Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, March 1, 2022 (part 6 of 16)

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would not significantly impact the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species because no regional wildlife movement corridors were identified in the City, and most of the City is ill suited for the purposes of wildlife movement. The flood-control channels and the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridors could serve as local corridors for movement within the City and between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Prado Basin to the south. The segments of flood-control channels in the City would be designated Open Space–Non-Recreation under the TOP Policy Plan and would not be developed with other land uses. The SCE corridors would also be designated Open Space–Non-Recreation.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update is not anticipated to substantially impair the use of flood-control channels or SCE corridors in the City for wildlife movement.

There are trees and shrubs scattered throughout the City that may be used for nesting or roosting by migrating birds. The Housing Element Update would not grant specific entitlements for development; therefore, implementation of the Housing Element Update would not directly impact vegetation that could be used by migrating birds. Such projects would be required to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered.

Therefore, the Housing Element Update is not anticipated to have substantial adverse impacts to migratory birds. TOP Policy ER51 would encourage efforts to conserve flood-control channels and transmission-line corridors as wildlife movement corridors. Consequently, no impact would occur.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to wildlife corridors. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The Housing Element Update would not grant specific entitlements for development; however, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered. The Housing Element Update would be required to comply with TOP Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 and Municipal Code Sections 10-1.25 and 10-2.05, which prohibit damage or 1604
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 47
destruction of trees on City property, except under conditions specified in the Municipal Code. TOP Policy ER5-1 supports the protection of biological resources through the establishment, restoration, and conservation of high-quality habitat areas. Projects consistent with the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with Municipal Code Sections 10-1.25 and 10-2.05 and restrictions in locally protected biological resource conservation areas developed under TOP Policy ER5-1.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would not conflict with the requirements of the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Ontario Recovery Unit or Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat because focused surveys and USFWS consultation would be required prior to any development associated with the Approved Project. The Approved Project would also have to comply with a designated Habitat Conservation Plan area within the City. City ordinances ensure compliance with the provisions of habitat conservation plans, including the Oakmont Industrial Group Habitat Conservation Plan.

TOP recognizes the development regulations of the habitat conservation plan and restricts development in other conservation areas. Thus, impacts were identified as less than significant in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat onsite for sensitive species. If sensitive species were found onsite, the project proponent would be required to consult with CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species. As identified in the 2010 Certified EIR, existing regulations for biological resources would substantially limit degradation of habitat on a regional scale.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 48 ends

or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.

5.4.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant biological resources impacts; therefore, no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact to archeological resources and the potential to disturb human remains with mitigation incorporated; however, impacts to historic resources were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of the Approved Project.

5.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that development in accordance with TOP could minimize impacts to historic resources classified Tier I or Tier II with implementation of policies from the Community Design Element and Ontario Municipal Code; however, impacts from buildout of the Approved Project to historic resources classified Tier III were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the 2010 Certified EIR. 1606
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 49
The Housing Element Update would allow for increased housing development, and these activities have the potential to cause changes in the significance of historical resources through alteration of physical characteristics, including resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or Center for Regional Heritage Research. Housing development or redevelopment projects may have the potential to result in impacts to buildings or structures of historic age (50 years old or older), or buildings or structures that may eventually be of historic age and may qualify as historical resources pursuant to CEQA upon evaluation.

The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Future discretionary projects would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 5-1 of the 2010 Certified EIR requires that historic resources be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system. The City of Ontario Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 1, Part 1, Article 2, Section 9-1.0412, Historic Preservation, requires that all proposed work to a designated cultural resource conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitating historic buildings and for historic preservation projects. These ordinances establish the City’s planning and zoning regulations and pertain to allowable land uses, second units, development standards, and historic preservation. Therefore, the City’s ordinances on historic preservation and the historic review process would require housing development projects resulting from implementation of the Housing Element Update to be designed in a manner that would not substantially alter the historic architecture or character of buildings.

Mitigation Measures were incorporated into the Approved Project and detail specific measures to identify, protect, and preserve archeological resources through the City planning and environmental review processes.

Residential development associated with the Housing Element could impact archeological resources; however, the Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. In the event that future housing 1607
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 50 ends

development projects do affect previously undiscovered archaeological resources, Mitigation Measures 5-2 through 5-4 of the 2010 Certified EIR shall apply.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to archaeological resources. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would comply with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 so as not to disturb human remains. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of a discovery of any human remains and would mitigate all potential impacts. The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR.

With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to disturbance of human remains. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.

5.5.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2010 Certified EIR. All of these mitigation measures apply to and would be implemented for the Housing Element. Modifications to the original mitigation measures are identified in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underlined to signify insertions. 5-1 Historic or potentially historic resources in the City shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals in the Focus Areas.
5-2 In areas of documented or inferred archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities. 1608
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 51
b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including catalog with museum numbers.
5-3 Upon receipt of an application for a Specific Plan or a project that requires a General Plan amendment proposed project subject to CEQA and is within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the Proposed Project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a [tribal] culturally sensitive area, then a cultural resources assessment prepared by an archaeologist shall be required. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA document, the procedure described in Mitigation Measure 5-4 shall be followed. 5-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a Specific Plan or project that requires a General Plan amendment proposed project for which the CEQA document defines cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario shall be the final arbiter of the conditions for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.

5.6 ENERGY

5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR assessed the energy demand for electricity and gas services in Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems, and concluded that the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact to additional demand for electrical and gas services.
1609
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 52 ends

5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would cause a higher demand for energy services; however, the demand would be accommodated by service providers within the City.

Development enabled by policies included in the Housing Element Update would implement measures within the City of Ontario designed to increase energy efficiency and reduce per capita VMT. The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered.

Additionally, the 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate more energy than identified in the 2010 Certified EIR because the Proposed Project would not propose additional growth that was not evaluated under the 2010 Certified EIR or change the buildout evaluated under the Approved Project. Development under the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the anticipated criteria air pollutant emissions resulting from buildout of TOP compared to those identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 53
with respect to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify impacts associated with obstruction of a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future development under the Housing Element Update would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 6) and the CALGreen Code (24 CCR Part 11). Title 24 building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Compliance with Title 24 standards is required, which would significantly reduce energy usage.

Development enabled by policies in the Housing Element Update would implement measures in Ontario designed to increase energy efficiency and reduce per-capita VMT. Continued implementation of TOP promotes mixed‐use development and encourages alternative modes of transportation to reduce vehicle trip lengths and reliance on the automobile, which in turn would reduce the transportation energy demand in the City. Continued implementation of the TOP also encourages development of housing near employment and transportation, which would lead to a potential decrease in VMT. Implementation of Title 24 requirements and conformity with TOP would result in no impacts to existing plans, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.

5.6.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant energy impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.
1611
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 54 ends

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project could subject residents, workers, and visitors in the City to seismic hazards such as ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced settlement.

Furthermore, people in the City could be subject to hazards arising from ground subsidence, compressible soils, expansive soils, and erosion. Development pursuant to TOP would not involve the use of septic tanks.

The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval would ensure that all other impacts would be less than significant.

5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map, issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? X
1612
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 55
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. As stated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in Ontario. The nearest such zones are along the Chino Fault, approximately three miles southwest of the City, and along the Cucamonga Fault, approximately 4.5 miles to the north. Impacts from surface rupture were identified as less than significant in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlement for development, and future new housing development would comply with the seismic safety provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) (24 CCR Part 2). The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts caused by the projects are considered. Thus, the Housing Element Update would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.
1613
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 56 ends

Implementation of the Housing Element Update would not directly result in construction of new structures. Projects considered for approval would be required to comply with seismic safety provisions of the CBC. Such compliance would reduce hazards arising from ground shaking to less than significant.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to seismic ground shaking. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that two of the three factors contributing to liquefaction susceptibility are present or potentially present in the City: 1) potential for strong earthquakes and 2) young, loose, unconsolidated sediments. The third factor, groundwater within approximately 50 feet of surface, is not known to occur in the Ontario area today but has in the past. Although only a small portion of the southwestern corner of the City has moderate to high liquefaction susceptibility, projects approved in accordance with TOP could subject persons or structures to potentially significant hazards arising from liquefaction.

Implementation of the Housing Element Update would not directly result in construction of new structures, however, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Housing development projects consistent with the Housing Element Update would be mandated to comply with the CBC, which would reduce hazards arising from seismic-related ground failure. 1614
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 57
The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify areas with substantial unstable soils that would result in on- or off-site landslides. Despite the City being underlain by unconsolidated alluvial deposits, Ontario is relatively level and exhibits no substantial elevation changes or unusual geographic features. In the absence of significant slopes, the potential for landslides to affect any projects under the Housing Element Update is considered negligible. The City may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement as a result of the young, unconsolidated alluvial deposits underlying the City. An Approved Project would be required to meet the most current seismic safety requirements in the CBC to reduce substantial impacts. Furthermore, implementation of the Housing Element Update would not directly result in construction of new structures.

Impacts of the Approved Project would be mitigated through compliance with CBC requirements.

Implementation of the Housing Element Update would not directly result in construction of new structures.

Compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. Additionally, construction activities to implement the RHNA requirements outlined in the Housing Element Update, would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) detailing best management practices (BMP) to reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities.
1615
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 58 ends

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to soil erosion. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify areas in the City with substantial unstable soils that would result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; however, the central and western portions of the City are shown to have a low risk of soil subsistence (0 to 5 centimeters reduction in elevation) due to decreasing groundwater supplies to the west of the City. Compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure that no significant impacts would occur.

Implementation of the Housing Element Update would not directly result in construction of new structures.

Development proposed under the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with seismic safety provisions of the CBC and would need to obtain grading permits pursuant to the City Development Code.

Such compliance would reduce hazards arising from unstable geologic units and soils.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to unstable soils. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that there are likely to be expansive soils in the southern parts of the City, where there are silts, sandy silts, and silty clays. Near-surface soils in the northern and central parts of the City are primarily granular, that is, silty sand, sand, and gravel; such sediments are usually nonexpansive or have very low expansion potential. Projects in the southern part of the City could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards from expansive soils, but compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

Implementation of the Housing Element Update would not directly result in construction of new structures.

Individual housing development projects implemented under the Housing Element Update in the southern portion of the City could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards due to expansive soils. 1616
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 59
Compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans by the City Engineer, as required by the City Development Code and as outlined in the Approved Project, would ensure that no significant impacts would occur.

Development associated with the Housing Element Update would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Future development would connect to existing and planned sewer lines in the City.

Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments may contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources and are therefore considered highly sensitive. Older Pleistocene alluvial sediments can yield fossil remains, often found at depths of 10 feet or more below the modern ground surface. In addition, there has been one paleontological resource discovered within the City’s boundaries, as recorded by the Archaeological Information Center at San Bernardino County Museum. As a result, there is a moderate to high possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries at depths of 10 feet or more below the ground surface.

Mitigation Measure 5-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 60 ends

2010 Certified EIR would apply, which requires implementation of specific measures to identify, protect, and preserve paleontological resources through the City planning and environmental review processes.

5.7.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measure was taken directly from the 2010 Certified EIR for paleontological resources.

This mitigation measure would apply to and would be implemented for the Housing Element Update. The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify any other significant geology and soils impacts, and therefore no other mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. 5-2 In areas of documented or inferred archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities. b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including catalog with museum numbers.
1618
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 61

5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR identified significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with the Approved Project as a result of the magnitude of population and employment growth projected by SCAG and TOP. Although, TOP was found to be consistent with statewide strategies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, mitigation measures were incorporated into the 2010 Certified EIR to reduce impacts. GHG emissions were considered a significant unavoidable impact in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
X
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified GHG emissions impacts as a significant unavoidable impact of TOP.

Development enabled by policies included in the Housing Element Update would implement measures within the City of Ontario designed to increase energy efficiency and reduce per-capita VMT. Additionally, new projects are required to be consistent with the City of Ontario’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP). The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered. Additionally, the 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate GHG emissions 1619
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 62 ends

greater than those identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Development under the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the anticipated GHG emissions resulting from buildout of TOP and those identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 6-5 of the 2010 Certified EIR would apply.

Additionally, the California Air Resources Board has adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan to achieve the GHG reduction targets of Senate Bill 32. SCAG also adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) in September 2020 to outline a path to achieve the GHG reduction targets of Senate Bill 375. The Proposed Project would be consistent with these plans through compliance with Title 24, Part 6, California Energy Efficiency Standards, which would require all residential construction to meet minimum energy conservation standards, as well as through compliance with the California Green Building Code, which would ensure energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality for all new buildings. Additionally, the City of Ontario is taking other initiatives to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. For instance, in 2018, the City received a Transformative Climate Communities grant for its Ontario Together project, which included sustainability projects such as a Rooftop Solar Project, which will install 700 kilowatts of solar power on affordable multifamily developments and single-family homes and will provide paid solar installation internships to grow the renewable energy workforce.

Implementation of the Housing Element Update would not directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment because the Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development. The GHG reduction measures outlined in the CCAP would reduce GHG emissions for long-term buildout of the City. The CCAP would implement measures in Ontario designed to increase energy efficiency and reduce per-capita VMT. Energy efficiency improvements and use of alternative energy would reduce the heating and cooling requirements for buildings and would also result in a decrease in electricity and natural gas use and associated GHG emissions. Likewise, land-use and transportation measures that reduce VMT would result in reduced GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Water, agricultural, and waste-reduction measures would further reduce GHG emissions in the City. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 6-5 of the 2010 Certified EIR would apply.
1620
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 63
The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to generating greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.

5.8.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2010 Certified EIR. However, Mitigation Measure 6-1 through 6-4 and Mitigation Measure 6-6 have since been implemented to achieve the Assembly Bill 32 GHG reduction target for the City of Ontario in the Community Climate Action Plan and/or are no longer applicable to the Proposed Project. Modifications to the original mitigation measures are identified in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underlined to signify insertions. Mitigation Measure 6-5 still applies and would be implemented for the Housing Element.
6-1 The City of Ontario shall prepare a Climate Action Plan within 18 months after adopting The Ontario Plan. The goal of the Climate Action Plan shall be to reduce GHG emissions from all activities within the City boundaries to support the State’s efforts under AB 32 and to mitigate the impact of climate change on the City, State, and world. Once completed, the City shall update The Ontario Plan and associated policies, as necessary, to be consistent with the Climate Action Plan and prepare a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report, if new significant impacts are identified. The Climate Action Plan shall include the following:
 Emission Inventories: The City shall establish GHG emissions inventories including emissions from all sectors within the City, using methods approved by, or consistent with guidance from, the CARB; the City shall update inventories every 3 years or as determined by state standards to incorporate improved methods, better data, and more accurate tools and methods, and to assess progress. If the City is not on-schedule to achieve the GHG reduction targets, additional measures shall be implemented, as identified in the CAP. • The City shall establish a baseline inventory of GHG emissions including municipal emissions, and emissions from all business sectors and the community. • The City shall define a “business as usual” scenario of municipal, economic, and community activities, and prepare a projected inventory for 2020 based on that scenario.
 Emission Targets: The City will develop Plans to reduce or encourage reductions in GHG emissions from all sectors within the City:
• A Municipal Climate Action Plan which shall include measures to reduce GHG emissions from municipal activities by at least 30 percent by 2020 compared to the 1621
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 64 ends

“business as usual” municipal emissions (including any reductions required by the California Air Resource Board under AB 32.
• A Business Climate Action Plan in collaboration with the business community, which shall include measures to reduce GHG emissions from business activities, and which shall seek to reduce emissions by at least 30 percent by 2020 compared to “business as usual” business emissions.
• A Community Climate Action Plan in collaboration with the stakeholders from the community at large, which shall include measures reduce GHG emissions from community activities, and which shall seek to reduce emissions by at least 30 percent by 2020 compared to “business as usual” community emissions. 6-2 The Climate Action Plan shall include specific measures to achieve the GHG emissions reduction targets identified in Mitigation Measure 6-1. The Climate Action Plan shall quantify the approximate greenhouse gas emissions reductions of each measure and measures shall be enforceable. Measures listed below, along with others, shall be considered during the development of the Climate Action Plan (CAP):
 Require all new or renovated municipal buildings to seek Silver or higher Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard, or compliance with similar green building rating criteria.  Require all municipal fleet purchases to be fuel efficient vehicles for their intended use based on the fuel type, design, size, and cost efficiency.
 Require that new development projects in Ontario that require demolition prepare a demolition plan to reduce waste by recycling and/or salvaging a nonhazardous construction and demolition debris.  Require that new developments design buildings to be energy efficient by siting buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping, and sun screening to reduce energy required for cooling.  Require that cool roofs for non-residential development and cool pavement to be incorporated into the site/building design for new development where appropriate.  Evaluate the feasibility of implementing a Public Transit Fee to support Omnitrans in developing additional transit service in the City.
 Require diesel emission reduction strategies to eliminate and/or reduce idling at truck stops, warehouses, and distribution facilities throughout the City.
 Install energy efficient lighting and lighting control systems in all municipal buildings.  Require all new traffic lights installed be energy efficient traffic signals. Require the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in all new development and on public property where such connections are within the service boundaries of the City’s reclaimed water system.  Require all new landscaping irrigation systems installed within the City to be automated, high-efficient irrigation systems to reduce water use and require use of bubbler irrigation; low-angle, low-flow spray 1622
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 65
heads; or moisture sensors. Conduct energy efficiency audits of existing municipal buildings by checking, repairing, and readjusting heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, lighting, water heating equipment, insulation, and weatherization.
 Ensure that its local Climate Action, Land Use, Housing, and Transportation Plans are aligned with, support, and enhance any regional plans that have been developed consistent with state guidance to achieve reductions in GHG emissions.
 Mitigate climate change by decreasing heat gain from pavement and other hard surfaces associated with infrastructure.
 Reduce heat gain from pavement and other similar hardscaping.  Work with appropriate agencies to create an interconnected transportation system that allows a shift in travel from private passenger vehicles to alternative modes, including public transit, ride sharing, carsharing, bicycling and walking. • Provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians and bicyclists to, across, and along major transit priority streets.
 Facilitate employment opportunities that minimize the need for private vehicle trips, by:
• Amending zoning ordinances and the Development Code to include live/work sites and satellite work centers in appropriate locations.
 Encouraging telecommuting options with new and existing employers, through project review and incentives, as appropriate.
 Establish policies and programs to reduce onsite parking demand and promote ride-sharing and public transit at large events.
 Support and promote the use of low-and zero-emission vehicles, by:
• Encouraging the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the use of zero- emission vehicles and clean alternative fuels, such as electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations.
• Encouraging new construction to include vehicle access to properly wired outdoor receptacles to accommodate ZEV and/or plug in electric hybrids (PHEV). • Encouraging transportation fleet standards to achieve the lowest emissions possible, using a mix of alternate fuels, PZEV or better fleet mixes. • Establishing incentives, as appropriate, to taxicab owners to use alternative fuel or gas-electric hybrid vehicles.
 Establish green building requirements and standards for new development and redevelopment projects, and work to provide incentives for green building practices and remove barriers that impede their use. 1623
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 66 ends

 Allow increased height limits and/or flexibility in other standards for projects that incorporate energy efficient green building practices where not prohibited by Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
 Identify and remove regulatory or procedural barriers to implementing green building practices within its jurisdiction, such as updating codes, guidelines, and zoning, and ensure that all plan review and building inspection staff are trained in green building materials, practices, and techniques.  Support the use of green building practices by:
• Providing information, marketing, training, and technical assistance about green building practices.
• Adopting a Green Building ordinance with guidelines for green building practices in residential and commercial development.
 Adopt energy efficiency performance standards for buildings designed to achieve a greater reduction in energy and water use than currently required by state law, including:
• Standards for the installation of “cool roofs.”
• Standards for improved overall efficiency of lighting systems. • Requirements for the use of Energy Star appliances and fixtures in discretionary new development.
 Encourage the performance of energy audits for residential and commercial buildings prior to completion of sale, and that audit results and information about opportunities for energy efficiency improvements be presented to the buyer.
 Establish policies and programs that facilitate the siting of new renewable energy generation.  Require that any building constructed in whole or in part with City funds incorporate passive solar design features, such as daylighting and passive solar heating, where feasible.  Prepare and implement a comprehensive plan to improve energy efficiency of municipal facilities, including:
• Conducting energy audits.
• Retrofitting municipal facilities for energy efficiency where feasible and when remodeling or replacing components, including increased insulation, installing green or reflective roofs and low-emissive window glass.
• Implementing an energy tracking and management system for its municipal facilities. • Installing energy-efficient exit signs, street signs, and traffic lighting, subject to life/safety considerations.
• Installing energy-efficient lighting retrofits and occupancy sensors, and institute a “lights out at night” policy, subject to life/safety considerations. 1624
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 67
• Retrofitting heating and cooling systems to optimize efficiency (e.g. replace chillers, boilers, fans, pumps, belts, etc.).
• Installing Energy Star® appliances and energy-efficient vending machines. • Improving water use efficiency, including a schedule to replace or retrofit system components with high-efficiency units (i.e. ultra-low-flow toilets, fixtures, etc.). • Installing irrigation control systems which maximize water use efficiency and minimize off- peak use.
• Adopting an accelerated replacement schedule for energy inefficient systems and components.
 Ensure that staff receives appropriate training and support to implement objectives and policies to reduce GHG emissions, including:
• Providing energy efficiency training to design, engineering, building operations, and maintenance staff.
• Providing information on energy use and management, including data from the tracking and management system, to managers and others making decisions that influence energy use.
• Providing energy design review services to departments undertaking new construction or renovation projects, to facilitate compliance with LEED standards.  Maximize efficiency at drinking water treatment, pumping, and distribution facilities, including development of off-peak demand schedules for heavy commercial and industrial users.  Establish a replacement policy and schedule to replace fleet vehicles and equipment with the most fuelefficient vehicles practical, including gasoline hybrid and alternative fuel or electric models.  Require the installation of outdoor electrical outlets on buildings to support the use, where practical, of electric lawn and garden equipment, and other tools that would otherwise be run with small gas engines or portable generators.
 Implement measures to reduce employee vehicle trips and to mitigate emissions impacts from municipal travel.
 Conduct a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the urban forest, and coordinate tree maintenance responsibilities with all responsible departments, consistent with best management practices.  Evaluate existing landscaping and options to convert reflective and impervious surfaces to landscaping, and will install or replace vegetation with drought-tolerant, low-maintenance native species or edible landscaping that can also provide shade and reduce heat-island effects.  Implement enhanced programs to divert solid waste from landfill operations, by:
• Establishing a diversion target which meets or exceeds AB 939 requirements. 1625
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 68 ends

• Promoting and expanding recycling programs, purchasing policies, and employee education to reduce the amount of waste produced.
 Reduce per capita water consumption consistent with state law by 2020.  Establish a water conservation plan that may include such policies and actions as:
• Maintaining and refining the City’s tiered rate structure for water use. • Establishing restrictions on time of use for landscape watering, or other demand management strategies.
• Establishing performance standards for irrigation equipment and water fixtures, consistent with state law.
 Establish programs and policies to increase the use of recycled water, including:
• Promoting the use of recycled water for agricultural, industrial, and irrigation purposes, including grey water systems for residential irrigation.  Ensure that building standards and permit approval processes promote and support water conservation, by:
• Establishing building design guidelines and criteria to promote water-efficient building design, including minimizing the amount of non-roof impervious surfaces around the building(s).
• Establishing menus and check-lists for developers and contractors to ensure waterefficient infrastructure and technology are used in new construction, including lowflow toilets and shower heads, moisture-sensing irrigation, and other such advances.  Organize workshops on waste reduction activities for the home or business, such as backyard composting, or office paper recycling, and shall schedule recycling dropoff events and neighborhood chipping/mulching days.
 Organize workshops on steps to increase energy efficiency in the home or business, such as weatherizing the home or building envelope, installing smart lighting systems, and how to conduct a self-audit for energy use and efficiency.
6-3 The City of Ontario will amend the Municipal Code within 18 months after adopting The Ontario Plan, with provisions implementing the following GHG emission reduction concepts:
 Increase densities in urban core areas to support public transit, by, among other means:
• Removing barriers to the development of accessory dwelling units in existing residential neighborhoods.
 Reduce required road width standards wherever feasible to calm traffic and encourage alternative modes of transportation.
 Add bicycle facilities to city streets and public spaces, where feasible. 1626
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 69
 Promote infill, mixed-use, and higher density development, and provide incentives to support the creation of affordable housing in mixed use zones.
 Plan for and create incentives for mixed-use development.  Identify sites suitable for mixed-use development and establish appropriate site- specific standards to accommodate mixed uses which could include:
• Increasing allowable building height or allow height limit bonuses, in appropriate areas and where safe to do so.
• Allowing flexibility in applying development standards (such as FAR2 and lot coverage) based on the location, type, and size of the units, and the design of the development.
• Allowing reduced and shared parking based on the use mix, and availability of and proximity to public transit stops.
• Allowing for tandem parking, shared parking and off-site parking leases.  Enable prototype mixed-use structures for use in neighborhood center zones that can be adapted to new uses over time with minimal internal remodeling.
 Identify and facilitate the inclusion of complementary land uses not already present in local zoning districts, such as supermarkets, parks and recreational fields, schools in neighborhoods, and residential uses in business districts, to reduce the vehicle miles traveled and promote bicycling and walking to these uses.  Revise zoning ordinance(s) to allow local-serving businesses, such as childcare centers, restaurants, banks, family medical offices, drug stores, and other similar services near employment centers to minimize midday vehicle use.
 Develop form-based community design standards to be applied to development projects and land use plans, for areas designated mixed-use.
 Implement a Housing Overlay Zone for residential properties at transit centers and along transit corridors.

This may include average minimum residential densities of 25 units per acre within one quarter miles of transit centers; average minimum densities of 15 units per acre within one quarter mile of transit corridors; and minimum FAR of 0.5:1 for non-residential uses within a quarter mile of transit centers or corridors.  Identify transit centers appropriate for mixed-use development, and promote transit-oriented, mixed-use development within these targeted areas, by:
• Providing maximum parking standards and flexible building height limitations. • Providing density bonus programs.
• Establishing guidelines for private and public spaces for transit-oriented and mixeduse development. • Discouraging auto-oriented development.
1627
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 70 ends

 Ensure new development is designed to make public transit a viable choice for residents, including:
• Locating medium to high density development near activity centers that can be served efficiently by public transit and alternative transportation modes. • Locating medium to high density development near streets served by public transit whenever feasible.
• Linking neighborhoods to bus stops by continuous sidewalks or pedestrian paths.  Develop form-based community design standards to be applied to development projects and land use plans, for areas designated mixed-use.
 Create and preserve distinct, identifiable neighborhoods whose characteristics support pedestrian travel, especially within, but not limited to, mixed-use and transit-oriented development areas, by:
• Designing or maintaining neighborhoods where the neighborhood amenities can be reached in approximately five minutes of walking.
• Encouraging pedestrian-only streets and/or plazas within developments, and destinations that may be reached conveniently by public transportation, walking, or bicycling.
• Allowing flexible parking strategies in neighborhood activity centers to foster a pedestrian-oriented streetscape.
• Providing continuous sidewalks with shade trees and landscape strips to separate pedestrians from traffic.
• Encouraging neighborhood parks and recreational centers near concentrations of residential areas (preferably within one quarter mile) and include pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths that encourage non- motorized travel.  Ensure pedestrian access to activities and services, especially within, but not limited to, mixed-use and transit-oriented development areas, by:
• Ensuring new development that provides pedestrian connections in as many locations as possible to adjacent development, arterial streets, and thoroughfares. • Ensuring a balanced mix of housing, workplaces, shopping, recreational opportunities, and institutional uses, including mixed-use structures. • Locating schools in neighborhoods, within safe and easy walking distances of residences served.
• Encouraging new development in which primary entrances are pedestrian entrances, with automobile entrances and parking located to the rear. • Supporting development where automobile access to buildings does not impede pedestrian access, by consolidating driveways between buildings or developing alley access.
1628
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 71
• Utilizing street parking as a buffer between sidewalk pedestrian traffic and the automobile portion of the roadway.
• Prioritizing the physical development of pedestrian connectors for existing areas that do not meet established connectivity standards.
 Mitigate climate change by decreasing heat gain from pavement and other hard surfaces associated with infrastructure.
 Reduce heat gain from pavement and other similar hardscaping, by:
• Including low-water landscaping in place of hardscaping around transportation infrastructure and in parking areas.
• Establishing standards that provide for pervious pavement options. • Removing obstacles to natural, drought tolerant landscaping and low-water landscaping.
 Coordinate with appropriate agencies to create an interconnected transportation system that allows a shift in travel from private passenger vehicles to alternative modes, including public transit, ride sharing, carsharing, bicycling and walking, including, but not limited to:
• Providing safe and convenient access for pedestrians and bicyclists to, across, and along major transit priority streets.
 Upgrade and maintain the following transit system infrastructure to enhance public use, including:
• Ensuring transit stops and bus lanes are safe, convenient, clean and efficient. • Ensuring transit stops have clearly marked street-level designation, and are accessible. • Ensuring transit stops are safe, sheltered, benches are clean, and lighting is adequate. • Working with transit providers to place transit stations along transit corridors within mixed-use or transit-oriented development areas at intervals appropriate for the mode of transit.
 Facilitate employment opportunities that minimize the need for private vehicle trips, by:
• Amending zoning ordinances and the Development Code to include live/work sites and satellite work centers in appropriate locations.
• Encouraging telecommuting options with new and existing employers, through project review and incentives, as appropriate.
 Establish standards for new development and redevelopment projects to support bicycle use, including:
• Amending the Development Code to include standards for pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations, including:
1629
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 72 ends

o Providing access for pedestrians and bicyclist to public transportation through construction of dedicated paths, where feasible.
• Requiring new development and redevelopment projects to include bicycle facilities, as appropriate with the new land use, including:
o Where feasible, promote the construction of weatherproof bicycle facilities and at a minimum, provide bicycle racks or covered, secure parking near the building entrances.
 Establish a network of multi-use trails to facilitate direct off-street bicycle and pedestrian travel, and will provide bike racks along these trails at secure, lighted locations.  Establish policies and programs to reduce onsite parking demand and promote ride-sharing and public transit at large events.
 Require new commercial and retail developments to provide prioritized parking for electric vehicles and vehicles using alternative fuels.
 Support and promote the use of low-and zero-emission vehicles (NEV), by:
• Encouraging the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the use of zero- emission vehicles and clean alternative fuels, such as electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations.
• Encouraging new construction to include vehicle access to properly wired outdoor receptacles to accommodate ZEV and/or plug in electric hybrids (PHEV). • Encouraging transportation fleet standards to achieve the lowest emissions possible, using a mix of alternate fuels, PZEV or better fleet mixes. • Establishing incentives, as appropriate, to taxicab owners to use alternative fuel or gas-electric hybrid vehicles.
 Establish green building requirements and standards for new development and redevelopment projects, and work to provide incentives for green building practices and remove barriers that impede their use.  Allow increased height limits and/or flexibility in other standards for projects that incorporate energy efficient green building practices where not prohibited by ALUCP/FAA.  Identify and remove regulatory or procedural barriers to implementing green building practices within its jurisdiction, such as updating codes, guidelines, and zoning, and ensure that all plan review and building inspection staff are trained in green building materials, practices, and techniques.  Support the use of green building practices by:
• Establishing guidelines for green building practices in residential and commercial development.
1630
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 73
• Providing incentives, which may include reduction in development fees, administrative fees, and/or expedited permit processing for projects that use green building practices.
 Adopt energy efficiency performance standards for buildings that achieve a greater reduction in energy and water use than otherwise required by current state law, including:
• Standards for the installation of “cool roofs”.
• Standards for improved overall efficiency of lighting systems. • Requirements for the use of Energy Star appliances and fixtures in discretionary new development.
• Requirements for new residential lots and/or structures to be arranged and oriented to maximize effective use of passive solar energy.
 Require that affordable housing development incorporate energy efficient design and features to the maximum extent feasible.
 Identify possible sites for production of renewable energy (such as solar, wind, small hydro, and biogas).  Identify and remove or otherwise address barriers to renewable energy production, including:
• Reviewing and revising building and development codes, design guidelines, and zoning ordinances to remove renewable energy production barriers. • Working with related agencies, such as fire, water, health and others that may have policies or requirements that adversely impact the development or use of renewable energy technologies.
• Developing protocols for safe storage of renewable and alternative energy products with the potential to leak, ignite or explode, such as biodiesel, hydrogen, and/or compressed air.
 Allow renewable energy projects in areas zoned for open space, where consistent with the Land Use element, and other uses and values.
 Promote and encourage renewable energy generation, and co-generation projects where feasible and appropriate.
 Require that, where feasible, all new buildings be constructed to allow for easy, cost-effective installation of solar energy systems in the future, using such “solar-ready” features as:
• Optimal roof orientation (between 20 to 55 degrees from the horizontal), with sufficient south-sloped roof surface, where such buildings architecture and construction are designed for sloped roofs.
• Clear access without obstructions (chimneys, heating and plumbing vents, etc.) on the south sloped roof.
1631
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 74 ends

• Roof framing that will support the addition of solar panels. • Installation of electrical conduit to accept solar electric system wiring. • Installation of plumbing to support a solar hot water system and provision of space for a solar hot water storage tank.
 Require that any building constructed in whole or in part with City funds incorporate passive solar design features, such as daylighting and passive solar heating, where feasible.  Prepare and implement a comprehensive plan to improve energy efficiency of municipal facilities, including:
• Conducting energy audits.
• Retrofitting municipal facilities for energy efficiency where feasible and when remodeling or replacing components, including increased insulation, installing green or reflective roofs and low-emissive window glass.
• Implementing an energy tracking and management system for its municipal facilities. • Installing energy-efficient exit signs, street signs, and traffic lighting, subject to life/safety considerations.
• Installing energy-efficient lighting retrofits and occupancy sensors, and institute a “lights out at night” policy, subject to life/safety considerations. • Retrofitting heating and cooling systems to optimize efficiency (e.g. replace chillers, boilers, fans, pumps, belts, etc.).
• Installing Energy Star® appliances and energy-efficient vending machines. • Improving water use efficiency, including a schedule to replace or retrofit system components with high-efficiency units (i.e. ultra-low-flow toilets, fixtures, etc.). • Installing irrigation control systems maximizing water use efficiency and minimizing off- peak use.
• Adopting an accelerated replacement schedule for energy inefficient systems and components.
 Require that any newly constructed, purchased, or leased municipal space meet minimum standards, such as:
• The Energy Star® New Homes Program established by US EPA. • The incorporation of passive solar design features in new buildings, including daylighting and passive solar heating.
 Reduce per capita water consumption consistent with state law by 2020.  Establish a water conservation plan that may include such policies and actions as:
1632
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 75
• Maintaining and refining the City’s tiered rate structure for water use. • Establishing restrictions on time of use for landscape watering, or other demand management strategies.
• Establishing performance standards for irrigation equipment and water fixtures, consistent with State Law.
 The City will establish programs and policies to increase the use of recycled water, including:
• Promoting the use of recycled water for agricultural, industrial, and irrigation purposes, including grey water systems for residential irrigation.  Ensure that building standards and permit approval processes promote and support water conservation, by:
• Establishing building design guidelines and criteria to promote water-efficient building design, including minimizing the amount of non-roof impervious surfaces around the building(s).
• Establishing menus and check-lists for developers and contractors to ensure waterefficient infrastructure and technology are used in new construction, including lowflow toilets and shower heads, moisture-sensing irrigation, and other such advances.  Install water-efficient landscapes and irrigation, including:
• Requiring planting drought-tolerant and native species, and covering exposed dirt with moisture-retaining mulch or other materials such as decomposed granite. • Requiring the installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, including advanced technology such as moisture-sensing irrigation controls.  Promote the planting of shade trees and establish shade tree guidelines and specifications, including:
• Establishing guidelines for tree planting based on the land use (residential, commercial, parking lots, etc.).
• Establishing guidelines for tree types based on species size, branching patterns, whether deciduous or evergreen, whether roots are invasive, etc. • Establishing tree guidelines for placement, including distance from structures, density of planting, and orientation relative to structures and the sun.  Develop an Urban Forestry Program to consolidate policies and ordinances regarding tree planting, maintenance, and removal, including:
• Establishing guidelines for tree planting, including criteria for selecting deciduous or evergreen trees low-VOC-producing trees, and emphasizing the use of droughttolerant native trees and vegetation. 1633
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 76 ends

6-4 Measures listed in Mitigation Measure 6-2 and 6-3 shall be considered by the City while reviewing all new development, as appropriate, between the time of adoption of The Ontario Plan and adoption of the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
6-5 Pursuant to a goal of overall consistency with the Sustainable Communities Strategies, the City of Ontario shall evaluate new development for consistency with the development pattern set forth in the Sustainable Communities Strategies plan, upon adoption of the plan by the Southern California Association of Governments.
6-6 The City of Ontario shall participate in the County of San Bernardino’s Green Valley Initiative.

5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. The 2010 Certified EIR also concluded that properties in the City are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. The Approved Project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations.

Furthermore, the Approved Project concluded that consistency reviews of the proposed land uses with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and Chino Airport would prevent significant impacts. In addition, buildout of the Approved Project would not affect the implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. With regard to urban and wildland fire threats, adherence to existing regulations and review of building plans by the Ontario Fire Department would reduce risks from fires to the City. Impacts resulting from the Approved Project were identified as less than significant upon implementation of regulatory requirements in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
X
1634
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 77
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project
area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that TOP would increase the number of businesses and residents in the City, which would increase the amount of hazardous materials being transported, stored, and manufactured and the number of people being exposed to these materials. Buildout in accordance with the Approved Project would result in an increase in the frequency of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with commercial and industrial growth within Ontario, especially around ONT.

Future housing projects enabled by the Housing Element Update may involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials during construction and occupancy. During occupancy, common cleaning substances, maintenance products, and similar items would be stored and used in a residential capacity.

Potentially hazardous substances such as these would not occur in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to human and environmental health. Furthermore, the use of hazardous materials is regulated by federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and TOP. These regulate the handling of hazardous substances to reduce 1635
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 78 ends

potential releases and exposure and the risks of transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous materials and waste.

Impacts of the Approved Project were identified as less than significant due to compliance with federal, state, and City regulations, along with TOP policies.

As stated previously, future housing projects enabled by the Housing Element Update may involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials during construction and occupancy. Potentially hazardous substances such as these would not occur in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to human and environmental health. Furthermore, the use of hazardous materials is regulated by current federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and TOP. With these regulations, permits, and codes in place, the Housing Element Update would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that pursuant to the current Development Code, Hazardous Waste Overlay Districts do not allow placement of facilities that handle, manufacture, or transport hazardous waste within 2,000 feet of a residential or institutional lot line (Ontario Development Code Sections 9-1.2815, 1636
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 79
9-1.2830). Thus, the Approved Project would not result in the placement of hazardous waste-generating facilities within a quarter mile of a school, and development would follow regulations set by the current Development Code, reducing impacts of the Approved Project to less than significant.

The Housing Element Update would not result in facilities that emit hazardous emissions. Furthermore, the use of hazardous materials is regulated by current federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and TOP. With these regulations, permits, and codes in place, the Housing Element Update would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to the emission of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that most of the sites that use, transport, and release hazardous materials are in industrial and business park developments. Because of the high number of hazardous materials sites, there is potential for contamination of soils and groundwater, but new development in these areas associated with buildout of the Approved Project would be required to follow the regulations of the Hazardous Waste District. The majority of new development sites would be in the same general areas as existing sites and would not expand into sensitive communities. No significant impacts would occur from implementation of the Approved Project due to compliance with current City ordinances and federal, state, and local regulations.

