Ontario City Council
March 15, 2022

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
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, 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, 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, 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 for File No. PGPA06-001.

The Addendum finds that the proposed project introduces no new significant 1325
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA21-004
December 20, 2021

environmental impacts, and all previously adopted mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project by reference; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission, the Planning Commission 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, in conjunction with File No. PGPA06-001; 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 Planning Commission, and the 1326
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA21-004
December 20, 2021

specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission 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 (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 1327
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA21-004
December 20, 2021

of current and future airport activity. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission 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 PLANNING COMMISSION, 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 Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of The Ontario Plan; and
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. 1328
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA21-004
December 20, 2021

 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.

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. 1329
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA21-004
December 20, 2021

 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 (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: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby 1330
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA21-004
December 20, 2021

RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE the proposed General Plan Amendment, as depicted in Attachment A (Ontario Housing Element Update Public Review Draft October 2021), Attachment B (Affordable Housing Overlay), and Attachment C (Policy Plan Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) Revision – Affordable Housing Overlay) 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 Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1331
1332
1333
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA21-004
December 20, 2021

ATTACHMENT A:

Ontario Housing Element
Public Review Draft October 2021
(Draft Housing Element Update to follow this page)
1334
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA21-004
December 20, 2021

ATTACHMENT B: Affordable Housing Overlay
1335
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA21-004
December 20, 2021

ATTACHMENT C: Policy Plan Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) Revision – Affordable Housing Overlay 1336
1337
1338
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 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...................................................................14

2.3 Special Housing Needs......................................................22

2.4 Neighborhood Conditions ................................................42

3. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ..................................... 66

3.1 Outreach ..............................................................................66

3.2 Description of Ontario by Area ........................................69

3.3 City of Ontario History......................................................71

3.4 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues..................................72

4. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ............................................... 105 Market Factors ...............................................................................106 Land Use Controls.........................................................................112 Environmental Factors..................................................................115 Housing Opportunities.................................................................117 Special-Needs Housing.................................................................123 Housing for People with Disabilities..........................................135 Development Standards ...............................................................139 Building Codes and Subdivision Improvements......................161 Permit Approval Process..............................................................163 Regulations Affecting Housing Supply......................................167 Energy Conservation Opportunities...........................................167

5. RESOURCES ..................................................................170 Housing Resources.......................................................................170 Administrative and Financial Resources ...................................208

6. PROGRAM EVALUATION..................................................216 2013–2021 Housing Element Goals .............................................216 2013–2021 Special Housing Needs Summary of
Accomplishments .............................................................216 7 HOUSING ELEMENT OUTREACH ..................................... 240 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan .......................................................240 Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan ................................247 1339
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-ii Draft October 2021

8. HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES .....................................251 Goal 1: Neighborhoods and Housing.........................................252 Goal 2: Housing Supply and Diversity.......................................253 Goal 3: Governmental Regulations .............................................254 Goal 4: Housing Assistance..........................................................255 Goal 5: Special Needs....................................................................257

9. HOUSING PROGRAMS................................................... 259 Neighborhoods and Housing ......................................................259 Housing Supply and Diversity....................................................265 Governmental Constraints ...........................................................272 Housing Assistance .......................................................................278 Special-Needs Housing.................................................................282 Quantified Objectives....................................................................290 APPENDIX A: LIST OF QUALIFIED ENTITIES.................................. A-1 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT SITES INVENTORY
(PARCEL LIST)....................................................... B-1 Tables Table 2-1 Ontario and Neighboring Jurisdictions Population Growth, 2010 to 2019...........................................................6 Table 2-2 Changes in Race and Ethnicity ...........................................7 Table 2-3 Changes in Age Characteristics..........................................8 Table 2-4 Changes in Household Type...............................................9 Table 2-5 Occupations by Type for Riverside-San BernardinoOntario Metropolitan Statistical Area .............................11 Table 2-6 Job-to-Housing Ratio .........................................................12 Table 2-7 Household Income by Type, 2010....................................13 Table 2-8 Household Income Distribution.......................................14 Table 2-9 Housing Projections 2000–2045 ........................................15 Table 2-10 Housing Type 2010–2021...................................................16 Table 2-11 Housing Size by Tenure ....................................................16 Table 2-12 Occupied Housing Units by Tenure ................................17 Table 2-13 Housing Affordability Summary .....................................20 Table 2-14 Overpayment by Household Type and Tenure .............21 Table 2-15 Overcrowding by Tenure ..................................................22 Table 2-16 Special-Needs Groups........................................................23 Table 2-17 Large-Family Housing Overpayment .............................24 Table 2-18 Household Size by Tenure in Ontario.............................25 Table 2-19 Affordable Family Housing in Ontario...........................26 Table 2-20 Senior Housing Needs .......................................................26 Table 2-21 Senior Households by Income..........................................27 1340
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-iii
Table 2-22 Residential Care Facilities in Ontario ..............................29 Table 2-23 Disability Types in Ontario...............................................31 Table 2-24 Disabled Residents in Ontario by Employment Status.32 Table 2-25 Developmentally Disabled Residents by Age ................33 Table 2-26 Housing for People with Disabilities...............................35 Table 2-27 Housing for Homeless People ..........................................39 Table 2-28 Farmworkers in Ontario....................................................41 Table 2-29 Age of Housing Stock ........................................................47 Table 2-30 Households, Employment, and Population Projections 2016–2045.............................................................................49 Table 2-31 Regional Housing Needs Goals, 2021–2029....................51 Table 2-32 Publicly Subsidized Multiple-Family Housing..............53 Table 2-33 Cost to Replace Rent Subsidies.........................................59 Table 2-34 Cost to Subsidize At-Risk Units in Ontario, 2021 ..........62 Table 2-35 Qualified Entities Near Ontario .......................................64 Table 3-1 School Performance Metrics, 2019....................................80 Table 3-2 Discrimination Cases, 2013-2021 ......................................87 Table 3-3 Contributing Factors to Fair Housing..............................90 Table 4-1 Typical Vacant Land Costs in Ontario...........................106 Table 4-2 Interest Rates .....................................................................108 Table 4-3 Residential Development Fees........................................110 Table 4-4 Residential Development Fee Credits ...........................111 Table 4-5 Primary Policy Plan Land Uses Allowing Housing ....112 Table 4-6 Existing Specific Plans with Residential Uses ..............114 Table 4-7 Conventional Housing Permitted by Zoning District.119 Table 4-8 Special-Needs Housing Permitted by Zoning District124 Table 4-9 Traditional Single-Family Residential Development Standards ...........................................................................141 Table 4-10 Small-Lot Traditional Single-Family Residential Development Standards ..................................................143 Table 4-11 Small-Lot Alley-loaded Single-Family Residential Development Standards ..................................................145 Table 4-12 Cluster Single-Family Residential Development Standards ...........................................................................147 Table 4-13 Multifamily Residential Development Standards .......149 Table 4-14 Mixed-Use Development Standards..............................152 Table 4-15 Parking Standards for Housing......................................156 Table 4-16 Open Space Standards for Housing...............................159 Table 4-17 Permit Processing Procedures ........................................165 Table 5-1 Ontario Regional Housing Need Allocation,
2021–2029...........................................................................171 Table 5-2 Residential Projects in the Pipeline ................................176 Table 5-3 Accessory Dwelling Unit Projections, 2021–2029 ........206 Table 5-4 Availability of Land to Meet RHNA, 2021–2029..........207 Table 5-5 Federal and State Housing Funding Programs............209 Table 6-1 Review of Previous Housing Element...........................218 1341
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-iv Draft October 2021
Table 7-1 Stakeholder Consultations ..............................................241 Table 7-2 Summary of Priority Needs ............................................243 Table 9-1 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers .............................................272 Table 9-2 Quantified Objectives for the 2021–2029 Housing Element ..............................................................................290 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........................................45 Figure 3-1 Areas of Ontario .................................................................70 Figure-3-2 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map........................................92 Figure 3-3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty..93 Figure 3-4 Predominant Population - Hispanic Majority................94 Figure 3-5 Diversity Index ...................................................................95 Figure 3-6 Median Income ...................................................................96 Figure 3-7 Poverty Status .....................................................................97 Figure 3-8 Children in Married Couple Households .......................98 Figure 3-9 Job Proximity.......................................................................99 Figure 3-10 Overcrowded Households ..............................................100 Figure 3-11 Overpayment by Owners ................................................101 Figure 3-12 Overpayment by Renters.................................................102 Figure 3-13 Sites Inventory Analysis ..................................................103 Figure 4-1 Emergency Shelter Overlay ............................................131 Figure 5-1 Housing Opportunity Areas ...........................................178 Figure 5-2 Downtown Housing Opportunity Area........................180 Figure 5-3 West Holt Housing Opportunity Area..........................182 Figure 5-4 East Holt Housing Opportunity Area ...........................184 Figure 5-5 Old Cardenas Market Housing Opportunity Area .....186 Figure 5-6 Ontario Center Specific Plan Housing Opportunity Area ....................................................................................188 Figure 5-7 The Mills Housing Opportunity Area ...........................190 Figure 5-8 Great Park Corridor Housing Opportunity Area ........194 Figure 5-9 Grove Corridor Housing Opportunity Area ................198 Figure 5-10 Euclid Corridor Housing Opportunity Area................200 Figure 5-11 Vineyard Corridor / Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan Housing Opportunity Area.............................................204 1342
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 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. 1343
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-2 Draft October 2021
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.
1344
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 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.
1345
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-4 Draft October 2021
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. 1346
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 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.
1347
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-6 Draft October 2021

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
1348
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 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.
1349
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-8 Draft October 2021
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.
1350
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 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.
1351
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-10 Draft October 2021
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 1352
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-11
persons, following sales and related occupations which comprises 9.1 percent of employed persons in the MSA.

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
1353
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-12 Draft October 2021
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 OnThe 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.
1354
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-13
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
1355
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-14 Draft October 2021
· 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.
1356
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-15
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. 1357
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-16 Draft October 2021
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.
1358
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-17
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.
1359
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-18 Draft October 2021
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.
1360
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-19
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. 1361
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-20 Draft October 2021
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.
1362
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-21
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).
1363
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-22 Draft October 2021
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.
1364
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-23
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.
1365
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-24 Draft October 2021
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. 1366
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-25
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. 1367
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-26 Draft October 2021
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%
1368
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-27
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.
1369
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-28 Draft October 2021
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.
1370
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-29
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
1371
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-30 Draft October 2021
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
1372
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-31
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 1373
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-32 Draft October 2021
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. 1374
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-33
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 1375
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-34 Draft October 2021
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.

VisitabilityVisitability 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.
1376
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-35
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 1377
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-36 Draft October 2021
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, 1378
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-37
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.
1379
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-38 Draft October 2021
· 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.
1380
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-39
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 1381
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-40 Draft October 2021
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 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.

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 500 and 800 agricultural workers. Additional agricultural laborers work in Ontario, but many are employed in the food processing, horticultural, or other agricultural industries.
1382
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-41
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.

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 1383
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-42 Draft October 2021
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.
· 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.
1384
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-43
· 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. 1385
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-44 Draft October 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
1386
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-45
Figure 2-1 Ontario Local Historic Districts
1387
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-46 Draft October 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
1388
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 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. 1389
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-48 Draft October 2021
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. 1390
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-49
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.
1391
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-50 Draft October 2021
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.
1392
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-51
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; · Resources for preservation of at-risk units; and
1393
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-52 Draft October 2021
· 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. 1394
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-53
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 1395
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-54 Draft October 2021
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 1396
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 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

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 1397
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-56 Draft October 2021
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.
1398
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-57
· 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.
1399
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-58 Draft October 2021
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. 1400
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-59
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. 1401
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-60 Draft October 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
1402
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-61
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.
1403
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-62 Draft October 2021
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 1404
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-63
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 1405
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-64 Draft October 2021
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. 1406
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-65
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. 1407
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-66 Draft October 2021

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 the 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.

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 1408
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-67
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 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.
1409
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-68 Draft October 2021

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 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 1410
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-69
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 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.
1411
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-70 Draft October 2021
Figure 3-1 Areas of Ontario
1412
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-71

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 1413
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-72 Draft October 2021
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. 1414
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-73
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 1415
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-74 Draft October 2021
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 1416
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-75
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 1417
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-76 Draft October 2021
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 lowresource 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/HCDidentified areas of high segregation and poverty reinforced by low median income and high rates of poverty. Throughout the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, there tends to be 1418
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-77
an increase in median income and decrease in poverty levels outside of large city centers.

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. To address the discrepancy in access, the City will 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. 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 1419
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-78 Draft October 2021
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 non-elderly 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.

Access to Opportunity
As shown in Figure 3-9, access to job centers in Ontario falls along the east-west divide. Much of 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 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 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).
1420
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-79
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. 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.

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 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.
1421
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-80 Draft October 2021
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 1422
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-81
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.
1423
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-82 Draft October 2021
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 County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 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).
1424
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-83
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. To address overcrowding as a result of doubling up, unaffordable housing options, or multigenerational households, among other reasons, the City 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.
1425
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-84 Draft October 2021
As with overcrowding, overpayment 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. 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 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 costburdened, 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 lower-income residents with affordable home ownership within the city (Programs 6 and 24) and preserve at-risk affordable housing units to maintain affordability (Program 25).

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. In July 2019, the City developed a Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan concentrated 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, renter-occupied 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 1426
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-85
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 percent) as a whole. 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).

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 (HDMA) 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 HDMA 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).
1427
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-86 Draft October 2021
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 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 3-2). 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. 1428
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-87
Table 3-2
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.
1429
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-88 Draft October 2021
Site Inventory Analysis
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.

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 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, allowing integration of income levels in future development. 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 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.
1430
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-89
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 5-4, 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.

Contributing Factors
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.
1431
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-90 Draft October 2021
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 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.

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 (Fair 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. 1432
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-91
Table 3-3
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
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
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.

Location of employers
Lack of investment/community revitalization strategies in low-resource areas of the city that would improve health outcomes for residents Lack of affordable housing 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.
1433
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-92 Draft October 2021
Figure-3-2 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map
1434
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-93
Figure 3-3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty 1435
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-94 Draft October 2021
Figure 3-4 Predominant Population - Hispanic Majority
1436
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-95
Figure 3-5 Diversity Index
1437
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-96 Draft October 2021
Figure 3-6 Median Income
1438
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-97
Figure 3-7 Poverty Status
1439
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-98 Draft October 2021
Figure 3-8 Children in Married Couple Households
1440
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-99
Figure 3-9 Job Proximity
1441
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-100 Draft October 2021
Figure 3-10 Overcrowded Households
1442
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-101
Figure 3-11 Overpayment by Owners
1443
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-102 Draft October 2021
Figure 3-12 Overpayment by Renters
1444
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-103
Figure 3-13 Sites Inventory Analysis
1445
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-104 Draft October 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
1446
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-105

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. 1447
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-106 Draft October 2021
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. 1448
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-107
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 1449
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-108 Draft October 2021
$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.
1450
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-109
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.
1451
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-110 Draft October 2021
· 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. 1452
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-111
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.
1453
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-112 Draft October 2021
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
1454
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-113
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. 1455
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-114 Draft October 2021
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” district Built 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 1456
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-115
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. 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 area 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 improvements are recommended. There are no known water or stormwater constraints that would preclude or delay the 1457
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-116 Draft October 2021
development of housing in any of these three areas, though infrastructure improvements are recommended.
· 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. · 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. Master plans for infrastructure will need to be prepared as will appropriate 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.
1458
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-117
· Ontario Ranch. 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. While areas adjacent to Cucamonga Creek are considered to be in a flood zone, this is not anticipated to limit proposed development.

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.

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.
1459
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-118 Draft October 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
1460
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-119
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:

MU-1= Downtown Mixed-Use; LUA-1 = Euclid Avenue Entertainment; LUA-2N = Arts; LUA-3 = Holt Boulevard; LUA-4 = Civic Center; MU-2 = East Holt Mixed-Use, MU-11 = Euclid/Francis Mixed-Use Industrial Zoning Districts:

BP = Business Park; IL = Light Industrial; IG = General Industrial; IH = Heavy Industrial Overlays and Specialized Use Zoning Districts
AG = Agriculture Overlay; CIV = Civic; MHP = Mobile Home Park 1 Mobile Homes/Manufactured Homes are treated as single-family homes and permitted by right anywhere single-family homes are permitted. 1461
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-120 Draft October 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
1462
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-121
Single- and Multiple-Family Housing
The City permits single-family and multiple-family housing types as by-right uses in their respective zoning districts. The City allows a multitude of single-family housing land uses to encourage a variety of design and allow for small-lot and/or infill development. Traditional single-family housing is permitted by right in the most zoning districts (AR-2, RE-2, RE-4, LDR-5, MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25, HDR-45, LUA-1, LUA-3, and AG), followed by single-family dwellings on small lots (RE4, LDR-5, MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25, HDR-45, LUA-1, LUA-3, and MU2). Single-family dwellings, alley-loaded, and single-family dwellings, clustered, are allowed by right in the same zoning districts: MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25, HDR-45, LUA-1, LUA-3, and MU-2. Small-lot infill subdivisions are allowed by right in the MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25, HDR-45, LUA-1, LUA-2N, LUA-3, and MU-2 zoning districts. Flexibility in residential subdivision design can also be achieved through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District that conditionally permits a range of housing types in every residential zone. The PUD is a tool to encourage and facilitate innovative design, variety, and flexibility in housing products that would otherwise not be allowed in other zoning districts. Under a PUD, the City may permit attached and detached single-family residences, townhomes, and zero lot line and any other type of housing product permitted by the regulations of the underlying zone.

