loan activity will continue indefinitely and as loans are repaid, new loans will be made available to
income eligible applicants.
DRAFT Housing Element | 79
HOUSING PLAN
The previous sections of this Housing Element provided an assessment of the City's housing needs, an
assessment of constraints to the development of housing, and an inventory of housing resources. This
section establishes the City of Rancho Cucamonga's strategy for addressing the housing needs and mitigating
constraints with available resources.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Adequate Housing Sites
HE-1: Housing Opportunities. A diverse community with a broad range of housing types and opportunities to accommodate expected new households.
HE-1.1: RHNA Requirement. Encourage the development of a wide range of housing options, types, and
prices that will enable the City to achieve its share of the RHNA .
HE-1.2: Elderly and Disabled Household Needs. Recognize the unique characteristics of elderly and
disabled households and address their special needs.
HE-1.3: Accessory Dwelling Units. Facilitate the development of accessory dwelling units to provide
additional housing opportunities pursuant to State law and established zoning regulations.
HE-1.4: Mobile Home Parks. Discourage the conversion of existing mobile home parks to non-residential
uses.
Affordable Housing
HE-2: Affordable Housing. A city where housing opportunities meet the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community.
HE-2.1: Rental Assistance Programs. Encourage the use of rental assistance programs to assist lower
income households and support the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB)
applications for additional vouchers to meet the needs of lower income households.
HE-2.2: Mobile Home Park Accord. Support the Mobile Home Park Accord voluntary rent
stabilization as a means of keeping rents at reasonable levels.
HE-3: Homelessness. A compassionate community with a wide range of options and support for
the housing insecure and those experiencing homelessness. .
HE-3.1: Homeless Services. Provide assistance as it becomes available towards efforts of local
organizations and community groups to provide emergency shelters, transitional housing opportunities,
and services to the City's homeless population and those at-risk of homelessness.
HE-3.2: Homeless Programs. Participate with adjacent communities toward the provision of a sub-
regional shelter program and encourage the County to develop a comprehensive homeless program.
Housing Preservation
HE-4: Housing Quality. A community with quality, healthy housing.
HE-4.1: Mills Act Contracts. Encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic residences through
participation in Mills Act contracts.
HE-4.2: Substandard Housing. Encourage the revitalization and rehabilitation of substandard residential
structures.
DRAFT Housing Element | 80
HE-4.3: Residential Rehabilitation. Focus rehabilitation to neighborhoods with deteriorating units.
HE-4.4: Home Improvement Programs. Implement the Home Improvement Programs to benefit lower
income single-family homeowners and mobile homeowners.
HE-4.5: Public Improvements. Provide public improvements/community facilities such as street
improvements, streetlights, sidewalks, parkway landscaping, as well as park facilities, throughout the City
so as to encourage the maintenance or improvement of existing housing stock.
HE-4.6: Housing Maintenance. Actively encourage the maintenance of existing housing in to as to
maintain the housing stock in sound condition.
HE-4.7: Code Enforcement. Utilize concentrated Code Enforcement programs to target specific areas or
problems when the need and community support warrants such activity.
Remove Constraints
HE-5: Government Constraints. A City with an efficient process for improving and developing housing.
HE-5.1: Development Review Processes. Consider new polices, codes, and procedures that have the
potential to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in the development process regarding
development costs, and charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public services
and improvements.
HE-5.2: Fee Schedule. Periodically review and update the City's fee schedule and the methodology on
which the fees are based to determine the necessary costs for providing adequate public services and
public improvements to ensure the continued health, safety, and welfare of the community.
HE-5.3: Development Review Process. Facilitate the development review process for new housing
through multiple techniques, including staff assistance, public information, articles in the City's
newsletter, informal meetings with applicants, and Preliminary Review applications to address technical
issues and facilitate the production of quality housing.
HE-5.4: Development Standards. Evaluate and adjust as appropriate residential development standards,
regulations, and processing procedures that are determined to constrain housing development,
particularly housing opportunities for lower and moderate income households and for persons with
special needs.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
HE-6: Equal Housing Opportunities. An equitable community that provides equal housing opportunities for all residents.
HE-6.1: Reduce Housing Discrimination. Explore and consider programs that will reduce the incidence
of housing discrimination within the City.
HE-6.2: Land Use Plan. Facilitate development projects that will improve a neighborhood’s access to
resources and opportunities.
HE-6.3: Fair Housing Outreach and Education. Support outreach and education efforts to actively
further fair housing practices and understanding of fair housing rights, with emphasis on proactive
education and voluntary compliance, as well as through legal enforcement on a case-by-case basis,
including, but not limited to, assistance with the resolution of tenant/landlord disputes and housing
discrimination complaints.
HE-6.4: Accessible or Barrier-Free Housing. Encourage the provisions of disabled-accessible units and
DRAFT Housing Element | 81
housing for the mentally and physically disabled.
DRAFT Housing Element | 82
HOUSING PROGRAMS
Program HE-1: Inventory of Residential Sites
For the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, the City has a RHNA of 10,525 units. Accounting
for entitled projects and projected ADUs, the City has a remaining RHNA of 5,280 lower and above
moderate income units. This Housing Element is being updated as part of a comprehensive update to
the General Plan (PlanRC). The General Plan provides a new Land Use Plan that offers ample capacity
for future residential growth. The interim guidelines () provide a mechanism for implementing the new
Land Use Plan until a comprehensive update to the Development Code is completed (March 2022). The
General Plan (including the Housing Element) is anticipated to be adopted before the end of 2021.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Provide information on available sites and development incentives to interested developers and
property owners on City website.