The Housing Element Update does not identify future development at any particular location in the City. The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. The Housing Element Update also proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered. Future housing development project proposals would be reviewed by City Planning to ensure that implementation of the Housing Element Update would not create a hazard to the public or the environment. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update would not result in new development beyond what is identified in the Land Use Plan.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 80 ends

adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to the location of a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and which would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that ONT is in the central northern portion of Ontario. The majority of the surrounding land uses are industrial, business, and commercial. The runways of ONT run east–west, and the departure and arrival safety zones are at the ends of the runways. Portions of Mission Boulevard, Grove Avenue, Haven Avenue, Carnegie Avenue, Santa Ana Street, and Commerce Way are within the safety zones. It is the policy of the City to coordinate with the airport authorities to ensure that proposed land uses within the airport safety zones are consistent with the land-use compatibility plans for the Chino Airport and ONT. The City requires land-use compatibility reviews for designated areas near an airport in addition to compatibility with noise and safety zones in terms of landuse density and height. Furthermore, the City requires permits for development prior to construction. Impacts were identified as less than significant in the 2010 Certified EIR.

City review of future projects within the airport safety zones and more generally near the airports, including future housing development during implementation of the Housing Element Update, ensures that these uses near airports would not result in safety hazards to people in the area.

This bureau is responsible for preparing the community for disasters and the organization of recovery efforts.

The Approved Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because the Safety Element of TOP encourages establishment and incorporation of emergency plans. Impacts were identified as less than significant. 1638
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 81
The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Under the Approved Project and the Housing Element Update, future housing development would be reviewed by the City Planning Department to ensure adequate ingress and egress along roadways, as mandated by the City Municipal Code. Therefore, future development would not alter emergency response or evacuation plans.

The San Gabriel Mountains and the Chino Hills are both designated extreme fire hazard areas. If fire fighters were to lose control of an extreme fire, portions of Ontario could be at risk. To help protect the City and its residents from fire hazards, Ontario has enacted building and fire codes. The Fire Chief may also use his or her authority to instate certain building, planning, or landscaping requirements. Building plans in Ontario must be reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to ensure their compliance with the City’s Fire Code.

Additionally, the City of Ontario requires new development to adhere to the latest California Building Code for fire safety. New development in the City would be reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued. Adherence to the City’s Governance Manual process ensures that sufficient revenue would be available for necessary service improvements to provide for adequate fire facilities, equipment, and personnel. No impact would occur.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 82 ends

5.9.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts upon implementation of regulatory requirements, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would increase surface-water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. However, stormwater infrastructure would be designed to accommodate flows in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. The Approved Project would also increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the City, but this increase would not hinder the groundwater recharge efforts of the Chino Basin Watermaster. Portions of the City are in the 100year flood hazard zone, but the City would require structures to be above the base flood elevation. Furthermore, buildout of the Approved Project would increase pollutant concentrations during construction activities, but pollutant discharges would be minimized through implementation of BMPs specified in the water quality management plan. Portions of the City are within the inundation area for the San Antonio Dam, but the probability of catastrophic failure is low, especially when coupled with existing emergency evacuation procedures. Lastly, implementation of the Approved Project would not create hazards of inundation by seiche or mudflow. Altogether, impacts were identified as less than significant in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
1640
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 83
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site; X
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that development would increase surface-water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. Projects considered for approval under the Approved Project would be required to prepare project-specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Furthermore, projects would be mandated to comply with BMPs for compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. No significant impacts were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

Water-quality degradation from erosion impacts would be specific to future project sites that could be developed and/or redeveloped as a result of implementing the Housing Element Update and depend largely on the areas affected and the length of time soils would be subject to erosion. Although implementation of the Housing Element Update may result in runoff during construction of individual projects, including high-density, mixeduse, infill development and creative reuse of underutilized and/or defunct properties within the urban core, 1641
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 84 ends

development requiring ground disturbance would be subject to regional and local regulations, including the need for a SWPPP under NPDES No. CAS000002. Furthermore, the City requires grading permits for all grading-related development, which in turn would be required to have an approved Erosion Control Plan.

Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to water-quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the City, but this increase would not hinder the groundwater recharge efforts of the Chino Basin Watermaster. Projects considered for approval are required to prepare project-specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Projects must comply with BMPs consistent with NPDES requirements.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 85
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, Lower Deer Creek Channel at Chris Basin, Lower Etiwanda Creek Channel, West Cucamonga Channel, Day Creek Channel, and the Etiwanda Creek/Channel are the major water channels that flow through the City. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that development would increase surface-water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. Projects considered for approval are required to prepare project-specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual.

Furthermore, projects are mandated to comply with BMPs for compliance with NPDES requirements.

The City would also encourage the use of low-impact development strategies to intercept runoff, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and reduce discharge volumes. No significant impacts were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The Housing Element Update encourages high-density, mixed-use, infill development and creative reuse of underutilized and/or defunct properties within the urban core. The Housing Element Update also proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered.

Future housing development encouraged by the Housing Element Update could alter existing drainage patters in the City due to an increase in building footprint. Nevertheless, any construction activities would be subject to regulations related to water quality, erosion, and stormwater runoff. Pursuant to the City Development Code, individual projects associated with the Housing Element Update would be subject to review by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit, which requires preparation of a drainage study and SWPPP.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 86 ends

existing land uses within the City, but would not result in changes to existing drainage patterns and watercourses. Increased urbanization resulting from the Approved Project may increase the amount of runoff from impervious surfaces and result in flooding. Projects considered for approval are required to prepare project-specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual.

Furthermore, projects are mandated to comply with BMPs for compliance with NPDES requirements.

The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered. Moreover, pursuant to the City Development Code, individual projects associated with the Housing Element Update would be subject to review by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit, which requires preparation of a drainage study and SWPPP.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with regard to altering the existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. Development in accordance with the Approved Project would involve alteration and redistribution of land uses within the City. Increased urbanization may increase the amount of runoff and discharge of sediments and pollutants to stormwater drainage systems. Projects considered for approval are required to prepare project-specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Furthermore, projects are mandated to comply with BMPs and NPDES requirements. The City would also encourage the use of lowimpact development strategies to intercept runoff, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and reduce discharge volumes. No significant impacts were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 87
individual projects associated with the Housing Element Update would be subject to review by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit, which requires preparation of a drainage study and SWPPP.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with regard to creating or contributing runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. Development per the Approved Project would involve alteration of land-use designations within the City and would include a large infill development in the mostly undeveloped areas to the south. Current and future uses may result in discharge of sediment and pollutants to existing stream courses. Projects considered for approval are required to prepare project-specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual.

Furthermore, projects are mandated to comply with BMPs for compliance with NPDES requirements. No significant impacts were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, and thus would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Nevertheless, construction activities would be subject to regulations related to water quality, erosion, and stormwater runoff. Pursuant to the City Development Code, individual projects associated with the Housing Element Update would be subject to review by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit, which requires preparation of a drainage study and SWPPP.

Seiches could occur downstream of reservoirs due to ground shaking at the reservoirs. Also, dams near Ontario may create flooding impacts. Mudflows could occur in drainage channels in Ontario during flash floods, but 1645
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 88 ends

are not expected to pose a substantial hazard in the City due to the gently sloped terrain. The City’s Flood Damage Prevention Program prohibits encroachments into the San Bernardino County Flood Control District’s right-of-way (which includes drainage channels), with specified exceptions. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District, whose approval is required for any project that proposes alterations to a channel, maintains drainage channels in the City. TOP Policies S21 through S26 address seiche flooding from buildout, and the 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the related impacts of the Approved Project were less than significant.

The Housing Element Update encourages high-density, mixed-use, infill development and creative reuse of underutilized and/or defunct properties within the urban core. The Housing Element Update also proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Facilities and infrastructure built as a result of the Housing Element Update would be reviewed for adherence to TOP policies, the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Program, and San Bernardino County Flood Control District encroachment permits.

These requirements would ensure that future development does not adversely impact surface and groundwater quality. In addition, implementation of low impact development and BMPs would ensure that water quality is not impacted during future development. As a result, future housing development under the Housing Element Update would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan. The City manages both the potable and nonpotable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Groundwater Basin do not exceed the safe yield for the Basin, as per the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP). Therefore, the project would not obstruct or conflict with the OBMP and impacts would be less than significant.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 89
of the Housing Element Update would be reviewed for adherence to TOP policies, the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Program, and San Bernardino County Flood Control District encroachment permits.

5.10.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant hydrology and water quality impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would not divide an established community, would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and would not conflict with the adopted Oakmont Industrial Group Habitat Conservation Plan.

Implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval ensured that no significant impacts would occur.
1647
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 90 ends

5.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
X
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. As identified in the 2010 Certified EIR, the City of Ontario is an urbanized area, and implementation of TOP would not physically divide an established community. Thus, impacts were identified as less than significant in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The Housing Element Update does not alter land use designations and does not confer entitlements for development, and thus would not physically divide an established community. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higherdensity development. As stated in the Housing Element, neighborhood identity and preservation is encouraged.

The Land Use Element has specific policies for compatibility that would reduce the amount of conflict between contradicting land uses. These include:
 LU2-1 Land Use Decisions. We minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties when considering land use and zoning requests.
 LU2-2 Buffers. We require new uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur.
 LU2-8 Transitional Areas. We require development in transitional areas to protect the quality of life of current residents.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 91
compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to physically dividing an established community. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that TOP would provide sufficient dwelling units, population, and employment capacity that would exceed SCAG’s projections for 2030. However, the Approved Project was considered consistent with SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which aims to improve the mobility, livability, and prosperity of a region. Implementation of the Approved Project would not result in significant land use impacts related to specific SCAG policies, goals, and principles.

Several regionally and locally adopted land-use plans, policies, and regulations would be applicable to development of the Housing Element Update. These would include the South Coast 2016 AQMD’s AQMP, SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Ontario International Airport (ALUCP ONT), and the Chino Airport Master Plan. The Housing Element Update would remain consistent with these plans. The Housing Element Update does not alter land use designations and does not confer entitlements for development. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future housing development encouraged by the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the Land Use plan and would not conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, due to an increase in building footprint. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over projects adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impacts would occur.

5.11.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant land-use and planning impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.
1649
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 92 ends

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource due to existing regulations and land uses. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts of the Approved Project would be less than significant.

5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be a value to
the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that active mines or quarries producing construction aggregates within the City are predominantly on the eastern side of the City. The land-use designations within TOP allow for mining operations to extract minerals in the MRZ2 areas. However, prior to permitting a use that would threaten the extraction of minerals in a MRZ2 area, the City is required under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the proposed use, and consider the importance of these minerals to their market region as a whole. Thus, impacts were identified as less than significant in the 2010 Certified EIR.

All of the existing active mines within the City would continue to operate upon implementation of the Housing Element Update. The Housing Element Update would not change the land-use designations or affect the ability of mining operations to extract minerals in the MRZ2 areas. Future housing development or redevelopment associated with the Housing Element Update within the MRZ2 designated areas would require City planning and environmental review to ensure that mining operations would not be affected pursuant to SMARA. 1650
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 93
Furthermore, the Housing Element Update would not result in new development beyond what is identified in the Land Use Plan. No impact would occur.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the locally important mineral resource recovery sites delineated in TOP are the Deer and Day Fans Resources Sectors D-14 and D-15, and the Day Creek Fan, Mira Loma Area Resources Sectors D-2, D-3, and D-5. The land-use designations within TOP still allow for mining operations to extract minerals in the MRZ-2 areas; however, prior to permitting a use that would threaten extraction of minerals in a MRZ-2 area, the City is required under SMARA to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the proposed use, and consider the importance of these minerals to their market region as a whole. Thus, impacts were identified as less than significant in the 2010 Certified EIR.

As described above, future housing development or redevelopment in the MRZ-2 designated areas associated with the Housing Element Update would require City planning and environmental review to ensure that mining operations would not be affected. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update would not result in new development beyond what is identified in the Land Use Plan. No impact would occur.

5.12.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant mineral resources impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.
1651
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 94 ends

5.13 NOISE

5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in an increase in traffic on local roadways in the City, which would substantially increase the existing noise environment. Sensitive land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL (community noise equivalent-level) noise contour of the ONT airport would be exposed to substantial levels of airport-related noise. Construction activities would expose sensitive uses to strong levels of groundborne vibration. In addition, construction activities would substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of noise-sensitive land uses. Mitigation measures would reduce other noise-related impacts to the extent feasible; however, traffic noise increase, construction noise, and construction vibration were identified as significant unavoidable impacts of the Approved Project.

5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project result in:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that buildout of the Approved Project would result in potentially significant impacts stemming from the addition of vehicles along roadways. The greatest increases in noise are expected in areas subject to increased land-use 1652
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 95
intensity. Individual projects would occur over many years, and the increase in noise on an annual basis would not be readily discernable because traffic and noise would increase incrementally. Cumulative increases in the ambient noise environment along major transportation corridors as a result of substantial increase in traffic volumes were identified as significant in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered. Additionally, the 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate noise levels greater than that identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Development under the Housing Element Update would be not substantially increase noise levels identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Consequently, the Housing Element Update would not create noise that would violate the City’s noise standards.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that construction-related noise and vibration could expose sensitive receptors to substantial noise and vibration levels. Mitigation Measures 12-2 and 12-4 would reduce impacts associated with construction activities to the extent feasible; however, due to the proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses and potential longevity of construction activities, noise and vibration would be significant and unavoidable.

Future housing development encouraged by the Housing Element Update could cause the generation of excessive construction-related noise and ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels; however, the Housing Element Update does not alter land use designations and does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. As a result, the Housing Element Update would not substantially increase construction-related noise and vibration. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 12-2 and 12-4 would reduce impacts associated with construction activities to the extent feasible.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 96 ends

adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to the generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that sensitive land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL (community noise equivalent-level) noise contour of the ONT would be exposed to substantial levels of airport-related noise. Mitigation Measure 12-1 was incorporated to reduce impacts. While interior noise levels are required to achieve the interior noise limits of Title 24 and Title 25, which require structures to achieve 45 dBA CNEL, exterior noise levels may continue to exceed the noise compatibility criteria for the City. Consequently, airport noise compatibility was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Approved Project.

The Housing Element Update does not alter land use designations and does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. As a result, the Housing Element Update would not substantially increase airport-noise-related hazards. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 12-1 would reduce impacts associated with airport noise compatibility to the extent feasible.

5.13.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2010 Certified EIR. Mitigation Measure 12-3 has been removed because it pertains to impacts of the environment on a project, which were determined to not be subject to CEQA. Mitigation Measure 12-1 was retained, with modifications to address airport-specific noise only. Modifications to the original mitigation measures are identified in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underlined to signify insertions. Mitigation Measure 6-5 still applies and would be implemented for the Housing Element.
1654
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 97
12-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise-sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour along major roadways, freeways, railroads, or the Los Angeles/ of the Ontario International Airport, the project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design features (e.g. setbacks, berms, or sound walls) and/or required building acoustical improvements (e.g., sound transmission class rated windows, doors, and attic baffling), to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Compatibility Criteria and the California State Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Titles 24 and 21 of the California Code of Regulations).
12-2 Individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers occurring near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. If construction-related vibration is determined to be perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses (i.e., exceed the Federal Transit Administration vibration-annoyance criteria of 78 VdB during the daytime), additional requirements, such as use of less vibration intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented during construction (e.g. drilled piles to eliminate use of vibration-intensive pile driver). 12-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a vibration-sensitive use directly adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad or Southern California Regional Rail Authority main lines shall retain an acoustical engineer to evaluate potential for trains to create perceptible levels of vibration indoors. If vibration-related impacts are found, mitigation measures, such as use of concrete, iron, or steel, or masonry materials to ensure that levels of vibration amplification are within acceptable limits to building occupants, shall be implemented. Pursuant to the Federal Transit Administration vibration-annoyance criteria, these acceptable limits are 78 VdB during the daytime and 72 VdB during the nighttime for residential uses, 84 VdB for office uses, and 90 VdB for workshops. 12-4 Construction activities associated with new development that occurs near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts. Mitigation measures, such as installation of temporary sound barriers for adjacent construction activities that occur adjacent to occupied noise-sensitive structures, equipping construction equipment with mufflers, and reducing nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five minutes, shall be incorporated into the construction operations to reduce construction-related noise to the extent feasible.

5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would directly result in population growth in the project area. Buildout of the Approved Project would not displace people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated upon regulatory compliance and compliance with the Approved Project policies and programs. 1655
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 98 ends

5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that implementation of the Approved Project would accommodate population growth through land-use designations, goals, and policies that would provide a vision and guide growth in the City. The increase in population, housing, and employment would exceed SCAG’s regional forecasts for the City, but the Approved Project would improve the jobs-housing balance within the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority subregion. Furthermore, TOP would accommodate future growth by providing infrastructure and associated public services to accommodate the projected growth. TOP would also be consistent with SCAG’s Compass Blueprint program (now called Sustainable Communities Program).

The Housing Element Update does not alter land use designations and does not confer entitlements for development. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Additionally, the 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people.

Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate additional population greater than identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

Development under the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the anticipated growth forecast.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 99
Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), no changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to inducing substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would not change land-use designations from residential to nonresidential, and thus would not result in the displacement of housing.

Furthermore, TOP guides planning for new growth in the City, in part through designation of land uses that result in additional housing. The land-use plan provides land-use designations for a variety of housing types and provides for additional residential opportunities in areas that previously did not allow residential uses.

5.14.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant population and housing impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would cause both fire protection services and police services to expand due to the introduction of new structures, residents, and workers within the City’s boundaries. Furthermore, construction of new schools and/or classroom facilities would also be required upon buildout. Construction of an additional 44,409 square feet of library space and 1,007.6 acres of recreational 1657
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 100 ends

open space would also occur upon buildout. Altogether, impacts of the Approved Project would be less than significant upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval.

5.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would result in an increased number of people within the City, thereby resulting in an increase in demand for fire services and facilities. To ensure the provision of adequate fire protection services, the City of Ontario has established a Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program to provide funding for services within the City. Fees collected from developers are placed in a fire services fund that can be expended for the acquisition or construction of new fire services facilities and for the improvement or expansion of the City’s existing fire service capabilities, provided that such expenditure from the fund has been authorized by the City Council. In addition, future projects are reviewed by the City of Ontario and 1658
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 101
the Ontario Fire Department on an individual basis and are required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that adherence to the City’s Governance Manual process to achieve the City’s development goals in phases, working within the budget and infrastructure constraints of the City, ensures that sufficient revenue would be available for necessary service improvements to provide for adequate fire facilities, equipment, and personnel upon buildout of TOP. Impacts to fire services were identified as less than significant.

New residential development associated with the Housing Element Update would result in an increased demand for fire services and facilities. However, the Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. The 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate demand for fire protection greater than that identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Furthermore, new development in the City would be reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued. Adherence to the City’s Governance Manual process ensures that sufficient revenue would be available for necessary service improvements to provide for adequate fire facilities, equipment, and personnel.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), no changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to the number of calls and requests for fire services within the service area. Therefore, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. ii) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that buildout of the Approved Project would result in an increase in demand for police protection services, which in turn would require the hiring of new staff and building of new facilities. Future projects would also be reviewed by the City of Ontario on an individual basis and required to comply with regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued (e.g., payment of DIF). The police services would receive adequate funding through the City’s general fund to cover project needs. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Governance Section of TOP would encourage collaboration between City departments, programs, and other involved agencies to achieve the City’s development goals in phases that are within the fiscal and infrastructure limitations of the City. Impacts to police services were identified as less than significant.

New residential development associated with the Housing Element Update would result in an increased demand for police services and facilities. However, the Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element 1659
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 102 ends

Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. The 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate demand for police protection greater than identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Furthermore, new development in the City would be reviewed by the Ontario Police Department to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued. Adherence to the City’s Governance Manual process ensures that sufficient revenue would be available for necessary service improvements to provide for adequate police facilities, equipment, and personnel.

New residential development associated with the Housing Element Update would result in an increase demand for school services and facilities; however, the Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. The 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate demand for police protection greater than identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Furthermore, payment of impact fees in compliance with SB 50 would reduce the impacts to school facilities to an acceptable level.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 103
iv) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. TOP would include 1,007.6 acres of recreational open space. Population growth associated with the Approved Project buildout would increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks. New development is required to provide five acres per 1,000 residents in accordance with the City’s park dedications and in-lieu fee regulations (Ontario Municipal Code Section 9-2.1515). Fees collected go toward acquiring the five acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents generated by the development. Impacts were identified as less than significant.

New residential development associated with the Housing Element Update would result in an increased demand for park services and facilities; however, the Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. The 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate demand for parks greater than identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Furthermore, new development in the City would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the City’s park dedications and in-lieu fee regulations (Ontario Municipal Code Section 9-2.1515).

New residential development associated with the Housing Element Update would result in an increased demand for library services and facilities; however, the Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. The 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate demand for 1661
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 104 ends

libraries greater than that identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Furthermore, new development in the City would be reviewed to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued (e.g., Development Impact Fees).

5.15.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant public services impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.16 RECREATION

5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would generate additional residents, which would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities. Project implementation would result in environmental impacts from the provision of new and/or expanded recreational facilities. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and compliance with TOP policies and programs, impacts of the Approved Project would be less than significant.

5.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
1662
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 105
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that population growth associated with the Approved Project buildout would increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks. New development is required to provide five acres per 1,000 residents in accordance with the City’s park dedications and in-lieu fee regulations (Ontario Municipal Code Section 9-2.1515). Fees collected go toward acquiring the five acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents generated by the development. Impacts were identified as less than significant. Therefore, recreational impacts of the Approved Project were identified as less than significant.

New residential development associated with the Housing Element Update would result in an increased demand for park services and facilities; however, the Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. The 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate demand for parks greater than identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. The Parks and Recreation Element contains relevant goals, policies, and programs that support a regular review of the City’s parks and trails plans to keep pace with demographic trends and recreational needs of Ontario’s residents. Furthermore, new development in the City would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with its park dedications and in-lieu fee regulations (Ontario Municipal Code Section 9-2.1515).

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 106 ends

deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that TOP would warrant expansion of the equestrian and hiking trails and construction of improved bikeways throughout the City. TOP contains goals, policies, and actions and existing federal, state, and local regulations that would mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment that may result from buildout of the Land Use Plan, including expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and multiuse trails. Furthermore, subsequent environmental review would be required for development of park projects under the Land Use Plan. Consequently, the 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant impacts regarding construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

The Housing Element Update does not include recreational facilities or construction or expansion of recreational facilities in the City. The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development.

Therefore, no impacts would occur.

5.16.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant recreation impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR Effective July 1, 2020, California Senate Bill 743 mandated specific types of CEQA analysis of a project’s transportation impacts. Prior to implementation of SB 743, CEQA transportation analyses of individual projects typically determined impacts on the circulation system in terms of roadway delay (i.e., congestion) and/or capacity usage at specific locations, such as street intersections or freeway segments. SB 743 required changes to the guidelines for CEQA transportation analysis. The changes include the elimination of auto delay, 1664
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 107
LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining transportation impacts. The purpose of SB 743 is to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Under SB 743, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. Therefore, level of service (LOS) and similar vehicle delay or capacity metrics may no longer serve as transportation impact metrics for CEQA analysis. The California Office of Planning and Research has updated the CEQA Guidelines and provided a final technical advisory (December 2018), which recommends VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts under CEQA. The California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines, including the Guidelines section implementing SB 743. The changes were approved by the Office of the Administrative Law and are in effect. The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that buildout of the Land Use Plan would cumulatively contribute to the cumulatively significant freeway LOS impacts; however, as stated previously, these are no longer considered environmental impacts.

The 2010 Certified EIR identified that circulation improvements under the recommended circulation plan would be designed to adequately address potential hazardous conditions, potential conflicting uses, and emergency access. Furthermore, the recommended circulation plan would comply with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation.

5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
1665
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 108 ends

No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the recommended circulation plan would comply with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation. The Housing Element Update supports various regional transportation planning efforts in the City by aligning opportunities for higher-density housing along planned bus rapid transit routes.. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would conform with the goals of the applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and nonmotorized travel. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Development enabled by policies in the Housing Element Update would implement measures within Ontario designed to reduce per-capita VMT. Ontario is a jobs-rich city. The introduction of additional housing brings more residents in close proximity to job opportunities within the City, reducing commute times, and improving VMT. In addition, many housing sites, such as those around the Ontario Mills Mall would bring residents closer to existing shopping destinations, providing more opportunities to walk for daily needs and resulting in fewer vehicle miles per person. The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered. Additionally, the 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate more VMT than what would have been generated by the Approved Project. Additionally, the Housing Element Update would likely result in lower VMT per capita as a result of policies designed to encourage higher density development and affordable housing. As a result, the Housing Element Update would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 109
Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), no changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Therefore, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that buildout of the Land Use Plan would result in changes to the circulation network but would not increase hazards due to design features. The Housing Element Update would not include facilities that would substantially increase hazards, nor would it construct incompatible uses.

Future development is subject to the Plan Check Review Process and subsequent environmental review to ensure there would be no increase in hazards to vehicles. No impacts resulting from the Housing Element Update would occur.

Therefore, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the roadway classification standards adopted as part of TOP would preclude the construction of unsafe features, thus ensuring adequate emergency access.

Additionally, pursuant to the City’s Design Review process, as mandated by the City Development Code, projects are reviewed for emergency access.

The Housing Element Update would not include facilities that would affect emergency access. Future development is subject to the Plan Check Review Process and subsequent environmental review to ensure there would be no alteration to emergency access or evacuation plans. Infrastructure along roadways would be reviewed prior to approval by the City Planning Department pursuant to the City Development Code to ensure adequate ingress and egress. No impacts resulting from the Housing Element Update would occur.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 110 ends

5.17.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measure from the 2010 Certified EIR is no longer applicable because it regards level of service, which is no longer a CEQA impact under SB 743. Additionally, the lane geometry recommendations have since been made in the Mobility Element.
16-1 The Mobility Element of The Ontario Plan shall be consistent with the traffic study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates in 2009. Table 5.16-6 shows the recommended lane geometry for the Proposed Land Use Plan.

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOUCES

5.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR identified impacts to prehistoric archeological resources, which include tribal cultural resources, as a potentially significant impact of the Approved Project. As part of the 2010 Certified EIR, the City of Ontario conducted tribal consultation pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) to identify resources that may be of cultural value to California Native American tribes. Mitigation Measures 5-3 and 5-4 were incorporated to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels.

5.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code § 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
1668
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 111
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified impacts to tribal cultural resources as a potentially significant impact of the Approved Project. Mitigation Measures 5-3 and 5-4 were incorporated to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels.

The City requested a local government tribal consultation list from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 9, 2021. The tribal consultation list was requested in accordance with SB 18 requirements for a housing element. The NAHC responded on June 22, 2021, and provided a list of tribes for the City to contact regarding potential consultation. The City sent initial notification letters to California Native American tribes and tribal contacts on August 31, 2021. Responses were received from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation, Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, and San Manual Band of Mission Indians. The tribes confirmed that there are no conflicts with the proposed Housing Element Update.
1669
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 112 ends

Residential development in the City could impact tribal cultural resources. The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. In the event that future housing development projects do affect previously undiscovered archaeological resources, Mitigation Measures 5-3 through 5-4 of the 2010 Certified EIR shall apply. As requested by the tribes, at the time of future discretionary development, the City will consult with tribes and discuss the City’s standard conditions of approval that may be applicable to future residential development in accordance with Assembly Bill 52 and SB 18, as applicable.

5.18.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following tribal cultural resources mitigation measures from the Cultural Resources section were taken directly from the 2010 Certified EIR. All of these mitigation measures apply to and would be implemented for the Housing Element Update. Modifications to the original mitigation measures are identified in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underlined to signify insertions. 5-3 Upon receipt of an application for a Specific Plan or a project that requires a General Plan amendment proposed project subject to CEQA and is within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a [tribal] culturally sensitive area, then a cultural resources assessment prepared by an archaeologist shall be required. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA document, the procedure described in Mitigation Measure 5-4 shall be followed. 5-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a Specific Plan or project that requires a General Plan amendment proposed project for which the CEQA document defines cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and 1670
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 113
human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario shall be the final arbiter of the conditions for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.

5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

5.19.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would require additional water storage and/or supply to accommodate water demand associated with buildout. Buildout would also generate additional wastewater, which would be adequately treated in accordance with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Public Health requirements. Furthermore, storm drainage systems would be expanded to accommodate growth. Also, buildout of the Approved Project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacities to accommodate the project’s solid-waste disposal needs.

Existing and/or proposed facilities would also be able to accommodate project-generated utility demands (i.e., electricity and natural gas). Impacts to utilities would be less than significant upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval.

5.19.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
1671
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 114 ends

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant impacts to wet and dry infrastructure, such as water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities. Development associated with the Approved Project would result in an increase demand for wet and dry infrastructure. However, review of the infrastructure facilities by the City of Ontario, payment of development impact fees, and existing regulatory requirements would ensure that infrastructure would be expanded to keep pace with urban development associated with the Approved Project.

Residential development associated with the Housing Element Update would also result in additional demand for new/expanded wet and dry infrastructure in the City; however, the Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. The 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate demand for fire protection greater than that identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. As a result, demand for new/expanded wet and dry infrastructure would be similar to that identified for the Approved Project. Additionally, like the Approved Project, review of the infrastructure facilities by the City of Ontario, payment of development impact fees, and existing regulatory requirements would ensure that infrastructure would be expanded to keep pace with urban development associated with the Approved Project.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 115
respect to utilities and service systems. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would result in an increase in development that could create a potentially significant impact on sources of potable and nonpotable water in the City. Compliance with the goals and policies of TOP as well as existing regulatory requirements would ensure less than significant impacts.

Residential development associated with the Housing Element Update would result in an increase in potable and nonpotable water demand within the City. Development enabled by policies in the Housing Element Update would implement measures in Ontario designed to reduce per-capita water use. The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered.

Additionally, the 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate water demand greater than that identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. As a result, water demand associated with the Housing Element Update would not exceed that identified in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Future development proposed under the Housing Element Update would also minimize water use through use of recycled water, water-efficient appliances and landscaping required by the California Building Code, and compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Furthermore, future environmental review of development projects would ensure minimal impacts to water supplies. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that future growth in accordance with TOP would result in an increase in wastewater flow to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency’s (IEUA) regional water reclamation plants. To ensure that the regional water reclamation plants 1673
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 116 ends

have sufficient capacity to serve new development in addition to existing development, the IEUA prepares a wastewater treatment master plan annually with flow projections for all of its contracting agencies. IEUA has a capital improvement plan to develop needed capacity and charges a capacity fee to new development to fund the needed capacity. The IEUA improvement plan is sequenced based on the rate of development to ensure adequate treatment capacity exists at the time building permits are issued without premature construction of unneeded capacity.

Residential development associated with the Housing Element Update would result in an increase in wastewater flows in the City that would require treatment at IEUA’s regional water reclamation plants. The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated.

Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered. Additionally, the 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate wastewater flows greater than those identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Furthermore, future environmental review of development projects would ensure minimal impacts to wastewater treatment. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would result in an increase in solid-waste disposal in the City. New development would require the need for additional service trucks, collection bins, and personnel, which would be offset by payment of development impact fees. Additionally, landfills have sufficient capacity to accept municipal solid waste associated with the Approved Project in addition to cumulative demands for solid waste disposal.

Residential development associated with the Housing Element Update would result in an increase in municipal solid waste disposal to landfills; however, the Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated. Rather, the Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. The 2010 Certified EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 57,772 1674
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 117
housing units and 187,404 people. Residential growth associated with the Housing Element Update (see Table 1) would generate 20,854 residential units and would not generate solid waste disposal greater than identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to being served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solidwaste disposal needs. Furthermore, future environmental review of development projects would ensure adequate capacity for solid waste. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant impacts for compliance with regulations regarding solid waste disposal. In an effort to reduce waste disposal, AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. The City of Ontario has met this waste diversion requirement through local recycling programs and participation in regional recycling programs. Thus, the City of Ontario has met the state requirements for waste diversion and complies with regulations related to solid waste. The Housing Element Update would not result in additional solid waste demand above that identified for the Approved Project and would continue to comply with existing regulations regarding diversion and disposal of municipal solid waste. Therefore, there would be no impacts.

Furthermore, future environmental review of development projects would ensure that solid waste reduction goals would be met. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.

5.19.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2010 Certified EIR. However, these mitigation measures have since been incorporated into the Policy Plan. Modifications to the original mitigation measures are identified in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underlined to signify insertions. 1675
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 118 ends

17-1 The City shall include a policy in the Policy Plan that requires water conservation measures for development projects to improve water use efficiency and reduce overall water demand.

Reduce potable water demand, through conservation measures, including but not limited to:
a) Work cooperatively with all developers to incorporate conservation measures into project designs (such as those recommended by the California Urban Water Conservation Council).
b) Continue to develop and implement drought contingency plans to assist citizens and businesses reduce water use during water shortages and emergencies. c) Revise the City Code to include a Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance to encourage or, as appropriate, require the use of water-efficient landscaping consistent with AB 1881. 17-2 The City shall include a policy in the Policy Plan that maximizes the use of recycled water as an irrigation (nonpotable) source for landscaping, parks, and other irrigation opportunities in all areas of the City and requires use of recycled water in dual-system office and industrial uses in selected urban areas of the City, where available and feasible. 17-3 The City shall include a policy in the Policy Plan that the City participate through the Chino Basin Water Master and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency in regional efforts to develop finding additional sources of water for groundwater recharge, such as capture of stormwater runoff, recycled water, or other sources to ensure that the Chino Basin stays in long-term hydraulic balance and sustainability and that adequate additional local water sources would be available to increase the flexibility of the City’s water supply.

5.20 WILDFIRE

5.20.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify impacts associated with wildfire hazards. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the City had been mapped as having a moderate wildland fire threat. The San Gabriel Mountains and the Chino Hills are both designated extreme fire hazard areas. If firefighters were to lose control of an extreme fire, portions of Ontario could be at risk. Measures to confine or avoid fires—such as conforming to Ontario’s Building and Fire Codes—would be implemented for all future development. Adherence to existing regulations and review of building plans by the Ontario Fire Department would reduce risks from fires in the City. In addition, buildout of the Approved Project would not affect the implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan.

5.20.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
1676
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 119
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the 2010 Certified EIR identified that the City of Ontario manages disaster preparedness through the Technical Services Bureau of the Ontario Fire Department. This bureau is responsible for the preparation of the community for disasters and the organization of recovery efforts. The key principles of the bureau are preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery, as adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The Ontario Fire Department works with other local public departments (police, library, public works, community services, and finance departments) to enact these principles and to protect the community in the event of a disaster. The City also has various programs or plans for the purpose of reducing and/or eliminating the loss of life and property due to hazards, as well as for preparation and readiness in responding to those hazards. These include a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), updated in 2018, and Ready Ontario, an online tool with information on how to engage with the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and with training on emergency preparedness including the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Basic Academy (Ontario 2018, Ontario 2021b). These resources would be utilized by Ontario in an emergency event, and the impact to emergency response was identified as less than significant in the 2010 Certified EIR.

Although the Housing Element Update itself would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, it is a policy document intended to guide future housing growth within the City.

Therefore, implementation of the goals, programs, and policies in the Housing Element Update would result 1677
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 120 ends

in an increased share of housing proposed for development in Ontario and potential need for future emergency response. The Housing Element Update also proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. New development in the City would be reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued. Additionally, under the Approved Project and the Housing Element Update, future housing development would be reviewed by the City Planning Department to ensure adequate ingress and egress along roadways, as mandated by the City Municipal Code. Therefore, future development would not alter emergency response or evacuation plans.

The San Gabriel Mountains and the Chino Hills are both designated extreme fire hazard areas. If firefighters were to lose control of an extreme fire, portions of Ontario could be at risk. To help protect the City and its residents from fire hazards, Ontario has enacted building and fire codes. The fire chief may also use his or her authority to instate certain building, planning, or landscaping requirements. Building plans in Ontario must be reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to ensure their compliance with the City’s Fire Code.

Additionally, the City of Ontario requires new development to adhere to the latest California Building Code for fire safety, and new development in the City would be reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued. Adherence to the City’s Governance Manual process ensures that sufficient revenue would be available for necessary service improvements to provide for adequate fire facilities, equipment, and personnel. No impact would occur.

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 121
compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors exacerbating wildfire risks and thereby exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

Furthermore, future environmental review of development projects would ensure that wildfire impacts are avoided. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that Ontario is in an area of moderate wildland fire threats. To help protect the City and its residents from fire hazards, Ontario has enacted building and fire codes. The fire chief may also use his or her authority to instate certain building, planning, or landscaping requirements.

Building plans in Ontario must be reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to ensure their compliance with the City’s Fire Code.

The Housing Element Update would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with regard to the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, Ontario receives a significant amount of runoff from watershed areas in the San Gabriel Mountains that flow into flood-control channels and water channels in the City. Buildout in accordance with the Approved Project would alter the existing land uses within the City but would not result in changes to existing drainage patterns and watercourses. However, increased urbanization resulting from the Approved Project may increase the amount of runoff from impervious surfaces and result in flooding. Projects considered 1679
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 122 ends

for approval are required to prepare project-specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Furthermore, projects are mandated to comply with BMPs for compliance with NPDES requirements. The City would also encourage the use of low-impact development strategies to intercept runoff, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and reduce discharge volumes. No significant impacts were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The Housing Element Update does not confer entitlements for development, so increased urbanization is not anticipated to occur. The Housing Element Update proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments to ensure adequate sites are available for higher-density development. Future discretionary projects proposed in these areas would undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure environmental impacts are considered. Moreover, pursuant to the City Development Code, individual projects associated with the Housing Element Update would be subject to review by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit, which requires preparation of a drainage study and SWPPP. Therefore, exposure of people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant.

5.20.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant wildfire impacts under the hazards and hazardous materials analysis upon implementation of regulatory requirements. 1680
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 123

5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term environmental goals to
the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals?
X
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
X
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The Approved Project and the Housing Element Update have similar development footprints, with the exception of several zoning amendments, included in Appendix B: Housing Element Sites Inventory (Parcel List) of the Housing Element. Therefore, the geographic range and severity of impacts to biological resources resulting from the Housing Element Update would be similar to those that would result from implementation of the Approved Project. The Housing Element Update would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously 1681
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 124 ends

disclosed impacts related to biological or cultural resources. Thus, preparation of supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The Housing Element Update would not result in the achievement of short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The Approved Project and the Housing Element Update have similar development footprints, with the exception of several zoning amendments. Therefore, the geographic range and severity of impacts to environmental resources resulting from the Housing Element Update would be similar to those that would result from implementation of the Approved Project. Future development under the Housing Element Update would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements; and would require a conditional use permit and other entitlements for approval. Implementation of the Housing Element Update would not preclude the State from meeting its long-term environmental goals. Rather, since the Housing Element Update is addressing a need in anticipation of population growth, it would assist the state in meeting long-term environmental goals.

The Housing Element Update would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously disclosed impacts related to short-term or long-term environmental goals. Thus, preparation of supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. Changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new cumulatively considerable impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously disclosed cumulatively considerable impacts. TOP addresses cumulative impacts in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (b)(1), the information used in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources:
1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or 2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions.

The cumulative impacts identified in the 2010 Certified EIR used method No. 2. As a result, the 2010 Certified EIR and this Addendum address the cumulative impacts of development in Ontario. Thus, preparation of supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. 1682
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis
November 2021 Page 125
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. Changes proposed by the Housing Element Update compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new substantial adverse impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously disclosed adverse impacts. Thus, preparation of supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
1683
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 126 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1684
November 2021 Page 127

6. List of Preparers

6.1 PLACEWORKS
Nicole Vermilion, Principal
Sean Anayah, Associate II

6.2 CITY OF ONTARIO
Kimberly Ruddiness, Principal Planner
Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
1685
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

6. List of Preparers

Page 128 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1686
November 2021 Page 129

7. References
Ontario, City of. 2018. 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/EmergencyManagement/ReadyOntario/city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf. ———. 2021a, October. Draft The Ontario Plan Housing Element. ———. 2021b. Be Ready Ontario. Accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.ontarioca.gov/ReadyOntario. ———. 2010, January. The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Demographics and Growth Forecast.

Accessed November 9, 2021.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. Accessed October 7, 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle -rhna-final-allocation-plan.pdf?1625161899.