Multiple-family housing is permitted by right in medium- and highdensity residential zones (MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25, and HDR-45) and mixed-use zones (LUA-1, LUA-2, LUA-3, LUA-4, MU-2, and MU-11).

Mixed-Use
Residential mixed-use projects are projects containing single-family and/or multiple-family dwellings constructed in conjunction with a variety of complementary commercial land uses—such as office, retail, public, or entertainment—in the same building or site as an integrated development that has both significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. Mixed-use can be vertically integrated or horizontally placed (side by side). Mixed-use developments are permitted by right in the LUA-1, LUA-2N, LUA-3, LUA-4, MU-2, and MU-11 zoning districts and conditionally permitted in the CN and CC zoning districts. The 2050 Policy Plan established 12 Mixed-Use land use designations to support the development vision in important corridors within the city, creating focal points for community activity and identity and to integrate transit. While not all 12 mixed-use land use designations have a corresponding zoning district, the Downtown Mixed-Use zoning districts (MU-1 and subdistricts LUA-1, LUA-2N, LUA-2S, LUA-3, and LUA-4) support the Downtown Mixed-Use designation, the MU-2 supports the East Holt Mixed-Use designation, and MU-11 supports the 1463
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-122 Draft October 2021
Euclid/Francis Mixed-Use designation, integrating more opportunities for housing in these neighborhoods.

Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing
Mobile homes or manufactured housing offer an affordable housing option to many low- and moderate-income households. California Government Code Section 65852.3 requires cities to treat certified mobile homes (manufactured homes) on a permanent foundation for permanent occupancy the same as single-family dwellings. They may not be excluded from lots zoned for single-family dwellings and are subject to the same rules as site-built homes, except for certain architectural requirements. Further, a city may not require an administrative permit, planning or development process, or requirement that is not imposed on a conventional single-family dwelling.

The City allows, by right, factory-built housing in all zones permitting single-family dwellings. Factory-built housing on residential lots not constructed within a mobile home park must conform to the same development standards applied to site-built homes with regards to setbacks, parking, placement, and other standards, but have additional specific architectural requirements related to exterior finish and roofing material to blend factory-built housing with site-built housing. Mobile home units may also be used as rental accessory dwelling units (ADUs) subject to certain construction standards (e.g., National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards of 1974), and architectural requirements. These standards do not impose a constraint on the placement of mobile homes or unreasonable cost burdens on mobile homeowners since new factory-built homes normally comply with the City’s requirements with little or no modification.

Mobile homes are allowed by right in the Mobile Home Park (MHP) zone constructed as mobile home parks, permitting 5.1 to 8.0 du/ac. According to the 2021 Department of Finance numbers, an estimated 2,175 mobile homes are located in the city.

Accessory Dwelling Units
ADUs (second units) are defined in the Development Code (see Section

5.03.010) as an ancillary dwelling unit providing complete independent living facilities for one household located on a parcel with the primary single-unit dwelling that houses a separate household. An ADU may be within the same structure as the primary unit, in an attached structure, or in a separate structure on the same parcel. State legislation requires jurisdictions to allow ADUs that meet certain standards by right anywhere that single-family or multifamily uses are allowed. Junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), that is, smaller units located entirely 1464
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-123
within an existing single-family primary unit, are also allowed under state law.

Ontario permits ADUs by right in all zoning districts where single-family and multiple-family residential is permitted, including mixed-use zoning districts, subject to the provisions of the Development Code Section

5.03.010. Ontario allows detached and attached ADUs up to 800 square feet for a studio or one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for a unit with two or more bedrooms. ADUs are permitted through an approved ministerial ADU permit, although some conversions or detached ADUs only require an approved building permit.

The City adopted updates to the ADU ordinance as a part of the development Code update in 2020 to comply with State law. During the planning period, the City will implement the ADU ordinance and update it to comply with any new State requirements (Program 20). Additionally, the City will explore initiatives to promote ADU development as an affordable housing option, including considering establishing a loan program for homeowners for ADUs, market ADU guidance materials, and create frequently-asked-questions webpage for ADUs on the City’s website (Program 27).

Special-Needs Housing
State law requires that housing elements analyze the needs of certain groups of households that have special housing needs. Furthermore, state and federal fair housing laws are designed to ensure that persons and families with special housing needs (e.g., disabled people [including those with developmental disabilities], homeless people, etc.) have adequate access to a full range of housing opportunities. An important component of meeting this challenge is to ensure that adequate housing opportunities are permitted in the community.

Table 4-8 summarizes the types of special-needs housing allowed in each zoning district in Ontario and whether the type of housing is permitted by right or conditionally permitted. Where a land use is not expressly permitted, the use is considered prohibited by the Municipal Code. 1465
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-124 Draft October 2021
Table 4-8
Special-Needs Housing Permitted by Zoning District
Special-Needs Uses Residential
Zoning Districts
Professional and 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
Senior Citizen Housing -- -- P P -- -- C -- -- -- -- P -- -- P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Section 5.03.360 Continuing Care Retirement
Communities
6 or fewer clients
*P *P *P *P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *P *P *P *P *P *P -- -- -- -- -- *P -- -- Continuing Care Retirement
Communities More than 6 clients -- -- C C -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C Assisted Living Facilities for the
Elderly
6 or fewer clients
*P *P *P *P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *P *P *P *P *P *P -- -- -- -- -- *P -- -- Section 5.03.110 Assisted Living Facilities for the
Elderly
More than 6 clients
-- -- C C -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C Section 5.03.105 Nursing Care Facilities -- -- -- -- -- -- C C -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C Residential Intellectual and
Development Disability, Mental
Health, and Substance Abuse
Facilities
6 or fewer clients
*P *P *P *P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *P *P *P *P *P *P -- -- -- -- -- *P -- -- Residential Intellectual and
Development Disability, Mental
Health, and Substance Abuse
Facilities
More than 6 clients
-- -- C C -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C Other Residential Care Facilities
6 or fewer clients *P *P *P *P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *P *P *P *P *P *P -- -- -- -- -- *P -- -- Section 5.03.345 1466
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-125
Special-Needs Uses Residential
Zoning Districts
Professional and 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
Other Residential Care Facilities
More than 6 clients -- -- C C -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C Boarding, Lodging, and Rooming
Houses A A A C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- A -- A Section 5.03.080 Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
Facilities -- -- -- C -- -- C -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Section 5.03.360 Emergency Shelters -- -- C -- -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- P C C -- C C Section 5.03.405 Supportive Housing P P P -- -- -- C -- -- -- -- C -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- P C -- -- C -- Section 5.03.405 Transitional Housing P P P P -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P C C -- C P Section 5.03.405 Transitional Living Centers -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- C C C -- -- -- Section 5.03.405 Low-Barrier Navigation Centers -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Employee (Farmworker) Housing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P -- -- Section 5.03.177 Source: City of Ontario, 2021.
*Allowed only in conjunction with an existing single-family residence.

P=Permitted Use C=Conditionally Permitted Use A=Administratively Permitted Use -- = Prohibited 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 2-5; MDR-11 = Low-Medium-Density Residential 5-11; MDR-11 = Low-Medium-Density Residential 11-18; MDR-25 = Low-Medium-Density Residential 18-25; HDR-45 = High-Density Residential 25-45 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:

MU-1= Downtown Mixed-Use; LUA-1 = Euclid Avenue Entertainment; LUA-2N = Arts; LUA-3 = Holt Boulevard; LUA-4 = Civic Center; MU-2 = East Holt Mixed-Use, MU-11 = Euclid/Francis Mixed-Use Industrial Zoning Districts:

BP = Business Park; IL = Light Industrial; IG = General Industrial; IH = Heavy Industrial Overlays and Specialized Use Zoning Districts
AG = Agriculture Overlay; CIV = Civic; MHP = Mobile Home Park 1467
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-126 Draft October 2021
Senior Housing
The Development Code contains regulations that encourage the production or location of a continuum of housing suitable for seniors. The intent of these ordinances is to ensure that seniors have the ability to remain in Ontario throughout their lives regardless of medical condition.

The major types of senior housing facilities are summarized below. · 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. The City permits by right senior citizen housing developments in the MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25, HDR-45, LUA1, LUA-3, and LUA-4 zones and conditionally permits senior housing in the CC zone and offers significant incentives for new senior housing. Applications for senior citizen housing developments are reviewed based on their proximity to
frequently-serviced public transit, parks and open space, medical facilities, libraries, and pharmacies. Additionally, senior citizen housing developments must provide high-speed internet, a service coordinator to assist with activities of daily living, and an exercise facility.
· 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, in which surgery is not performed and primary treatment given in hospitals is not provided. These uses are permitted conditionally in the CC, CR, OH, and MHP zones. · Residential Care Facilities. As discussed in later sections, the City also allows state-licensed community care facilities and residential care facilities for the elderly, further categorized in the Development Code Table 5.02-1 (Land Use Matrix) as Continuing Care Retirement Communities and Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly. Community Care Facilities, including those that serve seniors, comply with the Community Care Facilities Act and are discussed below within the Community Care Facilities section.

The City has excellent examples of facilities offering CoC options for seniors. Inland Christian Home, a nonprofit provider of health and retirement care services for the elderly, has four facilities that provide accommodations for seniors. These include independent living, memory care, assisted living, and skilled nursing facilities.
1468
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-127
Community Care Facilities
The Welfare and Institutions Code (Lanterman-Petris Act) and the Health and Safety Code (Community Care Facilities Act) declare that it is the policy of the state that people with a wide variety of disabilities are entitled to live in normal residential settings. The Health and Safety Code (California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act) also extends this protection to elderly persons. State law sets forth regulations and guidelines for care facilities that preempt or limit many local regulations.

Facilities covered under these acts include:
· Residential care facility
· Adult day program
· Therapeutic day services facility
· Foster family agency or home
· Small family home
· Social rehabilitation facility
· Community treatment facility
· Full-service adoption agency
· Noncustodial adoption agency
· Transitional shelter care facility
· Transitional housing placement facility
· Residential care facility for the elderly (Continuing Care Retirement Communities and Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly)
· Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility (Residential Mental Health and Substance Abuse Facilities) · Congregate care facility
The Health and Safety Code (Section 1500 et seq.) requires that licensed community care facilities serving six or fewer persons be (1) treated the same as a residential use; (2) allowed by right in all residential zones; and (3) treated the same with respect to regulations, fees, taxes, and permit processes as other residential uses in the same zone. The Health and Safety Code extends this protection to residential care facilities for the elderly (Section 1569.84 et seq.), to alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or 1469
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-128 Draft October 2021
treatment facilities (Section 11834.22 et seq.), and to congregate care facilities (Section 1267.16 et seq.), all of which serve no more than six clients.

As required by Health and Safety Code Section 1569.84 et seq., community care facilities serving six or fewer people are allowed by right in the residential zoning districts and the LUA-1, LUA-2N, LUA-2S, LUA3, MU-2, MU-11, and the AG zoning districts. Licensed community care facilities are also subject to the same development standards, fees, taxes, and permitting processes as other similar residential uses in the same zone. Large facilities (seven or more persons) are conditionally permitted in the MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25, HDR-45, MU-11, and MHP zoning districts. To expand the use of care facilities for seven or more persons, the City has included Program 20 to explore amending provisions in the Municipal Code to allow state-licensed residential care facilities for seven or more persons only subject to those restrictions that apply to residential uses in the same zone or otherwise amending the Municipal Code to make it easier to locate a state-licensed residential care facility for seven or more persons in the city. Residential care facilities would still be subject to state licensing.

Boarding, Lodging, or Rooming House
In contrast to community care facilities licensed by the State of California, boarding, lodging, and rooming houses are non-licensed facilities. This category refers to a residence or dwelling other than a hotel wherein one or more rooms with or without individual or group cooking facilities are rented, leased, or subleased to individuals under separate agreements, either written or oral.

Unlike licensed community care facilities, cities can regulate such boarding, lodging, and rooming houses that are not used as transitional or supportive housing. “A city may prohibit, limit or regulate the operation of a boarding house or rooming house business in a singlefamily home located in a low-density residential (R-1) zone, where boarding house is defined as a residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein three or more rooms, with or without individual or group cooking facilities are: rented to individuals under separate rental agreements or lease in order to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood” (86 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 30 (2003)). The City permits boarding, lodging, or rooming houses in the AR-2, RE-2, RE-4, LDR-5, MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25, AG, and MHP zoning districts with an approved administrative use permit and the HDR-45 zoning district with a conditional use permit.
1470
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-129
Boarding, lodging, or rooming houses have, at times, been a source of concern that they be operated in a manner compatible with residential neighborhoods. To that end, the City Municipal Code requires that such homes cannot be occupied by more than one federal, state, or youth authority parolee. Moreover, all such homes shallrequire boarders to sign a “Crime-Free Lease Addendum” to their rental or lease agreement. In Program 20, the City commits to reviewing and removing this restriction to prevent discrimination based on criminal history (see California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 12264-12271). The Municipal Code limits providing accommodations to a maximum occupancy of six individuals, excluding a resident owner, agent, or manager. The operator may seek relief from the strict application of this provision by submitting a request for reasonable accommodation pursuant to Section 4.02.035 (Fair Housing and Reasonable Accommodation).

Single-Room Occupancy
The City permits single-room occupancy (SRO) uses within the community. The Development Code defines SRO uses as a cluster of five or more dwelling units on one property for weekly or longer tenancy and providing sleeping and living facilities for one or two persons within the unit, in which sanitary facilities are also normally provided and cooking facilities may be provided within each unit or shared by multiple units.

SROs are conditionally permitted in three zones (HDR-45, CC, and CCS).

To secure a conditional use permit, a comprehensive management plan must be submitted with the application. The operator must submit a plan that includes the company or agency responsible for resident selection, day-to-day maintenance of the facility, proposed security arrangements, and background information and references about the proposed management company or agency. Moreover, SROs may not be located within 500 feet of any school for children, church, daycare facility, or other existing SRO facility. SRO units are an important source of affordable housing for extremely low-income households. In Programs 20 and 32, the City commits to addressing the needs of extremely lowincome households, including expanding affordable housing opportunities. As a part of this effort, the City will explore amending the Development Code to reduce location constraints for SRO facilities and permitting SROs through a ministerial process rather than requiring a conditional use permit or administrative use permit.

Housing for Homeless People
In recognition of the homeless population in Ontario, and with the desire to act affirmatively to address the issue, the City entered into an agreement with Mercy House to implement a CoC. Under the CoC, Mercy House operates a homeless intake center, transitional housing, and 1471
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-130 Draft October 2021
permanent affordable housing, including housing with supportive services. Regulations were subsequently adopted to facilitate the completion and implementation of the CoC.

Emergency Shelters
The California Health and Safety Code (Section 50801) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or households may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”
California Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) states that every jurisdiction must identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or zones must include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for an emergency shelter as identified in the housing element, and each jurisdiction must identify a zone or zones to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. Adequate sites can include sites with existing buildings that can be converted to emergency shelters to accommodate the need for emergency shelters.

The Development Code permits an emergency shelter by right in the IL zone and conditionally permits an emergency shelter in the MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25, CC, LUA-3, IG, and IH zones. Emergency shelters are also permitted by right in the Emergency Shelter Overlay, subject to the base zone standards and consistent with California Government Code Section 65583(4)(A).

The overlay zone is an approximately 500-foot-deep area on the north side of Mission Boulevard and bounded by Benson Avenue on the west and Magnolia Avenue on the east. The overlay area is suitable for emergency shelters since it is near two transit routes (Mission Boulevard and Mountain Avenue) and services, such as a grocery store. The overlay zone comprises 36 acres of land, of which, 0.4 acres are vacant (additionally, the area has 38 parcels, 4 of which are vacant). Many of the parcels in the proposed overlay district are underutilized, providing many opportunities for developing new facilities or reusing or converting underutilized buildings into one or more shelters. The overlay zone contains five properties that have transient lodging that might be suitable for conversion to an emergency shelter, should one be warranted in the community. Figure 4-1 provides a map for the location of the Emergency Shelter Overlay.
1472
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-131
Figure 4-1
Emergency Shelter Overlay
1473
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-132 Draft October 2021
The City has objective development and management standards that are designed to encourage and facilitate the development of emergency shelters:
· The maximum length of stay for an Emergency Shelter client shall be six months.
· On-site management shall be provided during the hours that the Emergency Shelter is in operation.
· On-site security shall be provided during the hours that the Emergency Shelter is in operation.
· No more than 20 client/tenant beds shall be allowed within any Emergency Shelter.
· An intake waiting area equal to a minimum of 10 square feet for each client/tenant bed shall be provided.
· The exterior of the intake waiting areas shall be screened from public view by a six-foot-high decorative masonry block wall and appropriate landscaping.
· A storage area for use by clients/tenants shall be provided at a rate of seven square feet for each client/tenant bed.
· A storage area is not required to be provided adjacent to the respective client/tenant bed.
· An emergency shelter shall provide lavatory, toilet, and shower facilities adequate for the number of clients/tenants served; however, a minimum of one such facility shall be provided for each 15 client/tenant beds.