• Utilize the Interim Guidelines to implement the new form-based General Plan until the
Development Code is updated (anticipated to be completed Q1 2022).
Program HE-2: Monitoring of No Net Loss
To ensure that the City monitors its compliance with SB 166 (No Net Loss), the City will develop a
procedure to track:
• Unit count and income/affordability assumed on parcels included in the sites inventory.
• Actual units constructed and income/affordability when parcels are developed.
• Net change in capacity and summary of remaining capacity in meeting remaining Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Develop a procedure in 2022 to monitor the development of vacant and nonvacant sites in the
sites inventory and ensure that adequate sites are available to meet the remaining RHNA by
income category throughout the 6th cycle planning period.
• Explore, in 2023, a system that establishes target densities by land use district and an in-lieu fee
system that requires developers to pay a fee if the proposed projects fall below the targeted
densities.
Program HE-3: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) represent an important affordable housing option to lower and
moderate income households. The State has passed multiple bills in recent years to remove constraints
to the development ADUs (including AB 587, AB 671, AB 68, and SB 13, among others). The City last
updated its ADU ordinance in 2020.
DRAFT Housing Element | 83
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Develop incentives and tools to facilitate ADU construction in 2022. Incentives may include:
o Fee waivers or reductions beyond State requirement;
o Pre-approved site/floor plans;
o Website information on resources and technical assistance;
o Guidance handbook for property owners looking to construct an ADU.
Program HE-4: Mobile Home Park Conservation
This program discourages the conversion of existing mobile home parks to other uses, consistent
with Government Code §65863.7, in order to maintain a valuable source of affordable housing.
Mobile home parks are permitted in all residential districts, subject to approval of a Conditional Use
Permit. Eight mobile home parks are located in the City. Although the City has not enacted a Mobile
Home Conversion Ordinance, the City promotes the conservation of Mobile Home Parks.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Continue to encourage the conservation of mobile home parks and discourage the conversion of
mobile home parks to other uses in order to maintain a valuable source of affordable housing.
• Continue to promote the conservation of mobile home parks through implementation of the
Mobile Home Accord (Program HE-7) that serves as a rent stabilization agreement between the
City and mobile home park owners, implementation of the Mobile Home Rental Assistance
(Program HE-8) that provides a monthly rental subsidy to low income mobile home
households, and through the enforcement of Title 24 as it applies to mobile homes to ensure
mobile homes meet applicable building code requirements.
Program HE-5: Homebuyer Assistance
Due to limited funding and rising costs of homeownership, the City no longer offers first-time
homebuyer assistance. While the City participates in the County of San Bernardino’s HOME Consortium,
due to limited funding, the County has also discontinued its HOME-funded homeownership programs.
The County, however, continues to participate in the Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) program,
administered by the Golden State Finance Authority (GSFA). The MCC is used to reduce a homebuyer’s
federal tax liability.
Funding Source: None
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Provide information about the MCC program on City website.
• Explore funding sources available and feasibility of reinstating the City’s homebuyer assistance
programs (in 2023 and annually thereafter).
DRAFT Housing Element | 84
Program HE-6: Housing Choice Vouchers
The HUD funded Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is administered by the Housing Authority of
the County of San Bernardino (HACSB). HACSB provides rent subsidies to very low income households and
elderly households who spend greater than 50 percent of their income on rent, live in substandard
housing, or have been displaced. The subsidies represent the difference between 30 percent of the
monthly income and housing payment standards established by HUD.
HCVs are utilized by many extremely low income households in Rancho Cucamonga. The City will work
with the HACSB to market the HCV program and improve its overall effectiveness.
Funding Source: HUD Section 8 Funds
Responsible Agency: Community Development/HACSB
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Promote the use of HCVs by making program information available at the public counter and
community facilities. Encourage non-profit service providers to refer eligible clients to HCV
program for assistance.
• Coordinate with the HACSB to prioritize vouchers to be set aside for extremely low income
households.
• Work with HACSB and Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB) to continue outreach
and education on SB 329 and SB 222, the State’s new source of income protection that prohibits
housing discrimination against persons using public subsidies (such as HCVs) for housing
payments.
Program HE-7: Mobile Home Accord
The Mobile Home Accord serves as a rent stabilization agreement between the City and the mobile home
parks in the City, which limits how much park owners can raise rents based on the Consumer Price Index.
The Mobile Home Accord was renewed in 2009 for a 7-year participation agreement. Currently, seven of
the eight mobile home parks within the City participate in the Accord.
Funding Source: None
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Continue to administer the Mobile Home Accord and seek renewal of the agreements in 2026.
Program HE-8: Mobile Home Rental Assistance Program
In June 2008, the RDA established a Mobile Home Rental Assistance Program that provides up to $100 per
month towards the rent of a mobile home space for households that are at or below 60 percent of the AMI
and paying 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Currently, about 31 households are assisted
under the program.
Funding Source: Successor Agency
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Continue to administer and market the program to 31 households annually.
DRAFT Housing Element | 85
• Monitor the participation of all existing participants assisted through the program on a monthly
basis. As this activity was previously RDA funded, the continued monitoring of this program will not
provide new funds or allow for new applicant participation. As existing participants drop out of
the program no new households will be permitted.