United States (U.S.) Census Bureau. 2019. QuickFacts Ontario City, California. Accessed November 9, 2021. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ontariocitycalifornia/PST045219 1687
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO

7. References

Page 130 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1688
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIONT
Appendix
November 2021
Appendix A Tribal Consultation Responses
1689
2021 – 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF ONTARIO
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
1690
From: Thomas Grahn
To: Nicole Vermilion; Sean Anayah
Cc: Kimberly Ruddins
Subject: FW: City of Ontario Housing Element, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, CA Date: Monday, September 13, 2021 3:13:44 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Response from Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.

From: Gonzalez Romero, Arysa (TRBL) <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 11:01 AM
To: Thomas Grahn <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Ontario Housing Element, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, CA Greetings,
A records check of the Tribal Historic preservation office’s cultural registry revealed that this project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. Therefore, we defer to the other tribes in the area. This letter shall conclude our consultation efforts.

Thank you,
Arysa Gonzalez Romero, M.S., RPA.

Historic Preservation Technician
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Main (760)-883-1327 | Cell (760)-831-2484
A-1
1691
Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 www.gabrielenoindians.org [email protected]

GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION
Historically known as The Gabrielino Tribal Council - San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin September 13, 2021
Project Name: 6
th Cycle Housing Element Update, City of Ontario
Dear Thomas Grahn,
Thank you for your letter dated August 31,2021 regarding the project above. This is to concur that we are in agreement with the Housing Element Update. However, our Tribal government would like to request consultation for any and all future projects within this location.

Sincerely,
Andrew Salas, Chairman
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
1(844)390-0787
A-2
1692
From: Thomas Grahn
To: Nicole Vermilion; Sean Anayah
Cc: Kimberly Ruddins
Subject: FW: City of Ontario Housing Element, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, CA Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:52:44 PM
Response from the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation.

From: Quechan Historic Preservation Officer <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:31 AM
To: Thomas Grahn <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Ontario Housing Element, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, CA This email is to inform you that we have no comments on this project. We defer to the more local Tribes and support their decisions on the projects.

Thank you,
H. Jill McCormick, M.A.

Quechan Indian Tribe
Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ 85366-1899
Office: 760-572-2423
Cell: 928-261-0254
E-mail: [email protected]
[avast.com] Virus-free. www.avast.com [avast.com]
A-3
1693
From: Thomas Grahn
To: Nicole Vermilion; Sean Anayah
Cc: Kimberly Ruddins
Subject: FW: SB18 City of Ontario Housing Element, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, CA Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:58:20 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Response from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.

From: Ryan Nordness <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:16 PM
To: Thomas Grahn <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: SB18 City of Ontario Housing Element, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, CA Hello Thomas,
Thank you for contacting the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) regarding the above referenced project. SMBMI appreciates the opportunity to review the project documentation, which was received by our Cultural Resources Management Department on August 31st. The project is located within Serrano ancestral territory, and the area for the project is of interest, but Tribe sees no conflicts with the zoning changes at this time. However, when specific projects are planned and implemented, SMBMI might have comments and/or request formal consultation with the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA (as amended, 2015) and CA PRC 21080.3.1.

This communication concludes SMBMI’s input on this project, at this time, and no additional consultation under SB18 is required. If you should have any further questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience, as I will be your Point of Contact (POC) for SMBMI with respect to this project.

Respectfully,
Ryan Nordness
Ryan Nordness

CULTURAL RESOURCE ANALYST
Email: [email protected]
O: (909) 864-8933 Ext 50-2022
Internal: 50-2022
M: (909) 838-4053
26569 Community Center Dr Highland California 92346
[sanmanuel-nsn.gov]

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS

ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it A-4
1694
and notify the sender by reply e-mail so that the email address record can be corrected. Thank You A-5
1695
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PGPA21-004, A GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT UPDATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE POLICY

PLAN (ATTACHMENT A), AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE POLICY PLAN, REVISING EXHIBIT LU-01, LAND USE

PLAN, ESTABLISHING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY, AND

MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF (ATTACHMENTS B AND C) (PART OF CYCLE 1 FOR THE 2022 CALENDAR YEAR).

WHEREAS, the CITY OF ONTARIO (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a General Plan Amendment, File No. PGPA21-004, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, State law requires all local governments within the Southern California Association of Government area to prepare and adopt their 6th Cycle Housing Element by October 15, 2021 (or within 120 days); and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario conducted a virtual open house on June 14, 2021 to gain input from impacted property owners; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario conducted a virtual community meeting on June 28, 2021 to gain input from members of the public; and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario conducted a follow virtual open house on July 29, 2021 to gain input from members of the public; and WHEREAS, the CITY OF ONTARIO adopted the Policy Plan (General Plan) as part of The Ontario Plan in January 2010. Since the adoption of The Ontario Plan, the City has evaluated Exhibit LU-01: Official Land Use Plan further and is proposing modifications; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to Exhibit LU-01 Official Land Use Plan include changes to land use designations of certain properties shown on Attachments B and C to establish an Affordable Housing Overlay; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to facilitate housing opportunities within the City through the implementation of required rezone programs pursuant to the City's adopted Housing Element where required for compliance with State Housing Element law; and
WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Overlay applies to sites identified in the housing inventory, part of the City's Housing Element, located 1) south of Riverside Drive, 2) along East Holt Boulevard between the Cucamonga Creek Channel and Corona Avenue, and 3) areas designated as MU-2 at the northeast corner of West Holt Boulevard and Mountain Avenue; and
1696
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, a related Zone Change (File No. PZC-21-002) is being processed concurrently with this application to establish an Affordable Housing Overlay District; and WHEREAS, a related Development Code Amendment (File No. PDCA21-001) is being processed concurrently with this application to establish density standards applicable to the Affordable Housing Overlay District; and WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2021 the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on December 20, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Resolution recommending City Council adopt an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) adopted by City Council on January 27, 2010. The Addendum finds that the proposed project introduces no new significant environmental impacts, and all previously adopted mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project by reference; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:
1697
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan ("TOP") Environmental Impact Report — State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140 ("Certified EIR"), which was certified by the Ontario City Council on January 27, 2010; and
(2) The Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) The Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(5) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts; and (6) The proposed project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted by the Certified EIR, are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the City Council, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and 1698
(3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP"), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport ("ONT"), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.

SECTION 4. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of The Ontario Plan; and
1699
Land Use Element:
 Goal LU1: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
 LU1-6: Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.

Compliance: The proposed General Plan Amendment reflects the existing uses of the properties or closely coordinates with land use designations in the surrounding area and provides opportunities for choice in living environments.  Goal LU2: Compatibility between a wide range of uses.  LU2-1: Land Use Decisions. We minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties when considering land use and zoning requests.

Compliance: The proposed General Plan Amendment reflects the existing uses of the properties or closely coordinates with land use designations in the surrounding area and will not create adverse impacts on adjacent properties.  Goal LU5: Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts to the community and maximize economic benefits.  LU5-7: ALUCP Consistency with Land Use Regulations. We comply with state law that requires general plans, specific plans and all new development be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for any public use airport.

Compliance: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for both Ontario International Airport and Chino Airport.

Housing Element:
 Goal H2: Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario.
 H2-1: Corridor Housing. We revitalize transportation corridors by encouraging the production of higher density residential and mixed-uses that are architecturally, functionally, and aesthetically suited to corridors. 1700
Compliance: The proposed General Plan Amendment supports higher density residential and mixed-use development that is functionally and aesthetically suited along transportation corridors.
 H2-4: New Model Colony. We support a premier lifestyle community in the New Model Colony distinguished by diverse housing, highest design quality, and cohesive and highly amenitized neighborhoods.

Compliance: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the policy to support a diverse housing type throughout Ontario.
 H2-6: Infill Development. We support the revitalization of neighborhoods through the construction of higher-density residential developments on underutilized residential and commercial sites.

Compliance: The proposed General Plan Amendment supports the revitalization of neighborhoods through the infill development of higher-density residential and mixed-use developments on underutilized properties.
 Goal H3: A City regulatory environment that balances the need for creativity and excellence in residential design, flexibility and predictability in the project approval process, and the provision of an adequate supply and prices of housing.  H3-2: Flexible Standards. We allow flexibility in the application of residential and mixed-use development standards in order to gain benefits such as exceptional design quality, economic advantages, sustainability, or other benefits that would otherwise be unrealized.

Compliance: The proposed General Plan Amendment supports flexibility in the application of development standards to achieve a variety of residential development on higher density residential and mixed-use properties.  Goal H5: A full range of housing types and community services that meet the special housing needs for all individuals and families in Ontario, regardless of income level, age or other status.
 H5-2: Family Housing. We support the development of larger rental apartments that are appropriate for families with children, including, as feasible, the provision of services, recreation and other amenities.

Compliance: The proposed General Plan Amendment supports the development of larger rental apartments on higher density residential and mixed-use properties to meet the housing needs of all individuals and families in Ontario. (2) The proposed General Plan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City; and 1701
(3) The Land Use Element is a mandatory element allowed four general plan amendments per calendar year and this general plan amendment is the first amendment to the Land Use Element of the 2022 calendar year consistent with Government Code Section 65358; and
(4) The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update is mandated by Sections 65580 to 65589 of the California Government Code. State Housing Element law requires that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of their community commensurate with local housing needs; and (5) During the amendment of the general plan, opportunities for the involvement of citizens, California Native American Indian tribes (Government Code Section 65352.3.), public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings or other means were implemented consistent with Government Code Section 65351.

SECTION 5. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the proposed General Plan Amendment, as depicted in Attachment 1 (Policy Plan Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) Revision) and Attachment 2 (Future Buildout (Exhibit LU-03) Revision) of this Resolution.

SECTION 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 7. Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March 2022. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
1702
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1703

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held March 1, 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held March 1, 2022. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1704
ATTACHMENT A:

Ontario Housing Element
Public Review Draft October 2021
(Draft Housing Element Update to follow this page)
ATTACHMENT B: Affordable Housing Overlay)
1705
FORM_CC Res - GPA
ATTACHMENT B: Affordable Housing Overlay
1706
ATTACHMENT C: Policy Plan Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) Revision – Affordable Housing Overlay 1707
1708
1709
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. HOUSING ELEMENT............................................................1

1.1 Planning Context ...............................................................1

2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT..........................................6

2.1 Demographic Profile..........................................................6

2.2 Housing Profile................................................................15

2.3 Special Housing Needs....................................................23

2.4 Neighborhood Conditions ..............................................43

3. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ..................................... 70

3.1 Outreach...........................................................................70

3.2 Description of Ontario by Area ......................................73

3.3 City of Ontario History ...................................................76

3.4 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues ................................77

4. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ................................................141

4.1 Market Factors ...............................................................142

4.2 Land Use Controls .........................................................148

4.3 Environmental Factors ..................................................151

4.4 Housing Opportunities .................................................153

4.5 Special-Needs Housing .................................................159

4.6 Housing for People with Disabilities ...........................171

4.7 Development Standards................................................175

4.8 Building Codes and Subdivision Improvements ........197

4.9 Permit Approval Process...............................................199

4.10 Regulations Affecting Housing Supply .......................204

4.11 Energy Conservation Opportunities ............................204

5. RESOURCES ................................................................. 207

5.1 Housing Resources ........................................................207

5.2 Administrative and Financial Resources .....................330

6. PROGRAM EVALUATION................................................. 338

6.1 2013–2021 Housing Element Goals...............................338

6.2 2013–2021 Special Housing Needs Summary of
Accomplishments ..........................................................338

7. HOUSING ELEMENT OUTREACH ..................................... 363

7.1 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan ........................................363

7.2 Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan..................371 1710
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-ii Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022

8. HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES.....................................374 Goal 1: Neighborhoods and Housing.......................................375 Goal 2: Housing Supply and Diversity.....................................376 Goal 3: Governmental Regulations ...........................................377 Goal 4: Housing Assistance .......................................................378 Goal 5: Special Needs.................................................................380

9. HOUSING PROGRAMS................................................... 382

9.1 Neighborhoods and Housing .......................................382

9.2 Housing Supply and Diversity.....................................389

9.3 Governmental Constraints............................................400

9.4 Housing Assistance .......................................................406

9.5 Special-Needs Housing .................................................410

9.6 Quantified Objectives ....................................................418 APPENDIX A: LIST OF QUALIFIED ENTITIES.................................. A-1 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT SITES INVENTORY
(PARCEL LIST)...................................................... B-1 Charts Chart 3-1 Unit Count and Site Acreage by TCAC Resource Designation.................................................................... H-100 Chart 3-2 Unit Count and Site Acreage by R/ECAP................... H-103 Chart 3-3 Average Racial/Ethnic Distribution by R/ECAP....... H-103 Chart 3-4 Unit Count and Site Acreage by Familial Status (Percent Children in Married Couple Household)..... H-104 Chart 3-5 Unit Count and Site Acreage by Population with Disability........................................................................ H-106 Chart 3-6 Unit Count and Site Acreage by Job Proximity........... H-108 Chart 3-7 Unit Count and Site Acreage by CalEnviroscreen

4.0 Score.......................................................................... H-109 Chart 3-8 Unit Count and Site Acreage by Overcrowding......... H-111 Chart 3-9 Unit Count and Site Acreage by Overpayment
(Homeowners)............................................................... H-112 Chart 3-10 Unit Count and Site Acreage by Overpayment
(Renters)......................................................................... H-113

1711
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022H-iii
Tables Table 2
-1 Ontario and Neighboring Jurisdictions Population
Growth, 2010 to 2019..................................................H-6 Table 2-2 Changes in Race and Ethnicity...................................H-7 Table 2-3 Changes in Age Characteristics..................................H-8 Table 2-4 Changes in Household Type......................................H-9 Table 2-5 Occupations by Type for Riverside-San Bernardino- Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area......................H-12 Table 2-6 Job-to-Housing Ratio ................................................H-13 Table 2-7 Household Income by Type, 2010............................H-14 Table 2-8 Household Income Distribution ..............................H-15 Table 2-9 Housing Projections 2000–2045................................H-16 Table 2-10 Housing Type 2010–2021..........................................H-17 Table 2-11 Housing Size by Tenure............................................H-17 Table 2-12 Occupied Housing Units by Tenure........................H-18 Table 2-13 Housing Affordability Summary.............................H-21 Table 2-14 Overpayment by Household Type and Tenure......H-22 Table 2-15 Overcrowding by Tenure .........................................H-23 Table 2-16 Special-Needs Groups...............................................H-24 Table 2-17 Large-Family Housing Overpayment .....................H-25 Table 2-18 Household Size by Tenure in Ontario.....................H-26 Table 2-19 Affordable Family Housing in Ontario ...................H-27 Table 2-20 Senior Housing Needs ..............................................H-27 Table 2-21 Senior Households by Income .................................H-28 Table 2-22 Residential Care Facilities in Ontario ......................H-30 Table 2-23 Disability Types in Ontario ......................................H-32 Table 2-24 Disabled Residents in Ontario by Employment
Status..........................................................................H-33 Table 2-25 Developmentally Disabled Residents by Age.........H-34 Table 2-26 Housing for People with Disabilities.......................H-36 Table 2-27 Housing for Homeless People..................................H-40 Table 2-28 Farmworkers in Ontario...........................................H-42 Table 2-29 Age of Housing Stock ...............................................H-47 Table 2-30 Households, Employment, and Population Projections 2016–2045...................................................................H-51 Table 2-31 Regional Housing Needs Goals, 2021–2029 ............H-53 Table 2-32 Publicly Subsidized Multiple-Family Housing.......H-55 Table 2-33 Cost to Replace Rent Subsidies ................................H-61 Table 2-34 Cost to Subsidize At-Risk Units in Ontario, 2021 ...H-64 Table 2-35 Qualified Entities Near Ontario ...............................H-66 Table 3-1 School Performance Metrics, 2019 ...........................H-87 Table 3-2 Change in Average Rent, 2000-2019 ........................H-95 Table 3-3 Discrimination Cases, 2013-2021..............................H-98 Table 3-3 Contributing Factors to Fair Housing....................H-116 Table 4-1 Typical Vacant Land Costs in Ontario...................H-142 Table 4-2 Interest Rates ...........................................................H-144 1712
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-iv Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 4-3 Residential Development Fees ............................... H-146 Table 4-4 Residential Development Fee Credits ................... H-147 Table 4-5 Primary Policy Plan Land Uses Allowing
Housing.................................................................... H-148 Table 4-6 Existing Specific Plans with Residential Uses....... H-150 Table 4-7 Conventional Housing Permitted by Zoning
District...................................................................... H-155 Table 4-8 Special-Needs Housing Permitted by Zoning
District...................................................................... H-160 Table 4-9 Traditional Single-Family Residential Development Standards ................................................................. H-177 Table 4-10 Small-Lot Traditional Single-Family Residential Development Standards ......................................... H-179 Table 4-11 Small-Lot Alley-loaded Single-Family Residential Development Standards ......................................... H-181 Table 4-12 Cluster Single-Family Residential Development Standards ................................................................. H-183 Table 4-13 Multifamily Residential Development Standards H-185 Table 4-14 Mixed-Use Development Standards...................... H-188 Table 4-15 Parking Standards for Housing ............................. H-192 Table 4-16 Open Space Standards for Housing....................... H-195 Table 4-17 Permit Processing Procedures................................ H-201 Table 5-1 Ontario Regional Housing Need Allocation,
2021–2029................................................................. H-208 Table 5-2 Residential Projects in the Pipeline........................ H-214 Table 5-3 Strategy 1: Realistic Capacity ................................. H-229 Table 5-4 Strategy 1: Units by Income Category ................... H-232 Table 5-5 Strategy 2: Realistic Capacity ................................. H-245 Table 5-6 Strategy 2: Units by Income Category ................... H-248 Table 5-7 Strategy 3: Realistic Capacity ................................. H-252 Table 5-8 Strategy 3: Units by Income Category ................... H-255 Table 5-9 Strategy 4: Realistic Capacity ................................. H-258 Table 5-10 Strategy 4: Units by Income Category ................... H-262 Table 5-11 Strategy 5: Realistic Capacity ................................. H-269 Table 5-12 Strategy 5: Units by Income Category ................... H-275 Table 5-13 Strategy 6: Realistic Capacity ................................. H-307 Table 5-14 Strategy 6: Units by Income Category ................... H-323 Table 5-15 Accessory Dwelling Unit Projections, 2021–2029 . H-328 Table 5-16 Availability of Land to Meet RHNA, 2021–2029 .. H-330 Table 5-17 Federal and State Housing Funding Programs..... H-331 Table 6-1 Review of Previous Housing Element................... H-340 Table 7-1 Stakeholder Consultations...................................... H-364 Table 7-2 Summary of Priority Needs.................................... H-366 Table 9-1 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers .................................... H-399 Table 9-2 Quantified Objectives for the 2021–2029 Housing Element .................................................................... H-419 1713
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022H-v
Table B-1: Housing Element Sites Inventory – Sites Already Suitably Zoned .............................................................B-2 Table B-2: Housing Element Sites Inventory – Candidate Sites to be Rezoned....................................................................B-4 Figures Figure 2
-1 Ontario Local Historic Districts ...............................H-45 Figure 2-2 Rehabilitation Needs.................................................H-50 Figure 3-1 Areas of Ontario........................................................H-75 Figure-3-2 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.............................H-119 Figure 3-3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty.....................................................................H-120 Figure 3-4 Predominant Population - Hispanic Majority.......H-121 Figure 3-5 Diversity Index........................................................H-122 Figure 3-6 Median Income........................................................H-123 Figure 3-7 Poverty Status..........................................................H-124 Figure 3-8 Children in Married Couple Households .............H-125 Figure 3-9 Job Proximity...........................................................H-126 Figure 3-10 Overcrowded Households .....................................H-127 Figure 3-11 Overpayment by Owners .......................................H-128 Figure 3-12 Overpayment by Renters........................................H-129 Figure 3-13 Sites Inventory and Resource Areas ......................H-130 Figure 3-14 Sites Inventory and Median Income......................H-131 Figure 3-15 Sites Inventory and R/ECAPs................................H-132 Figure 3-16 Sites Inventory and Familial Status .......................H-133 Figure 3-17 Sites Inventory and Population with Disability....H-134 Figure 3-18 Sites Inventory and Proximity to Jobs ...................H-135 Figure 3-19 Sites Inventory and CalEnviroScreen (CES 4.0)....H-136 Figure 3-20 Sites Inventory and Overcrowding........................H-137 Figure 3-21 Sites Inventory and Overpayment (Owner-Occupied Housing) ..................................................................H-138 Figure 3-22 Sites Inventory and Overpayment (Renter-Occupied Housing) ..................................................................H-139 Figure 4-1 Emergency Shelter Overlay....................................H-167 Figure 5-1 Housing Opportunity Areas ..................................H-217 Figure 5-2 Downtown Housing Opportunity Area................H-223 Figure 5-3 West Holt Housing Opportunity Area..................H-234 Figure 5-4 East Holt Housing Opportunity Area ...................H-239 Figure 5-5 Old Cardenas Market Housing Opportunity
Area..........................................................................H-249 Figure 5-6 Ontario Center Specific Plan Housing Opportunity Area..........................................................................H-256 Figure 5-7 The Mills Housing Opportunity Area ...................H-264 Figure 5-8 Great Park Corridor Housing Opportunity Area.H-285 Figure 5-9 Grove Corridor Housing Opportunity Area.........H-292 Figure 5-10 Euclid Corridor Housing Opportunity Area ........H-297 1714
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-vi Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 5-11 Vineyard Corridor / Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan Housing Opportunity Area.................................... H-304 1715
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-1

1. HOUSING ELEMENT

1.1 Planning Context
State Law Requirements
The State of California recognizes the importance of housing and therefore legislates requirements for local jurisdictions to contribute to solutions to meeting their local and regional housing needs. All communities across California are required to prepare a Housing Element every eight years to address their local housing needs and a share of the region’s need for housing.

The Housing Element is mandated by Sections 65580 to 65589 of the California Government Code. State Housing Element law requires that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of their community commensurate with local housing needs.

To that end, the California Government Code requires that Housing Elements achieve legislative goals through the following actions:
• Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities.
• Remove, as feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with disabilities. • Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households.
• Conserve and improve the condition of housing and
neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing.
• Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
• Preserve for lower-income households the publicly assisted multifamily housing developments within each community. 1716
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-2 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
The Housing Element must be updated every eight years. The City of Ontario Housing Element covers the period from October 15, 2021, to October 15, 2029.

The Ontario Plan Consistency
State law requires that “the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies.” The purpose of requiring internal consistency is to avoid policy conflict and provide a clear policy guide for the future maintenance, improvement, and development of housing within the city.

All elements of The Ontario Plan have been reviewed for consistency in coordination with the update to the Housing Element. The City will continue to maintain Policy Plan consistency.

The City is completing an update to The Ontario Plan concurrently with the Housing Element, including updates to the Circulation Element that will address Assembly Bill (AB) 1358 complete streets requirements, drafting and incorporating Environmental Justice policies and actions, and updating the Safety Element. In addition, per Senate Bill (SB) 379 (California Government Code Section 65302), the City will evaluate and amend as appropriate the Safety and Conservation Elements of The Ontario Plan to include analysis and policies regarding flood hazard and management information.

Purpose
An adequate supply of quality and affordable housing is fundamental to the economic and social well-being of the residents of Ontario. The Housing Element is required to address the production, preservation, and improvement of housing in the community. Among its most important functions, the Housing Element analyzes existing and future housing needs; addresses constraints to meeting local housing needs; identifies land, financial, and administrative resources for housing; sets forth goals and policies to meet community housing needs; and establishes housing programs and an implementation plan.

Principles
The City believes:
• A range of housing for all income levels is essential to a complete community.
• The housing stock should match the type and price needed by current and future residents and the workforce, including those with special needs.
1717
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-3
• Preserving, maintaining, improving, and creating distinct neighborhoods and the housing stock protects property values and provides a desirable place to live.
• Affordable, quality housing helps attract and retain a qualified workforce and supports a prosperous local economy.

Content of Housing Element
California Housing Element law prescribes the scope and content of the Housing Element. Pursuant to Section 65583 of the California Government Code, the Housing Element must contain a variety of detailed analyses, listed below.
• Analysis of demographic, social, and housing characteristics; current housing needs; and future housing needs due to
population and employment growth and change.
• Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. • Analysis of governmental and nongovernmental constraints that affect the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for all income groups and people with disabilities. • Inventory of resources available to address the city’s housing needs, including available land for housing, financial resources, and administrative capacity to manage housing programs. • Evaluation of the accomplishments of current housing programs and specific programs to address the development, improvement, and conservation of housing to meet current and future needs. • Documentation of public outreach for the Housing Element and the involvement of the public in shaping housing policies and programs for the 2021–2029 Housing Element.
• Housing goals, policies, and programs to address the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for all economic segments of the community commensurate with its needs.

The Housing Element Technical Report encompasses all seven topical areas mentioned here, provides a brief synopsis of issues, and then follows with a complete set of goals, policies, and programs to be implemented over the planning period. The City also prepared a web format for ease of public distribution and use by policymakers and housing providers in implementing programs.
1718
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-4 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
The Housing Element is prepared to be consistent with several policy and program plans mandated by the State of California. Most importantly, state law requires the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to determine the amount of housing needed within its six-county region and allocate a share of the regional housing need to each community. Housing Elements are required to incorporate the estimates of housing need reflected in regional housing plans. The Housing Element is also consistent with the City’s Consolidated Plan.

Housing Planning Context
Ontario’s housing planning context, like that of many urbanized and growing communities, is influenced by many regional forces.

Traditionally, the high cost of housing in the Los Angeles metropolitan region has served as an impetus for housing growth in the Inland Empire.

With businesses now moving inland to follow the workforce, the city, like other inland communities, is emerging as a center of economic activity; as such, housing prices are also increasing with economic growth.

The demographics of Ontario have evolved over time, reflecting changes in its industrial base and broad demographic changes reflective of the region. Originally an agricultural community settled by Canadians and Europeans who established the citrus and dairy industries, the city’s population gradually became home to a younger Hispanic population.

Ontario’s demographics are again changing and diversifying, in part due to trends reflective of the Inland Empire and unique to Ontario.

Ontario has also experienced commercial and industrial growth that has transformed the city into the economic engine of the Inland Empire. The development of the Ontario Airport Metro Center and Ontario Ranch will play significant economic roles in reshaping the city’s future. Housing development in the Ontario Airport Metro Center area is progressing.

Housing development in the Ontario Ranch has been predominantly single-family housing to date, as was expected. Intensification of the mixed-use areas along Interstate 10 and on the east side of the city will also drive economic development while also providing opportunities for housing in close proximity to employment opportunities.

Growth areas for future development include intensified development in the downtown and Holt Boulevard areas, including some affordable housing. Recent development has tended to move from the east to west in the southern half of the city. On the west side of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, future development is expected to occur starting in the south and moving north. Development around the Ontario International Airport will continue to allow a mix of uses including hospitality, entertainment, and housing. Future development of the Ontario Mills mall area will allow for a mixture of residential and commercial uses. 1719
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-5
The area adjacent to the Chino Airport includes a mixture of warehousing, industrial, and adjacent residential uses. This area will require future infrastructure development to support future land uses and expected to occur within the next three to five years. Additionally, community members have expressed a desire for linear park and mixeduse development in this area.

Housing Challenges
Although the housing market has experienced significant changes in recent years and will continue to change, it is an appropriate time to plan for the city’s future. How we house Ontario’s present and future residents and its workforce remains the key challenge to creating the type and quality of community and securing Ontario’s future. In this context, Ontario’s 2021–2029 Housing Element must address several challenges:

1. Addressing the needs of existing Ontario residents for decent, quality, and affordable housing for residents of all incomes.

2. Ensuring that the city’s housing stock matches the type, price, and tenure needed by Ontario’s residents and workforce.

3. Creating, preserving, and (where needed) improving the quality and identity of Ontario’s distinct neighborhoods.

4. Assisting residents of all ages and backgrounds to allow them to live, work, and enjoy themselves and their families in Ontario.

5. Obtaining financing for affordable housing following the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency and as tax credits become more competitive make it more difficult to obtain financing for affordable housing.
1720
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-6 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022

2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

2.1 Demographic Profile
A variety of demographic factors influence existing and future housing needs in Ontario. This section describes and analyzes the primary demographic characteristics of population growth and change, household characteristics, special housing needs, and economic trends to provide insight into the type and magnitude of housing needs in the city.

Population Growth
According to the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Ontario’s 2019 population was 176,760. This represents an increase of approximately 7 percent from the 2010 population of 165,215. Compared to surrounding cities, Ontario’s population growth has been minor. Other neighboring cities, such as Eastvale and Chino, have grown more during the same period, with Eastvale growing by approximately 26 percent and Chino growing by 15 percent. These cities, however, have much smaller overall populations and other large cities with population sizes similar to Ontario, such as Rancho Cucamonga, have grown at a rate (10 percent) closer to Ontario’s.

Table 2-1 shows the population growth rates for Ontario and its neighboring cities.

Table 2-1
Ontario and Neighboring Jurisdictions Population Growth, 2010 to 2019
Year 2010 Population 2019 Population Numeric
Change
Percentage
Change
Ontario 165,215 176,760 11,545 7%
Chino 77,729 89,631 11,902 15%
Eastvale 49,131 62,046 12,915 26%
Fontana 189,466 210,759 21,293 11%
Jurupa Valley * 105,653 N/A N/A
Montclair 36,704 39,155 2,451 7%
Rancho Cucamonga 160,780 176,379 15,599 10%
Upland 73,887 76,596 2,709 4%
Source: US Census Bureau ACS 2006-2010, 2015-2019.
*2010 data not available for Jurupa Valley
1721
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-7
Race and Ethnicity
The County of San Bernardino, much like California as a whole, is experiencing racial and ethnic diversification. Table 2-2 displays changes in the race and ethnicity of Ontario residents from 2010 to 2019.

According to the 2015-2019 ACS, Hispanic residents experienced a 9 percent increase and are the largest ethnic group in Ontario, at 70 percent of the population. White and Black/African American residents experienced the most significant decrease, each declining 6 percent. The Asian ethnic group grew by approximately 46 percent, the fastest growth rate of any ethnic group, yet accounts for only 7 percent of the total population. Native Americans/American Indians also grew significantly, by approximately 58 percent, while also comprising less than 1 percent of Ontario’s population. All other racial/ethnic groups and multiracial residents grew, as a group, by approximately 21 percent.

Table 2-2
Changes in Race and Ethnicity
Race and
Ethnicity
2010 2019 Percentage
Change Number Percentage Number Percentage
Hispanic 113,085 69% 123,668 70% 9%
Asian1 8,078 5% 11,817 7% 46%
White 29,898 18% 28,167 16% -6%
Black/African
American 9,598 6% 9,013 5% -6%
Native American/
American Indian2 361 0% 571 <1% 58%
All Others3 2,904 2% 3,524 2% 21%
Total 163,924 100% 176,760 100% 8%
Sources: US Census Bureau 2010; ACS 2015-2019.

1. Asian category includes Asian, Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander.

2. American Indian category includes American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut.

3. “All others” includes multiracial categories.

Age Characteristics
The age characteristics of Ontario’s residents are related to differences in the type of housing needed. Younger households and seniors typically prefer smaller housing units, with the former preferring rental accommodations and the latter ownership units. Middle-aged adults typically prefer to move up to larger homes that can accommodate families with children. Ontario is unique in that its future demand will be driven not only by changes in age characteristics but by the type of housing built in strategic focus areas.
1722
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-8 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Ontario’s population is one of the youngest in the County of San Bernardino with a median age of 32.4, versus a median age of 33.8 years countywide. Approximately 68 percent of the city’s adult residents were below age 44 as of 2019, and nearly 37 percent of all residents were below age 24. As shown in Table 2-3, the city’s largest age group occurs among those between the ages of 25 and 44. Ontario is experiencing population aging, with the fastest-growing population group being seniors aged 65 years and older. Between 2010 and 2019, the senior age group expanded by approximately 47 percent, while minors less than 18 years declined by approximately 6 percent.

Table 2-3
Changes in Age Characteristics
Age Groups
2010 2019 Percentage
Change Number Percentage Number Percentage
Less than 18 49,443 30% 46,430 26% -6%
18–24 (college age) 19,296 12% 19,225 11% 0%
25–44 (young adults) 49,428 30% 54,928 31% 11%
45–64 (middle age) 34,703 21% 39,876 23% 15%
65+ (seniors) 11,054 7% 16,301 9% 47%
Total 163,924 100% 176,760 100% 8%
Source: US Census Bureau 2010; ACS 2015-2019.

The age characteristics of Ontario’s existing residents suggest a greater need for family and senior housing. A large presence of families and middle-aged persons also implies a high demand for single-family housing that is large enough to accommodate children. As is shown in Table 2-4, the majority of family households in 2019 did not have children; however, younger households, such as those in the 25-44 years age group, may be looking for housing that can accommodate future children.

Increases in the middle-age population, should they remain in Ontario over the next decade, should materialize in an increasing demand for senior housing, such as condominiums, that require less maintenance than a single-family home.
1723
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-9
Household Type and Size
Household type and size influence housing demand. For example, families with young children frequently seek the living space and the financial investment that single-family homeownership has to offer. In contrast, single-person households tend to desire apartments, condominiums, and townhomes or other smaller housing options. These preferences underscore the importance of providing a diversity of housing types and prices suitable to residents in all household types.

Ontario is known as a predominantly family-oriented community; 78 percent of households are families. The most significant increase in household types between 2010 and 2019 occurred in the married families, no children category, rising by an approximate 169 percent, implying an increase in the occurrence of children moving out or new couples cohabitating and either delaying or electing not to have children. Married families with children also increased though less dramatically, at a rate of 68 percent. Meanwhile, the number of single-person households grew also, from 6,741 in 2010 to 8,299 in 2019 (23 percent).

At 60 percent of total households, the most prominent household size in the city has between 2 and 4 members. The prominent household types in Ontario suggest a higher demand for family housing with enough bedrooms for 2 to 4 people per household. Table 2-4 shows changes in household types from 2010 to 2019. The number of large households with five or more members declined while the number of single person and 2- to 4-person households grew during the same period. As a result, the overall, average household size only increased slightly between 2010 and 2019 from 3.6 to 3.7 persons per household.

Table 2-4
Changes in Household Type
Household Type
2010 2019 Percentage
Change Number Percentage Number Percentage
Family Households 35,595 79% 39,495 78% 11%
Married families with children 13,205 29% 22,189 44% 68% Married families, no children 10,584 24% 28,432 56% 169% Other families 11,806 26% 13,430 27% 14%
Nonfamily Households 9,336 21% 11,126 22% 19%
Single persons 6,741 15% 8,299 16% 23%
All other households 2,595 5% 2,827 6% 9%
Total 44,931 100% 50,621 100% 13%
Household - Comprises
all the people who occupy
a housing unit. Can
include the related family
members and all the
unrelated people, if any,
such as lodgers, foster
children, wards, or
employees who share the
housing unit. A person
living alone in a housing
unit, or a group of
unrelated people sharing
a housing unit, is also
counted as a household.

Family Household -
Comprises a group of two
or more persons related
through birth, marriage,
or adoption and residing
together and any
unrelated people residing
there.

Nonfamily Household -
Comprises unrelated
persons living together or
one person living alone.
1724
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-10 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 2-4
Changes in Household Type
Household Type
2010 2019 Percentage
Change Number Percentage Number Percentage
Household Size
Single person 6,741 15% 8,299 16% 23%
2 to 4 persons 24,936 56% 30,620 60% 23%
5 persons or more 13,254 29% 11,702 23% -12%
Average Size 3.6 3.7* 3%
Source: US Census Bureau 2010; ACS 2015-2019; SCAG 2020. *Average size data for 2019 comes from the 2020 SCAG Local Housing Data report for Ontario Employment
Housing demand is also driven by the wages earned by households, affecting the types of housing that can be afforded. Moreover, overall employment in Ontario also affects housing demand, because as employment levels increase in Ontario, some of these future workers will desire to live in Ontario. This section describes current patterns in employment levels by industry and occupation.

Employment and Occupations
Table 2-5 details the types of occupations held by residents in 2020 in the Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), based on the 2020 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics reported by the California Economic Development Department (EDD).

Transportation and material moving occupations and office and administrative support occupations make up the largest proportions of the MSA’s workforce, representing and 15 percent respectively. These occupations earn an average income of $44,925 and $40,914, respectively, which is less than EDD’s reported mean annual wage for the Riverside– San Bernardino–Ontario ($55,049). Management occupations and legal occupations earned the highest mean annual wage, each exceeding $117,000. Together, management occupations and legal occupations represent less than 5 percent of the MSA workforce. Food service and serving related occupations and farming, fishing, and forestry occupations each earned the lowest average annual salary (slightly greater than $32,000). While farming, fishing, and forestry occupations comprise a relatively small proportion of the MSA population (0.5 percent), food service and serving related occupations comprises the fourth largest proportion of the MSA’s employed residents. Food service and serving related occupations comprise 9.0 percent of employed persons, following sales and related occupations which comprises 9.1 1725
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-11
percent of employed persons in the MSA. According to ACS data, in 2019 Ontario’s rate of unemployment was 6.5%, which was lower than the rate of unemployment in San Bernardino County (7.7%) and but higher than the statewide rate (6.1%).

The largest employers in Ontario are:
• 5,000-9,999 employees:
- United Parcel Services, 3140 E. Jurupa Avenue
• 1,000-4,999 employees:
- Workforce Personnel, Inc., 800 N. Haven Avenue, Suite 330 - Ontario- Montclair School District, 950 West D Street - Chaffey Joint Union High School District, 211 West Fifth Street • 500-999 employees
- FedEx, multiple locations
- QVC Inc., 853 QVC Way
- AutoZone Auto Parts, multiple locations
- The Home Depot, 2980 S Euclid Avenue
- Cardenas Markets, LLC, multiple locations
1726
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-12 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 2-5
Occupations by Type for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area
Occupations
2020 Average
Annual
Number Percentage Salary
Management occupations 64,650 4.3% $117,862
Business and Financial Operations Occupations 58,060 3.9% $73,959 Computer and Mathematical Occupations 18,390 1.2% $89,837 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 16,560 1.1% $91,836 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 10,160 0.7% $85,766 Community and Social Service Occupations 27,930 1.9% $62,523 Legal Occupations 5,780 0.4% $117,415
Educational Instruction and Library Occupations 99,940 6.7% $71,328 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations 10,120 0.7% $61,636
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 82,190 5.5% $102,182 Healthcare Support Occupations 85,470 5.7% $35,293
Protective Service Occupations 41,470 2.8% $59,895
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 134,450 9.0% $32,268 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations 45,150 3.0% $38,856
Personal Care and Service Occupations 29,600 2.0% $35,614 Sales and Related Occupations 135,630 9.1% $45,301
Office and Administrative Support Occupations 177,130 11.9% $44,925 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 7,610 0.5% $32,135 Construction and Extraction Occupations 83,650 5.6% $58,145 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 57,360 3.9% $56,287 Production Occupations 75,250 5.1% $42,134
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 223,180 15.0% $40,914 Total all occupations 1,489,730 100%
Source: EDD Occupation & Wage Statistics, 2021
1727
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-13
In terms of commute patterns, more people travel into Ontario for work than leave the city to work. Table 2-6 shows the jobs-to-housing ratio and job inflow for Ontario. According to the US Census Bureau and the California Department of Finance, there is a jobs-to-housing ratio of 2.48, indicating that there are twice as many jobs in Ontario as there are housing units. Although current Ontario residents may not need to travel far for employment if they work within the city, the jobs-to-housing ratio indicates that there are not enough housing units for all of the workers employed within Ontario.

Table 2-6
Job-to-Housing Ratio
Metric Number
Jobs 128,637
Housing Units 51,814
Job-to-Housing Ratio 2.48
Net Job Inflow 54,023
Source: US Census Bureau On The Map 2018 – Ontario; CA DOF 2021 Household Income
Along with housing costs, household income is the most fundamental factor affecting housing opportunity. According to the 2015–2019 ACS, Ontario’s median household income was $65,000, slightly higher than the San Bernardino County median of $63,362. Median family income in Ontario was lower at $58,400, with married families earning much higher income ($79,100) than other types of families, such as female-headed households ($44,300) and male-headed households ($55,200). Single male-headed households earn a comparable income to the median for the entire county while female-headed households earn the lowest median income in the city (see Table 2-7).