Program 20 commits the City to reviewing these standards and revising as needed to be consistent with California Government Code Section 65583(a)(4), including establishing sufficient parking requirements to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
Consistent with Health and Safety Code Section 50675.14(b)(2), the City defines supportive housing as “housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.” Target population refers to persons, including persons with disabilities, youth, and families experiencing homelessness. Transitional housing is intended 1474
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-133
as a middle point between emergency shelters and permanent housing, providing shelter up to two years, in an environment of security and support, which is designed to help residents progress toward selfsufficiency.

Transitional housing and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone (Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)). The City permits transitional housing by right in residential zoning districts and IL and MHP zones, and conditionally permits transitional housing in CC, IG, IH, and CIV zones. Supportive housing is permitted by right in all residential zones, except HDR-45, and is permitted by right in IL zones. Supportive housing is conditionally permitted in CC, LUA-1, LUA-3, IG, and CIV zones. Currently, transitional housing and supportive housing are not permitted in all mixed-use zoning districts (LUA-2N, LUA-2S, MU-2, and MU-11) that permit residential uses, and supportive housing is not permitted in the HDR-45 zoning district. To comply with Government Code Section 65583(a)(5), the City has included Program 20 to amend the Development Code to permit transitional housing and supportive housing in all zoning districts that permit residential uses, including mixed-use and nonresidential zoning districts, subject only to the same regulations as similar uses in the same zone.

Low-Barrier Navigation Centers
California Government Code Section 65662 requires that the development of Low-Barrier Navigation Centers be developed as a use by right in zones where mixed-uses are allowed or in nonresidential zones that permit multifamily housing. For a navigation center to be considered “low barrier,” its operation should incorporate best practices to reduce barriers to entry, which may include, but are not limited to, the following:
· Permitting the presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth
· Pets
· Ability to store possessions
· Providing privacy, such as private rooms or partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms with multiple beds.

Currently, the City does not recognize low-barrier navigation centers as a permitted use. Program 20 has been included to comply with Government Code Sections 65660-65662.
1475
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-134 Draft October 2021
Farmworker Housing
The City has established an Agricultural Overlay District (AG overlay), which covers the entire Ontario Ranch area. The intent of the Agricultural Overlay District is to allow for the continuation of agricultural uses on an interim basis until such time as a specific plan is proposed for urbanized uses. The Agricultural Overlay District is designed to limit land use activity to uses compatible with and supportive of agricultural uses.

The Health and Safety Code (Section 17021.6) declares that each city must permit and encourage the development and use of sufficient numbers and types of employee housing facilities commensurate with local needs.

Section 17021.5 requires that employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a singlefamily structure with a residential land use designation, treated as a residential use of property, and that the use not be subject to any regulations or fees not otherwise required of a single-family residence within the same zone. For facilities with 7 to 12 units or spaces, the use shall be considered an agricultural use, subject only to regulations applied to any agricultural use in the same zone, and the permitted occupancy may include employees who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located. Section 17021.8 requires a streamlined, ministerial application process for qualifying agricultural employee housing on land designated as Agricultural (AG) in the City’s Policy Plan. While the City no longer has any areas designated as AG, it has included Program 20 to review Development Code Section 5.03.177 to fully comply with the requirements of the Employment Housing Act, including Sections 17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8.

The Municipal Code allows for the following uses to provide housing for farmworkers:
· Employee (Farmworker) Housing. Employee housing for
farmworkers is only permitted in the AG overlay, where it is allowed by right. Consistent with Section 17021.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the City deems farmworker dwelling units providing accommodations for six or fewer employees, or for one employee and their respective household, a single-family structure. Farmworker dwelling units for six or fewer occupants are permitted by right in the AG overlay and all zoning districts that allow single-family dwellings, subject to the same development standards for single-family dwellings. A
farmworker housing complex consisting of up to 36 beds in a group quarter, or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household, is deemed an agricultural use. The City does not require farmworker housing to be on the same site as the qualifying agricultural operation where the farmworkers are 1476
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-135
employed, but does require a minimum lot size of 10 acres for farmworker housing.
· Caretaker’s Quarters. Caretaker’s quarters are designed to accommodate employees living on-site to provide security and surveillance, including agricultural operations in the AG overlay.

The unit size is restricted to no more than 600 square feet and is limited to one bedroom. These uses are permitted by right in the AG overaly and conditionally permitted in the CN, CC, CR, CCS, OH, BP, IL, IG, and IH zones.
· Accessory Residential Structures (Guest House). Guest houses are permitted by right in all residential zones, LUA-1, LUA-2N, LUA3, and the AG overlay. Guest houses cannot exceed 650 square feet, only one is permitted per lot containing a single-family dwelling, and quarters are reserved for temporary use (period not exceeding 90 days) of the residents of the property, their nonpaying guests, family, or persons employed on the residence.

Guest houses shall not be rented.

Agricultural employment is relatively minor in the community, and the type of agricultural work is year-round and not migrant labor. Ontario’s primary agricultural industry is dairy, which 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 additional farmworkers. 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.

Housing for People with Disabilities
California Government Code Section 65583 requires that the housing element analyze potential and actual constraints on the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities and demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities (California Government Code, Section 65583(a)(4)). As part of the required constraints program, the element must include programs that remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities (California Government Code, Section 65583(c)(3)). This section addresses these requirements. 1477
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-136 Draft October 2021
Allowance of Land Uses
State law requires group homes serving six or fewer persons to be (1) treated the same as any residential use; (2) allowed by right in all residential zones; and (3) subject to the same standards, fees, taxes, and permitting procedures as those imposed on the same type of housing in the same zone. These laws ensure that housing opportunities are available for people with disabilities and that such uses are not discriminated against. The City currently permits such uses by right in all residential zones. To expand the use of care facilities for any number of occupants, the City has included Program 20 to explore amending provisions in the Municipal Code to allow state-licensed residential care facilities for seven or more persons only subject to those restrictions that apply to residential uses in the same zone. Residential care facilities would still be subject to state licensing.

State law requires local governments to identify adequate sites, development standards, and a permitting process to facilitate and encourage the development of emergency shelters and transitional housing.

New Construction/Building Codes
Cities that use federal funds must, in all new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects, ensure that at least 5 percent of the units are accessible to persons with mobility impairments and another 2 percent are accessible to persons with hearing or visual impairments. Multiplefamily housing must be built so that (1) the public and common-use portions of such units are readily accessible and usable by persons with disabilities, (2) doors allowing passage into and within such units can accommodate wheelchairs, and (3) all units contain adaptive design features.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also recommends, but does not require, that all design, construction, and alterations incorporate, wherever practical, the concept of visitability. This recommendation is in addition to requirements of Section 504 and the Fair Housing Act. Recommended construction practices include wide openings for bathrooms and interior doorways and at least one accessible means of egress/ingress per unit. The City enforces federal and state accessibility laws through the building plan check and permit process.
1478
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-137
Rehabilitation of Units
In an older community with many homes built prior to the development of modern accessibility standards for people with disabilities, allowing the retrofit of homes for people with disabilities is an important issue.

Federal law requires that substantial rehabilitation projects using federal funds set aside units for disabled people, and HUD encourages visitability standards. Providing options for rehabilitating housing to modern accessibility standards allows people to live in an independent housing arrangement.

To accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities, the City allows property owners to install features that accommodate a disability (e.g., ramp to the front door) without the need to apply for a variance. The City allows retrofit of a residential structure upon submittal of plans and the payment of a normal building plan check and permit issuance fee.

Definition of Family
Fair housing laws prohibit restrictive definitions of family that discriminate against households based on the number, personal characteristics, or the relationship of occupants to one another.

The City’s Development Code defines a “family” as a group of individuals not necessarily related by blood, marriage, adoption, or guardianship living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit under a common housekeeping management plan based on an intentionally structured relationship providing organization and stability. A “household” is defined as a family living together in a single dwelling unit, with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all areas and facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit.

Consistent with state law, the City’s family definition states “One or more persons living together in a dwelling unit, with common access to, and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit.”
Spacing and Concentration
The City abides by the spacing and concentration limits set forth by the California Department of Social Services with respect to residential care facilities. The only spacing concentration is for SRO hotels, which shall not be located within 500 feet of any public or private school for children under 18, church, child daycare facility, or other existing SRO facility. The City has included Program 20 to explore amending the Development Code to reduce location constraints for SRO facilities and permitting 1479
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-138 Draft October 2021
SROs through a ministerial process rather than requiring a conditional use permit or administrative use permit.

Development Standards
To facilitate the construction of housing for people with disabilities, including seniors, builders can seek specific development incentives. For instance, the City allows density increases specific to senior citizen housing with affordable units to lower-income seniors. The Development Code allows reduced parking requirements of one space per unit.

Boarding and rooming houses have similarly lower standards than other residential uses. Senior citizen housing developments are evaluated based on proximity to essential services, including public transit with frequent service, community centers and/or parks, medical facilities, and pharmacies, among others. Additionally, senior citizen housing developments can determine parking on a project-by-project basis, providing as low as 0.25 parking spaces per rental dwelling unit. While residential care facilities with six or less clients are only subject to development standards for residential uses permitted in the zoning district consistent with Health and Safety Code Section 1500 et seq., large residential care facilities are required to have only 0.5 parking space per unit. The City will seek to amend the Development Code to allow statelicensed residential care facilities for seven or more persons only subject to those restrictions that apply to residential uses in the same zone through Program 20. Further modifications can be sought through administrative exceptions and reasonable accommodation process, detailed below.

Reasonable Accommodation
The federal Fair Housing Act and California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodation when such accommodation may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

In 2006, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2837 to allow reasonable accommodations from certain land use, permitting, and building codes.

The ordinance set up a process to evaluate requests for reasonable accommodations related to specific applications of the zoning law to allow for full use and enjoyment of a dwelling and to authorize the application of exceptions to the zoning law, if warranted, to comply with state and federal fair housing law. Application for reasonable accommodation shall be made pursuant to the provisions listed for an administrative exception.
1480
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-139
With respect to the approval process, the applicant must file an application and pay an administrative fee of $376. Public notice requirements shall be pursuant to the provisions listed for a homeowner variance. The Zoning Administrator may approve, deny, or conditionally approve the request. The Zoning Administrator must issue administrative variance findings to approve such a request. A determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request shall be based on the following:
· The persons who will use the subject property are protected under federal and state fair housing laws.
· The requested exception is necessary to make specific housing available to a person who will occupy the subject property and who is protected under federal and state fair housing laws. · The requested exception will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden upon the City.
· The requested exception will comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes and will not result in a fundamental alteration of the planning, zoning, and development laws and procedures of the City.

If the project is deemed to be of significant controversy, the matter may be referred to the Planning Commission. All decisions made on the matter may be appealed to the City Council.

In summary, the City of Ontario continues to ensure that people of all abilities have opportunities to find housing in the community.

Development Standards
The Development Code provides specific residential development standards that determine building height, density, setbacks, parking, etc.

These standards are made available to the public online on the City’s website. Residential development standards are designed to promote a more livable environment, with adequate yards, height restrictions and setbacks to ensure privacy from adjacent homes, and minimum unit sizes to ensure adequate living areas for families.
1481
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-140 Draft October 2021
Conventional Residential Development
The following tables describe the development standards in Ontario, such as density ranges, lot standards, open space requirements, and building standards, for the multiple types of residential development Ontario supports: Traditional Single-Family (Table 4-9), Small Lot Traditional Single-Family (Table 4-10), Small Lot Alley-loaded Single-Family (Table 4-11), Cluster Single-Family (Table 4-12), and Multifamily Residential (Table 4-13). The following discussion analyzes the City’s development standards as they apply to different types of housing.

Detached single-family residential accounts for nearly 60 percent of Ontario’s total housing units (Table 2-10). To encourage flexibility in single-family residential subdivision design, higher-density, and use of unconventional, small, and/or infill lots, the City provides development standards for a range of single-family development models. The conventional residential development, called traditional single-family residential, consists of the construction of one or more single-family (detached) dwellings and is permitted in all residential zones. Traditional single-family residential has lower maximum lot coverage and higher setbacks, leading to lower lot utilization than the other single-family use types. Small lot traditional, small lot alley-loaded, and cluster singlefamily residential development consist of two or more detached dwelling units per lot, allowing for higher density and lot utilization. 1482
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-141
Table 4-9
Traditional Single-Family Residential Development Standards Development Standards
Residential Zones
AR-2 RE-2 RE-4 LDR-5 MDR-11 MDR-18 MDR-25 HDR-45
Density1,2,3
Density Ranges 0-2.0 0-2.0 2.1-4.0 2.1-5.0 5.1-11 11.1-18 18.1-25 25.1-45 Lot Standards
Maximum Lot Coverage 30% 40% 40% 50% 60% 60% 60% 60%
Minimum Lot Size (sf)4 18,000 10,000 10,000 7,200 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Average Lot Size -- 18,000 -- 8,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Min. Lot Dimensions4
Width (Interior)
Width (Corner Lots)
Width (Cul-de-Sac)
At front property line
At front building setback
Depth
100
120
40 70
135
70 80
40 70
100
70 80
40 70
100
60 65
40 60
75 60
65 40
40 100
60 65
40 40
100
60 65
40 40
100
60 65
40 40
100
Open Space
Min Setback from Street and Alley Property Lines
Freeways
Arterial Streets (front)5,6
Collector & Local
Front
Front garage other
Street side
Street rear (1st floor)
Street rear (2nd/3rd floor)
Front Rear Alleys
1st floor
2nd/3rd floor
Garage entry
Garage other
20 30
30 30
30 30
30 10
20 5
10 20
30 30
30 30
30 30
10 20
5 10
20 30
30 30
30 30
30 10
20 5
10 20
30 20
10 10
10 20
10 20
5 10
20 30
20 10
10 10
20 10
20 5
10 20
30 20
10 10
10 20
10 20
5 10
20 30
20 10
10 10
20 10
20 5
10 20
30 20
10 10
10 20
10 20
5 10
Minimum Setback from Interior Property Lines
Front side property lines7
Rear side property lines (1st floor)
Rear side property lines (2nd/3rd floor)
Rear side property lines (patio covers)
10 25
25 25
10 25
25 25
5 10
20 10
5 10
20 10
5 10
20 10
5 10
20 10
5 10
20 10
5 10
20 10
Landscaping Area Required The front yard and any street side yard of a conventional or small lot single-family project site, and all parkway areas that abut the site, shall be fully landscaped and provided with an underground automatic irrigation system
1483
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-142 Draft October 2021
Table 4-9
Traditional Single-Family Residential Development Standards Development Standards
Residential Zones
AR-2 RE-2 RE-4 LDR-5 MDR-11 MDR-18 MDR-25 HDR-45
Building Standards
Maximum Units/Building N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Maximum Height (ft). 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Source: City of Ontario Development Code, 2021.

1. A density bonus and other incentives pursuant to Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 may be granted by the Approving Authority.

2. Lots with a maximum density calculation of less than one dwelling shall be allowed the construction of one dwelling unit.

3. A residentially zoned lot shall be developed at no less than the minimum number of dwelling units allowed within the specified density range for the applicable zoning district, except that if, as a result of the configuration/design of a lot, the minimum residential density cannot be achieved, the lot may be developed with a maximum of one dwelling unit.

4. An existing lot of record that is substandard as to minimum “lot” area and/or dimension(s) shall be granted all development rights of the zoning district in which it is located.

5. On a lot having a street adjacent rear property line (arterial, collector, and local streets only), for the purpose of wall placement, each wall shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet behind the street property line to allow for landscaping beyond any required parkway landscaping.