Program HE-9: Preservation of At-Risk Units
Four publicly assisted housing projects with a total of 348 units may be at-risk of losing rent subsidies or
converting to market rate within the planning period of this Housing Element. Specifically, many households
residing in publicly assisted housing are extremely low income households with limited housing
opportunities elsewhere. To meet the needs of lower income households, the City must plan against the loss
of existing affordable housing units.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Continue to keep in contact with the owners of projects with units due to convert to market rate to
determine the status of projects with respect to the expiration of regulatory agreements.
• Continue to contact the owners of all units at risk and discussed options for retaining restricted
affordable units.
• Work with private non-profit agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing units at-risk,
including but not limited to 501(c)(3) Housing Development Corporations. On a case-by-case
basis, provide technical assistance to these organizations with respect to organization and
financing.
• On a case-by-case basis as opportunities arise, enter into agreements with property owners to
preserve existing affordable housing units.
Program HE-10: Affordable Housing Incentives
To encourage and facilitate affordable housing development in Rancho Cucamonga, including housing
for extremely low income households, the City will provide incentives to private developers along with
information regarding the availability of funding through federal and State housing programs.
Funding Source: General Fund/CDBG
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Provide technical assistance to developers regarding City land use policy and development
regulations.
• Support the funding applications of affordable housing projects that help further goals of this
Housing Element.
• Provide fee underwriting, fee deferral, public improvements, and/or permit fast-tracking for
housing affordable to lower income households, prioritizing projects that include units
affordable to extremely low income households.
• Continue to evaluate and improve the permit processing procedures to facilitate residential
development
DRAFT Housing Element | 86
Program HE-11: Inclusionary Ordinance
The City formed an inclusionary housing committee consisting of development professionals with
expertise in residential development. Through four workshops, the committee provided input on the
feasibility of an inclusionary housing ordinance and potential criteria to consider for incorporation into
an inclusionary housing ordinance.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Continue to study the feasibility of an inclusionary housing ordinance in 2022-2023.
Program HE-12: Commercial Linkage Fee
The City has seen a significant increase in non-residential development in recent years, resulting in job
increases in multiple business sectors and an increased associated need for affordable housing. To
mitigate the impact of newly generated jobs on the local housing market, the City will explore a linkage
fee for non-residential development.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Initiate a linkage fee study for industrial development in 2022-2023.
Program HE-13: Homeowner Rehabilitation Programs
The City of Rancho Cucamonga offers a number of programs to assist homeowners, both single-family and
mobile homes, maintain and improve their homes:
• Home Improvement Program (CDBG Grants): This program provides a grant up to $15,000 to
income eligible low income households to make necessary health, safety, and code related
repairs. Eligible properties include single-family homes, mobile homes, townhomes, and
condominiums and the units must be owner occupied. This program may be utilized in
conjunction with the loan program (see below) if the cost of repairs exceeds the maximum grant
amount.
• Home Improvement Program (CDBG Loans): This revolving loan program provides a deferred
payment loan up to $30,000 to income eligible low income households to make necessary
health, safety, and code related repairs. Eligible properties include single-family homes,
townhomes, and condominiums and the unit must be owner occupied. The loans are zero
interest, subordinate to the primary loan, and are repaid on the sale or refinance of the
property.
Funding Source: CDBG
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Assist 20 households annually through the Home Improvement Program.
• Continue to promote the program through various print and media channels as well as on the
DRAFT Housing Element | 87
City’s website.
Program HE-14: Transfer of Affordable Units
The City will explore options for facilitating affordable housing throughout the City. These may include
units associated with density bonus and surplus lands transactions.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Explore options for transferring affordable units in 2023.
Program HE-15: Housing for Persons with Special Needs
The City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the need for a wide range of housing options to meet the varied
needs of all segments of the community, including seniors, persons with disabilities, female-headed
households, large households, homeless, students, and farmworkers. To encourage and facilitate the
development of housing for persons with special needs, the City will address the provision of special
needs housing as part of the comprehensive update to the Development Code. Specifically:
• Low Barrier Navigation Centers (AB 101): AB 101 requires cities to allow a Low Barrier
Navigation Center development by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones
permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. A “Low Barrier Navigation
Center” is defined as “a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving
people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers
connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services,
shelter, and housing.” Low Barrier shelters may include options such as allowing pets, permitting
partners to share living space, and providing storage for residents’ possessions.
• Emergency and Transitional Housing (AB 139): Local governments may include parking
requirements for emergency shelters specifying that adequate parking must be provided for
shelter staff, but overall parking requirements for shelters may not exceed the requirements for
residential and commercial uses in the same zone.
• Supportive Housing (AB 2162): AB 2162 requires supportive housing projects of 50 units or
fewer to be permitted by right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are
permitted, when the development meets certain conditions. The City may choose to allow larger
supportive housing projects by right in these zones. The bill also prohibits minimum parking
requirements for supportive housing within ½ mile of a public transit stop.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Continue to fund a wide variety of nonprofit organizations providing services for persons with
special needs (e.g., disabled, including developmentally disabled), homeless people, and those
at risk of homelessness, through the Consolidated Plan process.
• Update the Development Code by the end of 2022 to address the provision of special needs housing.