Table 2-7 illustrates the household income distribution for different types of households in Ontario. The median income represents the point where 50 percent of all households earn less than that point. Married families tend to earn the highest income, presumably because both adults are working. Other families and nonfamilies typically earn the lowest incomes because these households often consist of single persons or seniors living on fixed incomes.
1728
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-14 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 2-7
Household Income by Type, 2010
Household Type
2019
Percentage of Households Median Income*
All Households 100% $65,000
Family Households 78% $58,400
Married families 51% $79,100
Married families w/children 24% $73,100
Other Families 27% $44,300 (Female Householder)
$55,200 (Male Householder)
Nonfamily Households 22% $48,200
Source: US Census Bureau; 2015-2019 American Community Survey. * Median income rounded to nearest $100.

Although difficult to forecast, the city’s median household income is expected to significantly increase over the planning period of the 2050 Policy Plan. Residential development in the Ontario Ranch and Ontario Airport Metro Center, the increasing relocation of corporation headquarters to Ontario, and significant revitalization efforts ongoing throughout the community are anticipated to broaden the income makeup of Ontario’s future population.

Household Income Distribution
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) analyzes the distribution of income among households in a community relative to the area median income (AMI), as adjusted for households of different sizes. Households are grouped into five income classifications for purposes of determining the need for assistance. Each year, HCD analyzes the distribution of income by county and develops maximum income limits for each income classification. The 2021 income limits set by HCD for San Bernardino County are:
• Extremely low: households earning 30 percent or less of AMI, or a maximum income of $26,500 for a four-person household
• Very low: households earning 31 to 50 percent of AMI, or a maximum income of $39,500 for a four-person household
• Low: households earning 51 to 80 percent of AMI, or a maximum of $63,200 for a four-person household
• Moderate: households earning 81 to 120 percent of AMI, or a maximum income of $93,000 for a four-person household
1729
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-15
• Above moderate: households earning above 120 percent of AMI for a four-person household, or an annual income greater than $93,000 for a four-person household.

State income guidelines also often combine extremely low and very low income into one category, called “very low income.” The extremely low-, very low-, and low-income categories are also often combined into a larger “lower” income category, a term used throughout this Housing Element. This is because lower-income households as a whole have markedly different housing needs than moderate- and above moderateincome households.

Table 2-8 describes the income distribution of households by tenure. As shown in Table 2-8, 41 percent of all households earn lower incomes, with 11 percent of total households categorized as extremely low income.

Homeowners have a much higher proportion of moderate- or above moderate income-households, while renters have a higher share of lowerincome households.

Table 2-8
Household Income Distribution
Income
Categories
Tenure of Households
Total of
Households
Percentage
of Total Owners
Percentage
of
Households
Renters
Percentage
of
Households
Extremely
Low 1,600 6% 3,855 17% 5,455 11%
Very Low 2,120 8% 3,520 15% 5,640 12%
Low 3,500 13% 5,380 24% 8,880 18%
Moderate
or Above
Moderate
19,090 73% 10,110 44% 29,200 59%
Total 26,310 100% 22,865 100% 49,170 100%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017.

Note: Numbers differ from the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) because the CHAS household income levels are adjusted for household size, whereas the RHNA distribution is not adjusted for household size.

2.2 Housing Profile
This section describes and analyzes various housing trends and housing characteristics to provide a basis for assessing the demand and supply of available housing for the community. They include housing growth trends, housing characteristics, age and condition of housing, housing prices and rents, and homeownership trends.
1730
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-16 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Housing Growth
Between 2010 and 2021, the housing stock in the city increased 9 percent and SCAG predicts that the housing stock could increase by an additional 44 percent by 2045 (Table 2-9).

Table 2-9
Housing Projections 2000–2045
Year Households
Change
Numeric Percentage
2000 44,912 -- --
2010 47,449 2,537 6%
2021 51,814 4,365 9%
2045 74,500 22,686 44%
Source: California Department of Finance 2000, 2021; US Census Bureau 2010; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Housing Characteristics
Housing Type
As shown in Table 2-10, the majority of Ontario’s existing housing is single-family detached units. Ontario’s overall housing production activity over the past decade has trended notably towards multifamily construction of developments with five or more housing units, increasing 23 percent between 2010 and 2021. Single-family detached housing also increased during the same period but at a far less significant rate of approximately 8 percent. The number of single-family attached and multifamily of two to four units stayed relatively stable over this time period, while the number of mobile homes declined by approximately 15 percent. Overall, however, more housing was built between 2010 and 2021 than demolished, resulting in a net growth in housing stock of approximately 9 percent. Most of this growth was due to the ongoing development of the former dairy farms south of Riverside Drive and east of the Cucamonga Channel as well as new multifamily projects with five or more units throughout the more established portions of the city. 1731
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-17
Table 2-10
Housing Type 2010–2021
Unit Type
Number of Units 2010–2021 Change
2010 2021 Number Percentage
Single-family detached 28,007 30,244 2,237 8%
Single-family attached 3,114 3,114 0 0%
Multiple-family (2–4 units) 5,078 5,110 32 1%
Multiple-family (5+ units) 9,087 11,169 2082 23%
Mobile homes and other 2,163 1,846 -317 -15%
Total 47,449 51,483 4,034 9%
Source: California Department of Finance 2021; City of Ontario 2021 Unit Size
Housing size is an important factor in housing availability. There must be an adequate supply of different sized housing that matches family needs, particularly large housing units affordable to lower-income families likely seeking rental housing options. While the number of large families (five or more persons) decreased by 12 percent since 2010, the number of renter households of at least four persons (9,704 households) exceeds the number of renting households with three or more bedrooms (7,282 units), as shown in Table 2-11. Meanwhile, the number of owner-occupied units with three or more bedrooms (21,380) exceeds the number of ownerhouseholds with four or more persons (10,992 households, see Table 2- 18). Increased competition for limited number of rental units appropriately sized for large families can lead to higher overcrowding.

Overcrowding often occurs because of two factors: (1) the cost of housing relative to income that causes families to double up, and (2) the fact that the building industry typically does not produce large apartment units.

Table 2-11
Housing Size by Tenure
Bedrooms Owner Renter Total
Studio or 1 bedroom 849 5,835 6,684
2 bedrooms 4,885 10,390 15,275
3 or more bedrooms 21,380 7,282 28,662
Total 27,114 23,507 50,621
Source: US Census ACS 2015-2019.
1732
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-18 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Housing Tenure
Homeownership
The American dream is intertwined with the goal of homeownership, which is often associated with independence, economic success, safety, and family. Historically, one of the most efficient and effective ways to build wealth over time is with the purchase of a home.

As of the 2015-2019 ACS, the city has a homeownership rate of 53.6 percent, with 27,114 homeowners and 23,507 renter households. This percentage decreased from the 59 percent homeownership rate in 2010.

Table 2-12 shows the total number of occupied housing units by tenure.

Table 2-12
Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
Tenure Number Percentage
Owner 27,114 53.6%
Renter 23,507 46.4%
Total 50,621 100.0%
Source: US Census ACS 2015-2019.

Vacancy Rates
The housing vacancy rate is a key indicator of the housing market and how well housing supply matches the demand. Typically, vacancy rates of 5 to 6 percent for rental units and 1 to 2 percent for ownership housing are needed to offer a variety of choice for residents, incentive for developers, and sufficient price options for consumers. Vacancies in excess of these norms are usually considered to be excessive and lead to price depreciation. Lower vacancy rates are deemed to indicate a tight market, where housing rents and prices are expected to increase.

In 2019, Ontario’s housing vacancy rate for rental units was 2.9 percent, a low rate for rental vacancies. From 2010 to 2019, the city experienced a decrease in rental vacancy rates, falling from 5.8 percent in 2010.

The 2015-2019 ACS indicated a 1 percent vacancy rate for ownership units, a decline from 2 percent in 2010. The decrease in both the owneroccupied and renter vacancy rates for housing units in Ontario suggests that housing demand is exceeding the ability of the market to build and deliver new housing stock.
1733
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-19
Housing Prices and Rents
According to a survey of home sales listings on Zillow in late May 2021, the median resale price in Ontario was $544,990 for a three-bedroom house. The highest sales price surveyed was $657,990 for a four-bedroom house while the lowest sales price was $365,000 for a two-bedroom house.

Most homes available were three-bedroom houses; only one onebedroom house was listed as of the date of the survey. The lack of smaller, lower-cost homes on the market may present a challenge for smaller households, particularly younger households or seniors that may have limited incomes when trying to downsize their homes.

In 2021, 3.6 percent of housing units in Ontario were mobile home units, a decrease in recent years, as discussed previously. Mobile homes provide an additional opportunity for lower-income households to own a home.

On May 24,2021 there were 22 mobile homes in Ontario listed for sale on Zillow.com. List prices ranged from $45,000 to $199,000, with a median price of $93,000 and an average price of $100,464. Typically, owners of mobile homes must pay rent to the mobile home parks where they are located. In exchange, the mobile home parks typically provide landscaping and infrastructure maintenance, easing the maintenance burden on park residents. This is particularly helpful for those with limited mobility, such as seniors and disabled persons.

Apartments and rental single-family homes are a key housing option for young adults and young families so they may dedicate their limited funds to other needs. Senior housing also provides a rental opportunity for seniors with limited incomes or mobility, who can benefit from the greater affordability, compact nature, and lower maintenance needs of apartments.

According to a survey of rental listings on Zillow in late May 2021, the median rent in Ontario was $1,974, while the minimum and maximum prices were $1,425 and $3,000, respectively. The most common rental unit on the market during the survey had two bedrooms and was approximately 800 square feet in size.

Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is a critical issue. The inability to afford housing leads to a number of situations, including the doubling up of families in a single home, low homeownership rates, illegal units, overextension of a household’s financial resources, premature deterioration of units from the inability to afford maintenance, and situations where young families and seniors cannot afford to live near other family members. Table 2-13 and the following discussion describe housing affordability in Ontario.

Affordable Housing -
The U.S. Census and
numerous housing
programs consider an
affordable housing
payment to be no more
than 30 percent of a
household’s gross income.

However, many different
standards exist for
housing affordability and
the standard used
depends on the agency
consulted, funding source
used, and whether
household size is
considered.
1734
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-20 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Homeownership
According to a survey of home sale listings on Zillow conducted in May 2021, the median home price in Ontario was $544,990. As shown in Table 2-13, this price exceeds the maximum affordable price of $410,000 for households of four members with a moderate- or lower-income household income. Although some homes surveyed were within the affordability range of moderate-income households, only 1 of the 25 units surveyed was below the limit of $410,000 and while affordable to moderate-income households, this home was unaffordable to lowerincome households. This suggests that overwhelming majority of marketrate homes for sale in Ontario are mostly unaffordable to any household earning a moderate income and are entirely unaffordable to any household earning a lower income.

Rental Housing
Rental housing provides an important source of affordable housing for young adults, families with children, and seniors who earn low and moderate incomes. Since approximately 41 percent of Ontario households earn lower incomes, providing a sufficient quantity of decent and affordable rental housing for the workforce, young adults, families with children, and seniors is an important goal. Table 2-13 summarizes the affordability of rental housing in Ontario.

Based on a market survey conducted in May 2021 of rental listings posted on Zillow, the median rent price in Ontario is $1,974. Table 2-13 indicates that only a moderate-income household could afford the median rent price, being able to pay no more than $2,325 a month on rent and expenses. Low-income households can afford to pay no more than $1,580 a month on rent. The minimum rent surveyed was $1,425 and thus some rental units are affordable to low-income households, but most rental units are unaffordable to most low-income households. Very low and extremely low-income four-person households can afford no more than $988 and $663 per month on rent expenses, respectively. Thus, marketrate rental units at the median rental rate as of May 2021 are unaffordable to any household earning a very low or extremely low income in Ontario.

Lower-income households have greater difficulty affording housing.

Both very low- and extremely low-income households could not afford to rent a home without doubling up and significantly overpaying for housing. Low-income households could afford a limited number of rentals, but most likely face overpayment, overcrowding, or both. 1735
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-21
Table 2-13
Housing Affordability Summary
Income Levels
Definition
(Percentage of
County AMI)
Maximum
Household
Income1
Maximum
Affordable
Price2
Maximum
Affordable
Rent3
Extremely Low Less than 30% $26,500 $111,200 $663
Very Low 31% to 50% $39,500 $170,200 $988
Low 51% to 80% $63,200 $275,600 $1,580
Moderate 81% to 120% $93,000 $410,000 $2,325
Assumptions:
1 Household size of four persons. Maximum income limits are established by the Department of Housing and Community Development according to median family income (AMI) for 2021. 2 Rounded to nearest $100. Assumes 10% down payment, 30-year loan at an interest rate of 3%, and standard housing costs for San Bernardino County. Housing affordability is calculated at 30% of income, assuming mortgage costs are tax deductible. Affordability estimates created June 11, 2021, using:
https://www.wellsfargo.com/mortgage/planning/comfort-zone/afford. 3 Rental payment is assumed at no more than 30% of income.

Housing Problems
In today’s housing market, where prices and rents have increased faster than personal income over the past decade, Ontario households are paying increasingly more of their income for housing and have less discretionary income to afford other necessities. Overcrowding is also becoming more prevalent as residents choose to live in smaller housing units. The following discussion focuses on both issues in Ontario.

Overpayment
Housing overpayment is an increasing problem in many cities, particularly among lower-income households. The federal and state governments define housing overpayment as when a household spends more than 30 percent of their income toward rental costs or toward a monthly mortgage payment. Overpaying is a housing problem because it leaves a household with limited financial resources for other expenses.

As of 2017, housing overpayment in Ontario affected approximately 60 percent of renters (13,215 households) and approximately 40 percent of homeowners (8,655 households) (see Table 2-14). Overpayment is traditionally more prevalent among renters than owners. While fixed-rate mortgages are the norm, it is still worth noting that adjustable rate mortgages have the potential to lead to overpayment. In any case, housing overpayment tends to be most severe for lower-income households, regardless of tenure.
1736
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-22 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 2-14
Overpayment by Household Type and Tenure
Overpayment
LowIncome
Renter
Households
All Renter
Households
LowIncome
Owner
Households
Owner
Households
Total
Overpaying
Households
30%–50% of
Household
Income
4,085 6,400 1,770 5,295 11,705
More than 50%
of Household
Income
6,610 6,815 2,960 3,360 10,175
Total more than
30% of
Household
Income
10,695 13,215 4,730 8,655 21,880
Percentage of
Households
Overpaying (>
30%)
49% 60% 22% 40% 100%
Source: CHAS 2013-2017
Note: Total numbers of units in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) may differ slightly as compared to ACS totals due to sampling differences.

Overcrowding
In response to higher housing costs, residents may accept smaller-sized housing or double up in the same house, which leads to overcrowding.

Overcrowding strains physical facilities and the delivery of public services, contributes to a shortage of parking, and accelerates the deterioration of housing. Housing overcrowding is also considered one of several substandard housing conditions according to the Uniform Housing Code.

Many different definitions of housing overcrowding exist (see side bar).

The US Census considers a situation when a household has more members than habitable rooms in a home overcrowded. For example, a two-bedroom apartment with a living room and kitchen (a total of four rooms excluding bathrooms and hallways) would be considered overcrowded if more than four occupants lived in the home.

Overcrowding can be moderate (1.0 to 1.5 persons per room) or severe (more than 1.5 persons per room).
1737
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-23
Overcrowding is caused by a range of situations and complex factors, including a mismatch between household income and the cost of housing, and differences regarding preferences for adequate living space.

Regardless of these factors, overcrowding typically occurs in a number of situations, such as (1) a family lives in a small unit; (2) a family provides accommodations for extended family; (3) a family rents space to nonfamily members; or (4) students double up to afford housing.

As of 2019, there were 6,159 households, or approximately 12 percent of all households, in Ontario experiencing some degree of overcrowding.

Approximately 71 percent of overcrowded households were moderately overcrowded while 29 percent were extremely overcrowded. Although homeowners made up the majority (54 percent) of all households in the city, renters made up a supermajority (69 percent) of Ontario’s overcrowded households, whereas only 31 percent of households were owner-occupied. This trend also occurred among the moderately and severely overcrowded households, where renters made up 70 and 68 percent of these categories, respectively.

Table 2-15 provides data on household overcrowding in Ontario according to the tenure of the household.

Table 2-15
Overcrowding by Tenure
Overcrowding Level
Homeowners Renters
Total
Number Percentage Number Percentage
No Overcrowding 25,211 57% 19,251 43% 44,462
Moderate Overcrowding 1,320 30% 3,033 70% 4,353
Severe Overcrowding 583 32% 1,223 68% 1,806
Total Households 27,114 54% 23,507 46% 50,621
Total Overcrowding 1,903 31% 4,256 69% 6,159
Source: ACS 2015-2019

2.3 Special Housing Needs
Certain individuals and families in Ontario encounter greater difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing because of their special circumstances. Special circumstances may be related to income, family characteristics, medical condition or disability, or household characteristics. A major emphasis of the Housing Element is to ensure that persons from all walks of life have the opportunity to find suitable and affordable housing in Ontario.

Overcrowding -
Many different standards
exist for overcrowding,
and the standard used
depends on the agency
and the area of authority.

The California Building
Code uses the most
permissive definition
based on strict health and
safety reasons. The
California Department of
Fair Employment and
Housing uses another
standard for fair housing.

Because of its wide
application, the Housing
Element uses the Census
Bureau definition to
determine what
constitutes overcrowding,
with moderate
overcrowding defined as

1.0 to 1.5 persons per
room, and severe
overcrowding defined as
more than 1.5 persons per
room.
1738
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-24 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
State Housing Element law identifies the following special-needs groups:
senior households, people with disabilities (physical, developmental, mental, substance abuse, etc.), female-headed households (single parent), large households, persons and families in need of emergency shelter, and farmworkers. This section provides a discussion of housing needs for each particular group and identifies the major programs and services available to address their housing and support needs.

Table 2-16 shows the number of special housing needs groups residing in Ontario based on the 2010 Census and the 2015-2019 ACS unless otherwise noted.

Table 2-16
Special-Needs Groups
Special-Needs Group
Number of Persons or
Households
Percentage of Persons or
Households9
2010 2019 2010 2019
Large Families1 13,254 20,696 28% 41%
Female-Headed Households2 10,568 9,358 26% 18%
Single-Parent Families3 6,012 13,430 13% 27%
Senior Households4 8,349 8,039 18% 16%
Total Disabilities5 -- 28,252 -- --
Homeless Persons6 452 102 <1% <1%
Farmworkers7 617 505 <1% <1%
Lower-Income Households8 17,185 19,975 36% 39%
Source: CHAS, 2009; US Census ACS 2015-2019; SCAG Local Housing Profile Data; San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership - 2020 PiTC
Notes:

1. Large families are defined as households with five or more members. Percentage refers to the percentage of all households in Ontario comprising large families.

2. Female-headed households refer to single-person and family households with a female listed as the head of household. Percentages represent the share of all households that are headed by a female.

3. Single-parent families refer to households with children that are headed by one parent. Percentages represent the share of all households with children that are headed by a single parent.

4. Senior households refer to households where a member is 65 years of age or older. Percentages represent the share of all households that are headed by a senior.

5. Total Disabilities refers to the total number of all disabilities tallied. No valid percentages can be displayed since disabilities are not equal to people as one person may have multiple disabilities. 2010 data are not displayed since the 2010 Census counted the total population living with disabilities rather than total disabilities.

6. Homeless people refer to the number of people counted as homeless in Ontario according to the 2020 San Bernardino County Homeless Count. Percentages refer to the share of the total Ontario population.

7. Farmworkers refer to the number of farmworkers working in Ontario according to the SCAG 2021 Local Profile Data for Ontario.

8. Lower-income households refer to the number of households who earn 80 percent or less of the median family income according to the 2015-2019 ACS.

9. Percentages refer to the share of all households.
1739
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-25
Family Households
Ontario is a family-oriented community, with approximately 8 out of every 10 households composed of related family members. In recent years, housing market conditions have led to increasing home prices, a higher prevalence of overpayment and overcrowding, and in some cases, substandard living conditions for families. The burden of higher housing costs typically is most severe for large families and female-headed families, making them special-needs households under state law.

In today’s housing market, single-parent families are increasingly at-risk because they must balance work and their families. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, Ontario has a total of 13,430 households headed by a single parent.

Large households with five or more members also constitute a specialneeds group because of their unique housing needs. Of the 20,696 large families, 9,704 rent and 10,992 own homes. Large households earning lower incomes also have a high prevalence of housing overpayment, defined as paying more than 30 percent of income toward housing. As shown in Table 2-17, approximately 43 percent of all large families (renters and owners) overpay for housing.

Table 2-17
Large-Family Housing Overpayment
Income Level Number of Households Overpaying
Renters Percentage Owners Percentage
Extremely Low (up to 30% AMI) 590 24% 115 11%
Very Low (30% - 50% AMI) 845 35% 310 30%
Low (50% - 80% AMI) 980 41% 600 59%
Total Low-Income Households
Overpaying 2,415 100% 1,025 100%
Total Large-Family Households
Overpaying 2,750 58% 1,620 30%
All Large-Family Households 4,755 --- 5,450 ---
Source: CHAS 2013-2017
Ontario single-parent families can access resources, including childcare opportunities, through the County’s Preschool Services Department, which administers the Federal Head Start, Early Head Start, and Early Head Start – Child Care Partnership, as well as state preschool programs.

The Preschool Services Department provides free services to qualifying low-income families and provides wrap-around services to ensure to support child wellness, including health, nutritional, and dental services. 1740
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-26 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Support services are also available to parents, including free online high school diploma program, employment training, and job placement services. For families at risk of homelessness, the Preschool Services Department provides emergency and crisis assistance in the form of food, housing, transportation, and clothing. Counseling is offered to combat issues of substance abuse and domestic violence. In the County’s community assessment prepared by Head Start, the lack of affordable opportunities for childcare was identified as a pressing unmet need to support low-income families, including large families and single-parent families.

Housing Supply
To avoid housing overcrowding and overpayment, large families require affordable homes with three and preferably four or more bedrooms to accommodate children. As shown in Table 2-18, Ontario has about 10,992 large families who own homes compared to the nearly 21,380 owneroccupied units with three or more bedrooms. The city has about 9,704 large renter families, yet only 7,282 rental units with three or more bedrooms. Thus, many large renter families are crowded into smaller rental units.

Table 2-18
Household Size by Tenure in Ontario
Household
Size
Number of
Owner
Households
Percentage
of Owner
Households
Number of
Renter
Households
Percentage
of Renter
Households
Total
Households
Percentage
of Total
Households
Single
Person 4,032 15% 4,267 18% 8,299 16%
2 to 3
persons 12,090 45% 9,536 41% 21,626 43%
Large
families
(4 or more)
10,992 40% 9,704 41% 20,696 41%
Total 27,114 100% 23,507 100% 50,621 100%
Source: US Census 2015-2019 ACS
As shown in Table 2-19, Ontario provides a variety of housing opportunities for lower-income families. In 2021, the city had 39 publicly assisted multiple-family, senior, and transitional housing projects that provided 1,942 deed-restricted units affordable to moderate- and lowerincome families. Ontario also has 1,846 mobile homes in parks that provide very low-cost family housing at current market sales prices. 1741
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-27
Table 2-19
Affordable Family Housing in Ontario
Housing Types Number of Units Affordability of Units
Affordable Housing Units (deed-restricted) 1,942 Very low, low, and moderate income Mobile Home Parks 1,846 Low–moderate income
Source: City of Ontario, 2021.

Seniors
Senior households have special housing needs for three primary reasons:
income, health care costs, and disabilities. Because of these needs, seniors have more difficulty finding suitable and affordable housing. According to 2021 SCAG Pre-Certified Local Housing Data for Ontario, there were 8,039 households with a householder aged 65 or older, or approximately 16 percent of all households.

Although often viewed in a more homogenous fashion, Ontario’s senior population is quite diverse. This diversity is reflected not only in age but in income and housing needs as well. Of the total 16,301 seniors, 62 percent are ages 65 to 74 and 39 percent are older than 75. Each of these groups has different health, transportation, and housing needs that require different strategies and plans. Seniors often have greater difficulty finding and maintaining affordable housing because of their fixed retirement incomes.

In terms of tenure, an approximate 72 percent of senior-held households in Ontario are owner-occupied, whereas only an approximate 28 percent of senior-held households are rented. As shown in Table 2-20, the largest group (approximately 15 percent of all householders in Ontario) of senior householders occurs among those aged 65 to 74 years who own their home. Those who pay a monthly rent among this same age bracket comprise a much smaller portion of the city’s householders, at approximately 6 percent.

Table 2-20
Senior Housing Needs
Age of
Householder
Renters Owners
Number Percentage Number Percentage
15-24 years 1,405 6% 135 1%
25-34 years 6,070 26% 2,598 10%
35-44 years 5,897 25% 5,007 19%
45-54 years 4,797 21% 6,895 26%
55-59 years 1,565 7% 3,149 12%
1742
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-28 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 2-20
Senior Housing Needs
Age of
Householder
Renters Owners
Number Percentage Number Percentage
60-64 years 1,319 6% 2,748 10%
65-74 years 1,368 6% 3,826 15%
75-84 years 637 3% 1,417 5%
85+ years 254 1% 537 2%
Total 23,312 100% 26,312 100%
Source: SCAG Pre-Certified Local Housing Data - Ontario 2021 Nearly half (approximately 46 percent) of senior households in Ontario earn an annual income of at least $75,000 or more indicating a substantial number of seniors have higher incomes than Ontario households overall.

Table 2-21 shows the senior households in Ontario by their annual household income.

Table 2-21
Senior Households by Income
Income Number Percentage
Less than $10,000 376 5%
$10,000 to $14,999 263 3%
$15,000 to $19,999 395 5%
$20,000 to $24,999 426 5%
$25,000 to $29,999 282 4%
$30,000 to $34,999 731 9%
$35,000 to $39,999 274 3%
$40,000 to $44,999 156 2%
$45,000 to $49,999 277 3%
$50,000 to $59,999 549 7%
$60,000 to $74,999 581 7%
$75,000 to $99,999 1592 20%
$100,000 to $124,999 595 8%
$125,000 to $149,999 558 7%
$150,000 to $199,999 612 8%
$200,000 or more 253 3%
Total 7,920 100%
Source: US Census ACS 2015-2019.
1743
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-29
The needs of Ontario’s senior residents involve more than just the limited retirement incomes of some seniors. Seniors typically have much higher health costs, which stretch their incomes. Seniors also have a greater percentage of disabilities, as discussed later in this report. This makes it more difficult for seniors to stay in their current home. Limited incomes make it harder to maintain housing, particularly as homes age and require rehabilitation. Access to transportation also becomes important as seniors age and choose transportation alternatives to driving cars.

Housing Supply
With respect to housing choices and opportunities, seniors typically have greater difficulty finding suitable housing. As Ontario’s population ages, it has become important to provide more of a “continuum of care” to allow seniors to remain in Ontario. As discussed later, the city offers the following types of senior housing.
• Senior Citizen Housing Development. Senior citizen housing developments are designed to meet the physical and social needs of seniors consistent with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
• Convalescent Homes. Nursing Care Facilities (Convalescent Homes (Hospital), Rest Home, or Rehabilitation Facility).

Nursing care facilities are lodging and care facilities for those who are convalescing, invalids, or aged persons requiring specialized health care services, but primary treatment is given in hospitals • Community Care Facilities. Residential care facilities for the elderly or other State-licensed care facilities located in residential neighborhoods.

The City recognizes the goal of providing supportive services to enable seniors to “age in place,” which is the ability to maintain one’s residence and not need to move in order to secure support services in response to life’s changing needs. To help seniors, the City offers grants and loans to pay for accessibility improvements, emergency repairs, home renovations, and other services that improve the homes and lives of senior and disabled Ontario residents (Program 3). The City also operates a Senior Center, where a wide variety of supportive services are provided to Ontario’s senior residents.

Not all seniors will be able, due to financial constraints or health issues, to age in place and remain in their home. As shown in Table 2-22, residential care facilities in Ontario have a total facility capacity to house 614 seniors. Almost 50 percent of the capacity is accommodated by Inland Christian Home, INC, which houses 297 seniors. A list of residential care facilities that serve seniors is shown in Table 2-22.
1744
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-30 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
The City partners with service provider organizations to provide services directly to seniors. The Ontario Senior Center provides a senior meal program, including meal delivery, Silver Stars senior transportation program, and a variety of resources to assist seniors with meeting their daily needs. Additionally, the Ontario Senior Center offers opportunities for socialization and community through shared meals, clubs and classes, and a newsletter specifically for seniors.

The City funds the Senior Support Services operated by Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB). IFHMB has provided application-based services to seniors in Ontario for the State of California’s Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP). This program provides senior citizens with a rebate of up to $248 in utility rebates.

IFHMB supports seniors through the application process.

Table 2-22
Residential Care Facilities in Ontario
Facility Name Capacity Address
Adult Residential Facility
Applegate Home 6 (2019) 5495 Applegate St
Ontario, CA 91762
Benson Home 9 (2021) 1941 S. Benson Ave
Ontario, CA 91762
Blue Jay Home 4 (2020) 414e. Blue Jay Way
Ontario, CA 91761
Bonnie Brae ARF 6 (2018) 1656 E. Bonnie Brae
Ontario, CA 91764
Contempo Home 4 (2021) 1127 Contempo Ct
Ontario, CA 91762
Gala Home 5 (2020) 10986 Gala Lane
Ontario, CA 91762
Galongo Michael Home 6 (2020) 1452 W 5th St
Ontario, CA 91762
Gemma’s Care Center 6 (2021) 2950 Roan St
Ontario, CA 91761
Holly Land Care Home 6 (2021) 2044 Holly Ave
Ontario CA, 91762
House of Generosity 4 (2019) 724 N Greenwood Ave
Ontario, CA 91764
Josephine’s Care Home 4 (2021) 1566 E Hazeltine St
Ontario, CA 91761
LMB Care Home 6 (2019) 1813 N Calaveras Ave
Ontario, CA 91764
LMB Care Home 6 (2019) 1125 West J St
Ontario, CA 91762
Manzanita Home 6 (2020) 720 Manzanita Ct
Ontario, CA 91761
1745
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-31
Table 2-22
Residential Care Facilities in Ontario
Facility Name Capacity Address
Monte Vista Family Home 5 (2019) 1922 Brookeside Dr
Ontario CA, 91761
Myers Home 4 (2021) 4799 Grand Ave
Ontario, CA 91762
Nabih’s Care Home 4 (2021) 407 W. Spruce St
Ontario, CA 91762
Oak Hill Home 4 (2021) 2420 S. Oak Hill Dr
Ontario, CA 91761
Plainfield SO. #17 4 (2021) 2617 S. Plainfield Dr
Ontario, CA 91761
Pleasant Board and Care 6 (2021) 1559 SO. Pleasant Ave
Salem Christian Homes INC – “
Casa Puente” 6 (2021) 2904 Del Norte Pl Ontario CA, 91761 Salem South Home 12 (2020) 2326 S. Cucamonga Ave
Ontario CA, 91761
Schoneveld Home 4 (2021) 3457 South Wrangler Place
Ontario CA, 91761
ST. Anthony Family Home 5 (2019) 2744 S Cucamonga Ave
Ontario, CA 91761
Sterling Home 5 (2021) 2431 S Seagull Ave
Ontario CA, 91761
Sunrise Home 6 (2019) 1435 W Rosewood Ct.

Ontario, CA 91762
Susong Home 4 (2020) 1046 Sunsong Ct
Ontario, CA 91762
Adult Residential Facility Subtotal 147
Assisted Living Facility
Arcadian Shores Manor 6 (2019) 2620 Arcadian Shores Rd
Ontario, CA 91761
Best Care Guest Home 14 (2020) 817 S Oaks Ave
Ontario, CA 91762
Brookdale North Euclid 140 (2021) 1021 N Euclid Ave
Ontario, CA 91762
Salvery Care 6 (2018) 939 E Banyan St
Ontario, CA 91761
Thelma G. Smith Family Care 4 (2020) 632 E Maitland Ave Ontario CA, 91761
Assisted Living Subtotal 170
Residential Care for the Elderly Continuing Care Contracts Inland Christian Home, INC 297 (2019) 1950 S. Mountain Ave Ontario, CA 91762
Residential Care for the Elderly Continuing
Care Contracts Subtotal 297
Total Facility Capacity 614
Source: California Department of Social Services, 2021
1746
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-32 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
People with Disabilities
As an established community, the City of Ontario is home to many permanent residents with physical, developmental, or other disabilities that may require different independent living arrangements and services.

A disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one of more major life activities. These disabilities and their severity may require specialized housing arrangements to allow persons with disabilities to live full and independent or semi-independent lives.

SCAG data indicates that Ontario’s population living with disabilities has a total of 28,252 disabilities divided into six types, as shown in Table 2-23.

Ambulatory difficulties represent the largest share, at an approximate 29 percent of the city’s tallied disabilities, followed by cognitive disabilities at approximately 19 percent, and then by independent living disabilities at approximately 18 percent. The least common disability consists of selfcare disabilities at approximately 10 percent.

While many disabled people live in independent housing or with family members, many require supportive or institutionalized settings. For instance, disabled people may suffer from serious mental illnesses, drug and alcohol problems, physical disabilities, or other conditions that require short- or long-term residency in an institutional setting. There is no available data documenting the actual incidence of such conditions or the demand for semi-independent residential settings.

Table 2-23
Disability Types in Ontario
Disability Type Number Percentage
Independent Living 4,963 18%
Self-care 2,957 10%
Ambulatory 8,097 29%
Cognitive 5,240 19%
Vision 3,244 11%
Hearing 3,751 13%
Total 28,252 100%
Source: SCAG Pre-Certified Local Housing Data - Ontario 2021, ACS 2014-2018 People with disabilities may have difficulty finding employment opportunities, which could pose challenges with being able to afford housing costs. In Ontario, there is a total of 112,008 people of working age. Approximately 23 percent of the working age population is not in the labor force, approximately 6 percent are unemployed, and approximately 72 percent are employed. Of Ontario’s working age 1747
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-33
population with a disability, there are more people with disabilities who are currently not in the labor force (4 percent) or who are unemployed (less than 1 percent) than those who are employed (3 percent). This shows that some people with disabilities living in Ontario may require additional assistance to afford costs of living. Table 2-24 shows the proportions of Ontario’s working age population with disabilities by employment status.

Table 2-24
Disabled Residents in Ontario by Employment Status
Disability Type Number Percent
Employed - Total 80,429 72%
with a disability 3,412 3%
no disability 77,017 69%
Unemployed - Total 6,256 6%
with a disability 509 <1%
no disability 5,747 5%
Not in Labor Force - Total 25,323 23%
with a disability 4,020 4%
no disability 21,303 19%
Total 112,008 100%
Source: SCAG Pre-Certified Local Housing Data - Ontario 2021.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities
Senate Bill (SB) 812 requires the City to include in the special housing needs analysis needs of individuals with a developmental disability within the community. According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, a “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual, which includes mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult. 1748
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-34 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based services to approximately 329,600 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers and 2 developmental centers. The Inland Regional Center, serving San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, is 1 of 21 regional centers in California that provide point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities. The center is a private, nonprofit community agency that contracts with businesses to offer services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.

The following information from California Department of Development Services (DDS), provided to the City by SCAG, provides a closer look at the disabled population (see Table 2-25).

Table 2-25
Developmentally Disabled Residents by Age
Location 0–17 Years 18+ Years Total
Ontario Total 1,479 737 2,216
Source: SCAG Pre-Certified Local Housing Data - Ontario 2021 (based on CA DDS consumer count by CA ZIP, age group and residence type for the end of June 2019
A number of housing types are appropriate for people living with a development disability: rent-subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing, obtaining rental housing using Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 homes. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group.

Incorporating “barrier-free” design in all new multifamily housing (as required by California and federal fair housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents.

Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.

Service providers that participated in stakeholder interviews identified a serious lack of affordable housing and limited opportunities for rental assistance, which can particularly impact persons with disabilities.

Rolling Start Inc. is a nonprofit organization that promotes independent living for persons with disabilities. Its mission is to empower and educate people with disabilities to achieve the independent life of their choice. To accomplish this mission, Rolling Start offers a variety of services in San Bernardino, Inyo, and Mono Counties and serves approximately 1,500 clients with disabilities annually. Rolling Start provides wrap-around services to create independence for its clients, including housing 1749
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-35
assistance to secure appropriate housing, personal assistant referrals and training, transportation assistance, and teaching independent living skills, such as budgeting, cooking, cleaning, and laundry. Assisting clients to find employment is a core service for Rolling Start. Clients receive job-seeking skills to secure employment through skills trainings and local networking. Rolling Start also offers clients access to assistive technology to support with everyday tasks, including devices ranging from jar openers and magnifiers to wheelchairs, grab bars, and assistive computer applications.

The San Bernardino County Department of Behavioral Health provides mental health programs to individuals and families who are experiencing serious or ongoing mental health and/or substance abuse disorders in San Bernardino County. In addition to crisis response teams, the Department of Behavioral Health provides outpatient mental health clinics that include crisis intervention, assessment/referral, individual/group therapy, medication support, case management, drug/alcohol, and educational workshops. The Department of Behavioral Health partners with service providers for specific communities, including military families, veterans, American Indians, Latinx population, African American population, LGBTQ+ community, preschool and school-aged children, and community health workers. The community-focused groups offer mental health resources, referral services, education, awareness and advocacy, and prevention resources.

To assist in the housing needs for persons with developmental disabilities, the City will implement programs to coordinate housing activities and outreach with the Inland Regional Center and encourage housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable housing developments for persons with disabilities, especially persons with developmental disabilities, and pursue funding sources designated for persons with special needs and disabilities (Program 30).

Housing Design and Availability
The needs of people with disabilities and available program responses vary considerably, as these individuals do not live in institutionalized settings. Whereas many live in independent living arrangements, others require more supportive settings. Therefore, typically, people with disabilities have three primary needs with respect to suitable housing:
(1) affordable and accessible housing, both new and rehabilitated; (2) an adequate supply of institutional settings for those requiring more specialized care; and (3) a system of supportive services that allow for a full life.

Universal Design –
Universal Design is the
design of products and
environments to be usable
by all people, to the greatest
extent possible, without the
need for adaptation or
specialized design.

Visitability -
Visitability is the design
approach for new housing
such that anyone who
uses a wheelchair or other
mobility device should be
able to visit. A social visit
requires the ability to get
into the house, to pass
through interior
doorways, and enter a
bathroom to use the toilet.
1750
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-36 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Cities that use federal housing funds must meet federal accessibility guidelines. For new construction and substantial rehabilitation, at least 5 percent of the units must be accessible to persons with mobility impairments, and an additional 2 percent of the units must be accessible to persons with hearing or visual impairments. New multiple-family housing must be built so that (1) public and common-use areas are readily accessible and usable by disabled people; (2) doors into and within units can accommodate wheelchairs; and (3) units contain adaptive design features, such as universal design.

HUD also recommends, but does not require, that all design, construction, and alterations incorporate, wherever practical, the concept of accessibility. This recommendation is in addition to requirements of Section 504 of the Fair Housing Act. Recommended construction practices include wide openings for bathrooms and interior doorways and at least one accessible means of egress and ingress for each unit. The City enforces all federal and state accessibility laws but does not require or mandate that new units meet more stringent universal design or visitability (see sidebar) standards.

At some point, people with disabilities may require an institutional setting. State law requires communities to allow people with disabilities to live in normal residential neighborhoods and therefore preempts many local laws and regulations for residential care facilities. The City allows for a range of residential care facilities in its neighborhoods, as summarized in Table 2-26. Ontario also has 28 residential-care facilities (also known as assisted living, retirement homes, etc.), providing accommodations for 158 disabled clients.