6. Refer to Collector and Local Streets standards for street side and rear setbacks.

7. When vehicle parking is provided at the rear of a lot (whether within a garage or carport, or uncovered) that does not have alley access, a minimum 10-foot interior side building setback, which is clear of meters and mechanical equipment, shall be provided to ensure clear vehicular access to the rear of the lot. 1484
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-143
Table 4-10
Small-Lot Traditional Single-Family Residential Development Standards Development Standards
Residential Zones
AR-21 RE-21 RE-41 LDR-5 MDR-11 MDR-18 MDR-25 HDR-45
Density2,3,4
Density Ranges N/A N/A N/A 2.1-5.0 5.1-11 11.1-18 18.1-25 25.1-45 Minimum Project Area N/A N/A N/A 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre Lot Standards
Maximum Lot Coverage N/A N/A N/A 55% 60% 70% 70% 70%
Minimum Lot Size (sf)5
Interior Lot
Corner Lot
N/A N/A N/A 4,000
4,500
4,000
4,500
2,800
3,200
2,800
3,200
2,800
3,200
Min. Lot Dimensions5
Width (Interior)
Width (Corner Lots)
Depth

N/A N/A N/A
40 45
75 40
45 75
35 40
70 35
40 70
35 40
70 Open Space
Min Setback from Street and Alley
Property Lines6
Freeways
Arterial Streets (front)7
Collector & Local
Street Front (living area)
Street Front (garage entry)
Street Front (garage other)
Street Side8
Street rear (1st floor)8
Street rear (2nd/3rd floor)8
Street rear (garage entry)8
Street rear (garage other – 1st
floor only)8
Street rear (patio cover)8
Front Rear Alleys9
1st floor
2nd/3rd floor

N/A N/A N/A
20 30
14 18
10 10
10 15
18 5
5 5
10 20
30 14
18 10
10 10
15 18
5 5
5 10
20 30
14 18
10 10
10 15
18 5
5 5
10 20
30 14
18 10
10 10
15 18
5 5
5 10
20 30
14 18
10 10
10 15
18 5
5 5
10 Minimum Setback from Interior
Property Lines
From side property lines
From rear property lines10
N/A N/A N/A 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/4
1485
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-144 Draft October 2021
Table 4-10
Small-Lot Traditional Single-Family Residential Development Standards Development Standards
Residential Zones
AR-21 RE-21 RE-41 LDR-5 MDR-11 MDR-18 MDR-25 HDR-45
Living area
Garage – 1st floor only
Patio covers to side or rear
10 5
5 10
5 5
10 5
5 10
5 5
10 5
5 Landscaping Area Required The front yard and any street side yard of a conventional or small lot single-family project site, and all parkway areas that abut the site, shall be fully landscaped and provided with an underground automatic irrigation system
Building Standards
Maximum Height (ft). 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Source: City of Ontario Development Code, 2021.
1 Small Lot Traditional Single-Family Residential Development is not a permitted use type in the AR-2 and RE-2 zoning districts. 2 A density bonus and other incentives pursuant to Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 may be granted by the Approving Authority. 3 Lots with a maximum density calculation of less than one dwelling shall be allowed the construction of one dwelling unit. 4 A residentially zoned lot shall be developed at no less than the minimum number of dwelling units allowed within the specified density range for the applicable zoning district, except that if, as a result of the configuration/design of a lot, the minimum residential density cannot be achieved, the lot may be developed with a maximum of one dwelling unit.
5 An existing lot of record that is substandard as to minimum “project” area and/or dimension(s) shall be permitted the development rights of the zone in which it is located, except that the maximum density shall be limited to the minimum allowed within the density range. 6 The minimum setback from private streets shall be measured from a line running parallel to the street, which is located 12 feet behind face-of-curb (a.k.a., “parkway”).
7 Refer to Collector and Local Streets standards for street side and rear setbacks. 8 On a lot having a street adjacent side or rear property line, for the purpose of wall placement, each wall shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet behind the street property line to allow for landscaping beyond any required parkway landscaping. 9 For side alley conditions, refer to the Interior Property Lines standards. 10 The interior side property line setback may be reduced to 4 feet if the setback area is combined with the side setback area of the adjacent property to create a single minimum 8-foot-wide outdoor use area clear of walls, thereby allowing a minimum 8–foot-wide side-to-side building separation. 1486
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-145
Table 4-11
Small-Lot Alley-loaded Single-Family Residential Development Standards Development Standards
Residential Zones
AR-21 RE-21 RE-41 LDR-5 MDR-11 MDR-18 MDR-25 HDR-45
Density2,3,4
Density Ranges N/A N/A N/A 2.1-5.0 5.1-11 11.1-18 18.1-25 25.1-45 Minimum Project Area2 N/A N/A N/A 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre Minimum Project Dimensions2
Width
Depth
N/A N/A N/A 200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Lot Standards
Maximum Lot Coverage N/A N/A N/A 55% 60% 70% 70% 70%
Min. Lot Size
Width (Interior)
Width (Corner Lots)
Depth
N/A N/A N/A 40
45 75
40 45
75 35
40 70
35 40
70 35
40 70
Open Space
Min Setback from Street Property Lines5
Freeways
Arterial Streets6
Collector & Local6
Front
Street side
Street rear

N/A N/A N/A
20 30
10 10
15 20
30 10
10 15
20 30
10 10
15 20
30 10
10 15
20 30
10 10
15 Minimum Setback from Project Boundary
Property Lines7
Project Boundaries
Side
Rear
Patio Cover
N/A N/A N/A 10
5/4
10 5
10 5/4
10 5
10 5/4
10 5
10 5/4
10 5
10 5/4
10 5
Minimum Setback from Private Drive5
Living area
Porch (single-story)
Garage entry
Garage other (side/rear)

N/A N/A N/A
10 6
18 10
10 6
18 10
10 6
18 10
10 6
18 10
10 6
18 10
Minimum Setback from Private
Lanes/Alleyways
Living area
Garage
N/A N/A N/A 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 Minimum Setback from Parking Spaces N/A N/A N/A 10 10 10 10 10 Landscaping Area Required The front yard and any street side yard of a conventional or small lot single-family project site, and all parkway areas that abut the site, shall be fully landscaped and provided with an underground automatic irrigation system
1487
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-146 Draft October 2021
Table 4-11
Small-Lot Alley-loaded Single-Family Residential Development Standards Development Standards
Residential Zones
AR-21 RE-21 RE-41 LDR-5 MDR-11 MDR-18 MDR-25 HDR-45
Building Standards
Minimum Separations Between Buildings
Dwelling Front to Front
Dwelling Front to Side
Dwelling Side to Side7
Dwelling Rear to Rear
Garage to Garage7
Entry to entry
Entry to side
Side to side
Side to rear

N/A N/A N/A
25 20
10/8
20 30
30 10/8
10/8
25 20
10/8
20 30
30 10/8
10/8
25 20
10/8
20 30
30 10/8
10/8
25 20
10/8
20 30
30 10/8
10/8
25 20
10/8
20 30
30 10/8
10/8
Maximum Height (ft). 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Source: City of Ontario Development Code, 2021.
1 Small-Lot Alley-Loaded Single-Family Residential Development is not a permitted use type in the AR-2, RE-2, and RE-4 zoning districts. 2 A density bonus and other incentives pursuant to Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 may be granted by the Approving Authority. 3 Lots with a maximum density calculation of less than one dwelling shall be allowed the construction of one dwelling unit. 4 A residentially zoned lot shall be developed at no less than the minimum number of dwelling units allowed within the specified density range for the applicable zoning district, except that if, as a result of the configuration/design of a lot, the minimum residential density cannot be achieved, the lot may be developed with a maximum of one dwelling unit.
5 The minimum setback from private streets shall be measured from a line running parallel to the street, which is located 12 feet behind face-of-curb (a.k.a., “parkway”). 6 On lot having a street-adjacent side or rear property line, for the purpose of wall placement, each wall shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet behind the street property line to allow for landscaping beyond any required parkway landscaping. 7 The interior side property line setback may be reduced to 4 feet if the setback area is combined with the side setback area of the adjacent property to create a single minimum 8-foot-wide outdoor use area clear of walls, thereby allowing a minimum 8–foot-wide side-to-side building separation. 1488
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-147
Table 4-12
Cluster Single-Family Residential Development Standards Development Standards
Residential Zones
AR-21 RE-21 RE-41 LDR-5 MDR-11 MDR-18 MDR-25 HDR-45
Density2,3,4
Density Ranges N/A N/A N/A 2.1-5.0 5.1-11 11.1-18 18.1-25 25.1-45 Minimum Project Area2 N/A N/A N/A 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre Minimum Project Dimensions2
Width
Depth
N/A N/A N/A 200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Lot Standards
Maximum Lot Coverage N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Minimum Lot Size N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Minimum Lot Dimensions N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Open Space
Minimum Setback from Public
Street Property Lines5
Freeways
Arterial Streets6
Collector and Local Streets6
Front
Street side
Street rear

N/A N/A N/A
20 30
20 10
15 20
30 20
10 15
20 30
20 10
15 20
30 20
10 15
20 30
20 10
15 Minimum Setback from Interior
Property Lines7
Project Boundaries
Sides
Rear
Patio Cover
N/A N/A N/A 10
4 4
4 10
4 4
4 10
4 4
4 10
4 4
4 10
4 4
4 Minimum Setback from Private
Drive5
Living area
Porch (single-story)
Garage entry
Garage other
N/A N/A N/A 10
5 <5 or >18
10 10
5 <5 or >18
10 10
5 <5 or >18
10 10
5 <5 or >18
10 10
5 <5 or >18
10 Minimum Setback from Private
Lanes/Alleyways
Living area
Porch (single story)
Garage
N/A N/A N/A 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
1489
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-148 Draft October 2021
Table 4-12
Cluster Single-Family Residential Development Standards Development Standards
Residential Zones
AR-21 RE-21 RE-41 LDR-5 MDR-11 MDR-18 MDR-25 HDR-45
Minimum Setback from Parking
Spaces
Living area
Porch (single story)
Garage
N/A N/A N/A 10
8 5
10 8
5 10
8 5
10 8
5 10
8 5
Landscaping Area Required The entirety of a cluster single-family or multiple-family project site, including street parkway and median areas that abut the project site, which is not otherwise devoted to building area and paving, shall be fully landscaped and provided with an underground automatic irrigation system, Building Standards
Minimum Separations Between
Buildings
Dwelling Front to Front
Dwelling Front to Side7
Dwelling Side to Side7
Dwelling Rear to Rear
Garage to Garage7
Entry to entry
Entry to side
Side to side
Side to rear

N/A N/A N/A
30 14
8 8
30 30
8 8
30 14
8 8
30 30
8 8
30 14
8 8
30 30
8 8
30 14
8 8
30 30
8 8
30 14
8 8
30 30
8 8
Maximum Height (ft). 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Source: City of Ontario Development Code, 2021.
1 Cluster Single-Family Residential Development is not a permitted use type in the AR-2, RE-2, and RE-4 zoning districts. 2 A density bonus and other incentives pursuant to Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 may be granted by the Approving Authority. 3 Lots with a maximum-density calculation of less than one dwelling shall be allowed the construction of one dwelling unit. 4 A residentially zoned lot shall be developed at no less than the minimum number of dwelling units allowed within the specified density range for the applicable zoning district, except that if, as a result of the configuration/design of a lot, the minimum residential density cannot be achieved, the lot may be developed with a maximum of one dwelling unit.
5 The minimum setback from private streets shall be measured from a line running parallel to the street, which is located 12 feet behind face-of-curb (a.k.a., “parkway”).
6 On a lot having a street-adjacent side or rear property line, for the purpose of wall placement, each wall shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet behind the street property line to allow for landscaping beyond any required parkway landscaping. 7 The interior side property line setback may be combined with the side setback area of the adjacent property to create a single minimum 8-foot-wide outdoor use area clear of walls, which is defined in the project CC&Rs. 1490
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-149
Table 4-13
Multifamily Residential Development Standards
Development Standards
Residential Zones
AR-21 RE-21 RE-41 LDR-51 MDR-11 MDR-18 MDR-25 HDR-45
Density2,3,4,5
Density Ranges N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.1-11 11.1-18 18.1-25 25.1-45 Minimum Project Area2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,000 sf 10,000 sf 10,000 sf 1 acre Minimum Project Dimensions2
Width
Depth
N/A N/A N/A N/A 100
100
100
100
100
100
180
200
Lot Standards
Maximum Project Coverage N/A N/A N/A N/A 60% 60% 60% 100% Minimum Lot Size N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Minimum Lot Dimensions N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Open Space
Minimum Setback from Public
Street Property Lines6,7
Freeways
Arterial Streets
Collector and Local Streets
N/A N/A N/A N/A 20
30 20
20 30
20 10
10 10
10 10
10 Minimum Setback from Interior
Project Boundary Property
Lines8
N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5 5
Minimum Setback from Public
Alley Property Line N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5 5
Minimum Setback from Private
Drives/Alleyways (from edge of
drive aisle)
Living area
Garage and other nonhabitable structures
N/A N/A N/A N/A 15
5 15
5 15
5 15
5 Minimum Setback from Parking
Spaces or Drive Aisle to Wall or
Fence
N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5 5
Landscaping Area Required
The entirety of a cluster single-family or multiple-family project site, including street parkway and median areas that abut the project site, which is not otherwise devoted to building area and paving, shall be fully landscaped and provided with an underground automatic irrigation system 1491
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-150 Draft October 2021
Building Standards
Minimum Separations Between
Buildings
Dwelling Front to Front
Less than 2 stories
Greater than 3 stories
Dwelling Front to Side7
Less than 2 stories
Greater than 3 stories
Dwelling Side to Side7
Less than 2 stories
Greater than 3 stories
Dwelling Rear to Rear
Less than 2 stories
Greater than 3 stories
Dwelling Side to Rear
Dwelling Rear to Rear
Garage to Garage7
Entry to entry
Entry to side
Side to side
Side to rear

N/A N/A N/A N/A
25 30
25 30
25 30
10 15
15 20
30 30
10 10
25 30
25 30
25 30
10 15
15 20
30 30
10 10
25 30
25 30
25 30
10 15
15 20
30 30
10 10
25 30
25 30
25 30
10 15
15 20
30 30
10 10
Maximum Height (ft). N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 45 60 75
Source: City of Ontario Development Code, 2021.
1 Multifamily Residential is not a permitted use type in the AR-2, RE-2, RE-4, and LDR-5 zoning districts. 2 An existing lot of record that is substandard as to minimum “project” area and/or dimension(s), shall be permitted all of the development rights of the zone in which it is located, except that the maximum density shall be limited to the minimum number of dwelling units allowed within the specified density range for the applicable zoning district.
3 A density bonus and other incentives pursuant to Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 may be granted by the Approving Authority. 4 Lots with a maximum density calculation of less than 1.00 may be developed with one dwelling unit. 5 A residentially zoned lot shall be developed at no less than the minimum number of dwelling units allowed within the specified density range for the applicable zoning district, except that If, as a result of the configuration/design of a lot, the minimum residential density cannot be achieved, the lot may be developed with a maximum of one dwelling unit.
6 A health risk assessment shall be required for multiple-family development projects located within close proximity to a freeway, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
7 The minimum setback from private streets shall be measured from a line running parallel to the street, which is located 12 feet behind face-of-curb (a.k.a., “parkway”).
8 A dwelling having the primary entry facing onto an interior property line shall maintain a minimum 10-foot setback from the corresponding interior property line.
1492
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-151
Mixed-Use Development
The City of Ontario actively encourages and facilitates the planning and production of mixed-use housing, vertically and horizontally integrated.

Mixed-Use developments contain buildings or structures with a variety of complementary uses, such as residential, office, manufacturing, retail, public, or entertainment, in an integrated development project that has significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design.

As part of The Ontario Plan, prepared in 2010, the City revised its Policy Plan land use designations, most notably expanding the Mixed-Use category to include area-specific designations to create focal points for community activity and identity and facilitate the use of transit. Three of the Policy Plan Mixed-Use designations have corresponding mixed-use zoning districts, shown in Table 4-14. Currently, mixed-use projects can be found along the Interstate (I-) 10 corridor, in the historic Downtown area, and in the newly developing Ontario Ranch area.

The development standards for the Downtown Mixed-Use Area (MU-1) and East Holt Mixed-Use Area (MU-2) rely on a PUD created by the developer at the time of project submittal. The City has the opportunity to develop an area plan or form-based code for the Downtown MixedUse Area that would establish development standards or guidelines. The Euclid/Francis Mixed-Use Area (MU-11) uses the same development standards as the MDR-25 zoning district. The Ontario Airport Metro Center area and Ontario Ranch are required to have specific plans. The maximum density indicated in Table 4-14 is derived from the Policy Plan and in some cases has a higher density than is permitted by current zoning. In these areas, specific plans are required, so development standards would be altered to conform to the permitted density in the Policy Plan through the specific plan process (Program 20). Where there are discrepancies, the City has included a program to amend the Development Code to increase the density to match the corresponding Policy Plan land use designation.
1493
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-152 Draft October 2021
Table 4-14
Mixed-Use Development Standards
Development Standards
Mixed-Use Zones
MU-11
Downtown Mixed-Use Area
MU-2
East Holt Mixed-Use Area
MU-11
Euclid / Francis Mixed-Use Area
Density Ranges 25.1 – 40 du/ac 14.1 – 40.0 du/ac 14.1 – 25.02 Assumed Maximum Build Out for Mixed-Use Area –
Residential Density3
Dwelling units/acre
Maximum Units
60% of the area at 35 du/ac
2,365
25% of the area at 30 du/ac
428
50% of the area at 30 du/ac
156
Floor Area Ratio (Non-residential)
Commercial-retail
Commercial-office

2.0 2.0

1.0 2.0

1.04 Development Standards2
Minimum Setback from Public Street Property Lines5,6
Freeways
Arterial Streets
Collector and Local Streets
Governed by planned development
regulations or future City area plan or
form-based code
Governed by planned development
regulations
10 10
10 Minimum Setback from Interior Project Boundary
Property Lines7 5
Minimum Setback from Public Alley Property Line 5
Minimum Setback from Private Drives/Alleyways (from
edge of drive aisle)
Living area
Garage and other non-habitable structures
15 5
Minimum Setback from Parking Spaces or Drive Aisle
to Wall or Fence 5
1494
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-153
Table 4-14
Mixed-Use Development Standards
Development Standards
Mixed-Use Zones
MU-11
Downtown Mixed-Use Area
MU-2
East Holt Mixed-Use Area
MU-11
Euclid / Francis Mixed-Use Area
Landscaping
The entirety of a multiple-family project site,
including street parkway and median areas that
abut the project site, which is not otherwise devoted
to building area and paving, shall be fully
landscaped and provided with an underground
automatic irrigation system
Maximum Height (feet)
Governed by planned development
regulations or future City area plan or
form-based code
Governed by planned development
regulations 45 feet
Source: City of Ontario Development Code, June 2021.
1 MU-1 includes sub-zoning districts LUA-1, LUA – 2N, LUA-2S, LUA-3, LUA-4; however, residential mixed-use development is not permitted in the LUA-2S and LUA-4 zones. 2 Within the MU-11 zoning district, residential development shall be allowed pursuant to the standards of the HDR-25 zoning district. 3 Within each Mixed-Use Zoning District, the number of dwelling units allotted shall not exceed the number of units prescribed by the Exhibit LU– 03 (Future Buildout) of the Policy Plan 4 Nonresidential development shall be allowed pursuant to the requirements of the CN zoning district. 5 A health risk assessment shall be required for multiple-family development projects within close proximity to a freeway, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 6 The minimum setback from private streets shall be measured from a line running parallel to the street, which is located 12 feet behind face-of-curb (a.k.a., “parkway”). 7 A dwelling having the primary entry facing onto an interior property line shall maintain a minimum 10-foot setback from the corresponding interior property line. 1495
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-154 Draft October 2021
Residential density is often equated with the affordability of housing. For zoning districts primarily permitting single-family residential, the City allows a maximum density of two units per acre in the AR-2 and RE-2 zones, four units per acre in the RE-4 zone, and five units per acre in the LDR-5 zone. For zones intended for multifamily residential, the City permits a maximum density of 11 units in the MDR-11 zone, 18 in the MDR-18 zone, 25 in the MDR-25 zone, and 45 in the MDR-45 zone. The MDR-45 zoning district allows the highest density of zones permitting residential uses, including the mixed-use zoning districts. Recognizing the importance of a variety of densities to facilitate and encourage a range in types and prices of housing, the City offers three key ways to receive additional density increases.
· Planned Unit Development (PUD). In an effort to secure a fuller realization of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, particularly the Exhibit LU-3, Future Buildout, than would result from strict application of the zoning district regulations, developers can submit PUDs to achieve higher density. MixedUse developments in the MU-1 and MU-2 zoning districts require a PUD, leading to establishing development standards on a project-by-project basis, including density standards. The City is currently updating objective design standards to reduce the necessity of PUDs. PUDs require approval by the City Council pursuant to California Government Code Section 65850 based on the following findings of approval:
- The proposed PUD, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan, and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan.
- The proposed PUD, or amendment thereto, would not be
detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city.
- In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed PUD, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses.
- In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development.
1496
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-155
- The proposed PUD is superior to that which could be obtained through the application of the Development Code or a specific plan.
· Senior Citizen Housing Development. The City allows a base density of 25 units per acre for the CC and MU-1 zones, and are subject to the maximum density for the respective residential zoning districts that senior citizen housing developments are permitted in (i.e., MDR-11, MDR-18, MDR-25, and MDR-45).