DRAFT Housing Element | 88
Program HE-16: Density Bonus
Since the City’s last update to the Density Bonus ordinance, a number of new regulations have been
enacted by the State legislature to further incentivize the production of affordable housing. AB 1763,
enacted in 2019, requires a density bonus to be granted for projects that include 100 percent lower
income units, but allows up to 20 percent of total units in a project that qualifies for a density bonus to
be for moderate-income households. Under the revised law, density bonus projects must be allowed
four incentives or concessions, and for developments within ½ mile of a major transit stop, a height
increase of up to three additional stories or 33 feet. A density bonus of 80 percent is required for most
projects, with no limitations on density placed on projects within ½ mile of a major transit stop. The bill
also allows developers to request the elimination of minimum parking requirements for rental units
affordable to lower-income families that are either supportive housing or special needs housing, as
defined. AB 2345 signed by the Governor in September 2020 further incentivizes the production of
affordable housing by increasing the maximum available density bonus from 35 percent to 50 percent
for qualifying projects not composed exclusively of affordable housing.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Update the Development Code by the end of 2022 to incorporate the new density bonus
provisions.
Program HE-17: Fair Housing
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is committed to furthering and improving fair housing opportunities so that
all persons have the ability to find suitable housing in the community. To achieve fair housing goals, the City
contracts with the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB) to provide fair housing services and
landlord/tenant counseling services, including education, counseling, mediation, outreach, and legal
compliance. The City last prepared the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in 2020, to
document the City's progress in improving and maintaining fair housing opportunities.
Funding Source: CDBG
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe and Objectives:
• Continue to contract with local fair housing providers to provide educational, advocacy, and
mediation services for the City and assist 400 residents annually.
• Continue to provide fair housing and landlord/tenant counseling resources on the City website and
make fair housing and landlord/tenant counseling brochures available at public counters and
community facilities.
• Facilitate educational opportunities with IFHMB for property owners, property managers, and
residents in Rancho Cucamonga to provide information concerning the law as it pertains to
reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications for persons with disabilities.
DRAFT Housing Element | 89
Table HE-52: Summary of Quantified Objectives
Extremely
Low
(0-30%)
Very Low (31-50%) Low
(51-80% AMI)
Moderate
(81-120% AMI)
Above
Moderate
(Over 120% AMI)
Total
RHNA 1,622 1,623 1,920 2,038 3,329 10,525
New Construction 200 400 400 1,000 2,000 4,000
Rehabilitation 40 60 60 -- -- 160
Preservation of At-
Risk Housing 116 116 116 -- -- 348
DRAFT Housing Element |A-1
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC OUTREACH
DRAFT Housing Element |B-1
APPENDIX B: SITES INVENTORY
Table B-1: Vacant Sites
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
General
Plan Designation
New Land Use Designation Current
Use
Maximum
Density
Residential
Allowed Acres Net Potential
Units
Feasible for
Low Income
20835302 MU C City Center VACANT 100 50% 7.94 277 Y
21008141 IP C City Center VACANT 100 50% 7.25 253 Y
21008142 IP C City Center VACANT 100 50% 7.44 260 Y
20927220 PT C City Center VACANT 100 50% 1.27 44 Y
20927220 PT C City Center VACANT 100 50% 82.01 2,870 N
20924208 IP D 21st Century Employment District VACANT 42 30% 1.14 10 Y
20925105 IP D 21st Century Employment District VACANT 42 30% 1.66 14 Y
20941102 IP D 21st Century Employment District VACANT 42 30% 1.60 14 Y
20941132 IP D 21st Century Employment District VACANT 42 30% 4.39 38 Y
22931114 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 0.49 14 N
22931115 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 4.65 136 Y
107742301 CC MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 3.81 111 Y
107742302 CC MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 0.54 15 Y
109012117 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 6.78 199 Y
109012118 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 7.90 232 Y
109012120 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 1.32 38 Y
109012121 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 1.11 32 Y
109012122 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 1.36 40 Y
109012123 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 10.10 296 N
109060104 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 0.34 10 N
109060107 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 0.26 7 N
109060120 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 4.35 127 Y
109060121 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 1.07 31 Y
110016102 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 1.90 55 Y
DRAFT Housing Element |B-2
Table B-1: Vacant Sites
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
General Plan Designation
New Land Use Designation Current
Use
Maximum
Density
Residential
Allowed Acres Net Potential
Units
Feasible for
Low Income
110016103 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 3.72 109 Y
110019104 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 11.44 336 N
22902307 GC MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 5.00 147 Y
22901210 GI MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 2.05 60 Y
20834115 IP MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 9.89 290 Y
20835503 CC MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 1.67 49 Y
20896135 IP MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 0.17 5 N
22901253 IP MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 1.58 46 Y
22901254 IP MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 2.14 62 Y
22901270 IP MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 4.78 140 Y
22901271 IP MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 1.13 33 Y
107742251 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 0.89 26 Y
107742255 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 7.65 224 Y
107742298 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 0.97 28 Y
107742299 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 0.73 21 Y
109012138 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 4.89 143 Y
109012139 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 2.06 60 Y
109012137 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 12.51 367 N
20833140 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 3.06 89 Y
20833147 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 3.85 113 Y
110020103 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 0.73 21 Y
110020104 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 0.77 22 Y
110020107 MU MU City Corridor High VACANT 60 70% 6.48 190 Y
20721143 MU MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 2.63 51 Y
20721144 MU MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 1.83 35 Y
20863247 GC MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 2.72 53 Y
DRAFT Housing Element |B-3
Table B-1: Vacant Sites
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
General Plan Designation
New Land Use Designation Current
Use
Maximum
Density
Residential
Allowed Acres Net Potential
Units
Feasible for
Low Income
20833108 MU MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 0.97 19 Y
107762123 GC MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 0.40 7 N
107762125 GC MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 0.40 7 N
107762127 GC MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 0.36 7 N
107764145 GC MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 0.37 7 N
20832124 MR MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 17.84 349 N
20833117 MU MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 2.33 45 Y