Table 2-26
Housing for People with Disabilities
Housing Types Facility Capacity
Adult Daycare facilities 42
Adult Residential Care facilities 106
Social Rehabilitation facilities 10
Total 158
Source: California Department of Developmental Services - Community Licensing Care Division 2021 Homeless People
Homeless persons are those who have a primary nighttime residence that is a supervised shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations or a public or private space not designed for regular sleeping accommodation. The 2020 San Bernardino County Homeless Count identified 102 homeless persons residing in Ontario, including 74 1751
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-37
persons unsheltered, and 28 homeless individuals living in emergency shelters or transitional housing.

Homeless populations have a complex range of housing and supportive service needs. The housing needs of homeless individuals cannot be met without a service system with a strong outreach component that engages homeless people and encourages them to enter the shelter system. A variety of housing types and supportive programs are needed to serve the homeless, depending on whether it is a homeless individual or family, if there is substance abuse involved, and if the person is disabled.

Continuum of Care Program
The City contracts with Mercy House to implement a Homeless Services Continuum of Care (CoC) to prevent homelessness and assist individuals and families in becoming self-sufficient. The City’s CoC offers the following services and programs:
• Homeless Outreach Service Center. The Ontario Access Center is the first step in the CoC and is designed to get people off the street and into an environment where services can be provided. The center offers showers, laundry facilities, lockers, restrooms, and case management offices. Ontario also funds an emergency shelter for victims of domestic violence (House of Ruth).
• Transitional Housing. Transitional housing is designed to provide accommodations for up to two years, during which the homeless individual or family prepares for independent living. In conjunction with the City of Ontario and the Ontario Housing Authority, as of 2021, Mercy House continued to provide a 34-bed transitional living facility, Assisi House, located on Virginia Avenue. Foothill Family Shelter, located in Upland, also has transitional housing units serving the West End of San Bernardino County, including Ontario.
• Permanent Supportive Housing. The City provides permanent supportive housing in the form of vouchers and direct assistance to renters. As described in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan for the Ontario CoC, the affordable permanent housing program consists of 76 units of affordable housing that offers optional aftercare supportive services. Tenancy is ongoing provided the tenant adheres to polices outlined in the tenant lease. In addition, the City has worked in cooperation with Mercy House Living Centers, the County of San Bernardino Department of Behavioral Health, and the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino to develop Project Gateway which provides up to 12 units of Permanent Supportive Housing within the inventory of the 76 permanent housing units. These units are available to mentally ill, 1752
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-38 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
chronically homeless individuals with supportive housing services. In addition, the City has implemented a HOME Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program targeted to providing permanent housing through a 12-month voucher to chronically homeless individuals and families. A total of 168 units are provided between these three projects that specifically serve homeless individuals and families: Affordable Permanent Housing Program (76 units), Project Gateway (12 units), and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (80 units).
• SOVA Program Center. The SOVA Program Center, located at 904 East California Street, is operated by the Inland Valley Hope Partners. The center provides clients with emergency food, utility, and rental assistance. SOVA provides a 15-meal supply of nutritional food for each member of a family, every 30 days. The agency also offers classes in nutrition education, assistance for utilities and rent, motel vouchers, and access to job listings, bilingual health and safety information, and referrals. • Other Partnerships. The City of Ontario also works with other nonprofit partners to address the complex individual and interjurisdictional issue of homelessness, both locally and regionally. Partners include the Interagency Council on Homelessness, HMIS Advisory Committee, Foothill Family
Shelter, House of Ruth, Inland Valley Hope Partners, Mercy House, Transitional Assistance Department (motel vouchers), the Salvation Army, Housing Authority of the County of San
Bernardino, San Bernardino County Department of Behavioral Health, Step-Up on Second, West Valley Regional Steering Committee, and surrounding jurisdictions.

Since the establishment of the CoC, Ontario has expended over $15 million in capital investment and operating subsidies for various programs designed to end homelessness. The major expenditures were in the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of permanent housing units and creation of the Ontario Access Center. Ontario’s CoC supports:
• The Ontario Access Center, which continues to provide basic needs and services.
• Assisi House and Aftercare Services Program, which provides transitional housing and aftercare services.
• The HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA), which provides tenant--based rental assistance.
1753
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-39
• HUD’s Supportive Housing Program, Project Gateway, which helps secure permanent housing with wrap--around services for chronically homeless individuals with disabilities and their families.
• In cooperation with Ontario Housing Authority, Mercy House, and Mercy House Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) a total of 76 permanent housing units, continue to be provided for priority occupancy to participants in the CoC.

Ontario has created new programs to assist in the delivery of services designed to house persons experiencing homelessness within the city:
• During Fiscal Year 2019-20, funding for the street outreach team was increased to increase outreach efforts from 10 hours per month to 40 hours per week.
• The Extreme Weather Motel Voucher Program assisted 11 persons with a total of 58 bed nights in 2019, and 14 persons in 2020. The program was adapted to the COVID-19 motel voucher program in March 2020 and served 57 households between March and
September 2020. In November 2020, the City launched the Emergency Motel Voucher Program that has served 92
households during Fiscal Year 2020-21. All individuals assisted are provided with the opportunity for case management focused on connecting the individuals to housing.
• The LMIHF Utility Assistance Program assists persons
experiencing homelessness with $0 income to participate in the existing HOME TBRA Program operated as part of the CoC. This program was canceled in March 2020 to focus resources on sheltering homeless persons during the COVID-19 pandemic. • The City partnered with a local school district to identify homeless families and assist these families with rental subsidies through the HOME TBRA program.
• The City facilitated monthly meetings with Ontario focused homeless providers and governmental agencies to coordinate services to transition individuals/families from homelessness into a stable housing program.

The COVID-19 Rapid Re-Housing Program finds housing solutions for persons at risk of homelessness during the pandemic. During Fiscal Year 2020-21, two households received assistance.
1754
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-40 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
As indicated earlier, the City continues to make ongoing subsidies available to various homeless service providers to provide for public service programs serving homeless individuals and families, such as the Family Stabilization Program at SOVA Program Center, services for victims of domestic violence and their children provided by House of Ruth, and the Ontario Access Center and Assisi House and Aftercare Services Program provided by Mercy House CoC (Program 32). Table 2- 27 shows the city’s current supply of housing for homeless persons. As shown in Table 2-27, the total beds available (at least 155) can accommodate the city’s homeless persons (102 persons) based on the 2020 San Bernardino County Homeless Count.

Table 2-27
Housing for Homeless People
Housing Types Type of Housing Clients Number of Beds
Mercy House Ontario
Access Center Intake Center Homeless people N/A
Assisi House Transitional housing Single men, women, and women with children
9 units
34 beds
Foothill Family Shelter Transitional housing Homeless families with children
26 units
All 2- bedroom units
(56 beds or more)
House of Ruth
Emergency shelter,
transitional housing,
and permanent
housing
Battered women and
children
20 emergency beds; 35
transitional beds, and 2-
bedroom units for
permanent housing or
rapid re-housing
(up to 10 beds)
Affordable Permanent
Housing Program Permanent Housing
Priority access for
homeless individuals and
families
76 units
Project Gateway Shelter Plus Care Mentally ill, chronically homeless 12 units
Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance
Rental Subsidies for
Permanent Housing
Chronically Homeless
individuals 80 units
Veterans Affairs
Supportive Housing Voucher Veterans 352 vouchers
Family Unification
Program Voucher Families 1,109 vouchers
SOVA Food Security
Center Voucher Families As available
Total 155 beds or more
1,666 units or more
Source: City of Ontario, 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan; Communication with homelessness services agencies.

Farmworkers
Ontario first developed as an agricultural community, devoted primarily to the citrus industry. A reminder of the heyday of orange groves, the Sunkist plant, has now closed operations. Dairies later replaced the citrus industry. In the mid-1980s, in fact, the Chino-Ontario area was renowned 1755
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-41
for the highest concentration of dairy cows per acre in the world. Twenty years later, however, only about 50 dairy farms were still located in the Ontario-Chino area. Many moved to Fresno, Kern, and San Joaquin Counties or to other states.

In 2021, SCAG reported that 505 farmworkers had jobs in Ontario, 380 were full-time, year-round jobs. There was also a total of 586 workers employed in the agricultural industry in general, 461 of which were fulltime, year-round jobs. Table 2-28 shows the amounts of farmworkers and agricultural industry workers in Ontario. In the past decades, the dairy industry has dramatically changed. Ontario’s dairy industry today is highly automated and generally family-owned and operated. Some dairy farms employ farmworkers to assist with the daily operations, but the use of technology, automation, and family labor has minimized the need for farmworkers. The 2017 Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Census estimates there are approximately 2,246 hired farmworkers in San Bernardino County, with 1,579 estimated to be permanent labor and 1,114 estimated to be seasonal workers. Based on the primary agricultural uses in Ontario (dairy), the majority of hired farmworkers are presumed to be permanent labor.

The housing needed for dairy workers is different from that of traditional seasonal/migratory farm laborers. Traditional migrant laborers move from place to place to harvest crops on a seasonal basis and live in migrant farmworker housing, such as dormitories. In contrast, dairy work is relatively constant, and employees, who are often family members, live on-site. Today, many dairy farms have two or more dwellings to accommodate the owner/operator and several key employees.

Building more year-round housing that is affordable to lower-income households would address the housing needs of permanent farmworkers. Social services can defray the cost of living and assist permanent and seasonal farmworkers to be able to afford housing expenses and avoid becoming homeless. Program 33 addresses groups with special housing needs, including permanent and seasonal farmworkers.

The City has an Agricultural Overlay District to allow existing agricultural uses to continue until a development is approved for urban uses. The City’s zoning allows single-family homes by-right, agricultural caretaker units as an accessory use, and manufactured housing by-right.

Conservative estimates are that each farm residence is occupied by a farm owner/operator and one family member working on-site at the dairy.

The other homes in the Ontario Ranch agricultural areas are assumed to have one to two residents working in the agricultural business. With these assumptions, existing housing in Ontario Ranch accommodates between 1756
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-42 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
500 and 800 agricultural workers. Additional agricultural laborers work in Ontario, but many are employed in the food processing, horticultural, or other agricultural industries.

Table 2-28
Farmworkers in Ontario
Farmworkers Occupation and Employment Number in
Ontario
Percentage of
Ontario
Workers
Total jobs: Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 505 0.61% Full-time jobs only: Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 380 0.66% Total employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 586 0.70% Full-time employment only in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 461 0.80%
Source: SCAG Pre-Certified Local Housing Data - Ontario 2021.

Extremely Low Income
Extremely low-income households are defined as households earning annual incomes that are 30 percent or less of the AMI. Based on state income limits for 2021, a four-person, extremely low-income household earns no more than $26,500 and can afford approximately $663 per month for rent. Homeownership for extremely low-income households is considered financially infeasible throughout much of California because of the levels of subsidies required for a single unit.

According to the 2013-2017 CHAS, approximately 5,455 households (11 percent) earn extremely low income in Ontario. Of the extremely lowincome households, it is estimated that 3,855 rent and 1,600 own the home they live in. The average income of a wide range of service and retail occupations falls into this category, at approximately 18 percent of Ontario’s workforce. As businesses cope with the economic recession, many are converting jobs into part-time employment, further increasing the number of individuals earning extremely low incomes.

Extremely low-income households experience a broader range and severity of housing problems (overcrowding and overpayment) than other households because of their income level. For instance, the majority of extremely low-income households are renter households (3,855) and 3,145 (81 percent) of extremely low-income renter households overpay for housing. Of the 1,600 extremely low-income households who own a home, 1,215 (76 percent) overpay for housing. Overcrowding is also predominantly concentrated among very low- and extremely low-income households.
1757
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-43
According to SCAG, the City of Ontario has a construction goal of 5,640 very low-income units from 2021 through 2029. Of that total, the City estimates that the construction need for extremely low-income units is 50 percent of that number, or 2,820 units. This estimate is based on a methodology approved by HCD for estimating the need for extremely low-income housing. Providing housing affordable to extremely lowincome households is challenging because of the significant financial subsidies required to make rental housing projects financially feasible.

The City’s strategy to house extremely low-income households is focused on rental assistance and housing preservation. The Housing Authority of San Bernardino County (HASCB) has issued 773 housing vouchers to Ontario residents, predominantly those with extremely low incomes. The vouchers are primarily in traditional voucher programs (735) with a small amount (38) used in special voucher programs such as Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing. Of the total number of vouchers, a significant portion is assumed to be for families.

2.4 Neighborhood Conditions
Ontario’s history is rooted in agriculture, and many of the city’s homes, lot patterns, and other neighborhood features reflect that history. In other instances, the city’s neighborhood fabric is defined by recent patterns of development. Today, Ontario’s neighborhoods are the building blocks of the community. Neighborhoods profoundly define the sense of identity and community for residents, the quality of life experienced, and the image and role of Ontario in the Inland Empire. Therefore, the design of neighborhoods, the maintenance of housing, and historic preservation are all critical aspects of building Ontario’s future.

Historic Neighborhoods
The City has developed historic contexts to describe and explain the circumstances and period within which historic resources were built.

Contexts provide an understanding of the importance of resources and features. Contexts also provide insight as to the location of neighborhoods.

To date, the City has identified the following historic contexts:
• Ontario Irrigation Colony, which includes the Chaffey Brothers, the Ontario Land and Improvement Company, and the Citrus Industry.
• Wine Industry, which is in the eastern part of Ontario and was exemplified by Hofer Ranch and the Guasti Winery.
1758
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-44 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
• Citrus Industry, which is in the central portion of Ontario and symbolized by the Sunkist Plant.
• Dairy Industry, which is in the southern portion of Ontario, mostly in what is known as Ontario Ranch.
• Aviation Industry, located at the Ontario International Airport, which identifies aviation themes in commercial, civil, military, and architecture.

Historic surveys are a fundamental part of this effort. The City’s first survey of historic properties was completed in 1983. The survey identified almost 3,000 properties as eligible for designation as Historic Landmarks or as part of Historic Districts. Of the 3,000 listed properties, approximately 300 properties were nominated for designation. Currently, Ontario has designated 99 properties designated as Local Historic Landmarks and eight Historic Districts. Nine additional areas have been identified as potential districts. These districts are illustrated on Figure 2-

1. 1759
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-45
Figure 2-1 Ontario Local Historic Districts
1760
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-46 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
1761
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-47
Age and Condition of Housing Stock
Ensuring decent and well-maintained housing helps provide safe housing for families, improves property values and the image of Ontario, and contributes to higher levels of neighborhood investment. Like any physical asset, housing requires regular maintenance and repair to extend its life. The age of the existing housing stock is one way of measuring housing conditions and is a factor in determining the need for home rehabilitation.

Housing age is correlated with rehabilitation needs. Homes built between 30 and 50 years ago are more likely to need rehabilitation or substantial repairs. Homes built before 1971 are less likely to meet seismic standards enacted following the Sylmar Earthquake of 1971. Homes older than 50 years often need new electrical, plumbing, roofing, and other subsystems.

Older homes may also have been altered without building permits, and the alterations do not meet current health and safety standards. As shown in Table 2-29, 39 percent (22,270) of the homes in Ontario were built prior to 1970. Program 3 is included to assist with home rehabilitation.

Housing deterioration is associated with several other conditions, such as overcrowding and small rental projects, as well as investor-owned homes. Accelerated home deterioration is caused by overcrowding, which places additional wear and tear on housing designed for fewer occupants. Smaller rental projects often appear to need major rehabilitation because they are often owned by inexperienced investors.

Finally, investors tend not to maintain single-family homes as well as resident owners.

Table 2-29
Age of Housing Stock
Year Built Housing Units
Number Percentage
Before 1940 5,093 9%
1940–1949 2,648 5%
1950–1959 9,142 16%
1960–1969 5,387 9%
1970–1979 9,882 17%
1980–1989 10,326 18%
1990–1999 4,972 9%
2000-2009 3,497 6%
2010 or later 7,096 12%
Total 58,043 100%
Source: US Census ACS 2015-2019; City of Ontario APRs 2019, 2020. 1762
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-48 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
As part of periodic windshield surveys undertaken over the past few years, City staff has identified several residential areas with significant rehabilitation needs that may provide opportunities for improvement and new programs. The following discussion describes general areas, provides a map illustrating their locations, and concludes with an estimate of housing rehabilitation and repair needs.

CDBG Conservation Home Improvement Program (CHIP Loan)
This new program launched in June 2020, provides low-income homeowners with a loan to make energy efficiency or water conservation improvements to the exterior of their homes. Eligible improvements include roof repairs/replacement, window replacement, exterior painting, landscaping improvements, irrigation systems and other improvements deemed necessary to provide energy/water conservation benefits.

Distressed Multifamily Development
The City of Ontario was incorporated in 1891. Like most cities of this age, there are areas within the community that a need substantial reinvestment to eliminate the deteriorated and blighted conditions that occur when properties are not adequately maintained. Most of these areas are in portions of the city that were formally designated as Redevelopment Project Areas. Most of the deteriorated residential properties are in the city’s former Central City and Cimarron Project Areas. These areas contain some of the oldest multifamily housing in the city. In 2007, a survey of 2,400 homes was conducted in the Cimarron Project Area and found 22 percent of the units needed repair and maintenance and 28 percent were deteriorated or dilapidated. Prior to the dissolution of redevelopment by the State, hundreds of these multifamily housing units had been rehabilitated using a variety of funding sources (including Redevelopment Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Funds (LMIHF) and federal HOME funds). Most of the funding was provided through LMIHF funding. The City has worked to develop innovative programs to address the rehabilitation needs of multifamily units.

Funding for this type of reinvestment is limited.

The City recently added a Systematic Health and Safety Inspection requirement for all rental units over seven years old to be inspected by Community Improvement staff every four years (Program 1). Any units not in compliance must make necessary improvements to the property to ensure the units meet all applicable codes. These efforts have resulted in the improvement of many properties to meet these minimum standards and improve the quality and safety of Ontario’s housing stock. 1763
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-49
Rehabilitation Needs
Figure 2-2 identifies the four neighborhoods in Ontario with the highest rates of rehabilitation needs and abandoned homes, as reported in the 2019 Neighborhood Preservation Strategy. This plan was developed with the intent to establish partnerships between the City, its residents, business owners, community organizations, and neighborhoods with the goal of neighborhood preservation and building community. The Plan focuses on four neighborhoods strategically identified census and land use data as well as data from Community Improvement active cases, including outcomes of Systematic Health and Safety Inspections, select My Ontario mobile app reports, and calls for police services. As shown on Figure 2-2, the four neighborhoods with the highest rates of rehabilitation need and abandoned homes are Fourth and Grove, Downtown, Nocta and Mission-Mountain. These neighborhoods are in Northwest Ontario (see Figure 3-1 Areas of Ontario). As described in Section 3, Assessment of Fair Housing, Northwest Ontario contains lowresource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty. Across the four neighborhoods identified in Figure 2-2, there are approximately 324 homes in need of rehabilitation and approximately 168 abandoned homes. Program 3 is included to address rehabilitation needs. Programs 16, 17 and 25 encourage the acquisition of housing.
1764
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-50 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 2-2 Rehabilitation Needs
1765
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-51
Housing Construction Needs
Every eight years, California law requires cities to plan to accommodate population and employment growth in their community through the implementation of responsive housing policies and programs. To assist in that effort, SCAG prepares housing construction needs goals for each city in Southern California as part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). All local governments, including Ontario, are required to set aside sufficient land, adopt programs, and provide funding, to the extent feasible, to facilitate and encourage housing production commensurate with that need.

Total “housing construction need” includes three components: (1) the number of housing units needed to accommodate future population and employment growth; (2) an additional allowance to replace demolished units and restore normal vacancy rates; and (3) a fair adjustment that determines housing need by different affordability levels. The following discusses the specifics of each factor in Ontario.

Population and Employment Growth
The first component of construction need represents the number of units needed to accommodate new households forming as a result of population and employment growth. Ontario’s housing need is based on SCAG’s regional growth forecast, adopted as part of the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and revised to reflect further local comments.

Table 2-30 compares projected population, employment, and household growth in Ontario from 2016 through 2045.

Table 2-30
Households, Employment, and Population Projections 2016–2045 Category 2016 2045
Change
Numeric Percentage
Households 46,000 74,500 28,500 62%
Employment 113,900 169,300 55,400 49%
Population 172,200 269,100 96,900 56%
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Housing Factors
The RHNA goal for new construction incorporates additional units to accommodate two factors in the housing market. First, the housing market requires a certain number of vacant units to allow for sufficient choice for consumers, maintain rents and prices at adequate levels, and encourage normal housing maintenance and repair.
1766
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-52 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Over time, it is expected that a certain number of housing units will be lost to residential uses from demolition, fire, conversion to nonresidential uses, recycling to other uses, or a variety of other reasons. In other cases, the City’s redevelopment activities throughout the community will also result in the demolition and replacement of certain uses. Therefore, SCAG adjusts the City’s housing production goals by a standard “replacement factor” based on the historical rate of units lost to demolition or conversion to nonresidential uses in each community.

Fair-Share Allocation
Ontario’s housing construction need represents the total construction needed to accommodate expected population and employment growth while accommodating vacancies and replacement units. This need is further divided into five household income categories defined by state law. The income limits defined by HCD for San Bernardino County in 2021 are:
• Extremely low: households earning 30 percent or less of AMI, or a maximum income of $26,500 for a four-person household
• Very low: households earning 31 to 50 percent of AMI, or a maximum income of $39,500 for a four-person household
• Low: households earning 51 to 80 percent of AMI, which translates into a maximum of $63,200 for a four-person household • Moderate: households earning 81 to 120 percent of AMI, or a maximum income of $93,000 for a four-person household
• Above moderate: households earning above 120 percent of AMI, or a minimum of $93,001 for a four-person household
California law states that the RHNA is required to avoid or mitigate the overconcentration of income groups in a jurisdiction to achieve its objective of increasing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in an equitable manner. In practice, jurisdictions with a smaller proportion of lower-income units are required to provide a larger share of those units as part of their construction need to compensate for jurisdictions that already accommodate more than their fair share. Table 2-31 shows the City’s RHNA by affordability level.
1767
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-53
Table 2-31
Regional Housing Needs Goals, 2021–2029
Household Income Levels
for the RHNA
Number of
Housing Units
Percentage of Units by
Affordability level
Extremely Low Income 2,820 14%
Very Low Income 2,820 14%
Low Income 3,286 16%
Moderate Income 3,329 16%
Above Moderate Income 8,599 41%
Total 20,854 100%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments 2021.

Housing Preservation Needs
Subsidized housing provides the largest amount of affordable housing to persons and families earning extremely low, very low, and low income.

As shown in Table 2-32, as of September 2021, Ontario has an identified 33 developments with 1,959 units of housing built with various local, state, and federal subsidies that are deed-restricted as affordable for lower-income households and persons with special housing needs.

California law requires that all housing elements include an analysis of “assisted multiple-family housing” projects as to their eligibility to change from low-income housing to market rates within 10 years of the beginning of the eight-year planning period that will begin on October 15, 2021. This at-risk analysis section thus addresses any affordable assisted units that are at-risk of market-rate conversion as late as October 15, 2031.

Assisted housing developments or at-risk units are multifamily rental housing complexes that receive government assistance under federal, state, and local programs within the current and subsequent eight-year planning period of the housing element. It there are units at-risk, the element must include a detailed inventory and analysis. The inventory must list:
• Each development by project name and address;
• Type of governmental assistance received;
• Earliest possible date of change from low-income use; • Total elderly and nonelderly units that could be converted; • An analysis of the costs of preserving and replacing these units; 1768
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-54 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
• Resources for preservation of at-risk units; and
• Program for preservation of at-risk units and quantified objectives.

Affordable housing periodically converts to market rents, particularly during inflationary times when market rents escalate and create a financial incentive.

The City of Ontario made significant progress in preserving many affordable housing projects at-risk of conversion to market rents. During the past housing planning period, the City actively preserved the Ontario Townhomes project, an 85-unit project-based Section 8 property, for an additional 20 years. Table 2-32 provides an inventory of all publicly subsidized affordable housing projects in Ontario and their status. 1769
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-55
Table 2-32
Publicly Subsidized Multiple-Family Housing
Project/Address Unit Type Total Units Total Assisted
Units
Assisted
Units at Risk Funding Source Earliest Expiration
Units at Risk of Converting

WOODSIDE II (SENIOR)
302 West G Street Senior 60 60 12
Amended and Restated Regulatory and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants First Supplemental Regulatory Agreement and
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
12/1/2021

ENCORE TOWNHOMES
(F/K/A WAVERLY PLACE)
1725 East G Street
Multifamily 155 62 31 MFHB 12/1/2021

RANCHO VISTA TOWNHOMES
(F/K/A CAMBRIDGE SQUARE)
1037 N. Archibald Avenue
Multifamily 125 50 25 MFHB 12/1/2022

CEDAR VILLAS (SENIOR)
301 East Cedar Senior 136 123 123 Housing Revenue Bond 3/25/2024

MISSION OAKS
1427 West Mission Boulevard Multifamily 80 80 80 RDA Housing Set-Aside 5/30/2025 CICHON
225 East D Street and 415 North
Plum A & B
Multifamily 3 3 3 LMIHF 7/15/2025

ESTANCIA
1720 East D Street Multifamily 152 85 85 ORA Agreement with Owner 8/6/2026

CINNAMON RIDGE (SENIOR)
1051 East Fourth Street Senior 101 101 101 Housing Revenue Bond 8/6/2026 SUBTOTAL 812 564 460
Units Not at Risk of Converting
AVANTE
(F/K/A WATERFORD COURT)
1675 East G Street
Multifamily 165 17 _ MFHB 2/9/2059

WOODSIDE III (SENIOR)
408 West G Street Senior 84 67 _ MFHB 2/9/2059

ONTARIO TOWNHOUSES
1360 East D Street Multifamily 86 85 _ HUD Assisted Project Section 236(J)(1) 3/26/2074

SEASONS (SENIOR)
955 North Palmetto Senior 80 80 _ Housing Revenue Bond; LIHTC 12/31/2072 1770
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-56 Adoption Draft JanuaryOctober 2021 2022
Table 2-32
Publicly Subsidized Multiple-Family Housing
Project/Address Unit Type Total Units Total Assisted
Units
Assisted
Units at Risk Funding Source Earliest Expiration

VESTA (HOGI)
520-526 1/2 West Vest Street Multifamily 6 6 _ HOME 6/6/2057 MT. VIEW (SENIOR)
Phase I
511 North Palmetto Avenue
Senior 86 86 _ HOME; RDA Set-Aside: LIHTC 2/13/2058

PALM TERRACE II
1449 East D Street Senior 48 47 _ Section 202 6/30/2059

PARK CENTRE
850 North Center Street Multifamily 404 101 _ Housing Revenue Bonds 12/1/2060

CASITAS
1900 South Campus Multifamily 253 48 _ Parc Vista/Terrace View deal 1/11/2061

SUMMIT PLACE
1130 West Fourth Street Multifamily 75 75 _ MFHB, RDA Set-Aside 1/11/2061

SUMMIT WALK
1206 West Fourth Street Multifamily 78 78 _ MFHB, RDA Set-Aside 1/11/2061 LANDMARK @ONTARIO
950 North Dussenberg Drive Multifamily 469 71 _ City DDA with property owner 11/20/2061

VINTAGE APARTMENTS
955 North Dussenberg Multifamily 300 45 _ DDA (Developer Agreement) 4/17/2062 Mt. VIEW (SENIOR)
Phase II
511 North Palmetto Avenue
Senior 20 20 _ LIHTC 7/15/2062

FRANCIS APARTMENTS
307-311 West Francis Multifamily 15 15 _ HOME, LMIHF 7/1/2114

CITY CENTER SENIOR

APARTMENTS
280 North Lemon
Senior 76 75 _ HOME, LIHTC 9/21/2065
METRO 102
(F/K/A COLONY APARTMENTS)
102 North Lemon Avenue
Multifamily 160 160 _ LMIHF 9/21/2064

PALM TERRACE I
1433 East D Street Senior 91 90 _ HOME; Section 202 8/12/2060 1771
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-57
Table 2-32
Publicly Subsidized Multiple-Family Housing
Project/Address Unit Type Total Units Total Assisted
Units
Assisted
Units at Risk Funding Source Earliest Expiration

BEGONIA AVENUE APARTMENTS
209, 216, 217, 222, 223, 228, and
231N. Begonia Ave.

Multifamily 28 28 _ NSP1, LMIHF, NSP3, HOME 1/24/2066
305 NORTH BEGONIA AVENUE Multifamily 4 4 _ LMIHF, HOME 7/1/2114 1164 WEST VESTA STREET and
1165 WEST HOLLOWELL STREET Multifamily 8 8 _ NSP3, HOME 7/5/2067

EMPORIA PLACE
220 South Fern Avenue Multifamily 75 74 _ LIHTC, OHA Funds 8/27/2075

VISTA VERDE APARTMENTS
110 North Virginia Avenue Multifamily 101 101 _ TCC, OHA Funds, MF Housing Revenue Bonds 4/25/2074

MERCY HOUSE
Guadalupe
411 & 412 North Parkside Drive
Multifamily 15 14 _ RDA Set Aside "411 – 02/14/2073
MERCY HOUSE Assisi House
(Transitional Housing)
517,521 & 525
Virginia Street
Transitional 34 beds 34 beds _ HOME 412 – 02/28/2069"

SUBTOTAL
(Does not include the 34 beds at Mecy House
Transitional Housing)
2,727 1,395

GRAND TOTAL
(Does not include the 34 beds at Mecy House
Transitional Housing)
3,539 1,959 460
Source: City of Ontario. 2021
F/K/A = Formerly Known As
Funding Sources
DDA = Disposition and Development Agreement NSP = Neighborhood Stabilization Program HOME = HOME Investment Partnerships Program OHA = Ontario Housing Authority LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit ORA = Ontario Redevelopment Agency LMIHF = Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund RDA Set-Aside = Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside funds MFHB = Multiple-Family Housing Revenue Bonds TCC = Transformative Climate Communities 1772
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-58 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Potential At-Risk Projects
City records identified eight affordable housing projects totaling 460 units for lower-income and moderate-income households where the owner’s obligation to retain the units as affordable will expire in the next 10 years if there is no intervention from the City or other entity. The potential of conversion is greater in an escalating rental market, where owners have a greater financial incentive to convert the projects.

The following describes the at-risk properties in detail. • Avante Townhomes. This project provided 50 affordable units to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The
affordability restrictions for 33 of the 50 assisted units expired on July 15, 2021. Seventeen (17) units remain restricted for moderateincome households until February 9, 2059. • Woodside III. This project provided 84 affordable units to very low-, low-, or moderate-income senior households. The project is financed through multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds. The affordability restrictions for 17 of the 84 assisted units expired on July 15, 2021. Sixty-seven (67) units remain restricted for moderate-income households until February 9, 2059.
• Woodside II. This project provides 60 affordable units to very low-, low-, or moderate-income senior households. The affordable units in this project were secured through an Amended and Restated Regulatory and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants First Supplemental Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. The affordability restrictions for 12 of the 60 assisted units expire as soon as December 1, 2021.
• Encore Townhomes. This project provides 62 affordable units to low- and moderate-income households. The project is financed through multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds. The affordability restrictions for 31 of the 62 affordable units expire as soon as December 1, 2021.
• Rancho Vista Townhomes. This project provides 50 affordable units to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. This project is financed through multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds.

The affordability restrictions for 25 of the 50 assisted units expire as soon as December 1, 2021.
1773
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-59
• Cedar Villas. This project provides 123 affordable units to very low- and moderate-income seniors. The project is financed through Housing Revenue Bonds. The affordability restrictions expire as soon as March 25, 2024.
• Mission Oaks. This project provides 80 affordable units to very low- and moderate-income families. The project is financed through an RDA Housing Set-Aside. The affordability restrictions expire as soon as May 30, 2025.
• Cichon. This project provides three affordable units to very low-, low-, and moderate-income families. The project is financed through the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund. The
affordability restrictions expire as soon as July 15, 2025. • Estancia. This project provides 85 affordable units to low- and moderate-income families. The affordability of units in this project is secured through an Occupational Rights Agreement with its owner. The affordability restrictions expire as soon as August 6, 2026.
• Cinnamon Ridge. This project provides 101 affordable units to very low-, low-, and moderate-income seniors. The project is financed through Housing Revenue Bonds. The affordability restrictions expire as soon as August 6, 2026.

Preservation Options
Typically, local governments have a wide range of options to replace affordable housing units lost through conversion to market rents.

However, the four primary ways are to replace the expired rental subsidies, construct new affordable housing units, offer incentives to rehabilitate the units in return for extended affordability controls, or facilitate the transfer of the project to another entity.

Replacement of Rent Subsidies
Rental subsidies using non-federal (state, local, or other) funding sources can be used to maintain affordability of the at-risk affordable units. These rent subsidies can be structured to mirror the federal Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program. Under Section 8, HUD pays the difference between what tenants can pay (defined as 30 percent of household income) and what HUD estimates as the fair-market rent on the unit. The feasibility of this alternative is highly dependent on the availability of other funding sources necessary to make rent subsidies available and the willingness of property owners to accept rental vouchers if they can be provided.
1774
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-60 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 2-33 calculates the annual subsidy needed to replace HUD subsidies at fair-market rents based on 2021 prices. As an example, the annual cost to subsidize the difference between affordable rent and fair-market rent for an existing very low-income unit for a family of four in a threebedroom unit in Ontario that is at-risk of market-rate conversion would be approximately $11,154, in 2021 dollars. Low-income households occupying one- and two-bedroom units as well as moderate-income households of any size currently do not require subsidies as the affordable rents for these types of housing situations are estimated to be higher than the fair-market rent costs. Very low-income households of any size as well as low-income households occupying three- or fourbedroom units will likely require subsidies to pay rent as the fair-market rent estimates are higher than the affordable rent estimates. 1775
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-61
Table 2-33
Cost to Replace Rent Subsidies
Unit Size
Fair-Market Rent
Household Size
Affordable Very Low-Income
(50% AMI) Rent
Affordable Low- Income
(80% AMI) Rent
Affordable Moderate-Income
(120% AMI) Rent Monthly per-Unit Subsidy Annual per-Unit Subsidy Monthly Annual Monthly Annual Monthly Annual Monthly Annual Very LowIncome Low Income Moderate Income
Very LowIncome Low Income Moderate
Income
1-bedroom $1,106 $13,272 2 $790 $9,480 $1,265 $15,180 $1,860 $22,320 $316 $0 $0 $3,792 $0 $0 2-bedroom $1,390 $16,680 3 $889 $10,665 $1,423 $17,070 $2,093 $25,110 $501 $0 $0 $6,015 $0 $0 3-bedroom $1,917 $23,004 4 $988 $11,850 $1,580 $18,960 $2,325 $27,900 $930 $337 $0 $11,154 $4,044 $0 4-bedroom $2,369 $28,428 5 $1,068 $12,810 $1,708 $20,490 $2,511 $30,135 $1,302 $662 $0 $15,618 $7,938 $0 Sources: HUD Fair Market Rents 2021; San Bernardino County; 2021 California HCD Income Limits Note: Affordability based on 30% of monthly income for each category as outlined in the 2021 California HCD Income Limits. Subsidy costs of $0 indicate that the affordable rent estimate is higher than the estimated fair market rent price from HUD so no subsidy is needed. 1776
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-62 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
1777
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-63
Based on the data and cost estimates presented in Table 2-33, Table 2-34 presents the estimated costs to preserve the identified at-risk housing units. Currently, the estimated annual cost to preserve all at-risk housing in Ontario using rent subsidies would likely be $470,093. The median cost to preserve all the at-risk units within one housing project is an estimated $65,511. The most expensive project to preserve via rent subsidies would be 123 units at Cedar Villas at an estimated $162,405 in 2021 dollars, whereas the least costly project in the city to subsidize would be the 3 units at Cichon, at an estimated $3,792 in 2021 dollars. Encore Townhomes and Estancia likely have units whose affordable rents are currently higher than the estimated fair-market rent cost and thus they likely would be ineligible to receive subsidies. These estimates may vary depending on data limitations relating to the bedroom mix and income category since these factors together determine the cost of the rent subsidy.
1778
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-64 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 2-34
Cost to Subsidize At-Risk Units in Ontario, 2021
Project/Address Unit
Type
Total
Units
Assisted
Units
Total
At-Risk Units
Total Unit Bedroom Mix
Annual
Subsidy
Cost
Earliest
Expiration Total Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income

WOODSIDE II (SENIOR)
302 West G Street Senior 84 84 12 6 6 0
68 1-bedroom,
15 2-bedroom, and
13-bedroom units
$58,842 12/1/2021

ENCORE TOWNHOMES
(F/K/A WAVERLY PLACE)
1725 East G Street
Multifamily 155 62 31 0 31 0 152 2-bedroom and
3 4-bedroom units $0 12/1/2021

RANCHO VISTA TOWNHOMES
(F/K/A CAMBRIDGE SQUARE)
1037 N. Archibald Avenue
Multifamily 125 50 25 12 13 0 116 2-bedroom and
9 3-bedroom units $72,180 12/1/2022

CEDAR VILLAS (SENIOR)
301 East Cedar Senior 136 123 123 27 0 96 104 1-bedroom and 32 2-bedroom units $162,405 3/25/2024

MISSION OAKS
1427 West Mission Boulevard Multifamily 80 80 80 16 0 64 8 1-bedroom, 64 2-bedroom, and 8 3-bedroom units $93,242 5/30/2025 CICHON
225 East D Street and 415 North
Plum A & B
Multifamily 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1-bedroom, 1 2-bedroom,
and 1 3-bedroom units $3,792 7/15/2025

ESTANCIA
1720 East D Street Multifamily 152 85 85 0 31 54 50 1-bedroom and 102 2-bedroom units $0 8/6/2026

CINNAMON RIDGE (SENIOR)
1051 East Fourth Street Senior 101 101 101 21 60 20 38 1-bedroom and 63 2-bedroom units $79,632 8/6/2026 Total -- 836 588 460 83 142 235 -- $470,093 --
Source: City of Ontario, 2021.

Note: Costs to preserve at-risk units are estimates only based on available data. Cost estimates rely on 2021 Fair Market Rent data from HUD to determine costs of subsidizing at-risk units, which varies by income category and bedroom count. Data on each housing project does not indicate the bedroom count or income category of each at-risk unit concurrently so cost estimates assume the bedroom count and income category of each unit atrisk. These assumptions are as follows:

Woodside II: Estimate assumes 6 Very Low Income 1-bedroom and 6 Low Income 2-bedroom units Encore: Estimate assumes 31 Low Income 2-bedroom units
Rancho Vista: Estimate assumes 12 Very Low Income and 4 Low Income 2-bedroom and 9 Low Income 3-bedroom units Cedar Villas: Estimate assumes 96 Moderate Income 1-bedroom and 27 Very Low Income 2-bedroom units Mission Oaks: Estimate assumes 8 Very Low Income 1-bedroom, 64 Moderate Income 2-bedroom, and 8 Very Low Income 3-bedroom units Cichon: Estimate assumes 1 Very Low Income 1-bedroom, 1 Low Income 2-bedroom, and 1 Moderate Income 3-bedroom units Estancia: Estimate assumes 31 Low Income 1-bedroom and 54 Moderate Income 2-bedroom units Cinnamon Ridge: Estimate assumes 21 Very Low Income and 17 Low Income 1-bedroom and 43 Low Income and 20 Moderate Income 2-bedroom units 1779
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-65
Construction of New Units
The second option is to replace the actual affordable units through new construction. This alternative entails finding suitable sites, purchasing land, negotiating with a developer, funding the project, and the other costs associated with building new housing. The final cost of constructing deed-restricted affordable housing units depends on whether the developer needs to purchase land (or whether the City can transfer the land at a subsidized price) and whether the City or private developer’s initial financial contribution can be leveraged with other funding sources.

No recent examples of a non-subsidized affordable multifamily project have been developed. Construction costs are higher than normal because of the nature of the projects and the desire for quality housing. Based on construction cost estimates derived from R.S. Means Construction Cost data, a five-story, 68-unit building built with precast concrete panels and a steel frame would cost approximately $140.84 per square foot. Using an average of 1,000 square feet per unit, this would equate to $140,840 per unit. At this per-unit cost, it would cost $64,786,400 to construct 460 new units to replace the 460 at-risk units.