Qualifying senior citizen housing development projects are eligible for a density bonus pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918, permitting a 20-percent density bonus for qualified projects.
· State Density Bonus. In compliance with California Government Code Section 65915, the City allows qualified residential projects to receive a density bonus plus appropriate development incentives when the residential project sets aside the required number of units for affordable housing. Density bonuses are also allowed for senior housing (described in greater detail above). The City processes applications for density bonuses following the City’s procedure for Development Agreements, requiring City Council approval unless one or more of the following findings is established:
- The concession or incentive is not required to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in California Government Code Section 659159(c). - The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.
- The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.

Assembly Bills (ABs) 2753, 2372, 1763, 1227, and 2345 were passed in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and revised density bonus law to provide additional benefits for qualifying projects. To ensure the City’s development requirements are consistent with recent state law, the City will review Sections 6.01.010(H) and 5.03.360 of the Development Code for 1497
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-156 Draft October 2021
compliance with ABs 2753, 2372, 1227, 1763, and 2345 and to provide requirements within the Development Code sections (Program 20).

Parking Standards
In an urban environment, parking standards are critical to prevent traffic congestion caused by a shortage of parking spaces and the loading and unloading of trucks on public streets to result in maximum efficiency, protect the public safety, provide for the special needs of the physically handicapped, and where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their impact.

City parking standards are also designed to ensure that sufficient on-site spaces are available to accommodate vehicle ownership rates of residents (which is typically more than 2 cars per homeowner and an average of 1.9 vehicles for renters), the needs of the business community, and the rate of overcrowding. Table 4-15 summarizes the common parking standards for residential uses, and the following text describes potential reductions of standards.

Table 4-15
Parking Standards for Housing
Housing Types Requirement
Traditional Single-Family (one per lot) 2 spaces within enclosed garage Small Lot and Common Interest
Developments
2 resident spaces per dwelling within a garage, plus, 0.2 guest/visitor spaces per dwelling. Guest parking spaces may be provided on-street, immediately adjacent to the development boundary, if available. A minimum of 2 guest spaces shall be provided regardless of the number of dwellings proposed.

Multiple-Family1
Resident Parking Spaces:

Studio: 1.5 spaces per dwelling, including one space in a garage or carport; One-Bedroom: 1.75 spaces per dwelling, including one space in a garage or carport; Two-Bedrooms: 2.0 spaces per dwelling, including one space in a garage or carport; and Three or more Bedrooms: 2.5 spaces per dwelling, including one space in a garage or carport Guest Parking Spaces:

Portion of dwellings < 50: 0.25 spaces per dwelling;
Portion of 50 to 100 dwellings: 0.20 spaces per dwelling; Portion of dwellings > 100: 0.17 spaces per dwelling; and A minimum of 3 guest spaces shall be provided for developments consisting of more than 8 dwellings.

Mobile Home Park1
Resident Parking Spaces:
2 spaces per unit, tandem allowed
Guest Parking Spaces:

Portion of dwellings < 50: 0.25 spaces per dwelling;
Portion of 50 to 100 dwellings: 0.20 spaces per dwelling; Portion of dwellings > 100: 0.17 spaces per dwelling; and A minimum of 3 guest spaces shall be provided for developments consisting of more than 8 dwellings.

ADUs1,2 Generally, 1 space per unit
Residential Care 7+ clients 0.5 spaces per bed; plus, one space per employee or staff 1498
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-157
Table 4-15
Parking Standards for Housing
Housing Types Requirement
SRO
Resident Parking Spaces:

One resident space per room; plus, 2 spaces for the resident manager Guest Parking Spaces:

Portion of dwellings < 50: 0.25 spaces per dwelling;
Portion of 50 to 100 dwellings: 0.20 spaces per dwelling; Portion of dwellings > 100: 0.17 spaces per dwelling; and A minimum of 3 guest spaces shall be provided for developments consisting of more than 8 dwellings.

Boarding, Lodging, or Rooming House One space per sleeping room; however, provide no fewer than one space per 2 beds Senior Citizen Housing Development3
Income Qualified
Market Rate Development
Resident Parking Spaces:

0.7 resident space per dwelling
Guest Parking Spaces:

Portion of dwellings < 50: 0.25 spaces per dwelling;
Portion of 50 to 100 dwellings: 0.20 spaces per dwelling; Portion of dwellings > 100: 0.17 spaces per dwelling; and A minimum of 3 guest spaces shall be provided for developments consisting of more than 8 dwellings.

Resident Parking Spaces:

One resident space per dwelling
Guest Parking Spaces:

Portion of dwellings < 50: 0.25 spaces per dwelling;
Portion of 50 to 100 dwellings: 0.20 spaces per dwelling; Portion of dwellings > 100: 0.17 spaces per dwelling; and A minimum of 3 guest spaces shall be provided for developments consisting of more than 8 dwellings.

Transitional Shelter/Housing Determined by the Zoning Administrator or Approval Authority Nursing Care Facilities Determined by the Zoning Administrator or Approval Authority Source: City of Ontario Development Code, June 2021
1 Tandem parking may be used to satisfy the minimum resident parking requirement for mobile home parks and ADUs and satisfy unenclosed on-site parking for multifamily projects.
2 ADUs are not required to provide parking in the following situations:
- The ADU is within one-half mile walking distance of public transit - The ADU is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. - The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence, or an accessory structure. - When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU. - When there is an established car-share vehicle stop located within one block of the ADU. 3 The number of parking spaces required to be provided for senior citizen housing developments may be as low as 0.25 spaces per rental dwelling unit and as high as 1.0 space per for-sale dwelling unit. The actual ratio shall be determined at the time of project approval for the use and shall be based on a parking demand study to be prepared by a qualified traffic consultant or engineer. Of the parking spaces provided, 10 percent shall be designated as parking for the physically impaired. 1499
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-158 Draft October 2021
The Approval Authority may reduce the number of required parking spaces if an applicant is able to provide evidence to substantiate: (1) shared parking (if multiple users use the same joint-parking facilities when operations for the respective uses are not normally conducted during the same hours or when peak use differs); or (2) low demand (when demonstrated via a parking analysis that the use will not use the required number of spaces because of the nature of the specific use or manner in which the use is conducted). The Approval Authority may require a parking analysis to prove either circumstance.

In the Downtown Civic Center, a focus area for revitalization of the City’s historic downtown, permits 1.2 spaces/bedroom for residential condominiums, inclusive of guest parking. Developers are encouraged to use a mix of standard and tandem spaces to achieve the required number of parking spaces; however, compact and tandem spaces can each only comprise 20 percent of the total spaces and require the Planning Director to approve a parking study. The City has adopted a flexible parking approach to facilitate revitalization of the city’s historic Downtown through a mix of housing types and prices. The Downtown Parking Model continues to provide flexible parking requirements for multiplefamily, mixed-use development, adaptive reuse, and live-work within the Downtown. The model considers parking supply, shared parking, and peak or non-peak demand from any combination of 30 land uses.

Downtown parking standards are now performance-based rather than based on a prescriptive standard.

Open Space
The City of Ontario values the incorporation of an appropriate amount and quality of open space in residential projects, particularly higherdensity housing. Ensuring an adequate amount of open space enhances higher-density residential projects by providing appropriate levels of privacy, provides green infrastructure that reduces runoff, softens concrete hardscape and beautifies residential projects, improves the value of the property, and creates a more desirable living environment for residents. The City’s open space standards are shown in Table 4-16. 1500
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-159
Table 4-16
Open Space Standards for Housing
Housing Lot Coverage
Open Space
Private Common
Single-Family - Small Lot
Traditional, Small Lot Alley
Loaded, and Cluster
Development Projects1
20% for all zoning
districts permitting
use types
Contiguous private
open space area for
each ground-level
dwelling unit that is
225 square feet
Remaining area after
Private Open Space
per unit shall be used
toward Common
Open Space
Multifamily and Mixed-Use
Development Projects1 (sf/unit)
Zoning Districts:

MDR-11 & MDR-18
MDR-25
HDR-45
500
400
310
200
150
60 300
250
250
Mobile Home Park Same as the
underlying zone None specified 300 square feet per pad
Senior Citizen Housing
Development
Based on the development standards applicable to residential uses in the underlying zone
Source: City of Ontario Development Code, June 2021
1 Open space requirements only apply to residential development projects consisting of more than three dwelling units.

The Subdivision Chapter of the Development Code provides additional detail on the appropriate types of private and common open space for multiple-family projects. For instance, common open space does not include driveways, sidewalks, parking areas, or service areas, but may include playgrounds, lawn areas, swimming pools, tennis and sport courts, and other outdoor recreational facilities. Private open space typically is accessible only to occupants of a particular unit and often consists of a fenced yard, fenced patio, or balcony. In addition to projectspecific requirements, residential developers must also contribute to the City’s goal of providing 3 acres of parks per 1,000 residents through payment of a park impact fee. The ratio is higher in Ontario Ranch, where developers are required to provide 2 acres of park space per 1,000 residents.

The City’s zoning allows a variance or administrative exception process, where needed, to provide relief from typical residential development standards that preclude the full enjoyment and use of residential property. However, to obtain density bonus allowances, open space requirements must be met. The variance and administrative exception process is more fully described below.
1501
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-160 Draft October 2021
Variance Process
The City has established a variance and administrative exception process to facilitate the resolution of practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships that may arise due to the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon, or from geographic, topographic, or other physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity.

The two primary means of obtaining additional flexibility in residential development standards are:
· Administrative Exception. The City may grant an administrative exception of up to 10 percent from any numerical development standard set forth in the Development Code, except for standards for floor-area ratios and residential density. The Zoning Administrator is empowered to approve the exception.
· Variance. Variances may be granted for the following
development requirements: landscaping, screening, site area, site dimensions, yards and projections into yards, heights of structures, distances between buildings, open space, off-street parking, and loading. The Planning Commission can grant the request after a public hearing.

The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator, as applicable, may grant a variance or administrative exception provided that the following findings can be made:

1. Special property circumstances and literal interpretation and enforcement of the code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the City’s Development Code or Policy Plan.

2. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district.

3. Approval of the administrative exception/variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same zoning district.

4. Exceptional/extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site involved or to the intended use of the property do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
1502
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-161

5. Granting of the administrative exception/variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.

Building Codes and Subdivision Improvements
The City implements and enforces building codes, property maintenance standards, subdivision improvement requirements, and other municipal codes to ensure quality housing and neighborhoods for residents.

Although building codes and subdivision improvement requirements do raise construction costs, the public interest is best served when buildings adhere to proper construction and engineering practices and neighborhoods have appropriate infrastructure suitable to their design.

Building Codes
Every three years, the State of California adopts new codes that contain the latest advances in construction practices and engineering concepts.

The California Building Standards Commission adopts the California Building Codes based on “model” codes produced by professional organizations. Local agencies must adopt these codes, but may make amendments to address geological, climatic, or topographical conditions provided the modifications are no less restrictive than the state standards.

The new state codes incorporate, by reference, the Model Codes published by the International Code Council (ICC), which recently consolidated multiple regional codes into a single set of codes applicable throughout the United States. The City has adopted the most recent building codes to reflect the latest advances in construction technology and building practices. The following codes are currently being implemented:
· 2019 California Building Code/2018 International Building Code · 2019 California Residential Code/2018 International Residential Code
· 2019 California Electrical Code/2017 National Electrical Code · 2019 California Mechanical Code/2018 Uniform Mechanical Code · 2019 California Plumbing Code/2018 Uniform Plumbing Code · 2019 California Energy Code
· 2019 California Historical Building Code
· 2019 California Green Buildings Standards Code
· 2019 California Fire Code/2018 International Fire Code 1503
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-162 Draft October 2021
According to the local building official, the City has made some minor modifications to the building codes. Local amendments are minimal and related to administrative procedures. Such amendments do not materially increase the cost of residential construction and are similar to the amendments adopted in jurisdictions throughout the county. The City has not imposed any building codes other than those mentioned previously.

Therefore, the new building codes do not present a potential or actual constraint to the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing.

Subdivision Requirements
The City Subdivision Code requires that all new residential developments incorporate a standard set of subdivision requirements and infrastructure improvements to the property in compliance with City specifications and applicable Policy Plan or Specific Plan provisions. This requirement ensures that the subdivision is served by an adequate level of services that contribute to the long-term sustainability of the development.

The type and dimensions of subdivision improvements depend on a number of factors, including topography, density and intensity of development, project size, and other factors. The following list indicates typical infrastructure improvements that are required in subdivisions:
· Dedication of the ultimate street right-of-way if not currently existing at its ultimate width. Most local streets are a 60-foot rightof-way. Arterial streets start at 88-foot rights-of-way. · Installation of paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the street frontage at the ultimate right-of-way location.
· Installation of streetlights, street trees, fire hydrants, and other needed improvements across the property frontage.
· Undergrounding of all overhead telephone, cable, and electrical lines (less than 34 kilovolts), in accordance with City ordinances. · Extension and/or installation of existing underground dry utilities needed to serve the development project (such as gas, telephone, cable, and electrical).
· Extension/installation/relocation of wet utilities (sewer, water, storm drain) needed to serve the site, if any. If no storm drain system exists to serve the site, on-site retention would be required. 1504
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-163
· Payment of Development Impact Fees (DIF). These fees are used to fund expansions to public facilities and improvements, such as water, sewer, parks, fire and police, transportation systems, and other improvements. Developers may be eligible for DIF credit if they are installing master-planned facilities to serve their sites.

Permit Approval Process
The City uses a standard development review process to ensure that residential projects are of high-quality construction and design. The time frame for processing proposals depends on the complexity of the project, the need for legislative action, and environmental review.

Table 4-17 and the following text describe the steps to process proposals for residential development.
· Initial Project Submittal. The first step in the development review process is the initial submittal of the development application to either the Building Department (for a single-family home) or the Planning Department (for more than two dwellings on a lot or more than four dwellings in total). The initial submittal may be preceded by an initial consultation with the Planning or Building Department as requested by the applicant to determine appropriate submittal requirements.
· Development Plan Review. The Building or Planning Department then routes the application to affected departments for their review and comment. The purpose of the review is to ensure that new development or expansion of existing uses or structures occurs in a manner consistent with the Policy Plan and the objectives and standards of the Development Code, and that reasonable conditions are placed on the project to maintain public health, safety, and welfare.
· Design Review. While the project is reviewed by the affected City departments, the Planning Department conducts design review.

Design review is intended to ensure that the proposed
architectural treatment of new buildings and structures, including landscaping, open space, and signs, is consistent with the objective and illustrative design guidelines contained in the Development Code and expectations of the City. If the property is designated in a historic area of the community, additional reviews may be required consistent with state and local law.
1505
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-164 Draft October 2021
· Environmental Review. City staff initiates the environmental review process to the extent required by the project. Most standard infill development projects require an initial study and negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In some cases, an environmental impact report is required for sensitive projects or for specific plans. In these cases, the developer pays a standard fee for the required type of environmental review. The completion of the environmental review is timed to coincide with the
forwarding of the application to the Planning Commission. · Development Advisory Board (DAB). The DAB meets to review the project and its conformance with the previous conditions, the Development Code, Municipal Code, and other requirements of the City. The DAB may review the site in relation to location of buildings on adjoining sites, any physical constraint identified on the site, the characteristics of the area in which the site is located, the degree to which the proposed development will complement or improve the quality of development in the vicinity of the proposed project, and the extent to which adverse impacts to surrounding properties will be minimized.