20833118 MU MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 5.55 108 Y
20809157 MR MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 2.25 44 Y
107788113 MU MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 3.44 67 Y
20814118 MU MU City Corridor Moderate VACANT 40 70% 0.15 2 N
20209115 GC C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.45 4 N
20215102 GC C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.06 0 N
20216102 GC C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.32 3 N
20216109 GC C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.81 8 N
20903231 GI C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.92 9 N
20919116 GI C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.32 3 N
20919221 GI C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.54 5 N
20919222 GI C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.52 5 N
20701140 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.01 0 N
20701141 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.03 0 N
20701145 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.47 4 N
20710134 MR C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.67 7 N
20701143 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.25 2 N
20701144 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 8.74 91 N
20710113 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 7.69 80 N
DRAFT Housing Element |B-4
Table B-1: Vacant Sites
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
General Plan Designation
New Land Use Designation Current
Use
Maximum
Density
Residential
Allowed Acres Net Potential
Units
Feasible for
Low Income
20710131 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 10.87 114 N
20711203 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.22 2 N
20711204 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.19 1 N
20711205 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.19 1 N
20711209 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.46 4 N
20711210 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.46 4 N
20711214 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.27 2 N
20711301 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.19 2 N
20711302 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.24 2 N
20711303 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.29 3 N
20711304 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.34 3 N
20711305 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.18 1 N
20711306 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.23 2 N
20711307 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.21 2 N
20711308 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.21 2 N
20711309 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.21 2 N
20711323 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.22 2 N
20711324 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.33 3 N
20712334 MU C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 0.46 4 N
20216143 O C Traditional Town Center VACANT 30 50% 2.03 21 N
Total 329.68 8,903
DRAFT Housing Element |B-5
Table B-2: Parcels of Interest
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
General Plan Designation
New Land Use Designation Current Use Maximum
Density
Residential
Allowed Acres Net Potential
Units
Feasible for
Low Income
109053104 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.90 31 Y
109053105 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 2.30 80 Y
109055101 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 2.56 89 Y
109055102 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 2.88 100 Y
109055103 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 2.11 73 Y
109055105 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.96 33 Y
109055106 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.74 25 Y
109055107 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.87 30 Y
109055108 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 2.66 93 Y
109055109 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 1.10 38 Y
109055110 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.74 25 Y
109055111 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.68 23 Y
109055112 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.82 28 Y
109055113 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.78 27 Y
109055114 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.97 34 Y
109055115 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.65 22 Y
109055116 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.64 22 Y
109055117 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.77 27 Y
109055118 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.91 31 Y
109055119 MU C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.91 31 Y
22902168 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.96 33 Y
22902169 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.92 32 Y
22902170 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 1.30 45 Y
22902171 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.93 32 Y
22902172 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 1.25 43 Y
22902173 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 3.70 129 Y
DRAFT Housing Element |B-6
Table B-2: Parcels of Interest
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
General Plan Designation
New Land Use Designation Current Use Maximum
Density
Residential
Allowed Acres Net Potential
Units
Feasible for
Low Income
22902175 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 1.48 51 Y
22902176 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 1.63 57 Y
22902177 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 1.11 39 Y
22902178 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 3.00 105 Y
22902179 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.70 24 Y
22902186 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.85 29 Y
22902187 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.78 27 Y
22902188 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 0.64 22 Y
22902189 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 1.22 42 Y
22902190 GC C City Center COMMERCIAL 100 50% 1.34 46 Y
20721142 MU MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 4.21 82 Y
20721146 MU MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 0.67 13 Y
20810117 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 1.01 19 Y
20810118 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 1.57 30 Y
20810119 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 1.23 24 Y
20810120 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 9.22 180 Y
20815101 MU MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 1.45 28 Y
20815115 MU MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 0.68 13 Y
20863248 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 2.58 50 Y
20863249 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 1.07 20 Y
20863250 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 0.78 15 Y
107762134 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 4.05 79 Y
107764168 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 0.72 14 Y
107764169 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 0.85 16 Y
107764171 GC MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 1.41 27 Y
20833123 MU MU City Corridor Moderate COMMERCIAL 40 70% 8.90 174 Y
DRAFT Housing Element |B-7
Table B-2: Parcels of Interest
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
General Plan Designation
New Land Use Designation Current Use Maximum
Density
Residential
Allowed Acres Net Potential
Units
Feasible for
Low Income
Total 87.17 2,402
DRAFT Housing Element |C-1
APPENDIX C: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The table below summarizes the City’s progress in implementing the housing programs outlined in the 2013-2021 Housing Element. The
effectiveness and continued appropriateness of each program in the 2021-2029 Housing Element is also discussed. Based on new State law,
housing programs in the Housing Element should contain measurable goals and specific timeline.
Table B-1: Program Review
Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness
Adequate Housing Sites
Inventory of Residential Sites • Monitor the sites inventory annually to assess the City's
continued ability to facilitate a range of residential housing
types.