The final cost to the City could be lowered through access to affordable housing funds from the state, federal government, or private funding sources.

Purchase of At-Risk Units
The City could purchase the units and facilitate transfer to a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing affordable housing. Under the right transfer provisions, this option would be an effective way to preserve the units because the new owner would have a vested interest in maintaining the affordability of the units and have access to funding sources not necessarily available to private for-profit companies. A nonprofit housing corporation could also rehabilitate it using low-income housing tax credits and extend affordability controls.

To facilitate the transfer to a nonprofit, the City could purchase the building outright at market prices and transfer it to the new owner. The market price could be determined in many different ways. The valuation of apartments is often done by examining the sales price of similarly situated properties. When this is not possible, apartments are often valued based on a combination of gross income, vacancy rate, operating and maintenance costs, condition of the property, and the capitalization rate.

The current market value of the projects was estimated using information from multifamily sales listings within Ontario’s boundaries. The average cost to purchase a multifamily development was $289,700 per unit. There are 460 units at-risk of converting to market rate within the current 1780
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-66 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
planning cycle. Using the previously established average cost per unit, if these were purchased, the estimated cost of acquiring these for the City would be $133,262,000.

Rehabilitation of At-Risk Units
Apartment projects often need rehabilitation, and the property owner may have insufficient funds to complete periodic repairs and renovations.

In these situations, the City may find it advantageous to work with the property owner and offer a flexible number of financial incentives (e.g., low-interest loans, renegotiation of current loan packages, cash incentives) in return for extending the length of the affordability covenants on the affordable units. In fact, the City of Ontario has successfully used this approach for the vast majority of affordable housing units.

Rehabilitation and preservation costs depend on a number of factors, most notably the condition of the property, the amount of deferred maintenance, the financial viability of the project, and the length of affordability term. Projects requiring structural improvements may be more expensive, particularly if lead-based paint hazards must be abated.

Qualified Entities
Nonprofit entities serving the larger Greater Los Angeles region, including San Bernardino County and Ontario, can be contacted to gauge their interest and ability in acquiring and/or managing units at-risk of conversion. Table 2-35 shows a partial listing of entities with resources in the San Bernardino County and Greater Los Angeles area. In addition, the full list of quantified entities is included as Appendix A.

Table 2-35
Qualified Entities Near Ontario
Entity Name Address City
Neighborhood Housing Services of
the Inland Empire Inc. 1390 North D Street San Bernardino National Community Renaissance 9421 Haven Avenue Rancho Cucamonga Nexus for Affordable Housing 1572 N. Main Street Orange Orange Housing Development
Corporation 414 E. Chapman Avenue Orange
Richman Group of California LLC 21520 Yorba Linda Blvd, Suite G-548 Yorba Linda CSI Support & Development Services 201 E. Huntington Drive Monrovia Highland Property Development LLC 250 W. Colorado Boulevard. Suite 210 Arcadia Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021. 1781
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-67
Summary of Options
As described previously, estimates to preserve the 460 at-risk units in Ontario are:
• Annual cost of rent subsidies: $470,093
• Construction of new units: $64,786,400
• Purchase of existing multifamily units: $133,262,000.

Determining the most cost-effective approach to preserving affordable housing at-risk of conversion to market rents must consider a number of cost factors and market contingencies. Important cost considerations include the achievable rents under current market conditions, the condition of the property and need for rehabilitation, the income levels of the occupants, and the willingness of property owners to accept one or more of the available options. Moreover, one option may be more effective than another, depending on the timing of the decision.

Under the first scenario, City replacement of rent subsidies would easily be the most cost-effective approach in the present market since there is little difference between fair-market rents and affordable rents. But this could quickly change if the occupants had very low or extremely low incomes or rents increased. For preservation options with a longer guarantee of affordability, when funding is available, the City of Ontario could offer rehabilitation loans. The City has successfully used this option to preserve the affordability of many projects.

If the City wishes to preserve the building for as long as possible, potentially in perpetuity, transfer of ownership is the best route. Qualified entities in the business of affordable housing are looking for opportunities to purchase at-risk projects. However, they may lack the financing to make such a purchase. In these cases, if funding is available, the City could offer low-interest loans or gap financing that would allow a nonprofit entity to purchase the property. This strategy would allow the City to ensure the long-term affordability of the project while minimizing the amount of direct public investment.

Program 25 is the City’s program to assist with at-risk housing projects. 1782
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-68 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Potential Sources of Funding to Preserve Affordable Housing The funding sources that can potentially be used to preserve affordable housing are listed herein.

Home Investment Partnerships Funds
The Federal HOME program was created as a result of the CranstonGonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Local jurisdictions may use HOME funds to develop and support affordable rental housing and homeownership affordability through acquisition and to provide assistance to homebuyers. This includes new construction; reconstruction or rehabilitation of non-luxury housing with suitable amenities, including real property acquisition, site improvements, conversion, demolition, and other expenses, such as financing costs; and relocation expenses of any displaced people, families, businesses, or organizations. HOME funds may also be used to provide tenant-based rental assistance. Housing developed with HOME funds must serve low- and very-low-income households.

Community Development Block Grant Program
Through the Federal CDBG program, HUD provides funding for a range of community development activities. The primary objectives of the CDBG program are decent housing, suitable living environments, and expanded economic opportunities for people with low and moderate incomes (“low income” is defined as household income at 80 percent or less of AMI and includes the local and State definition of “very low income”). CDBG funds are awarded for housing activities, including acquisition and rehabilitation, homebuyer assistance, economic development, homelessness services, and public services. CDBG funds are subject to certain restrictions and generally cannot be used for new housing construction.

Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program is the loan guarantee provision of the CDBG program. This provision provides communities with a source of financing for various housing and economic development activities. Rules and requirements of the CDBG program apply, and therefore, projects and activities must principally benefit people with low and moderate incomes, aid in the elimination or prevention of blight, and/or meet urgent needs of the community. Activities eligible for these funds include economic development activities eligible under CDBG; acquisition of real property; rehabilitation of publicly owned property; housing rehabilitation eligible under CDBG; construction, reconstruction, or installation of public facilities; related relocation, clearance, or installation of public facilities; payment of interest on the guaranteed loan 1783
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-69
and issuance costs of public offerings; debt service reserves; and public works and site improvements.

Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program
The Federal Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program provides rental assistance to lower income households earning up to 80 percent of the County AMI. Under Section 8, HUD pays the difference between what tenants can pay (defined as 30 percent of household income) and what HUD estimates as the fair-market rent on the unit.

Low Income Housing Tax Credits
The CTCAC administers the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to encourage private investment in affordable rental housing for households meeting certain income requirements. Credits are available for new construction projects or existing properties undergoing rehabilitation. Two types of Federal tax credits are available and are generally referred to as 9 percent and 4 percent credits, respectively. The competition for each type is fierce. Because 9 percent credits are so desirable and in limited supply, the CTCAC awards them through a competitive process twice per year. Projects compete on point scoring, but because most projects receive the maximum point score, the CTCAC’s tiebreaker formula generally decides the outcome. Tax credits of 4 percent derive from a project’s use of tax-exempt bond authority allocated by the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC). The California Legislature authorized a State LIHTC program to augment the Federal LIHTC program. Because State LIHTCs are also in limited supply, the CTCAC awards them competitively. In total, 85 percent of the State LIHTCs are integrated into 9 percent tax credit projects, while the remainder are reserved for 4 percent tax credit projects. As of 2020, the trend has been that an award of 9 percent tax credits is not feasible for projects that do not include some component of permanent supportive housing. Thus, projects focused on low-income units or a mix of very-lowand low-income units, are now applying for 4 percent tax credits, which represent significantly less funding. Overall, the demand for this significant funding source critical to the development of lower-income housing greatly outweighs the supply of funding.
1784
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-70 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022

3. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

Under state law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
AB 686 requires the City of Ontario (City), and all jurisdictions in the state, to complete three major requirements as part of the housing element update:

1. Conduct an AFH that includes a summary of fair housing issues; an analysis of available federal, state, and local data knowledge to identify patterns of segregation or other barriers to fair housing; and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues.

2. Prepare the Housing Element Land Inventory and identification of sites through the lens of AFFH.

3. Include a program in the Housing Element that affirmatively furthers fair housing and promotes housing opportunities throughout the community for protected classes and addresses contributing factors identified in the AFH (applies to housing elements beginning January 1, 2019).

To comply with AB 686, the City has completed the following outreach and analysis. Some of the information is based on the City of Ontario’s 2020 AFH adopted in June 2020, and the San Bernardino County Regional Analysis of Impediments (Regional AI), completed in April 2020.

3.1 Outreach
As discussed in theSection 7, Housing Element Outreach section, the City has used a variety of outreach methods, in addition to the standard public hearing process, to reach stakeholders and members of all socioeconomic segments of the city.

Feedback obtained through the concurrent greater TOP update outreach effort, which included stakeholder interviews, an online survey, and community and local group workshops, highlighted prominent fair housing issues Ontario residents experience. The City also conducted outreach specific to the topic of Environmental Justice, including 1785
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-71
stakeholder interviews, and an on‐line Environmental Survey which was advertised on social media and posters at the Community Centers. Staff attended two Concert in the Park events resulting in over 200 responses to the Environmental Survey.

With respect to barriers to access affordable housing, environmental justice groups and residents both identified the rapid increase of housing and rental prices in Ontario, and anecdotally observed an increase in displaced and unhoused households. As will be discussed in the analysis of Displacement Risk, this feedback reinforces findings that the prevalence of poverty, particularly in northwest Ontario, makes lower income households vulnerable to displacement with even minor increases in rent. As rapidly rising rent continues to be of concern for Ontario residents and community stakeholders, the City has committed to Programs 2, 23, 24, 27, 31, and 32 that work to implement antidisplacement efforts for lower income households. Community members and stakeholders shared difficulty qualifying for income-restricted affordable housing units, indicating a need to review if the qualification requirements for income-restricted units appropriately address Ontario residents’ housing needs to identify barriers to qualifying (e.g., proof of residency, income levels, employment record, credit history, etc.). This request was included in Programs 7 and 27 (ADUs and Fair Housing) to consider barriers for persons with disabilities in accessing incomerestricted units and as a program consideration for ADU incentive programs. Overall, both community members and environmental justice groups identified that existing affordable housing is largely concentrated in one area of the City, establishing a need to disperse affordable housing in neighborhoods citywide. In particular, community members and stakeholders identified that new development in Ontario Ranch should not be limited to affluent households but include a balance of affordable housing, with the caveat that Ontario Ranch is served by consistent and safe transit options to access essential services. This consideration was included with Program 27 (Fair Housing).

To prepare the Ontario 2020 AFH, the City and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law conducted a broad array of outreach to ensure active community involvement, including groups typically underrepresented in the planning process. Through a combination of community meetings, focus groups, community surveys, and public hearings, the City and the Lawyers’ Committee reached out to Ontario residents, including Hispanic groups, tenants, homeowners, fair housing organizations, advocacy groups, social service providers for persons with disabilities, low-income households, and persons experiencing homelessness, among others.

Beginning in February 2020, the Lawyers’ Committee held meetings with individual stakeholders throughout the region. In addition, the City of 1786
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-72 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Ontario organized a series of meetings in predominantly Hispanic communities. On Saturday, February 29, 2020, an all-day community fair was held that attracted hundreds of residents. The City also held an evening meeting with a wide array of organizations to discuss the AFH.

All community meetings had translation services available in Spanish. In addition, all meetings were held in locations accessible to people with mobility issues.

Through the outreach process, the City and the Lawyers’ Committee identified the following salient Fair Housing Goals and Policies, which informed the Ontario 2020 AFH. The City’s commitment to these goals and priority actions is included as Program 27.

Goal #1: Increase the supply of affordable housing in high-opportunity areas.

Ontario has a significant portion of its residents who are rent-burdened and facing severe housing problems. Additionally, publicly supported affordable housing accounts for slightly under 3 percent of the total housing stock, and Ontario and its environs are experiencing rapidly rising housing costs. Members of protected classes, particularly Hispanic and Black residents, experience these problems most acutely. These findings indicate a need to expand the supply of affordable housing. The Ontario 2020 AFH proposes the following priorities to increase the supply of affordable housing:

1. Explore the creation of new funding sources of affordable housing.

2. Using best practices from other jurisdictions, explore policies and programs that increase the supply of affordable housing, such as linkage fees, inclusionary housing, public land set-aside, community land trusts, transit-oriented development, and expedited permitting and review.

3. Explore opportunities to provide low-interest loans to singlefamily homeowners and grants to homeowners with household incomes of up to 120 percent of the Area Median Income to develop accessory dwelling units with affordability restriction on their property.

4. Align development codes to conform to recent California affordable housing legislation.

Goal #2: Increase community integration for persons with disabilities.

There is a lack of permanent supportive housing for non-elderly persons with disabilities in Ontario. The Ontario 2020 AFH identifies the 1787
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-73
following priority to expand housing opportunity for non-elderly persons with disabilities.

1. Prioritizing HOME funding for such projects, which should ideally set aside 10 to 25 percent of units for persons with disabilities who need supportive services, the City can help make development proposals more competitive for low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) and Mental Health Services Act assistance.

Goal #3: Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness.

As community stakeholder meeting attendees were unaware that landlords are required to accept housing vouchers and third-party checks and would benefit from fair housing education, targeted education efforts would help to reduce the incidence of unlawful source of income discrimination. Therefore, the Ontario 2020 AFH proposes the following priority to ensure equal access to housing.

1. Conduct fair housing training for landlords and tenants on California’s Source of Income Discrimination protections to reduce the number of voucher holders turned away.

The San Bernardino County Regional AI used a variety of approaches to achieve meaningful public engagement with residents and stakeholders, including 20 public meetings, 20 stakeholder interviews, and a communitywide survey. Respondents to the community survey reported overwhelmingly that there is a lack of affordable housing in San Bernardino County for both individual and families (selected by 71 percent of respondents) and additionally identified displacement risk due to rising housing costs as a barrier to fair housing (selected by 67 percent of respondents). Stakeholder interviews were conducted with 20 local providers of fair housing/legal advocacy, affordable housing, persons with disabilities, seniors, low-income households, and others.

Stakeholders spoke about housing conditions and fair housing issues regionally but offered insights specific to Ontario. In response to the question “Are public resources (e.g., parks, schools, roads, police & fire services, etc.) available evenly throughout all neighborhoods in your community?” stakeholders found that Ontario has “a good distribution of parks, schools, and community centers.”

3.2 Description of Ontario by Area
The AFH relies on comparing the history of development and land use practices across neighborhoods in Ontario and resulting differences in 1788
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-74 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
demographics and access to opportunity that have potential to affect the quality of life and achievement for residents in differing areas of the city.

For the purposes of the AFH, the areas of the city used for comparison are based on the 2021 California Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Map (Figure 3-2). As will be described in more detail, the HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map shows broadly that residents may experience differing access to opportunity depending on what area of Ontario they live in and, therefore, defining these areas of the city is meaningful to understand land use patterns that result in fair housing issues. Unless otherwise specified, these areas of Ontario identified in the HCD/TCAC Map that are used in this assessment for the purposes of comparison are defined by streets as follows (see Figure 3-1, Areas of Ontario, for visual representation).

Northwest area/Northwest Ontario: West of Archibald Avenue, inclusive of Ontario International Airport to the city’s western limits and north of Riverside Drive to the city’s northern limits.

Southeast area/Southeastern Ontario: East of the Ontario International Airport and Archibald Avenue to the eastern city limits and south of Riverside Drive to the city’s southern limits.

South and east Ontario is further delineated by:

Eastern area/Eastern Ontario: East of the Ontario International Airport and Archibald Avenue to the city limits and north of Riverside Drive.

Southern area/South Ontario: South of Riverside Drive, bounded by the city’s southern limits.
1789
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-75
Figure 3-1 Areas of Ontario
1790
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-76 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022

3.3 City of Ontario History
The City of Ontario was established in the 1880s with the founders’ vision of a planned community created on guiding principles including a mutual water company, prohibition of liquor, a grand thoroughfare through the city (Euclid Avenue), and an agricultural college for general education.

Ontario was incorporated in 1891, and in 1903, Ontario had been declared the “Model Colony” by an Act of Congress for its establishment of a new standard for urban living.

The City of Ontario first developed as an agricultural community, primarily producing citrus. The town expanded around Euclid Avenue, which established two of Ontario’s historic districts, the Historic Downtown and the College Park Historic District. Ontario’s population grew in the 1950s as the city shifted from an agricultural-based economy to an industry-based economy and manufacturing jobs became increasingly available. Mass production housing was constructed, reflecting a national beginning of suburban sprawl and the rise of the middle class. This growth radiated from the city’s historic cores, establishing most of the residential neighborhoods that dominate northwestern Ontario as it exists today. With the exception of the College Park Historic District, housing in the northwestern area is primarily renter-occupied, and as will be discussed further, households are projected to have poor economic and educational outcomes.

Ontario’s rapid job growth continued through the late twentieth century (1980s and 1990s), especially in industrial expansion of automotive plants, air cargo, commerce centers, and housing to match the growing job opportunities. During the 1980s, Ontario was ranked the seventh-fastest growing city in California. Much of the housing growth was focused in master-planned communities on either side of Riverside Drive in the southern and eastern areas of Ontario, including the communities of Archibald Ranch and Creekside. Currently, this area has higher rates of owner-occupied housing and generally higher median incomes than northwestern Ontario.

In 1999, Ontario annexed an 8,200-acre sphere of influence south of Ontario’s “Model Colony” southern border, referred to as the “Ag Preserve” and dedicated as the “New Model Colony,” and later renamed to “Ontario Ranch.” The annexation included the last significant remaining agricultural areas in San Bernardino Valley and provided land development opportunity. Ontario Ranch is the largest master-planned community in Southern California and includes residential neighborhoods, commercial facilities, and public open space, parks, and schools. Ontario’s 2020 AFH identified a “lack of affordable housing in south Ontario, in general, and Ontario Ranch in particular” as an 1791
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-77
impediment to fair housing. The western half of Ontario Ranch is still largely undeveloped and used for agriculture.

Growth areas for future development include intensified development in the downtown and Holt Boulevard areas, including affordable housing.

Development around the Ontario International Airport will continue to include a mix of uses, including hospitality, entertainment, and housing.

Future development of the Ontario Mills mall area will not include a reduction in commercial uses, but instead will focus on redevelopment that allows housing opportunities within mixed-use areas.

Recent affordable housing developments have been completed in downtown and along Holt Boulevard. The developments include Emporia Place (75 units of family housing for households with incomes ranging up to 60 percent of area median income) and Vista Verde Apartments (101 units of family housing for households with incomes ranging up to 60 percent of area median income). Additional affordable housing developments are planned in these areas, as well as other housing developments, including new rental and owner-occupied housing.

3.4 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires the City to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. According to the 2021 HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area Maps (Figure 3-2), Ontario contains a mixture of high-resource, moderate-resource, and low-resource areas.

The HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area Maps identify areas in every region of the state whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families—particularly long-term outcomes for children. Specifically, the HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area Map uses a composite score based on education, economic, and environmental indicators to categorize areas as “high resource,” “medium resource,” and “low resource.” Some of the indicators identified by TCAC and HCD to determine the access to opportunity include high levels of employment and close proximity to jobs, access to effective educational opportunities for both children and adults, low concentration of poverty, and low levels of environmental pollutants, among others. For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels refer to the geographic proximity and ease of access to resources, such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools, with low-resource areas having the most limited access. 1792
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-78 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Ontario’s high-resource areas are concentrated in the southeastern areas of the city, east of the Ontario International Airport and Archibald Avenue to the city limits and south of Highway 60 to S Archibald Avenue and E Riverside Drive, bounded by the city’s southern limits. Ontario’s high-resource areas are characterized by the city’s recent and future development. Business parks and industrial commerce centers dominate east Ontario north of Highway 60, while housing (primarily single-family residential) is south of Highway 60 in eastern Ontario Ranch (east of Archibald Avenue to Hamer Avenue). Western Ontario Ranch (west of Archibald Avenue to Euclid Avenue), largely dairy and other agricultural farms, will continue to be developed into a mixed-use area of residential homes, commercial centers, and industrial and business parks.

More than half of Ontario’s northwestern area (west of Archibald Avenue, inclusive of Ontario International Airport and north of Riverside Avenue to Euclid Avenue and Highway 60 west of Euclid Avenue) is considered low-resource and has relatively low access to education and employment opportunities. In comparison to Ontario’s high-resource areas, Ontario’s low-resource areas score poorly for economic and educational indicators.

This implies low economic mobility from high rates of poverty and unemployment, low rates of post-secondary school attainment and proximity to jobs, and low upward mobility because of the impact of neighborhood conditions on students’ academic proficiency measured by math and reading proficiency, high school graduate rates, and student poverty rates. The remainder of Ontario’s northwestern area is made up of moderate-resource areas. These areas have scored much higher for economic outcomes than the low-resource areas but only slightly higher for educational outcomes, indicating Ontario’s moderate-resource areas received this categorization based on ability to achieve higher economic mobility than the low-resource areas. All of Ontario, including highresource areas, scored poorly for environmental outcomes, suggesting Ontario has high exposure to pollution that could result in significant health issues.

Three census tracts in the city are designated as an area of high segregation and poverty (Figure 3-3). The TCAC/HCD created the high segregation and poverty designation to identify census tracts where at least 30 percent of the population is below the federal poverty level ($26,500 annually for a family of four in 2021) coincides with an overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county. Two of the census tracts are adjacent and are bounded by Holt Boulevard to the south, N Vineyard Avenue to the east, E G Street to the north, and N Allyn Avenue to E D Street and Florence Avenue to the west. N Grove Avenue divides the two census tracts. The third census tract is bounded by Interstate 10 to the south, N Baker Avenue to E 6th Street and N Grove Avenue to the east, Ontario city boundaries to the north and west to 1793
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-79
Interstate 10. All three census tracts are primarily characterized by smalllot single-family residential and multifamily development.

The City has conducted the following analysis of available data to assess local access to opportunities and indicators of fair housing issues, in addition to the designations provided by the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Map. Data for racial/ethnic concentrations of poverty, median income, poverty status, predominant population (Hispanic), familial status, overpayment, and overcrowding was available at the census-tract level, and data for overpayment and diversity were available at the blockgroup level. The City has used the most localized level of data available for the analysis.

Patterns of Integration and Segregation
To assess patterns of segregation and integration, the City analyzed six characteristics: Racially/Ethnic Concentrations or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP), Hispanic majority, diversity index, income and poverty, familial status, and population with a disability as of 2019 (2018 for Diversity Index and 2010 for Hispanic Majority). Ontario has two census tracts that are considered a R/ECAP, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Figure 3-3). HUD identifies an R/ECAP as any area with a non-white population of more than 50 percent and either a poverty rate of 40 percent or more or a poverty rate of more than three times the average poverty rate for the county. The R/ECAPs are adjacent to one another and located in central Ontario within the low-resource area, and border two of the areas of high segregation and poverty identified in the TCAC /HCD map. One R/ECAP includes Ontario International Airport to the east and is bounded by Mission Boulevard to the south, the city limits along Benson Avenue to the west, and Holt Boulevard to Main Street and Holt Boulevard to N Vineyard Avenue, Interstate 10 to N Archibald Avenue, and E Airport Drive to S Haven Avenue to the north.

The second R/ECAP is located north of the first, bounded by Holt Boulevard to the south, N Sultana Avenue to the west, E G Street to the north, and Florence Avenue to E D Street and N Allyn Avenue to the east.

According to the analysis provided in the Ontario 2020 AFH, the presence of R/ECAPs has arisen in the last 10 years; from 1990 to 2010, there were no R/ECAPs present in the city. This indicates poverty has become increasingly concentrated in Ontario and may correlate with issues such as increasing economic pressure, lack of affordable housing choice, and lack of educational or economic mobility, and this has disproportionately impacted communities of color. As of the 2015–2019 American Community Survey (ACS), the population of the R/ECAP tracts were estimated to be 4,218 people for the northern R/ECAP (census tract 15.01) and 5,363 people for the southern R/ECAP (census tract 16.0). While there 1794
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-80 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
are few Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) in use in either R/ECAP, the south R/ECAP has 11 vouchers in use (1.2 percent of renting households) and the north R/ECAP does not have any HCVs in use, both areas are predominantly renting households, suggesting that low-income housing is concentrated in this area and is a contributing factor to mobility to medium- and high-resources areas in the city. While the majority of Ontario’s population identifies as Hispanic, there is a predominant Hispanic majority in both R/ECAPs (gap greater than 50 percent of the population), as well as in the TCAC-identified areas of high segregation and poverty, whereas much of the rest of the city only has a gap between 10 and 50 percent Hispanic (Figure 3-4). The R/ECAPs correlate with the highest levels of linguistic isolation, which can limit residents’ access to resources, essential services, and mobility to moderate- and high-resource areas because of language barriers outside of the R/ECAP neighborhoods. Much of San Bernardino Valley’s population, including the cities of Fontana, Bloomington, Rialto, and San Bernardino, predominantly identify as Hispanic. These areas similarly coincide with R/ECAPs within those cities, higher levels of linguistic isolation, and predominantly low-resource areas and areas of high poverty and segregation. This indicates that San Bernardino Valley’s Hispanic population is more likely to reside in neighborhoods with limited upward mobility due to poor economic outcomes, educational outcomes, and linguistic barriers. Conversely, the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga are predominantly White by a gap ranging from 10 to 50 percent. Northern Upland and Rancho Cucamonga are categorized as highest resource on the TCAC /HCD map, suggesting the residents of these neighborhoods (predominantly White) will have the best economic, educational, and health outcomes. The City has included Program 24 to promote its first-time homebuyer program and other means of connecting residents with housing opportunities in the city, and Programs 6, 24, and 27 to reduce barriers to mobility from language barriers, particularly Spanish, to promote an inclusive community for all families, individuals, and households.

Overall, Ontario exhibits high diversity based on the Diversity Index, with nearly all of the city receiving a diversity index greater than or equal to 70, with 100 being perfect diversity and 0 being no diversity (Figure 3- 5). With exception to the R/ECAP south of Holt Boulevard, the city’s other R/ECAPs and TCAC/HCD-identified areas of high segregation and poverty coincide with very high levels of diversity. While predominantly Hispanic, the second most prevalent population in the block groups that form the census tracts are either White or Black/African American. Much of southeastern Ontario exhibit the very high levels of diversity, receiving a diversity index of 85 or higher. Hispanics comprise the majority of the population in these block groups; however, Whites are the second-most prevalent population, indicating the diversity in 1795
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022H-81
Ontario’s high resource areas are primarily Hispanic and White residents and that other communities of color are not highly represented in Ontario’s high resource areas. Regionally, similar patterns arise; overall, nearly all of the San Bernardino Valley received a diversity index greater than or equal to 70, an indicator of integrated communities. As seen in Ontario, regionally TCAC/HCD-identified areas of high segregation and poverty and low-resource areas correspond with high levels of diversity, particularly in the cities of San Bernardino, Bloomington, Rialto, and Fontana. The population for the block groups that comprise the areas of high segregation and poverty and low-resource areas are predominantly Hispanic with Black/African Americans often the second-most prevalent community. Conversely, San Bernardino Valley’s high-resource areas have relatively low diversity with a predominantly White population.

Regionally, Ontario’s diversity reflects the highly urbanized areas of Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Riverside County, often corresponding with the low-resource areas. Rural areas to the east and coastal areas to the south have lower diversity and are predominantly White. The coastal areas are largely categorized as high and highest resource.

The City will address concentrations of communities of color in low- resource areas, TCAC/HCD-identified areas of high segregation and poverty, and R/ECAPs through implementing Program 11 and Program 27, improving housing choice citywide by providing opportunities for affordable housing in high-resource areas.

The areas with the highest median income in Ontario are in south Ontario, which includes newer, high-end single-family homes in eastern Ontario Ranch (east of S Archibald Avenue) and the future Ontario Ranch (Figure 3-6). Currently, western Ontario Ranch (west of S Archibald Avenue) is largely agriculture and industrial uses, particularly truck parking and related small-scale transportation services. However, single-family development east of S Archibald Avenue is under construction and will be affordable to above-moderate income households. Few neighborhoods north of Highway 60 exceed a median income greater than the HCD 2020 State Median Income ($87,100). Further, Ontario’s R/ECAP neighborhoods and areas of high segregation and poverty primarily are low income, with median income not exceeding $55,000. These areas similarly show high rates of poverty with at least 20 to 30 percent of the population whose income is below the poverty level and two neighborhoods with 30 to 40 percent living in poverty (Figure 3-7).

Ontario’s distribution of income and poverty mirrors similar cities in the San Bernardino Valley, with patterns of R/ECAPs and TCAC/HCD- identified areas of high segregation and poverty reinforced by low median income and high rates of poverty. San Bernardino, the County’s largest city and with the highest number of census tracts designated as R/ECAPs, also contains the block groups with the lowest median incomes 1796
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-82 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
in the county (as low as $13,500). Fontana, the second largest city in San Bernardino County, also features block groups with median incomes less than $30,000 (as low as $21,500). As with Ontario, Fontana’s block groups with low median income fall within census tracts with majority Hispanic populations. Rancho Cucamonga, while having a similar population size to Ontario, features block groups with median incomes greater than $125,000 (as high as $171,000). These block groups coincide with census tracts with a predominantly White population. Ontario and the San Bernardino Valley reflect a general trend observed Tthroughout the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, there tends to be anshowing a increase decrease in median income, and decrease increase in poverty levels, presence of R/ECAPs, and increase in non-White populations (particularly Hispanic) outside withinof large city centers. Riverside, Los Angeles, and Anaheim all feature concentrated areas of low median income and higher rates of poverty in census tracts designated as R/ECAPs and/or with a predominantly Hispanic population.

Ontario has historically been a family-oriented community, influencing the dominance of single-family housing in many parts of the city, and results in patterns that still exist today. In most areas of the city, including all areas south of Highway 60 and east of Archibald Avenue, 40 percent of households consist of married couples with children (Figure 3-8); however, neighborhoods with lower percentages of children in marriedcouple households (20 to 40 percent) coincide with the city’s low-resource areas in northwest Ontario, including the R/ECAPs and areas of high segregation and poverty north of Holt Boulevard. This suggests Ontario’s low-resource areas have a higher percentage of single-parent households.

Single-parent households, reliant on one income, tend to have a lower rate of home ownership and face additional difficulties securing housing.

Affordable housing options available to single-parent households may be limited to the low-resource areas in northwest Ontario, resulting in the concentration of single-parent households in these areas. The concentration of single-parent households could also indicate discriminatory practices or an uneven distribution of housing types throughout Ontario that would support single-parent households.

Similar trends persist regionally within the San Bernardino Valley and countywide, implying that single-parent households have limited housing options in moderate- and high-resource areas of the county. In particular, the cities of San Bernardino, Adelanto, and Victorville all feature a higher proportion of census tracts where children living with married parents represents less than 50 percent of households with children. In Adelanto and San Bernardino, census tracts designated as R/ECAPs largely coincide with census tracts where children living with married parents represents less than 50 percent of households with children. To address the discrepancy in access in Ontario, the City will 1797
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-83
implement Program 10 and 11 to ensure the development of a variety of affordable housing options, including in high-resource areas.

Ontario also does not feature any areas with high levels of individuals living with disabilities, which would therefore be especially vulnerable from a fair housing perspective due to accessibility concerns or risk of discriminatory actions. In San Bernardino County, Upland, the City of San Bernardino downtown, northeastern Victorville, the rural High Desert, and much of the Coachella Valley, have the highest concentrations of persons with disabilities. These areas largely do not coincide with R/ECAPs, except for downtown San Bernardino and the portion of Victorville that has a concentration of disabled persons. The distribution of persons with disabilities in San Bernardino County may reflect both the additional availability of most resources for persons with disabilities (San Bernardino and Victorville) and common places to retire (rural High Desert and the Coachella Valley). Within Ontario, disability was the most common alleged basis for discrimination cases received by HUD, with over one-third of cases identifying this protected class. While Ontario features a lower proportion of disabled residents than other areas of San Bernardino County, resulting in fewer access concerns for current residents, it may be worth considering whether there are factors, such as transit access, cost, or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible units, that are tending to preclude disabled individuals from residing in Ontario. In particular, the Ontario 2020 AFH identified “there is a significant shortage of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes in both Ontario and in the broader region.” Ontario’s available affordable, accessible housing are predominantly senior housing, limiting opportunity for non-elderly persons with disabilities to secure affordable housing within Ontario. To support the findings of the Ontario 2020 AFH, this Housing Element includes Program 30 and 32 to prioritize funding for developments that include permanent supportive housing for nonelderly persons with disabilities and ensure that existing housing may be retrofitted for ADA accessibility. In addition, while not indicated as an area of discrimination in data provided by HUD, current policies regarding restrictions on the criminal histories of residents in boarding, lodging, or rooming houses may be considered discriminatory under California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 12264-12271. As part of Program 20, the City commits to reviewing and removing this restriction to prevent future discrimination against federal, state, or youth authority parolees.
1798
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-84 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Access to Opportunity
Ontario contains significant job centers for residents within the city and San Bernardino County as a whole. The City’s rapid job growth in the late twentieth century (1980s and 1990s) through the expansion of industrial sectors (e.g., the Ontario Airport, automotive plants, and air cargo) and the development of industrial and business parks in eastern Ontario cemented its role as a regional commerce center. As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, the net job inflow to Ontario supports the City’s position as a regional employment center: 43 percent of Ontario jobs are filled by out-of-city residents. Figure 3-9 (Job Proximity Index) shows Ontario serves as an employment epicenter for the San Bernardino Valley, along with San Bernardino, Loma Linda, and Redlands, which form another employment hot spot. HUD’s job proximity index for 2014- 2017 calculates scores based on the number of jobs filled by workers with less than a bachelor’s degree that fall within a typical commute distance for low-wage workers in the region for each block group. Block groups within Ontario receives relatively higher index scores for job proximity when compared to Rialto, Fontana, and the northern areas of Rancho Cucamonga, indicating that residents within Ontario benefit from closer proximity to employment centers as compared to surrounding cities.

As shown in Figure 3-9, within Ontario access to job centers in Ontario falls along the east-west divide. While higher than surrounding cities like Fontana and Rialto,Much of block groups in northwest Ontario, particularly areas west of S Euclid Avenue, received the lowest scores within the city. based on HUD’s job proximity index for 2014-2017, which calculates scores based on the number of jobs filled by workers with less than a bachelor’s degree that fall within a typical commute distance for low-wage workers in the region for each block group. Eastern Ontario, and to a lesser degree southern Ontario, primarily received a score of greater than 80, the highest score on the job proximity index. This reflects the pattern of housing development during the 1980s and 1990s, which was focused in master-planned communities on either side of Riverside Drive in the southern and eastern areas of Ontario, including the communities of Archibald Ranch and Creekside. Currently, this area has higher rates of owner-occupied housing and generally higher median incomes than northwestern Ontario. Residents in northwestern Ontario have to commute a longer distance to reach employment centers than residents in east and south Ontario. suggests that while job opportunities exist in high- and moderate-resource areas, the low-resource areas in northwest Ontario may offer fewer job opportunities and further commutes for low-wage workers. The mean commute time for Ontario residents in 2019 was 32.8 minutes, which exceeds the national average (26.9 minutes) and the San Bernardino County average (31.6 minutes), supporting that Ontario’s low job proximity may be a result of long commute times. The TCAC map categorized Ontario’s low resource areas 1799
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-85
due in part to less positive economic outcomes for households within those neighborhoods, based on low access to jobs and wages offered at available jobs, as well as low median household incomes and home values. To increase job opportunity and improve opportunity for economic mobility, Ontario will partner with San Bernardino County to promote the CalWorks program to assist eligible low-income families with children to meet basic needs and enter, or re-enter, the workforce (Program 27).

In February 2021, the California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare community environmental scores. A community with a high score has higher levels of pollution and other negative environmental indicators. While all of Ontario received scores above the 50th percentile, the highest scores are concentrated in the city’s lowresource areas, including the R/ECAPs and areas of high segregation and poverty, showing residents of these areas are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Ontario’s environmental conditions are similar to the dense urban communities in the San Bernardino Valley, which are highest in the low-resource areas of San Bernardino, Rialto, Bloomington, and Colton and drastically decrease in the high-resource areas of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga. Rancho Cucamonga and Upland not only feature increased access to parks and recreational areas within their city limits, but also border the Angeles National Forest, offering additional access to open space and wilderness area. To address environmental justice concerns in Ontario, the City is concurrently updating the Safety Element and incorporating Environmental Justice policies and actions, which include an assessment to identify neighborhoods that are disproportionately affected by pollution and other hazards that contribute to negative health effects, exposure, and environmental degradation as well as access to parks, grocery stores, and bicycle routes to inform policies to be included in the Policy Plan. Environmental Justice goals are interwoven throughout the City’s General Plan Elements.

Each year, the California Department of Education publishes performance metrics for each school in the state, including student assessment results for English Language Arts and Mathematics as they compare to the state on meeting grade-level standards. Reporting of educational indicators was suspended in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, 2019 is the most recent data available. There are 33 schools in Ontario, including 23 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, and 4 high schools. In 2019, the state-wide performance for English Language Arts was 2.5 points below standard and 33.5 points below standard for Mathematics. These scores measure how far students are from meeting the lowest possible score for their grade level standard, on 1800
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-86 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
average. A complete list of 2019 performance metrics is shown in Table 3-

1. Of the elementary schools, only Edison Elementary was higher than the standard for both English Language and Mathematics; all other elementary schools fell below the standard in either Mathematics or English Language. Of the 23 elementary schools, 4 exceeded the California statewide average for both English Language and Mathematics. While none of Ontario’s middle schools or high schools exceeded the statewide average for both English Language and Mathematics, all four high schools and Grace Yokley Middle School exceeded the statewide average for English Language. Colony High School and Ontario High School both exceeded the statewide average for college/career preparedness.
1801
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-87
Table 3-1
School Performance Metrics, 2019
School English Language Arts Score Mathematics Score College/Career Preparedness Score California Statewide Average 2.5 points below standard 33.5 points below standard 44.1% prepared Elementary Schools
Edison Elementary 38.5 points above standard 19.3 points above standard N/A Liberty Elementary 4.3 points above standard 5.7 points below standard N/A Ranch View Elementary 20.3 points above standard 0.2 points below standard N/A Creek View Elementary 16.1 points below standard 34.5 points below standard N/A Mountain View Elementary 1.5 points below standard 23.3 points below standard N/A Vineyard Elementary 3.8 points below standard 33.2 points below standard N/A Richard Haynes Elementary 25.8 points below standard 38.6 points below standard N/A Levi H. Dickey Elementary 30.8 points below standard 48.2 points below standard N/A Vista Grande Elementary 11.2 points above standard 14.4 points below standard N/A Elderberry Elementary 4.5 points below standard 7.1 points below standard N/A El Camino Elementary 22.8 points below standard 43.3 points below standard N/A Sultana Elementary 6 points below standard 22.3 points below standard N/A Corona Elementary 21.6 points below standard 27.4 points below standard N/A The Ontario Center 19.3 points below standard 38.3 points below standard N/A Central Language Center 5.1 points below standard 42.8 points below standard N/A Hawthorne Elementary 24.4 points below standard 43.5 points below standard N/A Del Norte Elementary 26.8 points below standard 48.8 points below standard N/A Arroyo Elementary 28.8 points below standard 47.3 points below standard N/A Mission Elementary 23.4 points below standard 34.2 points below standard N/A Euclid Elementary 16.7 points below standard 34.3 points below standard N/A Berlyn Elementary 46.6 points below standard 66.8 points below standard N/A 1802
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-88 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 3-1
School Performance Metrics, 2019
School English Language Arts Score Mathematics Score College/Career Preparedness Score Bon View Elementary 30 points below standard 50.9 points below standard N/A Mariposa Elementary 39.4 points below standard 55.2 points below standard N/A Middle Schools
Grace Yokley Middle School 7.1 points above standard 46.1 points below standard N/A Woodcrest Junior High 4.4 points below standard 39.8 points below standard N/A Oaks Middle School 13.3 points below standard 53.1 points below standard N/A De Anza Middle School 46 points below standard 63.9 points below standard N/A Vina Danks Middle School 28.6 points below standard 83.8 points below standard N/A Ray Wiltsey Middle School 36.2 points below standard 76.7 points below standard N/A High Schools
Colony High School 34.3 points above standard 37.6 points below standard 53.3% prepared Ontario High School 1.8 points above standard 65.7 points below standard 48.9% prepared Chaffey High School 1 point below standard 89.3 points below standard 37.5% prepared Chaffey District Online High School 70.6 points above standard 80.1 points below standard 57.1% prepared School Districts
Chaffey Joint Union High District 38.4 points above standard 38.1 points below standard 53.1% prepared Mountain View Elementary District 3.6 points above standard 33.8 points below standard N/A Ontario-Montclair District 16.9 points below standard 39.2 points below standard N/A Chino Valley Unified District Not Available Not Available N/A Cucamonga Elementary District Not Available Not Available N/A Source: California School Dashboard, 2019.
1803
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-89
Schools are fairly well distributed throughout the city, with no areas with dramatically less access or proximity to schools. The highest and lowest ranked schools (per California Student Dashboard) are not clustered in any particular area or neighborhood of the city. Ontario’s highestperforming schools (Edison Elementary, followed by Liberty Elementary) are located in moderate-resource areas with low rates of poverty, higher rates of home ownership, and higher median incomes, suggesting residents attending these schools may have more economic and housing stability than residents of low-resource areas. Ontario’s lowest performing schools (Berlyn Elementary and Ray Wiltsey Middle School) are located in a low-resource area and a TCAC/HCD-identified area of high segregation and poverty, respectively. For both schools, English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and homeless students have the highest rate of chronic absenteeism (missing more than 10 percent of instructional days) and suspension rate, further indicating the role of housing security in student performance and engagement at school. While most schools in the district perform similarly, there is not a significant difference in access to schools based on proficiency outside of access to Edison Elementary. Overall, addressing housing security and availability of multilingual support services may improve educational opportunities for all students, and particularly students residing in lowresource areas, areas of high segregation and poverty, and R/ECAPs. This Housing Element includes a set of programs to increase housing opportunity for extremely low-income households, including Programs 23, 24, 32, and 33.