The DAB has the authority to hear and decide on development plan review applications, substantial modifications to previously approved development plan review applications, environmental assessments associated with any of the above applications, and tentative maps. The DAB may also make recommendations as to the need for variances, conditional use permits, specific plans, etc.

Once the review is completed, the DAB makes recommendations to the Planning Commission for appropriate action. To ensure a timely review, the members of the DAB are the same individuals who conducted the initial review of the application.
· Planning Commission Action. Planning Commission action is required for single-family tracts, multiple-family projects, specific plans, etc. In most cases, the Planning Commission does not act as a Design Review Board, unless a significant project is proposed or the applicant is appealing recommendations of the Development Advisory Board. The Planning Commission typically approves recommendations of the DAB but may require modifications. 1506
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-165
Table 4-17
Permit Processing Procedures
Processing Steps
Residential Products
Time Frame Four or Fewer
Housing Units
Five or More
Housing Units*
Submit Initial Application Required Required ---
Design Review N/A Required Concurrent with
project processing Environmental Clearance N/A Required City Review & Modifications Required Required 30 to 60 days Developer Makes Modifications Required Required 30 to 60 days Development Advisory Board N/A Required 30 days
Planning Commission Action N/A Required 30 days
Building Permits Issued Required Required Over the counter Total 2 to 3 months 5 to 6 months
Source: City of Ontario, 2012.
* Also applies to more than two units on a single lot
· Approval Findings and Decision. A Development Plan shall be acted upon by the Approving Authority based on the information provided in the submitted application, evidence presented in the Planning Department’s written report, and testimony provided during the public hearing, only after considering and clearly establishing all of the following findings and giving supporting reasons for each finding. The application shall be denied if one or more of the following findings cannot be clearly established. - The proposed development at the proposed location is
consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan, and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan;
- The proposed development is compatible with those on
adjoining sites in relation to location of buildings, with particular attention to privacy, views, any physical constraint identified on the site and the characteristics of the area in which the site is located;
- The proposed development will complement and/or improve on the quality of existing development in the vicinity of the project and the minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare have been required of the proposed project;
1507
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-166 Draft October 2021
- The proposed development is consistent with the
development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Development Code, or applicable specific plan or PUD.

The City is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that residential projects are decent, safe, and well-designed. While the permit approval process adds to the length of time required to process applications, it does not add any unduly constraints on the development of housing.

The City has not received residential development applications proposing to develop housing at a density lower than the minimum density permitted.

In an effort to streamline affordable housing projects, the City is including Program 22 to comply with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 35 by establishing a written policy or procedure and other guidance as appropriate to specify the SB 35 (2017) streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects, as set forth under Government Code Section 65913.4.

Design Review
Design review is a critical component of Ontario’s overall housing strategy. Poor quality design, in the long term, leads to the premature deterioration of housing, a decline in the quality of neighborhoods, and resident opposition or “NIMBYism” (“not in my backyard” mentality).

However, to achieve the City’s housing goals, providing a level of certainty to the development community is important. Developers need to know how to design their projects and neighborhoods to meet City expectations and avoid adverse public opinion and project denials.

Recognizing the need to balance the City’s housing goals, neighborhood stabilization, and revitalization goals, the City adopted Residential Design Guidelines in 2006. The guidelines provide guidance, objective standards, and graphics to illustrate the preferred and discouraged methods of planning, neighborhood design, and construction.

Topics include:
· Developments and Subdivisions. Include mixed-use housing, walkable neighborhoods, street networks, and open spaces. · Open Space and Landscaping. Include common open space, common recreation facilities, pathways, parks, and trails. · Lots and Buildings. Include size and dimensions, model variety, building orientation, garage placement, and fences and walls. · Building Design. Include building types, massing and roof form, garage design, accessory structures, and architectural details. 1508
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-167
The Development Advisory Board conducts design review for residential projects exceeding four units. To ensure the process does not unduly lengthen the time period for project approval, design review is conducted concurrently with project review. The majority of multiple-family projects are approved within five to six months of project submittal, which includes the processing of environmental documentation. This process allows approvals to be secured without a public hearing.

For large projects requiring more design creativity, the City has adopted a PUD ordinance or Planned Residential Development Overlay to provide for more flexibility in design. This strategy was successfully employed for six blocks in the Downtown. The City also adopted a performance-based parking model that allows parking requirements to be based on the demand for parking rather than traditional, more rigid standards. This process has resulted in hundreds of new homes in Downtown Ontario.

Regulations Affecting Housing Supply
The City does not regulate short-term rentals and does not have inclusionary housing regulations. No other ordinances or regulatory tools in the city affect the cost and supply of housing.

Energy Conservation Opportunities
Rising energy costs, dependence on fossil fuels, and increasing evidence of the adverse impacts of global warming have provoked the need in California and nationwide to improve energy-management strategies.

Buildings use 76 percent of all electricity generated in the United States for their operation and generate 40 percent of carbon dioxide, a major component of greenhouse gases (GHGs), which are primarily responsible for global climate change. How we design, build, and operate buildings thus has profound implications for energy use and resulting global warming.

Although the State of California has long supported energy conservation, recent state laws have been enacted to combat GHG emissions and increase energy independence. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which created the first comprehensive, state regulatory program to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 1368 bars California energy providers from entering into long-term contracts with high-polluting power generators in an effort to encourage the development of the state’s renewable energy portfolio.
1509
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-168 Draft October 2021
Promoting energy conservation has become a consistent theme in regulations, green building practices, and general business operations.

For Ontario, opportunities abound to promote energy-efficient practices in the siting, design, construction, and renovation of housing stock. These practices not only respond to regulatory requirements but also can generate significant community, environmental, and economic benefits.

In 2018, the City received a Transformative Climate Communities grant for its Ontario Together project, which included a wide range of workforce development, displacement avoidance, and community engagement strategies as well as sustainability projects. These projects included 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. The project also intends to plant 365 street trees, which can reduce energy costs to adjacent buildings. As of April 2021, 360 street trees had been planted and 24 solar photovoltaic systems had been installed.

Neighborhood Design
Energy management is rarely a driving consideration for local, land use decision-making authorities. In fact, most land use frameworks—general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances—do not provide sufficient language for these authorities to require developers to incorporate energy-efficient site planning. The Subdivision Map Act makes references to providing passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities, but no prescriptive guidance is provided. Accordingly, such site planning is often the result of individual developers who recognize the economic and marketing value of an energy-efficient community design.

Strategies to reduce energy demand begin with efficient site planning.

Sizing and configuring lots to maximize a building’s solar orientation (east–west alignment for southern exposure) facilitates optimal use of passive heating and cooling techniques. Infill development reduces potential energy costs of new infrastructure needed to service the site.

Placing housing near jobs, services, and other amenities reduces energy consumption related to transportation. Other design strategies with beneficial energy implications include narrowing street widths to reduce the urban heat island effect, installing broad-canopied trees for shade, and clustering compact development to reduce automobile use.

Building Design
Title 24, Part 6, California Energy Efficiency Standards, requires all residential construction to meet minimum energy conservation standards through either a prescriptive or performance-based approach. The former 1510
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-169
approach requires each individual component of a building to meet an identified minimum energy requirement. The performance-based approach, on the other hand, allows developers to choose a range of measures, which, in totality, meet specified energy-conservation targets.

With either of these options, mandatory components must still be installed, such as minimum insulation; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); and efficient water heating equipment.

In addition to California’s Title 24 standards, all residential projects are subject to meeting the state building codes, which also include energy conservation standards. The California Building Standards Commission adopted the California Building Codes in 2008 based on “model” codes produced and updated periodically by various professional organizations. The City of Ontario has adopted these standards, which apply to all new residential buildings constructed after January 1, 2010.

The City of Ontario enforces Title 24 as the primary means for ensuring new housing incorporates the latest energy-efficient technologies.

Green Standards Design
In 2010, California’s Building Standards Commission adopted the California Green Building Code (CALGreen), making California the first state to adopt a uniform green building code. The City of Ontario has adopted the minimum standards of CALGreen to ensure energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality are considered in all new buildings.

The building industry has developed different “green” building programs. The Building Industry Association sponsors a voluntary program called Green Builder. The program focuses on energy efficiency, water conservation, wood conservation, advanced ventilation, and waste diversion. Certified homes incorporate water-efficient landscaping and fixtures, use high-efficiency insulation and ventilation systems, contain environmentally sound building materials, initiate waste-reduction methods during construction, and exceed Title 24 Building Code energy standards by 15 percent.

Other green building programs have also been sponsored by other agencies. The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) sponsors another building certification program called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). The LEED program is a national rating system for green buildings that focuses on commercial and multiplefamily residential projects. The USGBC reviews projects for conformance based on various efficiency, sustainability, materials quality, and design factors, and then issues certifications based on points achieved. 1511
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-170 Draft October 2021

5. RESOURCES
Housing Resources
This section describes the land resources within Ontario that are available to address the City's existing and future housing needs, including its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

Regional Housing Needs
The regional housing needs mandate requires every local government in California to plan for its “fair share” of the region's existing and future housing needs. The California Legislature has stated that housing availability is of vital statewide importance, as is the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian.

State law, therefore, requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to develop housing needs projections for every region in California. As directed by state law, HCD estimates each region’s existing and future needs every eight years; each eight-year period is called a housing cycle. For Ontario and the rest of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, the upcoming housing cycle (the 6th cycle) plans for projected housing needs between 2021 and 2029.

For the 6th cycle, the SCAG region has been allocated more than 1.3 million housing units to be planned for by 2029. This estimate is 300 percent higher than the approximately 400,000 units required in the previous housing planning period (the 5th cycle, which covered 2013- 2021). The large regional allocation results from underproduction of housing, rapidly increasing housing prices and rents, and increasing levels of housing overpayment among residents. As a result, local governments across the region must plan to accommodate an unprecedented increase in housing goals.

SCAG is responsible for dividing the 1.3-million-unit target between each of the 191 jurisdictions in the region. Under state law, SCAG must consider specific planning factors in allocating the required housing units between jurisdictions, but it can develop a tailored model for the region.

SCAG’s model for the 6th cycle considers the availability of land, adequacy of infrastructure and services, market demand for housing, fair housing, availability of employment and transit, local population growth estimates, and many other housing and planning considerations; the model, however, weights opportunities to promote fair housing, proximity to employment, and transit accessibility more heavily than other factors, so jurisdictions that were closer to jobs centers, had a lower concentration of poverty, and had more access to transit opportunities 1512
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-171
were generally allocated more units than those with poor jobs access and no public transit.

In Ontario, the RHNA goal has nearly doubled since the last Housing Element planning period. For the 2013-2021 planning period, Ontario's RHNA was 10,861 units; the allocation increased 92 percent to 20,854 units for the 2021-2029 period. Within this goal, the City must plan for housing production at three different income levels: lower-income housing (includes extremely low, very low, and low income), moderate income, and above moderate income. Table 5-1 summarizes the City’s 2021–2029 RHNA. Ontario is 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.

Table 5-1
Ontario Regional Housing Need Allocation, 2021–2029
Lower Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Capacity
RHNA Need 8,926 3,329 8,599 20,854
Source: SCAG, 2021.

California law holds local governments responsible for planning for their share of the region’ housing needs and ensuring that housing is planned commensurate with the total assigned need for each affordability category. However, state law does not require a city to build housing; that is the responsibility of the building industry. Local governments can obtain credit toward meeting their RHNA target in four ways:
· Housing Production. Housing units built and occupied (received a certificate of occupancy) on or after June 30, 2021, when the projection period for the 6th cycle RHNA begins.
· Planned Production. Housing units proposed for construction that are likely to be approved and built during the planning period, from July 2021 to October 2029.
· Available Land. Designation of vacant and underutilized sites with zoning, development standards, services, and public facilities in place so housing can be built.
· Alternative Credits. Qualified projects that involve the rehabilitation, preservation, and conversion of non-affordable units to affordable units, subject to conditions.
1513
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-172 Draft October 2021
The City’s housing strategies use the first three options. The following section describes how the City will address its housing planning and production goals for the 2021-2029 RHNA.

Relationship of Zoning and Density to Housing Affordability This section describes the suitability of residential development standards, namely allowed density and zoning districts, for facilitating housing affordable to different income levels.

Zoning and density standards are correlated to the affordability of housing. In general, higher-density housing projects, like apartment buildings, are more affordable than lower-density projects, like singlefamily homes. While other factors such as location, the size of the units, and quality of the finish materials also contribute to a project’s ultimate affordability, the state has determined that density and zoning standards are suitable proxies for identifying the potential affordability level of a site.

The following sections describe the density thresholds identified for each income category and the current zoning districts that allow the identified densities.

Lower Income
Density
Housing element law requires jurisdictions to provide a requisite analysis showing that zones identified for lower-income households provide sufficient density to encourage such development. The law provides two options for preparing the analysis: (1) describe market demand and trends, financial feasibility, and recent development experience; (2) utilize default density standards deemed adequate to meet the appropriate zoning test. According to state law, the default density standard for Ontario is 30 dwelling units per acre. In 2019 and 2020, two 100-percent affordable housing projects were built in Ontario with densities between 25 and 30 dwelling units per acre:
· Vista Verde. Completed in 2020. Consists of 101 affordable units (lower income); built at a density of 26 dwelling units per acre. · Emporia Place. Completed in 2019. Consists of 74 affordable units (lower income); built at a density of 26.7 dwelling units per acre.

Therefore, for the 2021-2029 planning period, the City has determined that the default density adequately demonstrates its capacity to accommodate the lower-income RHNA.
1514
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-173
Zoning
Under the current development standards, residential development within the following zoning districts allows for densities of 30 dwelling units per acre or more.
· Mixed-Use (MU-1) – 20–75 dwelling units per acre
· Mixed-Use (MU-2) – 14-40 dwelling units per acre
- The City’s Development Code allows for stand-alone
multifamily residential projects in mixed-use districts. · Planned Unit Development (PUDs) – 25–75 dwelling units per acre
· High-Density Residential (HDR-45) – 25.1–45 dwelling units per acre
The City’s rezoning program (Program 13) will also create an affordable housing overlay that expands the land use categories that can accommodate at least 30 dwelling units per acre, exempt projects south of Riverside Drive with at least 25 percent of units affordable to lowerincomes from specific plan requirements if no specific plan exists, and revises existing specific plans to allow at least 30 dwelling units per acre on identified sites. Each of these changes will play a key role in fulfilling the City’s lower-income RHNA.

Moderate Income
Density
Typically, medium to medium-high multiple-family zoning districts are suitable for facilitating the construction of housing affordable to moderate-income households. To determine the densities needed to accommodate moderate-income housing, nearly 2,000 properties sold or listed on the MLS between September 2020 and September 2021 were analyzed. Of the 2,000 records analyzed, 66 were newer construction (built after 2017) townhomes or condos, most of which were built at densities between 8 and 18 dwelling units per acre. Of those, 10 properties sold for less than $410,000, the moderate-income threshold, indicating the densities were sufficient to produce moderate-income housing. These sales included four new construction homes in the New Haven masterplanned community (two two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units), where projects are typically 18 units per acre or less.

In recognition of increasing home prices, however, the City has determined that a higher density of 25 units per acre would be more conducive to creating moderate-income housing. In support of this, the 1515
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-174 Draft October 2021
Cities of Chino, Fontana, and Rancho Cucamonga indicate that masterplanned communities with densities up to 25 dwelling units per acre offer homes that are affordable to moderate-income households. Therefore, the City’s land inventory will focus on sites that allow for 25 or more dwelling units per acre to fulfill its moderate-income allocation.

Zoning
The same zoning districts identified as suitable for lower-income housing are suitable for moderate-income housing, as well as the following:
· Medium-Density Residential (MDR-25) – 18.1 – 25 dwelling units per acre
· Specific Plan (SP) – Sites designated as SP, where no specific plan exists, can facilitate moderate-income housing if the
corresponding Policy Plan designation allows densities up to 25 dwelling units per acre. Such Policy Plan designations include:
- Medium-Density Residential (MDR) – 11 to 25 dwelling units per acre
- Mixed-Use (MU) – current and proposed designations for various mixed-use areas allow a range of densities with maximums ranging from 25 to 125 dwelling units per acre.

Above Moderate Income
Density and Zoning
The planned residential development projects in the city (see Table 5-2) include a mix of housing types at various densities. Most, however, are anticipated to develop at market rates that are affordable to abovemoderate income households. Therefore, it is assumed that any density and any residentially zoned land can support the development of abovemoderate housing.

Housing Production and Planned Production
This section details residential development projects currently in the pipeline.