• Provide an inventory of vacant residentially zoned
properties to interested affordable housing developers
after adoption of the Housing Element. Annually update
the listing to promote the continued availability and
marketability of the identified properties.
The City continuously monitors vacant and
underutilized sites to fulfill its portion of the regions
housing allocation. The City provided sites for the
848-unit RHNA.
Continued Appropriateness: The City will continue to
meet its RHNA obligation by providing adequate sites
for future development. The 2021-2029 Housing
Element is prepared as part of the comprehensive
update to the General Plan. This program is modified
to reflect new land use strategies for the 2021-2029
planning period in the Adequate Sites for RHNA
program.
Mobile Home Park Conversion • Continue to encourage the conservation of mobile home
parks and discourage the conversion of mobile home parks
to other uses in order to maintain a valuable source of
affordable housing.
• Continue to promote the conservation of mobile home
parks through implementation of the Mobile Home Accord
(Program HE-9) that serves as a rent stabilization
agreement between the City and mobile home park
owners, implementation of the Mobile Home Rental
Assistance Program (Program HE-10) that provides a
monthly rental subsidy to low income mobile home
In 2013, the City proposed a new ten-year Mobile
Home Accord to serve as a rent stabilization
agreement between the City and mobile home park
owners.
In 2014, the accord was amended to expire in
February 2026 and serves as an agreement between
the City and seven of the eight mobile home park
owners.
The Mobile Home Rental Assistance Program provided
a monthly rental subsidy to some park tenants.
DRAFT Housing Element |C-2
households, and through the enforcement of Title 24 as it
applies to mobile homes to ensure mobile homes meet
applicable building code requirements.
Continued Appropriateness: This program is included
in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Condominium Conversion • Ensure compliance with the City's Condominium
Conversion Ordinance.
• Annually monitor the rate of conversion to determine if
modifications to the ordinance are needed to maintain a
healthy rental housing market.
The City received no applications for the
Condominium Conversion Ordinance over the Housing
Element period.
Continued Appropriateness: This is a process
established in the Municipal Code and is removed
from the 2021-2029 Housing Element as a housing
program.
Mixed Use District • Utilize the Mixed Use District to provide development
standards ranging from 14 to 30 dwelling units per acre.
• Utilize appropriate development standards to achieve 30
units per acre on the four identified Mixed Use District
properties, potentially achieving 1,035 dwelling units on
34.5 acres of land.
In 2015, the City amended the Development Code to
establish specific standards for the development of
Mixed Use properties.
In 2016, the City amended the Development Code to
establish specific development standards for the City’s
Mixed Use (MU) Districts. Specifically identifying
standards for increased density, increased building
height, reduced building setbacks, and landscape
coverage.
Continued Appropriateness: This program is
incorporated as part of the Adequate Sites for RHNA
program in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
DRAFT Housing Element |C-3
Affordable Housing
First Time Homebuyer Program • Annually monitor the participation of all existing property
owners assisted through the First Time Homebuyer
program. As this activity was previously RDA funded, the
continued monitoring of this program will not provide new
funds or allow for new applicant participation.
The City monitored the participation of all existing
property owners assisted through the First Time
Homebuyer Program to ensure compliance with all
program requirements.
There are currently 76 loans outstanding including 73
RDA funded and 3 NSP funded. However, no new
funding is available for this program.
Continued Appropriateness: This program has not
been allocated new funding. The 2021-2029 Housing
Element will include a program to pursue funding for
homebuyer assistance.
Neighborhood Stabilization
Program • Acquire 12 properties for participation in the two NSP
funded activities making 10 properties available through
the Acquisition/Rehabilitation and Resale program and 2
properties available to local non-profit housing providers
through the Acquisition/Rehabilitation and Reuse program.
• Implement program close out consistent with HUD's
"Notice of Neighborhood Stabilization Program; Close Out
Requirements and Recapture."
In 2017, the City rehabilitated 1 single family
residential property acquired through HUD’s NSP
program. The property was sold in 2018 to an eligible
homebuyer.
Continued Appropriateness: Funding for this
program has been exhausted. This program is not
included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Section 8 • Promote the use of Section 8 by making program
information available at the public counter and community
facilities. Encourage non-profit service providers to refer
eligible clients to the Section 8 program for assistance.
• Coordinate with the HACSB to prioritize vouchers to be set
aside for extremely low income households.
• Provide Section 8 information to owners of small rental
properties to encourage acceptance of Section 8 vouchers.
The City continues to promote the Housing choice
Voucher Program operated by the HACSB.
Continued Appropriateness: The City will continue to
participate in this program. It is included in the 2021-
2029 Housing Element. The program is expanded to
include outreach and education regarding California’s
new Source of Income protection (SB 329), requiring
landlords to accept public assistance (including
Section 8) as a legitimate source of income for rent
payments.
Mobile Home Accord • Continue to administer the Mobile Home Accord.
The Mobile Home Accord was updated in 2016 and
will expire in February 2026.
DRAFT Housing Element |C-4
Continued Appropriateness: The City will continue to
administer the Mobile Home Accord. This program is
included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Seven of
the eight mobile home parks currently participate in
this voluntary agreement.
Mobile Home Rental Assistance
Program
• Continue to administer the program to 47 households
annually.