Ontario residents are served by OmniTrans, which provides bus routes connecting cities within San Bernardino Valley. There are six OmniTrans routes with transit stops within Ontario, most providing north-south service connecting Ontario to Upland, Montclair, and Rancho Cucamonga to the north and Chino and Eastvale to the south. Route 61, Route 82, and Route 290 provide east-west service through Ontario, connecting Pomona and Montclair to Fontana and San Bernardino via Ontario. Ontario bus routes typically arrive at stops at 60-minute intervals during morning and evening peak hours; however, Route 61 provides transit approximately every 20 to 30 minutes. Exception for express routes, OmniTrans bus routes operate seven days a week, typically with reduced schedules on weekends. Given that several routes are available to Ontario residents, transit is not considered a barrier to fair housing in the city; however, the City will meet biannually with Orange San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBOCTA) to assess if any new unmet transit needs have developed and, if so, will provide technical assistance in applying for state and federal funding for expansions (Program 27). 1804
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-90 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
To meet the needs of persons with disabilities in Ontario, there are 6 licensed residential care facilities for the elderly and 27 licensed adult residential care facilities. Additionally, residents that qualify under the ADA can use OmniAccess, a curb-to-curb shared ride service that complements the OmniTrans fixed-route system. The OmniAccess service area is up to three-quarter mile on either side of an existing bus route.

OmniAccess riders make reservations for trips or arrange a subscription service for recurring trips. OmniTrans offers a Travel Training Program, providing one-on-one or group assistance to seniors and individuals with disabilities to learn to use the bus system. The City also requires new developments to comply with Title 24 of the 2019 California Building Code to ensure that all new construction meets accessible design standards, thus ensuring that all new housing is accessible for all residents regardless of disability. Additionally, the City ensures that older housing that may not meet the same accessibility requirements can be adapted as needed by seeking funding to assist with rehabilitations (Program 30).

Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk
As discussed previously in the Needs Assessment, overcrowding is an issue in the City of Ontario and significantly impacts renter households.

According to California Health and Human Services (CHHS), the rate of overcrowding is higher in the northwest area of the city and highest in areas designated as R/ECAPs and TCAC/HCD-identified areas of high segregation and poverty, where households are primarily renting (Figure 3-10). Overall, approximately 12 percent of households are experiencing overcrowding, which breaks out to 18 percent of renter-occupied households and 0.7 percent of owner-occupied households. Within the areas in Figure 3-10 showing the highest rate of overcrowding, approximately 22 to 32 percent of households are overcrowded. South of Highway 60, tracts experiencing overcrowding do not exceed 12 percent of households. Overcrowding typically implies that either appropriately sized housing is unaffordable or unavailable to current residents, and results in an increased risk of displacement for households living in unit types that do not meet their needs. The area of the city with the highest rate of overcrowding has older, smaller housing units compared to the newer development in southeast Ontario. As discussed in the San Bernardino County 2020 Regional Analysis of Impediments, “availability of housing in a variety sizes is important to meet the needs of different demographic groups.” Patterns of overcrowding in Ontario are similarly seen across the San Bernardino Valley; rates of overcrowding are highest in census tracts designated as R/ECAPs. This suggests that communities of color and areas of increased poverty are the most susceptible to overcrowding. Ontario places among San Bernardino, Fontana, and Rialto as cities with higher rates of overcrowding. Rancho Cucamonga and Upland predominantly have census tracts with very low rates of 1805
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022H-91
overcrowding, coinciding with census tract with largely White populations. Of San Bernardino County households receiving public assistance for housing, housing choice voucher (HCV) programs has the most success in placing households in units with at least three bedrooms (1,045 units), followed by public housing developments (152 units).

Project-based Section 8 program housing has allowed for households to occupy 107 units with at least three bedrooms, but is more successful in placing households in studio or one-bedroom units. This suggests that countywide, HCV programs could address issues of overcrowding by improving ability to obtain housing of a suitable size where rental price would have been a barrier. To address overcrowding as a result of doubling up, unaffordable housing options, or multi-generational households, among other reasons, the City commits to expanding HCV use (Program 23), will continue promoting the construction of ADUs (Program 20 and 27), expand housing opportunities for extremely low income households (Program 33) to encourage an increase in housing supply and reduce risk of displacement for residents of these neighborhoods.

As with overcrowding, overpayment (cost burden) is a widespread issue in Ontario, impacting over a third of owner-occupied housing (33 percent) and a majority of renter-occupied housing (58 percent of households).

This trend reflects patterns of overpayment throughout the SCAG region, and in much of California. In San Bernardino County, renting households are more highly impacted by overpayment than homeowning households; however, cities with R/ECAPs (San Bernardino, Fontana, and Ontario) exhibit a higher rate of over payment among homeowning households, including within census tracts designated as R/ECAPs (Figure 3-11). By comparison, homeowners in Rancho Cucamonga and Upland experience overpayment at a far lower rate of incidence. Renters experiencing overpayment is far more widespread across the entire county, but again affects census tracts in Rancho Cucamonga and Upland to lesser degree than cities such as Ontario, San Bernardino, and Fontana that contain R/ECAPs. Similar to overcrowding, overpayment is more likely to affect households with higher rates of poverty. As seen in Figure 3-11 the highest concentration of cost-burdened owner-occupied households are located in the city’s northwest areas, corresponding with the location of low-resource areas, R/ECAPs, and TCAC/HCD-identified areas of high segregation and poverty. Overpayment by renter-occupied households is experienced citywide, with a majority of the city’s census tracts made up of at least 40 percent of renter-occupied households experiencing cost burden (Figure 3-12). In the low resource areas in northwest Ontario, including the R/ECAP south of Holt Boulevard and the area of high segregation and poverty bounded Holt Boulevard, N Grove Avenue, E G Street, and N Allyn Avenue, the percentage of renter households experiencing cost burden increases to between 60 and 80 1806
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-92 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
percent. In south Ontario, the area bounded by Edison Avenue, Hammer Avenue, E Riverside Avenue, and S Archibald Avenue also increases to between 60 and 80 percent cost-burdened, indicating the new development in south Ontario is unaffordable to renter households.

Overpayment increases the risk of displacing residents who are no longer able to afford their housing costs. To address displacement risks from overpayment, the City will provide incentives to encourage affordable development and will develop a targeted program to connect lowerincome residents with affordable home ownership within the city (Programs 6 and 24) and preserve at-risk affordable housing units to maintain affordability (Program 25).

The San Bernardino County 2020 Regional Analysis found that across the county, Black and Hispanic households had the highest rates of experiencing any of the four housing problems, including living in substandard housing. Ontario is among the oldest cities in San Bernardino County, along with San Bernardino, Colton, and Redlands (all established before 1900). Ontario and San Bernardino likely have some of the oldest existing housing in the County and substandard housing due to age may disproportionately impact Hispanic households in San Bernardino as it does in Ontario. Generally, Ontario’s recent development has focused in southeast Ontario while the city’s older housing is located in northwest Ontario. While some of northwest Ontario’s neighborhoods have maintained housing stock in good condition, such as the College Park Historic District, the burden of rehabilitation disproportionately impacts Ontario’s low-resource areas in northwest Ontario. As the housing stock ages, need for repair and rehabilitation may become more common. In some cases, the cost of repairs can be prohibitive, resulting in the owner or renter living in substandard housing or increasing the risk of displacement for occupants of those units. Figure 2-2 in the Housing Needs Assessment identifies the four neighborhoods in Ontario with the highest rates of rehabilitation needs and abandoned homes, as reported in the 2019 Neighborhood Preservation Strategy. In July 2019, tThe City developed thea Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan in July 2019, concentratinged on four target neighborhoods: Downtown, Nocta, Mission-Mountain, and Fourth Grove neighborhoods. All of the target neighborhoods are identified as low-resource areas on the TCAC/HCD opportunity map and the Nocta and Mission-Mountain neighborhoods include areas designated as R/ECAPs. These neighborhoods were identified due to predominance of lower-income households, renteroccupied households, households experiencing a housing cost-burden at a higher rate than the city as whole, and calls for police services or other city services, such as debris removal from private property or public rights-of-way. The majority of housing stock in the four target neighborhoods exceeds 40 years of age and has a higher proportion of housing units greater than 80 years old (12.5 percent) than the city (5.6 1807
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022H-93
percent) as a whole. Across the four neighborhoods identified in Figure 2- 2, there are approximately 324 homes in need of rehabilitation and approximately 168 abandoned homes. A key strategy identified in the Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan is increasing opportunities for homeownership with the intention to increase housing stability, educational achievement, property maintenance, and reduce crime in these neighborhoods. This Housing Element includes programs that will increase opportunities for homeownership through identifying funding mechanisms for homeowner assistance programs (Program 6 and Program 24). To address substandard or older housing, the City will continue to use its code enforcement program to bring substandard units into compliance with city codes and improve overall housing conditions in Ontario (Program 1). Additionally, the City will continue to provide rehabilitation loans and grants for low- and moderate-income homeowners and rental property owners who need assistance to rehabilitate or repair their homes (Program 3). Programs 16, 17 and 25 encourage the acquisition of housing.

As discussed in the Special Needs Group section of the Housing Needs Assessment, there are approximately 102 homeless persons residing in Ontario, including 74 persons unsheltered, and 28 homeless individuals living in emergency shelters or transitional housing, according to the San Bernardino County Point-In-Time report. Persons experiencing homelessness, or at risk of becoming homeless, are typically extremely low-income and are displaced from housing due to inability to pay or other issues. As identified in the San Bernardino Point-In-Time count, the population experiencing homelessness in Ontario and six other cities (San Bernardino, Fontana, Redlands, Rialto, and Victorville) account for more than two-thirds of the County’s total population experiencing homelessness. San Bernardino has the largest total population experiencing homelessness in the county (890 persons) by a large margin, followed by Victorville (133 persons). San Bernardino, as the largest city in the county and the San Bernardino Valley, acts as a hub of resources for the San Bernardino Valley, which may result in a larger population experiencing homelessness as compared to the region due to persons experiencing homelessness in the San Bernardino Valley migrating to San Bernardino to access resources. Victorville, as the largest city in the rural High Desert, serves a similar role in that area of the county. Therefore, the migration to Victorville may account for the disproportionately large population experiencing homelessness, considering Ontario, Fontana, and Rancho Cucamonga have a larger general population than Victorville. San Bernardino also has the most census tracts designated as R/ECAPs, and as discussed, shows similar patterns to Ontario for prevalence of poverty and housing problems (over payment, overcrowding, and substandard housing) in R/ECAP census tracts, which can result in a population highly vulnerable to homelessness. 1808
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-94 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
Rancho Cucamonga, while having a similar general population size to Ontario, Fontana, and Victorville, has approximately 58 persons experiencing homelessness, just slightly over half the population experiencing homelessness in Ontario (102 persons). Unlike Ontario, Fontana, San Bernardino, and Victorville, Rancho Cucamonga does not have any R/ECAPs within its city limits and as discussed, largely features high median incomes, access to opportunity, and low rates of overcrowding and substandard housing. The overall reduced risk to displacement in Rancho Cucamonga supports a smaller population experiencing homelessness.

Ontario offers substantial services and housing for its population experiencing homelessness, and participates in regional solutions for homelessness, as discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment. The City can accommodate its population experiencing homelessness with room to support the region’s population experiencing homelessness in its current supply of emergency, transitional, and supportive housing: as shown in Table 2-27, the total beds available (at least 155) can accommodate the city’s homeless persons (102 persons) based on the 2020 San Bernardino County Homeless Count. The City continues to make ongoing subsidies available to various homeless service providers to provide for public service programs serving homeless individuals and families, such as the Family Stabilization Program at SOVA Program Center, services for victims of domestic violence and their children provided by House of Ruth, and the Ontario Access Center and Assisi House and Aftercare Services Program provided by Mercy House CoC (Program 32).

The annual rate of increase in average home value or rental prices compared with annual changes in the average income in the County may also indicates an increased risk of displacement due to housing costs outpacing wage increase, a trend that is felt throughout the region, state, and nation. As shown in Table 3-2, citywide median rent increase from 2000 to 2019 was approximately 122 percent, outpacing the countywide median rent increase (approximately 110 percent), based on data from ACS and HUD. The difference in these trends indicates growing unaffordability of housing in Ontario and San Bernardino County as a whole, despite the low cost of housing itself compared to the region, state, and nation, and may prevent low-income households from remaining in their homes over time. The San Bernardino County 2020 Regional Analysis of Impediments similarly found that as of 2019, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland had the highest average rent prices ($2,480 and $2,460, respectively), while the eastern and southern areas of Ontario experienced the highest increases in rent in the City (157 and 139 percent median rent increase, respectively), and housing affordability in Ontario was more similar to Hesperia ($1,550), Apple Valley ($1,400), and Victorville ($1,450). Within Ontario, northwestern Ontario had a slightly lower median rent increase than the County as a whole (108 percent 1809
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-95
increase). The census tracts designated as R/ECAPs, which fall within northwestern Ontario, show very low increase in average rent compared to the City on the whole. While still showing an overall increase, the difference in median rent between northwestern Ontario and eastern and southern Ontario since 2000 may be a result from focused investment in these areas. As discussed, much of the housing growth in the 1980s and beyond was focused on master-planned communities on either side of Riverside Drive in the southern and eastern areas of Ontario, including the communities of Archibald Ranch and Creekside. Currently, this area has higher rates of owner-occupied housing and generally higher median incomes than northwestern Ontario.

Table 3-2
Change in Average Rent, 2000-2019
Area 20001 20052 2010 2015 2019
Percent
Change
2000-2019
San Bernardino
County Median 568 752 922 922 1,190 109.5%
Citywide Median 644 752 1,113 1,195 1,430 122.05%
Northwestern
Area3 644 752 1,092 1,160 1,338 107.78%
Eastern Area3 644 752 1,290 1,301 1,657 157.3%
Southern Area3 644 752 1,201 1,295 1,537 138.66%
R/ECAPs
Census Tract 16 644 752 859 875 968 50.3%
Census Tract

15.03 644 752 956 1,037 1,113 72.8%
Source: ACS 2000, 2010, 2015, 2019; HUD Fair Market Rent 2005 1 Median rent for 2000 is based on the citywide contract median rent; median rent per census tract was not available. 2 Rent for 2005 is based on the HUD Countywide Fair Market Rent estimates; median rent from ACS was not available for 2005.
3 Average rent determined by taking the average of the median contract rent of each census tracts falling within the Northwestern, Eastern, and Southern areas, as shown in Figure 3-1, with the following exceptions due to data limitations:
1) Median rent for 2000 is based on the citywide contract median rent; median rent per census tract was not available.
2) Rent for 2005 is based on the HUD Countywide Fair Market Rent estimates; median rent from ACS was not available for 2005.
1810
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-96 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
While northwestern Ontario shows relatively lower increase in average rent since 2000, the area still has the highest rates of overpayment among renters, overcrowding, and neighborhoods with substandard housing.

Displacement risk increases when a household is paying more for housing than their income can support, their housing condition is unstable or unsafe, and when the household is overcrowded. The City commits to actively combat displacement and protect vulnerable households by expanding HCV use (Program 23), continue promoting the construction of ADUs (Program 20 and 27), expand housing opportunities for extremely low income households (Program 33).

Lending Discrimination
The City of Ontario’s AFH identified lending discrimination as a potential contributing factor to fair housing issues in Ontario. Based on Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HDMDA) Data, “White residents are most likely to have their loan applications results in originated loans, Blacks are least likely, and Hispanics fall between the two groups. Hispanic borrowers are most likely to receive a high-priced loan followed by Black borrowers, while White and Asian borrowers are least likely to be given a high-cost loan. Data is similar for the region.” As new housing in southeast Ontario becomes available, past lending practices in Ontario imply White households will have the highest accessibility to the new development and, therefore, high resource areas. The analysis of HMDA data in Ontario found Black households and Hispanic households have less success originating loans that are low or moderate in cost, which can deny access to high resource areas. Additionally, home ownership is a primary means of building equity and intergenerational wealth. White households that have easier access to home ownership can benefit from the economic mobility home ownership provides, while Black and Hispanic households have limited access to economic mobility through home ownership. The City will expand opportunities for homeownership through identifying funding mechanisms for homeowner assistance programs (Program 6 and 24).

Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The City enforces fair housing and complies with fair housing laws and regulations through a twofold process: review of city policies and code for compliance with State law and referring fair housing complaints to appropriate agencies.

Ontario refers fair housing complaints to IFHMB. IFHMB serves as an intermediary to assist individuals in resolving issues related to housing discrimination, homeownership sustainability, rental complaints, and disputes in court through the provision of resource recommendations, education, and mediation. In addition, the Fair Housing Council provides 1811
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-97
fair housing education, landlord/tenant counseling, and homebuyer HUD counseling, which includes first-time homebuyer education and mortgage default counseling. Services are available in English, and Spanish and are provided free of charge to clients. The City disseminates information about fair housing laws, resident rights, and remedies for fair housing complaints.

During the outreach process for the Ontario 2020 AFH, fair housing surveys were conducted in person both in English and Spanish at the community meetings and community fair held in February 2020. The majority of respondents were members of protected classes. Of the 73 respondents, 21 (29 percent) found housing discrimination to be an issue in Ontario, and 14 (19 percent) directly experienced discrimination.

Survey respondents cited race as the reason for discrimination, followed by color, familial status, national origin, and disability.

As part of the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) dual-files fair housing cases with HUD’s Region IX Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO); HUD FHEO reported that 32 cases were filed by residents of Ontario between January 1, 2013, and March 23, 2021 (see Table 3-32). The most common alleged basis of discrimination was Disability (inclusive of Disability and Rehabilitation) with over one-third of cases identifying this protected class. While a majority of cases were found to have no cause determination (53.1 percent), six cases were closed due to successful conciliation/settlement. The Fair Housing Foundation and DFEH were unable to provide specific location information for cases either because they do not track the geographic origin of complaints or because of confidentiality concerns. Therefore, the City was unable to conduct a complete spatial analysis of fair housing issues within the city.

Program 30 has been included to work with fair housing enforcement organizations and agencies to track issues and identify patterns in the city. 1812
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-98 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
Table 3-32
Discrimination Cases, 2013-2021
Bases
Number
of
Cases
Percentage
of Total
Cases
Closure Reason Number Percentage
Disability and
Disability &
Rehabilitation
12 37.5%
Conciliation/settlement
successful 4 33.3%
Dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction 1 8.3%
No cause determination 7 58.4%
Familial Status
and Familial
Status &
Rehabilitation
5 15.6%
Conciliation/settlement
successful 1 20%
No cause determination 1 20%
Complaint withdrawn by
complainant after
resolution
3 60%
National Origin 7 21.9%
No cause determination 3 42.9%
Complaint withdrawn by
complainant after
resolution
1 14.3%
DOJ Settlement 2 28.5%
Unable to locate
complainant 1 14.3%
Race, Race &
Color, and
Race &
Retaliation
7 21.9%
Conciliation/settlement
successful 1 14.3%
No cause determination 5 71.4%
Unable to locate
complainant 1 14.3%
Sex & Race 1 3.1% No cause determination 1 100%
Total 32 100%
Conciliation/settlement
successful 6 18.8%
Dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction 1 3.1%
No cause determination 17 53.1%
Complaint withdrawn by
complainant after
resolution
4 12.5%
DOJ Settlement 2 6.2%
Unable to locate
complainant 2 6.2%
Source: HUD, 2021.
1813
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-99
Site Inventory Analysis
The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower-income households.

AB 686 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the location of lower-income sites in relation to areas of high opportunity. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and HCD prepared opportunity maps that identify resource areas. Areas of high or highest resource may have increased access to public services, educational and employment opportunities, medical services, and other daily services (e.g., grocery, pharmacy)Using the statewide opportunity area map and indicators of concentrated poverty, displacement risk, and access to opportunity as overlays to the City’s sites inventory (Figure 3-13), the City was able to identify if the sites identified in the inventory to accommodate the lower-income RHNA disproportionately concentrate these units or increase patterns of segregation. Figure 3-13 shows the distribution of Ontario’s sites in each of the TCAC/HCD resource areas. Figures 3-14 through 3-22 show the distribution of projected units by income category of the following indicators to understand how the situation of units will affirmatively further fair housing: median income, R/ECAPs, jobs proximity, educational score, environmental conditions, overcrowding, and overpayment. The discussion is aided by charts that show the number of projected units by income category, site acreage by income category to further assess the potential impacts of the sites inventory to affirmatively further fair housing.

Potential Impacts on Patterns of Integration & Segregation INCOME
As shown in Figure 3-13, the City primarily identified candidate sites to accommodate low- and very low-income households in south Ontario bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue to the south and E Riverside Drive to the north, within the Ontario Ranch master plan area and a TCAC-designated high-resource area. Candidate sites for moderate and above moderate sites are also primarily located in Ontario Ranch. As shown in Table 5-4 16 8,746 low- and very low-income units (79 percent of the total very lowand low-income units), 3,286 moderate-income units (69 percent of moderate-income units), and 9,555 percent of above moderate-income units (92 percent of above moderate-income units) have been identified within Ontario Ranch. Chart 3-1 shows the general distribution of units into resource areas. As Ontario Ranch is designated high resource (along with other areas of the city), the high resource designation is shown as receiving the most projected units.
1814
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-100 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
Chart 3-1
Unit Count and Site Acreage by TCAC Resource Designation As shown in Figure 3-14, this distribution of sites, allowsing integration of all income levels in the Ontario Ranch future development, which directly addresses the need expressed by the community and stakeholders that new development in Ontario Ranch should not be limited to affluent households but include a balance of affordable housing. Development within Ontario Ranch will be determined through specific plans, with the proposed Policy Plan designations laying groundwork to support mixed-use development, including mixeddensity residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, and open space and park area. The candidate sites for low- and very low-income units have proposed Policy Plan designations for Medium-Density Residential and Mixed-Use, adjacent to areas designated for recreational open space, general commercial uses, and business parks. As discussed, Ontario’s lower-income households are primarily concentrated in northwest Ontario, which is the location of the city’s TCAC/HCD-identified areas of 136
18 7
76 3236
190
34 927
3286
233
37 1190
9554
0 0
785
984
21 3
234
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
High Resource
High Segregation & Poverty
Low Resource
Moderate Resource
High Resource
High
Segregation &
Poverty
Low Resource Moderate
Resource
Site Acreage 984 21 3 234
Above Moderate Units 9554 0 0 785
Moderate Units 3286 233 37 1190
Low Units 3236 190 34 927
Very Low Units 136 18 7 76
1815
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-101
high segregation and poverty and R/ECAPs and correlate with factors that limit economic mobility and perpetuate poverty. As a key area for growth and investment for the city, locating the majority of candidate sites intended for low- and very low-income in Ontario Ranch disrupts patterns of concentrated poverty in Ontario. Moreover, populations currently concentrated in northwest Ontario, including single-parent households, lower-income Hispanic households, and Black/African American households, will have access to positive education and economic outcomes from expanding affordable housing opportunities to south Ontario. The City will implement Program 11 to ensure that in addition to affordable housing opportunities to high-resource areas, such as Ontario Ranch, the City will reduce barriers to mobility from language barriers, particularly Spanish, to promote an inclusive community for all families, individuals, and households.

The City will additionally locate low- and very low-income sites along Holt Boulevard. Holt Boulevard serves as a boundary for the city’s R/ECAPs and TCAC/HCD-identified areas of high segregation and poverty and is designated as a low-resource area on the TCAC map. As shown in Table 5-416, a total of 623 low- and very low-income units (about 5 percent of the total very low- and low-income units) are in Downtown (20) and along West Holt (227 units) and East Holt (284 units), which transverse R/ECAPs or areas of high segregation and poverty. Locating additional affordable housing along Holt Boulevard, particularly within R/ECAPs and areas of high segregation and poverty, supports placedbased solutions to alleviating fair housing issues and disproportionate housing need issues. As shown in Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-11, northwest Ontario and particularly areas of high segregation and poverty and R/ECAPs have the highest rates of overcrowding and overpayment in the city. Expanding affordable housing options will reduce competition for existing units. The Downtown District Plan (Plan), which encompasses portions of Holt Boulevard and seven of the low- and very low-income candidate sites, creates an opportunity for reinvestment in northwest Ontario. Downtown will also accommodate moderate housing units, with a total of 20 units located in the Downtown area. The Plan includes goals to expand housing choice and “ensure access to diverse range of quality housing options, encourage density, and variety of affordable price points.” Along Holt Boulevard specifically, the plan identifies opportunities to create market-rate and affordable housing, develop vertical and horizontal mixed-use, and provide residential access to downtown amenities, shopping, public services, open space, and transportation. The City will ensure existing residents are protected from displacement risk through implementing Program 6. Through focused community reinvestment along Holt Boulevard, the City will reduce fair housing issues and expand economic opportunities for new and future residents in northwest Ontario.
1816
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-102 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021

R/ECAPS
Figure 3-15 shows the distribution of sites by income level in census tracts designated as R/ECAPs compared to the rest of the city. There are five sites that fall within Ontario’s two designated R/ECAPs, which can provide a total of 19 low-income units, 3 very low-income units (amounting to less than 1 percent of the total low and very low-income units) and 23 moderate income units (again, amounting to less than 1 percent of the total moderate units) (Chart 3-2). There are no above moderate-income units proposed in R/ECAPs. Chart 3-3 identifies the racial/ethnic composition of the R/ECAPs where the sites are located, showing these areas overwhelmingly Hispanic with a small White population. On average, sites in census tracts that are not designated as R/ECAPs have a majority Hispanic population (51 percent). In R/ECAP designated census tracts, this majority jumps to 91 percent. As discussed, the City’s R/ECAPs indicate areas of predominantly non-white populations and high rates of poverty. The assessment of fair housing repeatedly identifies that R/ECAPs correlate with factors that limit economic mobility and perpetuate poverty, keeping residents at an overall disadvantage. In particular, census tracts designated as R/ECAPs show higher rates of overpayment (for both renting and homeowner households) and overcrowding as compared to the rest of the city, indicating residents may be more vulnerable to displacement risk. This also identifies a demand for more affordable housing, which is served by providing very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing within the R/ECAPs. Further, integration of moderate-income units in R/ECAPs will promote mixed-income communities. Existing residents will have additional affordable housing opportunities by introducing a total of 623 low- and very low-income units (about 5 percent of the total very lowand low-income units) in the Downtown (20) and along West Holt (227 units) and East Holt (284 units), which transverse R/ECAPs or areas of high segregation and poverty. Additionally, the City has included Program 23, committing to expanding HCV use, Program 33 to expand housing opportunities for extremely low income households, and Program 24 and Program 27 to provide resources for homeownership and fair housing implementation in multiple languages to reduce language barriers.
1817
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-103
Chart 3-2
Unit Count and Site Acreage by R/ECAP
Chart 3-3
Average Racial/Ethnic Distribution by R/ECAP
Not an R/ECAP R/ECAP
Site Acreage 1240 2
Above Moderate Units 10340 0
Moderate Units 4722 23
Low Units 4368 19
Very Low Units 6600 3 1240
2 10340
0 4722
23 4368
19 6600
3 Not an R/ECAP R/ECAP
Average of Percent Lantinx 51.4 91.0
Average of Percent Black 6.6 0.0
Average of Percent White 19.6 8.3
Average of Percent Asian 18.3 0.8
Average of Percent Other 4.2 0.0

51.4 91.0

6.6 0.0

19.6 8.3

18.3 0.8 4.2

0.0 1818
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-104 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021

FAMILIAL STATUS
To understand the potential impact on familial status, Figure 3-16 shows the distribution of sites by income level by areas with percent children in families with married parents. Chart 3-4 further demonstrates that on 23 acres, or approximately 2 percent of the total site inventory acreage, up to 60 percent of households with children live in a family type other than married parents, which could include a single parent or guardian. As discussed, single-parent households with children typically requires more affordable, multi-bedroom units due to family sized coupled with a single-source income. In order to reduce displacement risk for these households, units affordable to low- and very low-income households comprise just over 50 percent of the units proposed in areas with highest concentration of non-married parent households, thereby increasing the affordable housing supply in the area. This accounts for approximately 2 percent of the lower income units; the majority of lower income units are planned within Ontario Ranch. Providing lower income housing in Ontario Ranch will assist in reducing the current concentration of nonmarried parent households with children in northwestern Ontario (Figure 3-16), encouraging access to mixed income communities. Further, the Ontario Ranch development will include new schools, parks, and recreational areas, supporting increased access to opportunity important to families that will not be limited to affluent, married-parent families.

Chart 3-4
Unit Count and Site Acreage by Familial Status (Percent Children in Married Couple Household) Between 40-60% Between 60-80% Over 80%
Site Acreage 23 235 984
Above Moderate Units 0 785 9554
Moderate Units 255 1204 3286
Low Units 210 942 3236
Very Low Units 46 1048 5510
23 235
984
0 785
9554
255
1204
3286
210
942
3236
46 1048
5510
1819
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-105

POPULATION WITH DISABILITY
There are a total of six census tracts within Ontario where the population with a disability exceeds 10 percent, with the highest concentration of persons with a disability not exceeding 13 percent. While Ontario’s population with a disability is low, particularly when compared to cities such as San Bernardino, Upland, or the rural High Desert, all but one of the census tracts that do contain a higher concentration of persons with disabilities are located in northwestern Ontario, coinciding with area of lower median income and less access to opportunity (see Figure 3-17).

Chart 3-5 shows the distribution of units by affordability and overall site acreage based on the percent of population with a disability. As the City overall has a small population of persons with a disability, Chart 3-5 shows a large proportion of units projected in census tracts with a disability rate not exceeding 10 percent. This includes the units proposed in Ontario Ranch, which offers units at all affordability levels to provide housing mobility opportunities. There are 48 lower income units (less than 1 percent of the total projected lower units) proposed in areas where the population of persons with disabilities exceeds 10 percent. As discussed, the Ontario 2020 AFH identified that there is a significant need for affordable housing exclusively for persons with disabilities, which may contribute to the City’s low population of persons with disabilities as compared to other San Bernardino County cities of similar general population size. In addition to the projected housing units in areas of higher concentration and the housing mobility opportunities in Ontario Ranch, the City commits to specifically expand available housing for persons with disabilities through prioritizing funding for developments that include permanent supportive housing for non-elderly persons with disabilities and ensure that existing housing may be retrofitted for ADA accessibility (Program 30 and 32).
1820
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-106 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
Chart 3-5
Unit Count and Site Acreage by Population with Disability Potential Impact on Access to Opportunity
As a larger metropolitan center in both San Bernardino County and the greater San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario region, Ontario provides access to quality jobs at all skill levels, well-distributed higher performing schools, and reliable public transit with frequent service within the city and in the greater San Bernardino Valley. As shown in Chart 3-1 and Figure 3-13, projected units at all affordability levels are predominantly located in high resource areas (i.e., Ontario Ranch), where new residential units will be in close proximity to jobs in eastern Ontario and have access to newly built schools, parks, and recreational areas. As discussed, Ontario Ranch will be developed through specific plans, with the proposed Policy Plan designations laying groundwork to support mixeduse development, including mixed-density residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, and open space and park area. The projected sites for low- and very low-income units have proposed Policy Plan designations for Medium-Density Residential and Mixed-Use, adjacent to areas designated for recreational open space, general commercial uses, and business parks, thereby increasing access to job centers, environmentallyhealthy uses, and essential commercial services, such as pharmacies and grocery stores.

Between 10-15% Less than 10%
Site Acreage 5 1237
Above Moderate Units 0 10340
Moderate Units 47 4698
Low Units 27 4361
Very Low Units 21 6583
5 1237
0 10340
47 4698
27 4361
21 6583
1821
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-107
As discussed, units are projected in Ontario’s low resource areas in northwestern Ontario (see Chart 3-1 and Figure 3-13). The City identified sites with opportunities to increase the supply of affordable housing in northwestern Ontario, addressing issues of overpayment and overcrowding as a result of higher rates of poverty. The identified sites reflect renewed interest in northwestern Ontario, supported by the implementation of the Downtown, Mountain and Euclid Corridor, and Holt Boulevard plans (Program 8, 9, and 10) to catalyze place-based revitalization. Ontario intends to take a measured approach to revitalization in northwestern Ontario to ensure that revitalization efforts do not result in gentrification-based displacement. To this end, the City is committed to neighborhood engagement strategies (Program 6), promoting homeownership (Program 24), and expanding affordable housing for extremely low income households (Program 32) to improve housing stability.

JOB PROXIMITY
As shown in Figure 3-18 and Chart 3-6, the sites identified to meet Ontario’s RHNA are located in areas that are either considered highly proximate to employment or in relatively close proximity to employment.

As discussed in the assessment of fair housing, areas that show a lower job proximity index value within Ontario still score higher than many areas in San Bernardino County (the lowest score within Ontario is 51).

Approximately 3 percent of the total units will be located in areas that received a job index score between 40-60. The City has committed to continuing to improve job opportunities in these areas, disseminating job options from eastern Ontario to a more equal distribution citywide by providing employment services to low-wage workers (Program 27).

Locating housing in this area will serve resident interest in increasing the supply of affordable units to reduce displacement risk due to higher rates of poverty. Most of the existing large employers are located in eastern Ontario. Approximately 76 percent of lower income units will be located in areas with closest proximity to Ontario’s employment centers, and the remaining 21 percent of lower income units will still be within very reasonable distance (receiving a score between 60 and 80), thus providing housing mobility opportunities for all income categories in high resource areas that may facilitate further economic opportunities. 1822
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-108 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
Chart 3-6
Unit Count and Site Acreage by Job Proximity

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
As Ontario is situated within a urbanized valley, the overall predicted environmental health of residents citywide scores poorly. As northwest Ontario has compounding factors of higher rates of poverty and lower access to parks, recreational area, and open space, those census tracts received scored marginally worse than areas of the city with higher median income (southern and eastern Ontario); however, no area within the city scored positively. The sites identified to meet the City’s RHNA are anticipated to combat the existing patterns of lower-income areas coinciding with poor environmental conditions. First, approximately 17 percent of the site acreage are within areas with more positive environmental scores (Chart 3-7 and Figure 3-19). Ontario Ranch will offer the most reprieve from poor environmental conditions and accommodates 80 percent of site acreage, supporting the majority of lower income and moderate units as well as above moderate. As discussed, the Ontario Ranch area will be developed through specific plans, with the proposed Policy Plan designations laying groundwork to support mixed24 311
907
3 4010
6327
277
642
3826
214
938
3235
66 1373
5165
Between
40-60
Between
60-80
Greater
than 80
(closest
proximity)
Very Low Units 66 1373 5165
Low Units 214 938 3235
Moderate Units 277 642 3826
Above Moderate Units 3 4010 6327
Site Acreage 24 311 907
Very Low Units
Low Units
Moderate Units
Above Moderate Units
Site Acreage
1823
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-109
use development, including mixed-density residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, and open space and park area. Lower income households, which are currently concentrated in northwestern Ontario, will have access to nearby parks and open space that is less available in the northwest area. Further, the mixed-use design will locate commercial uses, employment areas, schools, and other resources within close proximity to residential units, reducing pollution from traffic as a result of increased and/or longer vehicle trips to daily
conveniences/necessities. Given the poor environmental conditions in Ontario, identifying sites in a variety of conditions will ensure that there are housing opportunities regardless of socioeconomic status in a range of places to reduce congestion that may worsen negative conditions resulting from traffic or associated impacts. The distribution of sites will aid in improving environmental conditions for all areas in the City, including where units are projected.

Chart 3-7
Unit Count and Site Acreage by CalEnviroscreen 4.0 Score Between 50-60 Between 60-70 Between 70-80 Between 80-90 Between 90-100 Site Acreage 212 3 994 21 11
Above Moderate Units 782 0 9554 0 3
Moderate Units 933 33 3418 233 129
Low Units 730 12 3368 190 87
Very Low Units 985 21 5510 42 46 212
3 994
21 11
782
0 9554
0 3
933
33 3418
233
129
730
12 3368
190
87 985
21 5510
42 46
1824
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-110 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
Potential Impact on Disproportionate Housing Need and
Displacement Risk
As identified in this assessment, overpayment is a significant issue citywide, impacting high, moderate, and low resource areas.

Overpayment rates among both renting households and are highest in northwest Ontario, including within the City’s R/ECPAPs. Overpayment among renting households citywide does decrease below 50 percent citywide and overpayment among homeowning households does not decrease below 30 percent citywide. The City is actively combatting this issue by identifying sites for affordable housing citywide to increase the supply of housing, thus addressing existing demand. The Housing Element sites were selected in an effort to increase the supply of affordable housing units in high resource areas, disrupting the current concentration of lower-income households in northwest Ontario. The City has committed to housing mobility strategies to support lower income households in accessing opportunities in high resources, including addressing linguistic barriers (Program 24 and 27). The housing opportunities presented by these sites will aid in preventing future displacement of low-income residents from their homes and communities while also providing additional units for households that may currently be living in overcrowded situations to afford housing. Additionally, the moderate- and above moderate-income sites will easy pressure on the housing stock, thus potentially reducing displacement risk and overcrowding for these households as well as more units become available.