The City of Ontario has several approved residential projects that are anticipated to be built and receive their certificate of occupancy or final inspection on or after June 30, 2021. As allowed under state housing element law, these approved and pending residential projects will be eligible for credit toward the 6th cycle RHNA.
1516
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-175
As described here and listed in Table 5-2, housing pipeline projects represent a mix of residential types, price points, and affordability levels. · Mix of Housing Types. A broad range of housing products is in the development pipeline, including single-family residential projects, condominiums, townhomes, clustered and motor court homes, and apartment projects. Proposed projects are located on vacant land throughout the city, within existing residential neighborhoods, in underutilized mixed-use areas, and on undeveloped land south of Riverside Drive and east of the Cucamonga Channel (the Channel), where the area is
transitioning from agricultural uses to residential communities. · Project affordability. A project’s affordability is based on the type of residential product approved/entitled in the community and the market sales price or rent charged for recently built projects in the city.
· Mix of Vacant and Underused Sites. Similar to the land inventory discussed later, proposed projects are situated on a combination of vacant and underused sites. Many included the subdivision of large lots or the development of a range of products, including multifamily housing, on large lots over 10 acres in size. Further, prior projects that have been built in the city have been within underutilized lots.
· Mix of Housing Locations. The City has approved proposals or issued a certificate of occupancy after July 1, 2021, to develop 1,650 units. While the greatest volume of housing development is in the area south of Riverside Drive and east of the Channel, projects have also been approved in the downtown area, along commercial corridors like Holt Boulevard, within the mixed-use areas along the Interstate (I-) 10 corridor, and scattered throughout established neighborhoods.

Only projects that have been approved for development are included in the pipeline projections. Several projects are currently under review that would add thousands of additional units to the city, but these have not been included. Table 5-2, therefore, represents a conservative estimate of the planned projects.
1517
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-176 Draft October 2021
Table 5-2
Residential Projects in the Pipeline
ID Project Name Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) Type* Total Units
Affordability
Lower Mod. Above
Mod.
1 Misc. Projects Downtown 104837612, 104839431 SF 2 - - 2 2 Misc. Projects Between
Mission Blvd and
Riverside Dr
104955121, 105034106, 105034162, 104931214,
104953154 SF 5 - - 5
3 West Holt Multi-family 101055106 MF 6 - - 6
4 Mission & Palmetto 101138204 MF 68 - - 68
5 890 South Magnolia 101137115-16 MF 49 - - 49
6 Meredith 11031152, -53 MF 464 - - 464
7 Piemonte 21020440 MF 22 - - 22
8 Esperanza
21830203-04, 21830301-17, 21830326-57, 21832201-04,
21832312-33, 21832362-65, 21858501-27, 21858638-41,
21872301-11, 21872339-40, 21872349, 21872401-40,
21872442
SF 200 - - 200
9 Rich-Haven
21801602-03, 21816115, 21826229-30, 21826235-37,
21826239 SF 60 - - 60
21801601, 21801604-05, 21809303, 21816115,
21821102, 21826206-07, 21839303-04, 21839308-09 MF 271 - - 271 10 Subarea 29
107339105-17, 107339129-35, 107339209-12,
107339243-53, 107340214-26, 107340228-30,
107340244-47, 21801501-05, 21801507-16, 21801529-
47, 21801549-54, 21801562-64, 21827123, 21833153-54,
21867448-50, 21899125-33, 21899221-27, 21899232-53,
21899331-32, 21899334-42, 21899405-10, 21899477-84,
107339118, 107339126-28, 107339213-15
SF 325 - - 325
11 The Avenue 21865227 SF 11 - - 11
12 West Haven 21815111, 21815138 SF 129 - - 129
13 Harlow Ln 107339216-27, 107340231-38 SF 20 - - 20
14 Hazel St 107340110-27 SF 18 - - 18
Source: City of Ontario, 2021.

Notes: The projects included in the table include permits that have been issued but not completed and certificates of occupancy issued on or after 6/30/2021. There are also several projects currently under review that are not included in this table. * SF = Single-Family, MF = Multifamily
1518
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-177
Ontario’s 2021-2029 RHNA includes 8,599 units for the above-moderate income allocation (Table 5-1). As shown in Table 5-2, pipeline projects can address 1,650 units of the above-moderate allocation.

The remainder of this chapter will focus on key strategies that the City will undertake to address the remainder of the above-moderate allocation as well as the lower- and moderate-income RHNA.
2021-2029 RHNA Strategies
While the prior section listed residential projects approved for development in the city, this section describes additional strategies proposed to address the remaining RHNA for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Housing Opportunity Areas
The City is required to identify available sites to accommodate its 2021– 2029 RHNA. An analysis of the city's available land and existing zoning districts showed that there was not enough land zoned at the correct densities to facilitate the development of enough housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income households to fulfill the RHNA and a rezoning program (Program 13) was needed. The City evaluated all of its land resources for suitability to develop at densities suitable to lower- and moderate-income housing and developed strategies and programs to meet its obligation.

A detailed list of each site by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) is included in Appendix B.

The analysis identified 10 areas in which housing growth can be accommodated after the City implements its rezoning program (Program 13), grouped into six key strategies, illustrated in Figure 5-1, Housing Opportunity Areas. In addition to the Opportunity Areas, the City used accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as the seventh strategy to fulfill the RHNA. The sites identified in the Opportunity Areas further the City’s housing goals and align with regional transportation plans by placing higher-density housing along future transit routes. The RHNA strategies also consider fair and equitable housing goals, development feasibility, and infrastructure availability.

Figure 5-1 shows the identified sites categorized into 10 Housing Opportunity Areas and six strategies based on their location within the city.
1519
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-178 Draft October 2021
Figure 5-1 Housing Opportunity Areas
1520
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-179
Underutilized Sites
The City has included non-vacant sites in its land inventory to meet a significant portion of its regional housing need. These sites are underutilized, and many are located in the undeveloped area south of Riverside Drive and east of the Cucamonga Channel, where the primary use is agricultural; other underutilized sites, like those located in the Downtown area, along Holt Boulevard, and at the old Cardenas market, are parking lots or aging and underused commercial properties that are suitable for residential development and are ready to turn over; finally, the land inventory includes the parking lots and several out parcels around the Ontario Mills Mall, reflecting a national trend of repositioning shopping centers as mixed-use communities.

While the city has seen immense growth in the past few decades, the City is continuously expanding the opportunity for new housing development in response to market demand, developer interest, and state housing law.

Interest from property owners and local developers is very high, and projects at densities of 50+ units per acre were recently approved. In 2021, it was estimated that building applications under review would add more than 5,000 dwelling units to the city. Several of the approved projects and projects under review include high-density apartments and condos. This indicates a strong market for higher-density housing products in the inland empire.

To demonstrate a realistic capacity throughout its inventory, but particularly on the underutilized sites, the City calculated the total housing capacity on each site using a realistic density below the maximum allowed by the current or proposed zoning.

Strategy 1: Downtown Housing Opportunity Area
The City developed the Downtown District Plan, as described in Program 8, which provides opportunities for high-density, market-rate, and affordable housing in the Euclid Avenue Entertainment District and Holt Boulevard District. Projects under review, like the Hutton C-Block MixedUse development that will bring ground-floor commercial with highdensity housing and structured parking to the heart of downtown, and recently completed projects, like the Emporia affordable housing project, embody the vision for housing in the downtown.

Downtown is well-served by infrastructure. The City is also working to build OntarioNet, a new fiber-optic internet service throughout the city.

The first fiber lines serving Ontario have already been installed in the areas around downtown, and there are no environmental constraints limiting development potential.
1521
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-180 Draft October 2021
The City has identified two sites in addition to the pipeline projects for inclusion in the land inventory, as shown in Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-2 Downtown Housing Opportunity Area
The two sites, numbered in Figure 5-2, are described below.

1. The first site, adjacent to D Street, is zoned for HDR-45, which allows up to 45 dwelling units per acre, satisfying the default density requirements for lower-income housing. This site is currently an underutilized parking lot, which was included in the City’s last housing element. In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1397, by-right development will be allowed for any residential project that provides for at least 20 percent of units affordable to lower-income households as described in Program

15. For conservative estimates, the realistic density used to determine the total housing capacity of the site is 25 units per acre.

2. The second site, along Holt Boulevard, is currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial (CN), but it will be part of the City's rezoning program (Program 13) with a proposed designation of MU-1, which allows up to 75 dwelling units per acre and is suitable for lower-income housing. This site includes three parcels with consistent ownership, and it is currently operating a used car sales lot. Car lots provide a unique opportunity for
redevelopment because limited demolition is necessary; as a result, developers can often afford to pay higher land costs.

Furthermore, this lot is currently occupied by an independent car sales operation, so strategic decisions by major corporations would not be necessary. The housing plan also includes a program to encourage lot consolidation along Holt Boulevard (Program 10) and facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower-income residents. To account for potential nonresidential development, only 60 percent of the total land area was assumed suitable for housing. In addition, a realistic density of 35 Emporia
1 2
1522
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-181
dwelling units per acre was used to determine the total housing capacity.

On both sites, only 50 percent of the total realistic capacity was estimated to have the potential to accommodate lower incomes.

Using the metrics described above, the Downtown Opportunity Area has a total housing capacity of 40 units, half of which (20 units) have the capacity to accommodate lower-income housing. The balance (20 units) is presumed to have capacity for housing affordable to moderate-income households.

Strategy 2: Holt Boulevard Opportunity Areas (West and East) Holt Boulevard is one of the city’s original thoroughfares, extending through Ontario and connecting to neighboring communities. It is also an important regional transit corridor. Existing bus lines along Holt Boulevard report some of the highest ridership rates in San Bernardino County. In addition, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) plans to provide new bus rapid transit (BRT) service along Holt Boulevard as part of the West Valley Connector Project. Those portions of the project that will serve Holt Boulevard are funded and scheduled for operation in 2023.

Like Downtown, Holt Boulevard is well-served by infrastructure. The development in these areas would constitute urban infill projects on already disturbed land, so there are no environmental constraints limiting development potential.

West Holt Boulevard
The City has identified 36 parcels (18.3 acres) along West Holt Boulevard for inclusion in the land inventory, as shown in Figure 5-3 and described below.
1523
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-182 Draft October 2021
Figure 5-3 West Holt Housing Opportunity Area
Sites along West Holt Boulevard were identified based on proximity to transit, potential for redevelopment, and current zoning.

Approximately 70 percent of the land area identified for lower- and moderate-income housing along West Holt Boulevard is within a 5- minute walk of a planned BRT stop; 100 percent of sites are within a 10- minute walk of a planned BRT stop.

Existing uses include parking lots, aging commercial properties (retail and dining establishments), and used car sales lots. These commercial properties are underperforming and surrounded by residential uses. In general, typical commercial properties are leased on three- to five-year terms. It is unlikely that existing tenants in this area would have lease terms longer than industry standards. Car sales lots, on the other hand, are largely undeveloped, which means the cost and effort required to transition to residential uses are reduced as less site preparation will be necessary.

Existing tenants along West Holt Boulevard are also small independent uses, so redevelopment of these properties would not require strategic decisions by major corporations.

There are 27 parcels (12.8 acres) within the Opportunity Area currently zoned as HDR-45, which satisfies the default density requirements for lower-income housing and is sufficient to support moderate-income housing as well. Several of these parcels were also included in the City’s prior housing element (see a detailed list by APN in Appendix B). To further encourage residential development on parcels listed in the last housing element and to comply with AB 1397, by-right development will be allowed for any residential project that includes at least 20 percent of units affordable to lower-income households, as described in Program 15. 1524
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-183
Two parcels (1.5 acres), currently zoned as Community Commercial (CC), are part of the City’s rezoning program (Program 13). The City proposes changing the designation to MU-2 with an Affordable Housing Overlay (described in Program 13), which will allow a density range of 20-40 dwelling units per acre and is suitable for lower- and moderate-income housing.

Five parcels (4.0 acres) are currently zoned as MDR-25. These will be included in the City’s rezoning program (Program 13) with a proposed designation of HDR-45, which allows up to 45 dwelling units per acre and is suitable for both lower- and moderate-income housing. These sites were used to meet the City’s moderate-income RHNA in the prior housing element. Like other sites reused from the prior element, by-right development will be allowed for any residential project that includes at least 20 percent of units affordable to lower-income households as described in Program 15.

All but two sites located in the East Holt Opportunity Area have an existing or proposed designation of HDR-45. The HDR-45 zoning designation allows for multifamily residential projects by-right and densities up to 45 dwelling units per acre. To ensure conservative estimates, however, a realistic density of 25 dwelling units per acre is used.

On the two sites with a proposed designation of MU-2, 75 percent of the total land area is assumed suitable for housing to account for the potential development of non-residential uses while also recognizing that 100- percent residential projects are allowed in the zone. Additionally, a realistic density of 30 dwelling units per acre is used to determine the total housing capacity.

On all sites, only 50 percent of the total realistic capacity was estimated to have the potential to accommodate lower incomes.

Using the metrics described above, the West Holt Opportunity Area has a total housing capacity of 454 units, half of which (227 units) have the capacity to accommodate lower-income housing. The balance (227 units) is presumed to have capacity for housing affordable to moderate-income households.

East Holt
The City has identified 21 parcels (22.2 acres) for inclusion in the land inventory, as shown in Figure 5-4 and described below.
1525
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-184 Draft October 2021
Figure 5-4 East Holt Housing Opportunity Area
Like West Holt Boulevard, sites along East Holt Boulevard were identified based on proximity to transit, potential for redevelopment, and current zoning.

Approximately half of the land area identified for lower- and moderateincome housing in the West Holt Boulevard Opportunity Area is within a 5-minute walk of a planned BRT stop; 100 percent of sites are within a 10-minute walk of a planned BRT stop.

Nine parcels (11 acres) within the Opportunity Area are currently vacant.

Of those, five parcels (5.1 acres) are zoned MU-2, which allows 14-40 dwelling units per acre, a density sufficient to support the development of lower- and moderate-income housing. This is evidenced by the Vista Verde affordable housing project, which was developed in the MU-2 district along East Holt Boulevard as a 100-percent affordable housing project, demonstrating that this zone and area can support affordable housing. The remaining four vacant parcels (5.9 acres) are zoned for Business Park (BP) and will be included in the City’s rezoning program (Program 13), with a proposed designation of MU-2 with an Affordable Housing Overlay (described in Program 13), which will allow a density range of 20-40 dwelling units per acre.

The balance of the sites identified in the Opportunity Area (11 parcels,

11.2 acres) are currently underutilized and designated as MU-2. Because the current zoning designation allows sufficient density (14-40 dwelling units per acre), redevelopment of these sites could accommodate housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income households without rezoning.

The potential for redevelopment on each non-vacant site, numbered by parcel in Figure 5-4, is described below.
1-2. Between Campus Avenue and Allyn Avenue, two parcels (1.5 acres) are identified to have the potential for redevelopment.

The first is a used car sales lot, which has potential for Vista Verde
12 3 4
5 6 7-9 1011
1526
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-185
redevelopment because of the low existing floor-area ratio (FAR) (very small building and large parking area) and the age of the building. The demolition required for
redevelopment would be minimal. Adjacent to this is a parcel (0.91 acres) where service commercial uses, including a laundromat and automotive shop, have been identified as candidates for redevelopment due to the age of the buildings (50+ years old) nearing the end of a typical lifespan for commercial buildings. Tenants on both sites are independent operators, so redevelopment of these properties would not require strategic decisions by major corporations.

3. Traveling east on Holt Boulevard, another parcel (0.90 acres), just east of the Allyn Avenue intersection, has also been identified to have the potential for redevelopment due to the low existing FAR (large parking area and small building), the age of the structure (48 years old), and because an
independent retail use occupies the site.
4-6. Continuing east on Holt Boulevard, on the other side of three vacant sites included in the inventory, sit three parcels (4.5 acres), with potential for redevelopment due to low existing FAR, the age of existing structures, and because the sites are currently used by an independent automotive parts retailer and an independent automotive repair shop, but residential uses border the auto-centric services. Converting these sites to housing would improve the land use compatibility for
surrounding neighborhoods and mobile home parks.
7-9. Further east along Holt Boulevard, three sites (1.8 acres) are identified as candidates for redevelopment. The first two properties include an unused parking lot and a boarded-up church. These sites were identified for potential
redevelopment because of the age of the structure (nearly 100 years old), the poor state of repair of the building, and because the two sites are not currently being used. An automotive repair shop occupies the third parcel, but it was identified as a candidate for redevelopment because it is adjacent to residential uses and has a low existing FAR.
10-11. East of the Grove Avenue intersection sits two sites (2.4 acres), each with an existing motel. These sites were identified because both are older, underperforming, budget motels that could be converted into permanent supportive housing or demolished and rebuilt with housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income households.
1527
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-186 Draft October 2021
All of the sites in the East Holt Opportunity Area have either an existing or proposed designation of MU-2. The MU-2 zoning designation allows for 100-percent residential projects, but it also provides for various nonresidential uses. To account for the potential development of nonresidential uses on the identified sites, 75 percent of the land area for each site is considered in estimating the total housing capacity. Seventy-five percent is estimated because 100-percent residential projects are allowed by the zone, and residential projects in the area do not typically include non-residential uses as well. To further ensure conservative estimates, a realistic density of 30 dwelling units per acre is factored into the total housing capacity of 499 units. Of those, 50 percent of units (250 units) have the capacity to accommodate lower-income housing, while the remaining half (249 units) are presumed to have capacity for housing affordable to moderate-income households.

Strategy 3: Old Cardenas Market Housing Opportunity Area The Old Cardenas Market site consists of three parcels (3.5 acres) that front Euclid Avenue, as shown in Figure 5-5 and described below.

Figure 5-5 Old Cardenas Market Housing Opportunity Area The site includes the parking lot behind the gas station, the vacant building that previously housed Cardenas Market and its parking area, and the vacant lot north of the market.