• Monitor the participation of all existing participants
assisted through the program on a monthly basis. As this
activity was previously RDA funded, the continued
monitoring of this program will not provide new funds or
allow for new applicant participation. As existing
participants drop out of the program no new households
will be permitted.
Between 2013 and 2019, 303 participants were
assisted with the Mobile Home Rental Assistance
Program.
Continued Appropriateness: The City will continue to
participate in this program and it is included in the
2021-2029 Housing Element.
Preservation of At-Risk Units • Continue to keep in contact with the owners of projects
with units due to convert to market rate to determine the
status of projects with respect to the expiration of
regulatory agreements.
• Continue to contact the owners of all units at risk and
discussed options for retaining restricted affordable units.
• Work with private non-profit agencies interested in
purchasing and/or managing units at-risk, including but not
limited to 501(c)(3) Housing Development Corporations.
On a case-by-case basis, provide technical assistance to
these organizations with respect to organization and
financing.
• On a case-by-case basis as opportunities arise, enter into
agreements with property owners to preserve existing
affordable housing units.
There are currently 265 units at-risk of conversion to
market rate within four complexes. All affordability
covenants are monitored by the Housing Authority of
the County of San Bernardino.
Continued Appropriateness: This program is updated
and included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Inclusionary Ordinance • Initiate a Committee to consider the feasibility of
establishing an Inclusionary Ordinance as a means to
create opportunities for the development of affordable
housing units.
The City formed an inclusionary housing committee
consisting of development professional with expertise
in residential development, including single-family,
multi-family, and affordable housing, commercial
DRAFT Housing Element |C-5
• The Committee may consider applicable housing element
policy and program language that considers such program
characteristics as the percentage of units that could be
affordable in each income category, the duration of the
affordability requirements, the availability of alternatives
to the production of units (i.e., in lieu fees, land donation,
etc.), and the date by which the City could consider the
adoption of an implementing ordinance.
• The Committee may consider the characteristics of an
Inclusionary Ordinance that could include a clear
statement of the intent and purpose of the ordinance,
findings that demonstrate the need for the ordinance,
definitions of key terms (e.g., income levels, affordability,
etc.), specific standards for determining compliance,
eligibility for exceptions or alternatives, provisions for
applying its provisions, and a system for enforcing and
monitoring compliance.
The requirements of a proposed Inclusionary Ordinance may
be applicable when a property owner requests a property right
to which they are not entitled, such as a zone change from a
non-residential to a residential land use, or a residential density
increase, for example, from Medium Residential to Medium-
High Residential.
development, and industrial development. Through
four workshops, the committee provided input on the
feasibility of an inclusionary housing ordinance, and
potential criteria to consider incorporating into an
inclusionary housing ordinance.
Continued Appropriateness: This program is updated
and included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Quality Residential Development
Hillside Development
Regulations
• Continue to monitor residential development on slopes 8
percent and greater for compliance with the Hillside
Development Regulations.
• Continue to evaluate and improve hillside development
processing procedures to facilitate residential
development in hillside areas.
The City continues to monitor residential
development on slopes greater than eight percent.
Continued Appropriateness: Hillside development
procedures will be incorporated as part of the
comprehensive Zoning Code update to implement the
updated General Plan. This is removed from the 2021-
2029 Housing Element as a separate program.
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
• When funding resources become available, establish
CPTED concepts to evaluate single-family and multi-family
The City did not implement the program due to a lack
of funding and resources.
DRAFT Housing Element |C-6
developments and write CPTED guidelines to improve the
safety of new residential developments.
• Add to the Planning Department work program and
complete when funding sources become available.
Continued Appropriateness: This program is removed
from the 2021-2029 Housing Element due to lack of
funding.
Housing Preservation
Homeowner Rehabilitation
Programs
• Home Improvement Program (CDBG Grants): This program
provides a grant up to $7,500 to income eligible low
income households to make necessary health, safety, and
code related repairs. Eligible properties include single-
family homes, mobile homes, townhomes, and
condominiums and the units must be owner occupied. This
program may be utilized in conjunction with the loan
program (see below) if the cost of repairs exceeds the
maximum grant amount.
• Home Improvement Program (CDBG Loans): This revolving
loan program provides a deferred payment loan up to
$30,000 to income eligible low income households to make
necessary health, safety, and code related repairs. Eligible
properties include single-family homes, townhomes, and
condominiums and the unit must be owner occupied. The
loans are zero interest, subordinate to the primary loan,
and are repaid on the sale or refinance of the property.
• Home Improvement Program (EECBG Loans): This revolving
loan program provides a deferred payment loan up to
$10,000 to income eligible low income households to make
necessary energy efficiency and energy conservation
repairs. Eligible properties include single-family homes,
townhomes, and condominiums and the unit must be
owner occupied. The loans are zero interest, subordinate
to the primary loan, and are repaid on the sale or refinance
of the property. This loan program was funded by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and
distributed through the U.S. Department of Energy.
The City’s CDBG funded Home Improvement Program
assisted 127 low income households from 2013-2019.
Continued Appropriateness: This program is included
in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
DRAFT Housing Element |C-7
Mills Act Contracts • Monitor existing Mills Act contracts and promote the
program to assist in the preservation of historic resources.
The City continuously monitored existing Mills Act
contracts. No new contracts were entered during the
Housing Element period.
Continued Appropriateness: This is primarily a
monitoring function and is removed from the 2021-
2029 Housing Element as a separate housing program.
Code Enforcement • Continue to support the bi-annual neighborhood cleanup
events within the focus neighborhoods assisting
approximately 200 households.