Overcrowding most significantly impacts residents in northwestern Ontario (see Figure 3-20), where 22 to 32 percent of households are overcrowded. South of Highway 60, tracts experiencing overcrowding do not exceed 12 percent of households. As shown in Chart 3-8, approximately 7 percent of projected lower income units are slated for census tracts experiencing highest rates of overcrowding. The majority of lower income units (92 percent) will be located in Ontario Ranch, with close access to schools, parks, commercial areas, and employment areas, offering lower income households improved access to opportunity. While a limited number of units are slated in areas experiencing the highest rates of overcrowding, the overall increased supply of affordable housing will support households at-risk of displacement by reducing competition for limited number of units. The City commits to further serving households experiencing overcrowding through Program 31 (Family Housing) implements programs through CDBG funding to support large families, including HCV use for units appropriate for large families, Program 27 (Fair housingADUs) to expand ADU development through incentive programs, and Program 3 (Housing Rehabilitation Loans & Grants) will continue providing rehabilitation programs to qualifying lower income households.
1825
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-111
Chart 3-8
Unit Count and Site Acreage by Overcrowding
As shown in Figure 3-21 and 3-22, all projected units, regardless of expected income, are on sites located in areas where at least 30 percent of homeowners are cost burdened and 50 percent of renter households are cost burdened. As stated previously, rates of overpayment are most significant in northwestern Ontario, where supplying lower income units is critical to alleviating risk of displacement due to overpayment. A total of 142 project lower income units are identified in areas of where at least 60 percent of owners experience overpayment and at least 65 percent of renters experience overpayment, which accounts for approximately 3 percent of the total lower income units. While this represents a small fraction of the total lower income units, importantly only moderate- and lower-income units are slated in areas of highest overpayment. Typically, above moderate-income units are unaffordable to cost-burdened households, while lower- and moderate-income housing units can help alleviate overpayment. The focused effort to provide affordable units in northwestern Ontario, coupled with the new housing opportunities for all incomes in Ontario Ranch, provide existing, cost burdened households housing choice that has not been previously available outside of Between 10-15% Between 15-20% Between 20-30% Between 30-35% Between 5-10% Less than 5% Site Acreage 3 8 11 12 781 427
Above Moderate Units 0 3 0 0 8036 2301
Moderate Units 33 92 132 138 2050 2301
Low Units 12 53 132 134 2361 1695
Very Low Units 3 10 24 15 134 51
3 8
11 12
781
427
0 3
00 8036
2301
33 92
132
138
2050
2301
12 53
132
134
2361
1695
3 10
24 15
134
51 1826
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-112 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
northwest Ontario. While increasing the overall supply of affordable housing reduces the risk of displacement due to overpayment, the distribution of lower income sites has the additional benefit of providing access to high resource areas and creating mixed-income communities in southern Ontario.

Chart 3-9
Unit Count and Site Acreage by Overpayment (Homeowners) Between 30-35% Between 35-40% Between 40-45% Between 45-50% Between 60-65% Between 70-75% Very Low Units 144 39 9 33 10 2
Low Units 3267 730 48 213 115 15
Moderate Units 3341 933 78 263 115 15
Above Moderate Units 9554 782 3 0 0 0
Site Acreage 989 212 7 22 10 1 144 39
9 33
102
3267
730
48 213
115
15 3341
933
78 263
115
15 9554
782
3 000
989
212
7 22
10 1
1827
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-113
Chart 3-10
Unit Count and Site Acreage by Overpayment (Renters)
Contributing Factors
Through discussions with stakeholders, fair housing advocates, and this assessment of fair housing issues, the County identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Imperial County, as shown in Table 3-

4. While there are several strategies identified to address the fair housing issues, the most pressing barriers are the concentration of lower-income households in northwest Ontario, lack of affordable housing in high resource areas, and displacement risk, that may prevent lower-income households from securing safe and stable housing. The County has identified the factors that contribute to these issues as priorities in combatting fair housing issues and facilitating new housing choices in high resource areas and place-based revitalization in northwestern Ontario. Prioritized contributing factors are bolded in the table.

Between 50-55% Between 55-60% Between 65-70%
Site Acreage 560 671 10
Above Moderate Units 7253 3086 0
Moderate Units 1022 3608 115
Low Units 1575 2697 115
Very Low Units 92 135 10 560 671 10 7253 3086
0 1022
3608
115
1575
2697
92 135
115
10 1828
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-114 Adoption Draft January 2022October 2021
Programs to address Housing Choice and Affordability in High Resource Areas:
• Program 7 explores initiatives to promote ADU development in high resource areas, including reviewing impact fees, actively marketing ADU materials, and implementing a monitoring
program.
• Program 11 (Ontario Ranch) encourages development of
affordable housing in future developments in Ontario Ranch, the high resource area in the city.
• Program 23 (Public Housing) commits to expanding HCV use in high and moderate resource areas.
• Program 27 (Fair Housing) commits the City to conducting fair housing training for landlords and tenants on California’s Source of Income Discrimination protections, to reduce the number of voucher holders turned away, particularly in high resource areas. explores initiatives to promote ADU development in high resource areas, including reviewing impact fees, actively marketing ADU materials, and implementing a monitoring
program.

Programs to address Place-based Revitalization Strategies:
• Program 6 (Neighborhood Stabilization) implements the Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan, which identifies revitalization strategies in key neighborhoods in northwest Ontario.
• Program 8 (Downtown Plan), which implements the Downtown Plan
• Program 27 (Fair Housing) commits the City to coordinate with San Bernardino County to expand the CalWorks program,
providing trainings, job fairs, and/or other key resources to northwest Ontario.

Programs to address Anti-Displacement Strategies.
• Program 3 (Housing Rehabilitation Loans & Grants) will continue providing rehabilitation programs, with the goal of rehabilitating at least 30 units.
• Program 31 (Family Housing) implements programs through CDBG funding to support large families, including HCV use for units appropriate for large families.
1829
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-115
• Program 23 (Public Housing) commits to expanding HCV use. • Program 32 (Extremely Low Income Households) commits to expanding housing opportunities for ELI households.
• Program 24 (Homeownership) will expand homeownership
opportunities, including in low resources areas.
• Program 27 (Fair Housing) commits the city to partner with the local fair housing provider to improve access to fair housing resources (including legal aid) and education for tenants and landlords.

Programs to address Housing Mobility to High Resource Areas:
• Program 24 (Homeownership) and Program 27 (Fair Housing Implementation) will provide resources in multiple languages to reduce language barriers
• Program 23 (Public Housing) commits to expanding HCV use in high and moderate resource areas.
• Program 30 (Housing for People with Disabilities) commits the City to assist with the development of affordable housing for persons with disabilities.
• Program 27 (Fair Housing) commits the City to meet with transit authorities biannually to discuss unmet transit needs.

Through discussions with stakeholders, fair housing advocates, and the Assessment of Fair Housing, the City identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Ontario, as shown in Table 3-3.
1830
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-116 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 3-3
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Presence of R/ECAPs
and Areas of High
Segregation and
Poverty
Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency
Lack of affordable housing in moderate and high-resource areas of the city Lack of investment/community revitalization strategies in low-resource areas of the city
Availability of rentals that accept HCV in moderate and high resource areas of the city
Displacement of residents in moderate and/or high resource areas of the city due to economic pressure
Program 24 (Homeownership) and Program 27 (Fair Housing Implementation) will provide resources in multiple languages to reduce language barriers.

Program 11 (Ontario Ranch) encourages development of affordable housing in future developments in Ontario Ranch, the high resource area in the city.

Program 6 (Neighborhood Stabilization) implements the Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan, which identifies revitalization strategies in key neighborhoods in northwest Ontario.

Program 23 (Public Housing) commits to expanding HCV use across the city, including high and moderate resource areas.

Concentration of
communities of color in
low-resource areas,
TCAC/HCD-identified
areas of high
segregation and
poverty, and R/ECAPs
Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency
Lack of affordable housing in moderate and high-resource areas of the city Availability of rentals that accept HCV in moderate and high resource areas of the city
Program 24 (Homeownership) and Program 27 (Fair Housing Implementation) will provide resources in multiple languages to reduce language barriers.

Program 11 (Ontario Ranch) encourages development of affordable housing in future developments in Ontario Ranch, the high resource area in the city.

Program 6 (Neighborhood Stabilization) implements the Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan, which identifies revitalization strategies in key neighborhoods in northwest Ontario.

Program 23 (Public Housing) commits to expanding HCV use in high and moderate resource areas.

Concentration of singleparent households
Concentration of affordable housing in low resource areas of the city Lack of affordable housing in moderate and high-resource areas of the city Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing cost
Program 11 (Ontario Ranch) encourages development of affordable housing in future developments in Ontario Ranch, the high resource area in the city.

Program 23 (Public Housing) commits to expanding HCV use across the city, including high and moderate resource areas.

Discriminatory actions
against persons with
disabilities
Instances of private discrimination
Lack of accessible affordable housing appropriate for persons with disabilities Cost of home repairs
Program 3 (Housing Rehabilitation Loans & Grants) will continue providing rehabilitation programs, with the goal of rehabilitating at least 30 units.

Program 30 (Housing for People with Disabilities) commits the City to assist with the development of affordable housing for persons with disabilities across the city. 1831
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-117
Table 3-3
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Displacement risk from
overcrowding
Availability of affordable housing units in a range of sizes Availability of affordable housing in the form of ADUs and JADUs Program 31 (Family Housing) implements programs through CDBG funding to support large families, including HCV use for units appropriate for large families.

Program 20 (Development Code Amendments) implements code updates to comply with recent state law for ADUs, supporting the development of ADUs citywide.

Program 27 (ADUsFair Housing) explores initiatives to promote ADU development in high resource areas, including reviewing impact fees, actively marketing ADU materials, and implementing a monitoring program.

Displacement risk due
to housing condition
Age of housing stock in north west area of the city
Cost of home repairs
Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency to learn about rehabilitation options
Program 3 (Housing Rehabilitation Loans & Grants) will continue providing rehabilitation programs, with the goal of rehabilitating at least 30 units.

Program 24 (Homeownership) and Program 27 (Fair Housing Implementation) will provide resources in multiple languages to reduce language barriers.

Displacement due to
overpayment
Lack of affordable housing in moderate and high-resource areas of the city Displacement of residents in moderate and/or high resource areas of the city due to economic pressure
Lack of investment/community revitalization strategies in low-resource areas of the city to improve economic outcomes for residents
Program 11 (Ontario Ranch) encourages development of affordable housing in future developments in Ontario Ranch, the high resource area in the city.

Program 23 (Public Housing) commits to expanding HCV use across the city, including high and moderate resource areas.

Location of
environmental health
hazards
Lack of investment/community revitalization strategies in low-resource areas of the city that would improve health outcomes for residents
Program 6 (Neighborhood Stabilization) implements the Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan, which identifies revitalization strategies in key neighborhoods in northwest Ontario.

Access to proficient
schools and low student
performance
Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing cost
Lack of investment/community revitalization strategies in low-resource areas of the city to improve economic outcomes for residents
Availability of rentals that accept HCV in moderate and high resource areas of the city
Program 11 (Ontario Ranch) encourages development of affordable housing in future developments in Ontario Ranch, the high resource area in the city.

Program 23 (Public Housing) commits to expanding HCV use across the city, including high and moderate resource areas.

Program 6 (Neighborhood Stabilization) implements the Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan, which identifies revitalization strategies in key neighborhoods in northwest Ontario.
1833
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-119
Figure-3-2 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map
1834
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-120 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 3-3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty 1835
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-121
Figure 3-4 Predominant Population - Hispanic Majority
1836
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-122 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 3-5 Diversity Index
1837
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-123
Figure 3-6 Median Income
1838
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-124 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 3-7 Poverty Status
1839
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-125
Figure 3-8 Children in Married Couple Households
1840
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-126 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 3-9 Job Proximity
1841
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-127
Figure 3-10 Overcrowded Households
1842
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-128 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 3-11 Overpayment by Owners
1843
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-129
Figure 3-12 Overpayment by Renters
1844
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-130 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 3-13 Sites Inventory and Resource Areas
1845
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-131
Figure 3-14 Sites Inventory and Median Income
1846
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-132 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 3-15 Sites Inventory and R/ECAPs
1847
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-133
Figure 3-16 Sites Inventory and Familial Status
1848
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-134 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 3-17 Sites Inventory and Population with Disability 1849
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-135
Figure 3-18 Sites Inventory and Proximity to Jobs
1850
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-136 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 3-19 Sites Inventory and CalEnviroScreen (CES 4.0) 1851
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-137
Figure 3-20 Sites Inventory and Overcrowding
1852
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-138 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Figure 3-21 Sites Inventory and Overpayment (Owner-Occupied Housing) 1853
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-139
Figure 3-22 Sites Inventory and Overpayment (Renter-Occupied Housing) 1854
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-140 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
1855
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-141

4. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Various factors may constrain or limit the City’s ability to address its housing production needs, such as governmental regulations or environmental considerations. Market factors, including a change in interest rates or construction costs, may affect the feasibility of building housing or the affordability of housing to the community. Moreover, housing goals may at times conflict with the need to promote other important City goals, including open space or economic development.

These and other governmental constraints may affect the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing for all economic and social groups in the city. State law requires the housing element to analyze potential and actual governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for all persons of all income levels, including persons with disabilities.

This chapter analyzes the following three potential constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing in Ontario:
• Market factors. Including the demand for housing, development costs, availability of financing, the price of land, and other factors affecting supply, cost, and affordability of housing.
• Governmental factors. Including land use regulations, residential development standards, building codes, local fees and taxes, permit procedures, and other local policies.
• Environmental factors. Including the adequacy of infrastructure, public services, and water supply to support new development within the older and newer portions of the community.

The constraints analysis must also demonstrate local efforts of the City to remove governmental constraints that hinder achievement of its various housing goals. Should actual constraints preclude the achievement of state and local housing goals, a jurisdiction is required to address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.

This section reviews the City’s Policy Plan, Development Code, and other housing and planning documents to analyze public policies and governmental regulations that may limit housing opportunities in Ontario. Also presented are ways in which the City has acted to remove or mitigate potential constraints to the production of housing. 1856
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-142 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022

4.1 Market Factors
The feasibility of building new single-family and multiple-family housing depends on a number of market factors: land costs, the availability or lack of infrastructure and services for the site, the cost of site improvements, construction costs, the availability of financing, and the achievable sales price or rent structure. Fees charged for housing also play into the overall financial pro forma for new housing. This section details these market factors and its overall impact on housing costs.

Land Costs
Land costs typically represent one of the largest components of the total cost of new housing. Because the availability of land has dwindled over the past years, land costs have increased, as have housing prices. Land costs vary throughout the community and depend on the underlying zoning for the site (single- or multiple-family), whether infrastructure is needed, the surrounding area, and location. Because the sphere of influence area surrounding the city is entirely incorporated, there has not been an opportunity during the last planning period to annex new vacant land into the city limits, nor will there be during the current planning period.

In Ontario, land costs range significantly, depending on whether the site is vacant, improved, and has infrastructure in place to support immediate development. Available properties for sale on Zillow.com, Redfin.com, and LandandFarm.com indicate vacant land in northwest Ontario (north of Riverside Drive and west of Ontario Airport) ranges from $24 to $83 per square foot. In south Ontario (south of Riverside Drive), the only available land at the time of the search (September 2021), was about $8 per square foot. Table 4-1 illustrates the cost of vacant land that could support residential use in Ontario.

Table 4-1
Typical Vacant Land Costs in Ontario
Location Residential
Commercial
(Mixed-Use)
Northwest Ontario $24 to $83/square foot (sf) $16 to $38/sf South Ontario $8/sf N/A
Source: Zillow.com; redfin.com; landandfarm.com, September 2021. 1857
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-143
Construction Costs
Construction costs are the largest component of housing. Construction costs include labor and materials. Backbone infrastructure costs in Ontario Ranch will also increase the cost of development and lower land costs. Like all cost components, the cost of constructing housing can vary significantly by project type (e.g., apartments, townhomes, single-family homes), the quality of construction materials, the location of new housing, the number of stories of the project, whether underground or subsurface parking is required, labor costs, and profit margin. Currently, growth areas for future development include intensified development in the downtown and Holt Boulevard areas, including some affordable housing. Recent development has tended to move from the east to west in the southern half of the city. On the west side of the channel, future development is expected to occur starting in the south and moving north.

Development around the airport will continue to include a mix of uses, including hospitality, entertainment, and housing. Future development of the mall area will not include a reduction in commercial uses, but instead will focus on redevelopment of outbuildings and parking.

R. S. Means Construction Cost data (2021) provides manuals for calculating the average cost per square foot for residential construction.

According to standard estimates, the cost for good housing in the fivecounty Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region could be around $203 per square foot for a 2,000-square-foot, two-story, single-family dwelling. Projects with lower construction costs can be expected to contain limited site work, while the higher-cost projects could be inclusive of site work.

Based on recent residential projects built in Ontario, the construction cost was approximately $123,000 per apartment unit and approximately $405,500 for single-family units. The city’s higher construction costs reflect the standards for quality construction and amenities that contribute to higher home values over time. These requirements are intended to address the lack of quality construction in past years, which today requires the City to implement extensive and costly housing rehabilitation programs.

Financing Costs
The cost and availability of financing can impact a household’s ability to purchase a home or to perform necessary maintenance and repairs. As shown in Table 4-2, conventional mortgage loans for homes range between 2 and 4 percent for a standard fixed-rate loan with a 30-year term. In recent years, interest rates have decreased, reaching historic lows, but are starting to increase. Increases in interest rates can have a dramatic impact on housing affordability. For example, for a home loan for 1858
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-144 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
$200,000 and a 20-percent down payment ($40,000), the difference in the monthly payment between a 3.5-percent interest rate ($718) and a 4.5- percent interest rate ($811) is nearly $100. The difference paid over the life of the loan (assuming a 30-year, fixed-rate loan) exceeds $33,000.

As prices for market-rate housing increase, the subsidies to bridge the amount a household can afford to pay and the market price of the unit have become very high. As a result, substantial financial subsidies, often from multiple funding sources, are required to finance the construction of affordable housing; however, only a few affordable housing developers can assemble multiple funding sources and have experience in complying with the complex regulatory requirements governing the use of various funding programs.

Table 4-2
Interest Rates
Interest Annual Percentage Rate
30-year fixed 2.875% 2.996%
15-year fixed 2.250% 2.398%
5-year Adjustable Rate Mortgage 2.000% 2.537%
Federal Housing Administration Rates
30-year fixed 3.125% 4.184%
Veterans Loans
30-year fixed 2.250% 2.484%
Source: http://www.wellsfargo.com, 2021; http://www.usbank.com Program Response
Although state housing element law does not require the City to mitigate the impact of market factors on the feasibility of constructing affordable housing, the City does implement many programs to help facilitate the construction of affordable housing and assist renters and homeowners. A commercial linkage or affordable housing in-lieu fee may further support the development of affordable housing and mitigate displacement of lower-income households. Programs 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 24, and 27 will help mitigate the impact of market factors and achieve the City’s affordable housing goals. In some cases, the market downturn also provides the City with a greater ability to influence land costs, such as through land writedowns.
1859
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-145
Land Writedowns
Because of the high cost of residential land and its impact on the feasibility of constructing affordable housing, the City has a program (Program 18) to help developers purchase or lease land. For the Mercy House Continuum of Care (CoC) Program, the City and/or the Ontario Housing Authority is leasing some properties to Mercy House for a minimum of $1 per year to help support the operation of the homeless CoC (Program 28).

Working with Nonprofits
The City’s affordable housing program works with developers, both nonprofit and for-profit, to facilitate the packaging of financial deals to allow for the construction of affordable housing. All of the recent affordable housing projects built in the city have a range of public and private funding sources that have been leveraged together.

Developer Concessions
The City of Ontario implements various housing programs to reduce or modify development standards that add costs to constructing affordable housing. These may include modification of parking, open space, and other standards through administrative exceptions. Moreover, considerable fee reductions are offered in return for affordability agreements. Finally, developers of affordable housing are also able to secure density bonuses that work to increase the cash flow of a project and indirectly mitigate the cost of construction, land costs, and financing constraints. Each of these incentive programs is described later.

Development Impact Fees and Taxes
The City charges a range of development impact fees and exactions to recover the costs of providing services to new development. Fees are designed to ensure that developers pay a fair pro-rata share of the costs of providing infrastructure and compensate the City for processing the application and fund the construction of future infrastructure necessary to sustain the growth of the city. The types of fees and their amounts are regulated by the California Government Code.
• Planning and Building Fees. The City charges fees to recover the cost for processing applications, building permits, and services. • Local Impact Fees. Ontario charges fees to construct infrastructure (water, sewer, library, etc.) required to serve new development, including housing.
1860
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-146 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
• Regional Impact Fees. Regional or government entities charge fees to provide infrastructure and services for each new development project, such as schools and regional wastewater entities. • Ontario Ranch Fees. Developers pay fees to construct
improvements in accordance with City master plans, specific plans, subdivision requirements, and development agreements.

Table 4-3 itemizes fees charged for prototypical projects in Ontario.

Development Impact Fees are available on the City’s website. Generally, fees range from approximately $26,000 to $42,200 in the general city. Fees in Ontario Ranch range from approximately $20,000 to $52,000 per unit due to the lack of infrastructure in that area.

Table 4-3
Residential Development Fees
Fee Category1
General City Ontario Ranch
Detached
Dwellings
Attached
Dwellings
High-Density
Dwellings
Detached
Dwellings
Attached
Dwellings
High-Density
Dwellings
City Building Permits2 9,614.74 11,309.16 8,606.65 11,290.02 10,049.65 8,748.91 Public Safety (Police/Fire) $722 $627 $627 $1,151 $989 $989 Streets (Regional/ Local) $2,439 $1,629 $1,008 $4,847 $3,237 $2,002 Storm Drainage (Regional/Local) $3,404 $1,094 $508 $5,335 $1,211 $988 Water Distribution (Regional/Local) $7,473 $5,109 $3,447 $8,997 $4,939 $2,621 Parks, Library, and Aquatics $14,506 $12,858 $10,174 $14,506 $12,858 $10,174 Sewer (Regional/Local) $1,384 $1,211 $1,038 $902 $684 $413 Solid Waste $699 $509 $255 $699 $509 $255
General Facilities $610 $127 $93 $610 $127 $93
Public Meetings $1,386 $1,228 $972 $1,386 $1,228 $972
Fiber Optics (Regional/Local) -- -- -- $1,943 $1,943 $1,943 School District (per sq. ft.)
Chaffey Joint Union High School District $4.08 $4.08 $4.08 $4.08 $4.08 $4.08 Chino Valley Unified School District $4.08 $4.08 $4.08 -- -- -- Cucamonga School District $2.82 $2.82 $2.82 -- -- --
Mountain View School District $2.82 $2.82 $2.82 -- -- -- Ontario-Montclair School District $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 Total Fees per Unit
Building $9,614.74 $11,309.16 $8,606.65 $11,290.02 $10,049.65 $8,748.91 Impact $32,623 $24,392 $18,122 $40,376 $27,725 $20,450
Total $42,237.74 $35,701.16 $26,728.65 $51,666.02 $37,774.65 $29,198.91 Source: City of Ontario, 2021.

1. Detached Dwelling Unit – Any residential building containing one dwelling unit on one parcel of land, including a single-family residence, single-family residential condominium or detached townhome, and a manufactured unit on an individual lot.

Attached Dwelling Unit – Apartments, townhomes, condominiums, or any other residential unit that is attached to any other residential unit; usually corresponding to an allowable land use designation of Low-Medium-Density Residential (LMDR) and Medium-Density Residential (MDR) or Mixed-Use (MU).

High-Density Residential – Any residential units with density ranges of more than 25 units per acre; usually corresponding to an allowable land use designation of HighDensity Residential (HDR) or Mixed-Use (MU).

2. Building Permit Fees are based on total project valuation and will vary depending on project type, including detached dwelling, attached dwelling, or high-density dwellings. 1861
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-147
Affordable Housing Reductions
Although development impact fees add to the cost of residential construction, they are not considered a constraint to the production of affordable housing. In compliance with California Government Code Section 66005, a local government is required to ensure that fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service. California Government Code Section 66001 requires that impact fees have a reasonable nexus to the project and the fee amount be reasonably related to the cost of providing services and capital facilities. Moreover, the City offers significant fee reductions for qualified projects.

With the adoption of Resolution No. 2007-023, the City Council determined that the development and redevelopment of affordable housing is of utmost importance to promote the objectives of the Policy Plan, the Housing Element, revitalization objectives, and the overall supply of decent and affordable housing. Therefore, the City Council approved the reduction of development impact fees for projects covered by an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City.

The ordinance sets a sliding scale of fee reductions for qualified residential projects, with potential fee reductions shown in Table 4-4. All qualified projects must make available a minimum of 20 percent of affordable units for very low-income households and the remaining units affordable to low-income households. To assist Ontario Ranch developers and their substantial commitment to fund infrastructure improvements, the City issues reimbursements or credits to the developer for the eligible costs of public infrastructure based on the estimated and/or actual eligible construction costs identified in the Development Impact Fee Nexus Report and Master Facilities Plan that will serve their project.

Table 4-4
Residential Development Fee Credits
Project
General City
Percentage of
Maximum Fee
Dollar Amount of
Possible Reduction
Where 10% of units are affordable 65% $15,000 to $17,000/du Where 15% of units are affordable 35% $28,000 to $33,000/du Where 15% of units are affordable 15% $37,000 to $43,000/du Multistory Building with Mixed-Uses 50% $21,000 to $25,000/du - with Structured Parking 10% $39,000 to $45,000/du
Source: City of Ontario, 2007.

Notes:

For these projects, a minimum of 20 percent of the affordable units must be affordable to very low-income households and the remainder must be affordable to low-income households.

Fee reductions do not apply to the Streets, Signals, and Bridges Fee category attributable to the 36 regional projects constructed by SANBAG under the Measure I program.
1862
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-148 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022

4.2 Land Use Controls
The Land Use Element prescribes the allowable uses of land in Ontario.

Land use categories are provided to guide the type of development, intensity or density of development, and the permitted uses of land. The City’s Development Code implements the Policy Plan by providing specific direction and development standards within each of the general land use categories through zoning. Previously, the City had separate categories for its Ontario Ranch area. Recent projects in the city have reached the City’s target densities, and projects tend toward the higher ends of permitted densities. Other areas of the city have been rezoned to a more intensive land use but are largely built out.

As part of the 2050 Policy Plan update, the City revised its Policy Plan land use designations, most notably expanding the Mixed-Use category to include area-specific Mixed-Use designations to create focal points for community activity and identity and facilitate the use of transit. These designations facilitate the development of high-density residential projects, principally with the Ontario Center Mixed-Use designation allowing up to 125.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Some parts of the city permit blended densities. The new Policy Plan land use designations apply to Ontario Ranch.

Table 4-5 presents the 2050 Policy Plan land use designations, corresponding zoning districts, and the permitted densities for residential development.

Table 4-5
Primary Policy Plan Land Uses Allowing Housing
2050 Policy Plan
Policy Plan
Land Use and Allowable Density
Zoning District and
Allowable Density
Rural

0.0–2.0 du/ac
AR-2 and RE-2 Districts

0.0–2.0 du/ac
Low Density

2.1–5.0 du/ac
RE-4 and District

2.1–4.0 du/ac
LDR-5 District

2.1 – 5.0 du/ac
Low Medium Density

5.1-11.0 du/ac
MHP District

5.1 – 8.0 du/ac
MDR-11 District

5.1–11.0 du/ac
Medium Density

11.1-25.0 du/ac
MDR-18 District

11.1–18.0 du/ac
MDR-25 District1

18.1 – 25.0 du/ac
1863
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-149
Table 4-5
Primary Policy Plan Land Uses Allowing Housing
2050 Policy Plan
Policy Plan
Land Use and Allowable Density
Zoning District and
Allowable Density
High Density

25.1 – 45.0 du/ac
HDR-45

25.1 – 45.0 du/ac
Downtown Mixed-Use Area

25.0 – 75.0 du/ac
MU-1 District and LUA-1, LUA-2N, LUA-3, LUA-4
Sub-Districts

25.0 – 75.0 du/ac
East Holt Mixed-Use Area

14.0 – 40.0 du/ac
MU-2 District1

14.0 – 40.0 du/ac
Meredith Mixed-Use Area

14.0 – 125.0 du/ac
Existing Specific Plan

14.0 – 25.0 du/ac
Multimodal Mixed-Use Area

20.0 – 80.0 du/ac
Existing Specific Plan

20.0 – 80.0 du/ac
Inland Empire Corridor Mixed-Use Area

14.0 – 30.0 du/ac
Existing Specific Plan

14.0 – 30.0 du/ac
Guasti Mixed-Use Area

25.0 – 65.0 du/ac
Existing Specific Plan

25.0 – 65.0 du/ac
Ontario Center Mixed-Use Area

20.0 – 125.0 du/ac
Existing Specific Plan1

20.0 – 125.0 du/ac
Ontario Mills Mixed-Use Area

25.0 – 85.0 du/ac
Existing Specific Plan1

25.0 – 85.0 du/ac
NMC East Mixed-Use Area

14.0 – 50.0 du/ac
Existing Specific Plan

14.0 – 50.0 du/ac
NMC West Mixed-Use Area

14.0 – 65.0 du/ac
Specific Plan Required1

14.0 – 65.0 du/ac
Euclid/Francis Mixed-Use Area

14.0 – 25.0 du/ac
MU-11 District

14.0 – 25.0 du/ac
Source: City of Ontario, 2021.

1. City is proposing changes to increase the minimum and/or maximum density for sites for lower-income units subject to requirements of Section 65583.2(h) in the MDR-25 land-use designation, Mixed-Use Districts, and Ontario Mills Specific Plan, Ontario Center Specific Plan (and Piedmonte Overlay), and Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan. See Program 13 for details.

To provide for greater land use controls and guidance, Ontario has 49 different Specific Plans, 18 of which contain significant residential uses.

Pursuant to the annexation of the dairy lands south of the city in 1998, the City is processing Specific Plans for Ontario Ranch as well. Table 4-6 displays the Specific Plan areas that are primarily residential. 1864
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-150 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Table 4-6
Existing Specific Plans with Residential Uses
No. Specific Plan Description Development
Status
1 Ontario Center
(1987)
701-acre residential, commercial, industrial, and
office development plan Partially developed
2 Ontario Festival
(2003) 37.6-acre commercial and residential development Residential portion built out 3 Meredith Center
(1981)
258-acre multiple-use commercial, office, hotel, and
residential development Partially developed
4 Guasti Plaza
Specific Plan
(2011)

78.4-acre historic preservation of Guasti Winery and
office, hotel, and commercial development with a
possible residential component. Residential uses are
allowed at a density of 25-60 du/ac on 7.76 acres
within the plan.

Approved
5 Mountain Village
Pedestrian-oriented commercial/retail/residential
district; entertainment destination with “round-theclock” districtBuilt out 6 Borba Village 32-acre residential, neighborhood commercial, and open space linked by a pedestrian corridor Built out
7 Creekside
(1994)
410-acre planned residential community with 9
activity centers, with lake and school site Built out
8 Wagner Specific
Plan (1992)
Now converted from commercial to residential
specific plan proposing 275 units on 45 acres of land,
11 of which are residential
Built out
No. Ontario
Ranch Description Development Status
9 Countryside
(2006)
178-acre master-planned residential with 819 singlefamily homes Partially developed 10 Edenglen (2005) 160-acre master-planned community with 277 singlefamily and 307 multiple-family residences Residential portion
built out
11 Rich-Haven
510.6-acre traditional neighborhood design,
residential, and regional commercial/mixed-use with
2,732 single-family and 1,524 multifamily units
Partially developed
12 Esperanza 223-acre residential planned community with 914 single-family and 496 multiple-family homes Partially developed 13 Sub-Area 29 532-acre planned residential, commercial, and recreational uses with 2,418 single-family units Partially developed 14 The Avenue 560-acre specific plan with 2,875 single-family and multiple-family residences with parks Partially developed 15 West Haven
Specific Plan
200-acre residential development with 753 singlefamily residences Partially developed 16 Parkside
250-acre planned community with 437 single-family
and 1,510 multiple-family homes and 50 acres of
parks
Partially developed
17 Armstrong
Ranch 176-acre specific plan with 891 single-family units Approved 18 Grand Park 106-acre specific plan with 1,327 housing units, including 587 units of high-density housing Partially developed 1865
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-151

4.3 Environmental Factors
Water and wastewater services are provided by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC), which is a department of the City.

Environmental and infrastructure issues affect the amount, location, and timing of new residential development. The City prioritizes water and sewer hook ups for all new residential developments, including affordable housing. New housing opportunities create challenges regarding public infrastructure extensions and expansions, and encroachment into agricultural land. In addition, the availability of adequate water, public infrastructure such as wells and wastewater treatment facilities, and other public services and facilities can impact the feasibility of new residential development. The City will examine potential alternative infrastructure funding sources to evaluate opportunities to provide fee reductions or offer fee waivers for affordable housing (Program 34).

A lack of water and wastewater capacity or infrastructure can present a barrier to the development of affordable housing in many jurisdictions.

The status of current infrastructure capabilities and capacities by planning Housing Opportunity Areasarea are presented below. • Campus Site. The site has no development, infrastructure or environmental constraints, and is ready to be developed immediately.
• Downtown. The City installed sewer infrastructure along East Holt Boulevard to accommodate development projected under the Policy Plan. The capacity is adequate to serve the projected new residential and commercial development in the Downtown and Emporia District. There is adequate water for the sites and no known environmental constraints. Roadway improvements have also been completed along Holt Boulevard. While storm drain capacity upgrades have been recommended, this is not
anticipated to be a constraint to development. In the southwest corner of the planning area, 12.3 acres are designated as a special flood hazard area, which will require additional assessment prior to development. No properties within this special flood hazard area are included in the City’s housing sites.
• East Holt. As East Holt Boulevard serves the East Holt commercial area as well as the Downtown areas and Emporia Districts. The City recently installed sewer infrastructure along East Holt Boulevard to accommodate development projected under the Policy Plan. Sewer capacity is now adequate to accommodate projected new residential and commercial
development in the East Holt areas, though infrastructure 1866
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-152 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
improvements are recommended. There are no known water or stormwater constraints that would preclude or delay the development of housing in any of these three areas, though infrastructure improvements are recommended.
• West Holt. While storm drain capacity upgrades have been recommended, this is not anticipated to be a constraint to development. Approximately 4.7 acres of this area are designated as a special flood hazard area, which will require additional assessment prior to development. No properties within this special flood hazard area are included in the City’s housing sites. • Old Cardenas Market. The site has no development,
infrastructure, or environmental constraints, and is ready to be developed immediately.
• Mountain Corridor. The corridor is ripe for conversion due to its underutilized nature, new Policy Plan land use designation that doubles or triples the allowable density, and the construction of capital improvement projects along the corridor that address water and sewer needs.
• Euclid Corridor. Water and sewer infrastructure is currently in place to support residential development. However, the
properties on Fern Avenue, north of Philadelphia Street, and on Philadelphia Street, between Fern Avenue and Euclid Avenue, are on septic systems and will require sewer facilities. In these cases, developers will be required to make on-site improvements. Given the project size possible on these sites, the cost of these types of improvements is not anticipated to preclude or delay the construction of housing.
• Grove Corridor. The sites are predominantly vacant and have no infrastructure or environmental constraints that would preclude or delay development. Adequate water and sewer capacity is available.
• Mission Corridor. Currently, there are no known constraints that would preclude or delay development of these sites. Water infrastructure and sewer infrastructure is in place and adequate to accommodate the development. The sites do not contain any environmental hazards, as they are predominantly residential and commercial in nature.
• Ontario Airport Metro Center Specific Plan and Ontario Mills.

Master plans for infrastructure will need to bewere prepared as will appropriateas part of the existing specific plans. Additional assessment may be necessary as part of the Ontario Mills Specific 1867
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-153
Plan update (required under Program 13). environmental
clearance for these projects. There is adequate sewer and water capacity for each of these sites proposed to be developed during the planning period. Limited areas are within a special flood hazard area, but this only represents 5.3 acres of the planning area, and no properties within the special flood hazard area are included in the City’s housing sites. Stormwater improvements are anticipated to alleviate local flooding in this area.

Ontario Ranch (Great Park, Grove, and Euclid Corridors and Vineyard Corridor/Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan). The City entered into an agreement with a consortium of 14 developers to fund $430 million in infrastructure (streets, drainage, water, parks, etc.) that will serve the eastern portion of Ontario Ranch Backbone infrastructure serving the western Ontario Ranch is planned in conjunction with several approved industrial projects (between Merrill and Eucalyptus Avenues). The initial sewer trunk line (expected completion 2022) will travel along Merrill Avenue between Euclid and Walker Avenues. Additional sewer lines are planned to extend north along Euclid, Bon View, Grove, and Walker Avenues, with the southern-most areas expected to be first served. Backbone water infrastructure will also be installed more extensively throughout the western Ontario Ranch (expected completion 2022), but service will follow the extension of the sewer lines, which are more complicated and costly to install.

Roadways, recycled water lines, storm drains, and dry utilities are expected to expand at pace with the sewer infrastructure as new development is established.

While areas adjacent to Cucamonga Creekin the southwest corner of the Great Park Corridor are considered to be in a flood potential liquefaction zone, this is not anticipated to limit proposed development. Infrastructure and environmental constraints in the Ontario Ranch are discussed in detail in section 5.1.

4.4 Housing Opportunities
California law requires that all local governments adopt and administer programs to facilitate and encourage the provision of a range of types and prices of housing for all income levels. The City’s zoning implements the intent of the Policy Plan by specifying the type of housing allowed, the location of residential uses, the permitted density, and the permitting processes involved for different types of housing.

Table 4-7 summarizes the types of conventional housing allowed in each zoning district and whether the use is permitted by right or conditionally permitted. Where no notation is provided, the use is prohibited. 1868
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-154 Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022
Following is an explanation of the housing types and their legal or planning context. Table 4-8 addresses how special-needs housing types are allowed.
1869
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adoption Draft October 2021January 2022 H-155
Table 4-7
Conventional Housing Permitted by Zoning District
Residential Uses
Residential Zoning
Districts Commercial Zoning Districts Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Industrial Zoning Districts Specialized Use and Overlay Zoning Districts Additional Regulations
(Development Code References)
AR-2 & RE-2
RE-4 & LDR-5
MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25
HDR-45
CS
CNCCCR
CCS
OL
OH
MU-1
MU-2
MU-11
BP
IP
IL
IG
IH
AG
CIV
MHP
LUA-1
LUA-2N
LUA-2S
LUA-3LUA-4
Accessory Structures, including guesthouses P P P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P P -- P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P -- -- Section 5.03.010 (B)) Accessory Dwelling Units P P P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P P -- P -- P P -- -- -- -- -- P -- -- Section 5.03.010 (A) Caretaker Quarters -- -- -- -- -- C C C C -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C -- C C C P -- -- Excludes Caretaker Quarters
established in conjunction with SelfStorage Facilities Residential Mixed-Use Developments (Development projects containing a mix or commercial and residential on the same site) -- -- -- -- -- C C -- -- -- -- P P -- P -- P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Section 5.03.285 Work/Live Units -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C C C -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Section 5.03.425 Mobile Home Parks -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P Section 5.03.295 Mobile Home or Manufactured Home1 P P P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P P -- P -- P -- -- -- -- -- -- P -- -- Multiple-Family Dwellings -- -- P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P P -- P P P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Table 6.01-3 Single-Family Dwellings (Traditional Residential Subdivisions) P P P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P -- -- P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P -- -- Section 5.03.365; Table 6.01-1.

Single-Family Dwellings (Small Lot Traditional Residential Subdivisions) -- P P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P -- -- P -- P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Section 5.03.365; Table 6.01-2A Single-Family Dwellings (Small Lot Alley-Loaded Residential Subdivisions) -- -- P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P -- -- P -- P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Section 5.03.365; Table 6.01-2B Single-Family Dwellings (Cluster Residential Subdivisions) -- -- P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P -- -- P -- P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Section 5.03.365; Table 6.01-2C Small-Lot Infill Subdivisions -- -- P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P P -- P -- P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Section 6.01.010.F P=Permitted Use C=Conditionally Permitted Use -- = Prohibited Source: City of Ontario, 2021.

Residential Zoning Districts:

AR-2 = Residential-Agricultural 0-2; RE-2 = Rural Estate 0-2; RE-4 = Residential Estate 2-4; LDR-5 = Low-Density Residential 2.1-5; MDR-11 = Low-Medium-Density Residential 5.1-11; MDR-11 = Low-Medium-Density Residential 11.1-18; MDR-25 = Low-Medium-Density Residential 18.1-25; HDR-45 = High-Density Residential 25.1-45 Commercial Zoning Districts:

CS = Corner Store; CN = Commercial Neighborhood; CC = Community Commercial; CR = Regional Commercial; CCS = Convention Center Support Commercial; OL = Low Intensity Office; OH = High Intensity Office Mixed-Use Zoning Districts:

Ontario City CouncilMarch 1, 2022

Ontario City Council
March 1, 2022