In 2017, the Community Improvement Division
conducted one neighborhood cleanup event at the
Casa Volante Mobile Home Park.
In 2018, the City conducted one neighborhood
cleanup up event in the Southwest Cucamonga area.
Continued Appropriateness: This routine City service
is removed from the 2021-2029 Housing Element as a
specific housing program.
Graffiti Removal • Continue to provide graffiti removal services to the
residents of LMA eligible Census Tract Block Groups within
the City.
Between 2014 and 2019, the program helped to
remove 121,555 square feet of graffiti.
Continued Appropriateness: This routine City service
is removed from the 2021-2029 Housing Element as a
specific housing program.
Remove Constraints
Housing for Persons with Special
Needs • Continue to fund a wide variety of nonprofit organizations
providing services for homeless people, and those at risk of
homelessness, through the Consolidated Plan process.
• Amend the Development Code within twelve months of
adopting the Housing Element, or at the time of
application submittal, to establish objective standards for
emergency shelters including the maximum number of
beds, provision of onsite management, length of stay, and
security as allowed by SB 2.
The City did not amend the Development Code to
establish objective standards for emergency shelters.
However, no application for shelter was submitted
during the Housing Element planning period.
Continued Appropriateness: This program is updated
and included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element to
reflect recent changes to State law - including:
• AB 101 (Low Barrier Navigation Centers)
• AB 139 (Emergency and Transitional Housing)
• AB 2162 (Supportive Housing)
DRAFT Housing Element |C-8
• AB 1763 (Density bonus for 100 percent
affordable housing projects)
Regulatory Incentives • Continue to approve General Plan Amendments,
Development Code Amendments, Conditional Use Permits,
Variances, Minor Exceptions, and Density Bonuses as
appropriate while balancing the goal of preserving
established residential neighborhoods.
In 2015, the City approved a General Plan
Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Development
Agreement, and Design Review application for the
development of a 60-unit senior apartment complex.
In 2017, the City approved a General Plan
Amendment, Development Agreement, and Design
Review application for the development of a 140-unit
senior apartment complex.
Continued Appropriateness: The City continues to
implement regulatory incentives to facilitate the
development of quality housing to further City goals.
This program is included under the Affordable Housing
Incentives program in the 2021-2029 Housing
Element.
Financial Incentives • Assist as appropriate the construction of affordable
housing projects that address the City's housing needs.
• Seek opportunities to leverage housing resources with
those of for-profit groups, developers, and nonprofit
groups in the community.
• Prioritize projects that include components for extremely
low income households and large households.
The City encourages and facilitates the construction of
affordable senior and family housing projects. The
City finalized occupancy for one affordable senior
housing project in 2019.
Continued Appropriateness: The City will continue to
encourage construction of affordable housing. This
program is included under the Affordable Housing
Incentives program in the 2021-2029 Housing
Element.
Permit Processing • Continue to evaluate and improve the permit processing
procedures to facilitate residential development.
• Within twelve months of the adoption of the Housing
Element, revise the development review process to
establish fast-tracking procedures for those residential
development projects that include housing for large
households and lower income households, especially
extremely low income households.
The City continues to evaluate and improve the permit
processing procedures to facilitate residential
development. The City did not revise the
developmental review procedures to establish fast
tracking procedures for specific residential
developments within 12 months of the Housing
Element adoption.
DRAFT Housing Element |C-9
Continued Appropriateness: This is not included in
the 2021-2029 Housing Element as a separate housing
program.
Development Fees • Pursue the availability of additional funds for infrastructure
improvements needed to support affordable and special
needs housing.
• Pursue the establishment of development fee waivers and
development fee deferrals for those residential
development projects that include housing for large
households and lower income households, especially
extremely low income households.
The City provides opportunities for development fee
waivers and development fee deferrals, particularly
for residential development projects that include
housing for large households and lower income
households.
Continued Appropriateness: The City will continue to
encourage construction of affordable housing. This
program is included under the Affordable Housing
Incentives program in the 2021-2029 Housing
Element.
Analyze Development Fees on
the Supply and Affordability of
Housing
• Within twelve months of the adoption of the Housing
Element, analyze the impacts of increased development
fees on the supply and affordability of housing and commit
to biennial monitoring.
• Promote the financial feasibility of development affordable
to lower income households.
The City evaluates its fee schedule on an annual basis.
The current fee schedule was adopted by the City
Council in 2020 and went into effect on July 1, 2020.
As funding permits, the City may provide fee waivers
or deferral for affordable housing development.
Continued Appropriateness: The City continues to
evaluate application fees on an annual basis. This
program is included in the 2021-20290 Housing
Element.
Equal Housing Opportunity
Fair Housing • Continue to contract with local fair housing providers to
provide educational, advocacy, and mediation services for
the City.
• Continue to provide fair housing and landlord/tenant
counseling resources on the City website and make fair
housing and landlord/tenant counseling brochures
available at public counters and community facilities.
• Continue to periodically prepare an Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and implement its
findings.
The City provides fair housing services through the
CDBG program and helped to provide assistance to
509 households between 2013 and 2019.
Continued Appropriateness: The City continues to
promote fair housing in the community. This program
is expanded in the 2021-2029 Housing Element to
include actions to address impediments identified in
the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.
DRAFT Housing Element |C-10