Like Downtown and Holt Boulevard, this site is well-served by infrastructure, and there are no environmental constraints limiting development potential.

All three parcels are currently zoned CN but will be included in the City’s rezoning program. The two vacant parcels are proposed to change to HDR-45, while the Cardenas Market is proposed as a mixed-use designation that allows for a density range of 20-30+ dwelling units per acre.
1528
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-187
Parcels with the proposed HDR-designation estimated capacity using a realistic density of 25 dwelling units per acre.

The mixed-use parcel will allow the gas station and a quick-serve restaurant currently operating to remain while also facilitating redevelopment of the site. In acknowledgment of competing nonresidential demands on the land, housing is only estimated on 50 percent of the site. Additionally, a realistic density of 30 dwelling units per acre is applied to determine the total housing capacity.

On all sites, only 50 percent of the total realistic capacity was estimated to have the potential to accommodate lower incomes.

Using the metrics described above, the Old Cardenas Market Opportunity Area has a total capacity of 65 units. Only half (33 units) have the capacity to accommodate lower-income housing. The remaining 32 units are presumed to have capacity for housing affordable to moderate-income households.

Strategy 4: Ontario Center Specific Plan Housing Opportunity Area
The Ontario Center Specific Plan offers a variety of commercial, retail, entertainment, light industrial, and office uses, as well as a mix of housing opportunities, and outlines a detailed infrastructure plan for the area.

Originally adopted in 1981, the Specific Plan has been amended numerous times, including the addition of the Piemonte Overlay in 2006.

The most recent amendment was adopted in 2017.

Since much of the Specific Plan area has already been developed, the necessary infrastructure to support housing development is already in place. The remaining vacant parcels are prime candidates for development, and no environmental constraints limit development potential.

After conversations with property owners and developers, the City identified four vacant parcels (16.5 acres) as potential sites for lower- and moderate-income housing development, as shown in Figure 5-6. 1529
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-188 Draft October 2021
Figure 5-6 Ontario Center Specific Plan Housing Opportunity Area
An assessment of the housing capacity and potential affordability for each site, numbered by parcel in Figure 5-6, is described below. 1-2. Two of the housing sites (3.6 acres) are regulated by the Piemonte Overlay. In Piemonte, both sites are designated as Office with Residential Development Allowed. While the
Piemonte Overlay does not specify allowable densities, it plans for 791 new units, 220 of which could be developed on the two identified housing sites. If 220 units were to develop across the

3.6 acres, the resulting density would be 61 dwelling units per acre, which is sufficient to facilitate the development of lowerand moderate-income housing. Only half of the potential buildout, 110 total units, were projected for housing on these sites. Of those, 55 units were estimated to be affordable to lowerincome households, and 55 were counted toward the moderateincome RHNA. 3-4. The remaining two sites (12.9 acres) are governed by the Ontario Center Specific Plan (OCSP). Both sites are designated as Urban Commercial, which allows for a mix of tourist-related
commercial uses, high- and medium-rise office buildings, entertainment/recreation clusters, and high-density residential uses above the ground floor. While the specific plan does not specify allowable densities, the sites are included in planning area 11, where the maximum building height of 95 feet is regulated only by the height limits set by the Ontario
International Airport. Housing products with densities above 60 dwelling units per acre are regularly developed under similar zoning standards, indicating the types of projects that could develop under the specific plan would meet the density
thresholds necessary to facilitate the development of lower- and moderate-income housing.
1 2
3 4
1530
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-189
The specific plan regulates the maximum capacity for Urban Commercial uses based on building square footage rather than dwelling units. As such, the City uses the methodology
described to translate the remaining allowable square footage permitted under the current specific plan into an approximate number of units.

Planning area 11 allows a total of 592,700 square feet; it is estimated that 360,455 square feet have already been developed, leaving 232,245 square feet of developable building area. To convert the remaining square footage into potential housing units, the City assumes the residential component would include a range of unit sizes with an average size of 1,000 square feet, inclusive of common areas. Using this factor and reserving approximately 39,000 square feet for ground-floor uses, a total of 193 units are estimated as the total realistic capacity of the two sites.

Of the 193 units, 96 are estimated to be affordable to lowerincome households, and 97 are estimated to be affordable to moderate-income households.

Strategy 5: The Mills Housing Opportunity Area
The Ontario Mills Mall and surrounding areas are governed by The California Commerce Center North Specific Plan (The Mills). The specific plan was originally authored in 1992 and has not been amended since.

The document envisioned a regional commercial center focused on valueoriented retail and jobs creation that would capitalize on the proximity to the freeways and serve as a local landmark. The Mills has largely achieved this vision, and it remains a high-performing retail hub today (2021), but the economic outlook for retail and office uses in 2021 is vastly different than it was in 1992.

Current trends in the redevelopment of retail centers began with the introduction of online retail, which is currently capturing 20 percent of every retail dollar spent in the US economy. Recent industry reports (Barclay’s Bank in October 2020 and Coresight Research in July 2020) find that the current number of retailers will likely be substantially reduced by 2030, with predictions by Coresight that online retail will account for 40 percent of retail sales by 2030. The COVID-19 pandemic has only accelerated the past trends. As retail stores opt to relocate or retail properties become due for major reinvestments/improvements, property owners find few retailers looking to replace existing tenants or find greater value in developing new residential uses. The demand for office space is likewise expected to remain stagnant through the 2021-2029 1531
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-190 Draft October 2021
planning period as more office workers choose to work from home in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

While retail uses, in general, are in decline, the Ontario Mills Mall remains a high-performing shopping center. It is anticipated that much of the existing retail square footage within the mall itself will remain through 2029, while parking areas will intensify with residential uses, and several of the out parcels will redevelop with new uses as existing restaurants, movie theaters, and retailers consolidate locations, relocate, or otherwise reconsider their physical footprint.

Successful shopping center redevelopment efforts, like the Bella Terra Mall in Huntington Beach, show high-performing malls successfully introducing residential uses while retaining and improving their commercial cores.

In addition to this, the Mills area already has the necessary infrastructure in place to support housing development, and no environmental constraints will preclude housing production.

Considering these trends, the City has identified the parking areas and several out parcels around the Ontario Mills Mall as potential redevelopment sites suitable for housing, as shown in Figure 5-7.

Figure 5-7 The Mills Housing Opportunity Area
The existing specific plan does not allow for residential uses, but the City’s Policy Plan, last updated in 2010, provides for housing in this area with a density range of 25 to 85 dwelling units per acre. This range would provide sufficient density to allow for the development of housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. In addition to establishing the density range, the Policy Plan sets a maximum of 437 units in its buildout table LU-03. As part of its rezoning program (Program 13), the City will update the Policy Plan to increase the 1532
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-191
residential development maximum in the Ontario Mills Mixed-Use area, and it will amend the specific plan consistent with the Policy Plan.

There are 35 parcels (195.5 acres) identified for redevelopment.

Collectively, this area could yield up to 16,620 units if the entirety were to develop at the maximum density of 85 dwelling units per acre.

However, the City’s housing strategy recognizes that many retail properties are expected to remain, with development occurring primarily in the parking areas and on several out parcels. As such, only 40 percent of the land area for each site (78.2 acres total) is estimated as suitable for housing, and a realistic density of 40 dwelling units per acre is used to establish the total development potential of 3,128 units.

AB 1397 requires additional justification to include parcels larger than 10 acres in the sites inventory for lower-income housing. Four of the parcels identified in this area (145.0 acres) are larger than 10 acres. The City has included these sites because larger sites with consistent ownership typically create fewer barriers to the introduction of housing in mall redevelopment projects than smaller sites with many competing landowner interests. Redevelopment efforts for the Westminster Mall, in Westminster, CA, for example, have involved a considerable planning effort to balance the various interests of many disparate property owners.

Further, proposed redevelopment plans for malls such as Main Place Mall in Santa Ana, CA, incorporate larger parcels.

Only 50 percent of units (1,564) have the capacity to accommodate lowerincome housing, while the balance is presumed to be split between moderate-income (782 units) and above moderate-income (782 units).

Strategy 6: The Ontario Ranch Housing Opportunity Area
The area south of Riverside Drive and west of the Cucamonga Channel is largely undeveloped and represents one of the few remaining greenfield opportunities in the Inland Empire. Upon annexation in 1997, the City envisioned the area as an extension of the existing urban fabric.

Residential neighborhoods would be balanced by mixed-use, commercial, and public places and organized around a regional-scale park. Twenty-five years later, that vision has begun to take shape with new development east of the Channel. Over the 2021-2029 planning period, development is expected to spread to the western side of the Channel as the infrastructure becomes available. The City’s housing strategies for this area promote the creation of mixed-income communities in the areas west of the Channel while also considering the development constraints associated with greenfield development. 1533
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-192 Draft October 2021
Infrastructure Availability
Backbone infrastructure serving the area west of the Channel is planned.

In 2020 and 2021, several large industrial projects were approved, and additional projects are under review along the city’s southern border between Merrill and Eucalyptus Avenues. These projects are bringing water and sewer infrastructure to this portion of the city. The initial trunk line, expected to develop in 2022, will travel along Merrill Avenue between Euclid and Walker Avenues. From there, additional sewer lines are planned to extend north along Euclid, Bon View, Grove, and Walker Avenues, with the southern-most sites expected to be first served.

Extension of the city’s backbone water infrastructure is also planned throughout the western part of the Ranch in conjunction with the approved industrial projects. Water lines, with an anticipated installation date of 2022, will serve the approved industrial projects and introduce backbone infrastructure throughout the area west of the Channel. While water lines will be installed more extensively throughout the area, service is generally anticipated to follow the extension of the sewer lines, as the backbone sewer infrastructure is more complicated and costly to install.

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

The sites selected and assumptions applied were developed after discussions with the Ontario Metropolitan Utilities Company (OMUC), taking into consideration the cost and phasing needed to ensure that housing could be developed and served by infrastructure during the 2021-2029 planning period.

The City’s housing strategy accounts for the need to extend infrastructure throughout the area by applying a reduction factor based on the distance of sites from the initial trunk line and estimated timeline for infrastructure availability. The applicable reduction factors are detailed under each Opportunity Area.

Environmental Constraints
The sites identified in this portion of the city have no topographical, slope, flood, or fire hazards. A small portion of sites in the Great Park Corridor is vulnerable to liquefaction. The California Building Code provides standards on soils and foundations to ensure new development mitigates the risks of liquefaction zones. Projects within the liquefaction zone are under development.
1534
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-193
Zoning
The current zoning throughout the area west of the Channel is Specific Plan with an Agriculture Overlay (SP-AG).

The Agriculture Overlay District allows for existing agricultural uses to continue operation on an interim basis until development, consistent with the Policy Plan and zoning district, is slated to occur.

The SP district is intended to accommodate the adoption of specific plans that are consistent with the Policy Plan, but the district itself does not set any density or intensity standards when no specific plan exists. With a few exceptions, most parcels in this part of the city are not yet affected by an existing specific plan. However, the Policy Plan specifies land uses and densities throughout the city, including this area. Because both the zoning district and state law require consistency between the City’s Policy Plan and zoning, any proposed specific plan must be consistent with the Policy Plan land uses. Therefore, the City's housing strategies use Policy Plan land use categories, including density standards, to estimate the development capacity and affordability potential for sites throughout this portion of the city.

The City’s strategy for this area encourages the creation of new mixedincome communities and the integration of affordable housing with new development. As part of this effort, the City will create an Affordable Housing Overlay (AH) Zone. The overlay, described in Program 13, will be applied to all parcels identified in the land inventory south of Riverside Drive. It will establish a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and provide special standards for affordable housing projects where at least 25 percent of the proposed units are affordable to lowerincome households. Provisions for affordable projects would exempt them from the specific plan requirement on parcels that are not already affected by a specific plan. Instead, the developer could apply the development standards for a zone that implements the current or proposed Policy Plan designation. In addition, the overlay would increase the maximum density for parcels with a Policy Plan designation of Medium-Density Residential (MDR) from 25 to 30 dwelling units per acre if the project provided 25 percent of units at a rate affordable to lower-income households. The higher density allowed would effectively increase the base density of the designation and would be applied prior to any state density bonus provisions.

With these changes, any site in the Affordable Housing Overlay District with a Policy Plan designation that allows at least 30 dwelling units per acre (including MDR, as revised) will satisfy the default density requirements and be considered suitable for the development of lowerincome housing. 1535
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-194 Draft October 2021
Great Park Corridor
Envisioned as the organizing element for new development and imagined as a focal point for the region, the Ontario Great Park is planned to encompass approximately 340 acres between Campus and Haven Avenues, with its western leg terminating in the Great Park Corridor Housing Opportunity Area. The extent of the Opportunity Area are shown in Figure 5-8 and described in the text that follows.

Figure 5-8 Great Park Corridor Housing Opportunity Area Sites that comprise the Great Park Corridor Opportunity Area were identified based on proximity to open space and transit, potential for redevelopment, and infrastructure availability.

The Great Park Corridor was identified for higher-density housing development because of its proximity to planned open space, which furthers the City’s fair housing goals, and because SBCTA has plans to expand a BRT route along Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road. While potential BRT stops have not yet been identified, rapid transit stops are typically located one-half mile to one mile apart. The City currently envisions (subject to coordination with SBCTA) future transit stops placed at Euclid, Bon View, Grove, Walker, and Vineyard Avenues, each approximately half a mile apart. In that case, roughly 55 percent of the land area identified in the Great Park Corridor Opportunity Area will be within a 5-minute walk of a BRT; nearly 100 percent of the sites will fall within a 10-minute walk of the same BRT stops.

The Opportunity Area consists of 77 parcels (600.6 acres) that are identified as suitable for housing development. Areas that fall within Chino Airport safety zones 1-4, where residential development is limited, have been excluded. Parcels where the property owner or developer has already approached the City with development proposals have also been excluded. In addition, parcels smaller than half an acre are excluded without adding further justification that would otherwise be required by state law enacted through AB1397. Such small sites are insignificant in 1536
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-195
terms of number (of parcels) and total acreage. All such parcels are only excluded due to size, and none of the parcels would inhibit the development of any parcels listed in the inventory (most are owned by the same owners and would be developed along with larger adjacent parcels). Finally, parcels with multiple Policy Plan land use designations have been divided, so only those portions of the parcel deemed suitable for housing development are included. Housing capacity assumptions have been adjusted to reflect only the portion of the parcel included in the inventory.

Several of these sites continue to house the agricultural operations that once dominated this portion of Ontario, but many sites have already begun to transition to interim uses such as truck parking and open storage. There are approximately 28 existing homes that were built in conjunction with other agricultural structures spread across the 600 acres.

Due to the extremely low density of housing and the nature of development anticipated, the existing residential uses are not expected to impede development potential. Land with very similar conditions to the sites identified in this area has recently developed on the eastern side of the Cucamonga Channel, forming new residential neighborhoods. The same trend is expected to continue westward as infrastructure expands.

AB1397 requires additional justification to include parcels larger than 10 acres in the sites inventory for lower-income housing. Ten of the parcels identified in this area (183.4 acres) are larger than 10 acres. The City has included these sites because Ontario has ample recent evidence of large greenfield sites developing as housing. Areas east of the Channel had nearly identical parcel patterns to those in this area. Many properties to the east have already been subdivided and developed as housing, and the undeveloped land east of the Channel is expected to develop likewise.

Other large urban greenfield projects, such as Irvine’s Great Park neighborhood, reflect the same pattern of subdividing larger parcels to create mixed-income communities. Several of the communities in Irvine's Great Park neighborhood include multifamily affordable housing, indicating that this process can produce opportunities for lower-income housing. The Affordable Housing Overlay District that will be applied to all parcels in the Opportunity Area (Program 13) also provides incentives to promote housing affordable to lower-income households.

The sites that comprise the Great Park Opportunity Area are located across Eucalyptus Avenue from the industrial projects that are bringing infrastructure to the area, so this Opportunity Area will have the earliest access to water, sewer, and other utilities.
1537
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-196 Draft October 2021
To account for the need to extend infrastructure and to address the nine larger parcels, only 50 percent of the realistic development capacity in this area is estimated to be affordable to lower-income households. The balance of the capacity is split between moderate-income housing and above moderate-income housing. It is assumed that the above moderateincome housing will help create integrated mixed-income communities and combine with non-residential uses to help finance any necessary subdivision and expansion of infrastructure.

As previously discussed, all sites in this area are currently zoned SP-AG, and they will be rezoned to SP-AG-AH for inclusion in the Affordable Housing Overlay District (Program 13). The Agriculture Overlay District will remain in place until the parcel is ready for development consistent with the Policy Plan and Affordable Housing Overlay District. Property owners and developers alike have expressed interest in redeveloping this area, so existing agricultural operations are not expected to limit development potential.

In addition, Policy Plan land use categories are used to establish each site’s capacity and affordability potential.

Forty-one sites (299.4 acres) are currently classified as MDR in the Policy Plan, which will be amended to allow up to 30 dwelling units per acre if at least 25 percent of units are affordable to lower incomes, consistent with the Affordable Housing Overlay District. Projects that do not have housing affordable to lower-income households and projects that include less than 25 percent of affordable units will be subject to a maximum density of 25 units per acre. To account for the development of circulation, sidewalks, and other site requirements, the realistic density of 22 dwelling units per acre is used to establish the maximum capacity on all MDR sites.

Eight sites (81.7 acres) are proposed to be classified as Mixed-Use Eucalyptus / Chino Airport Overlay (MU-EU). This land use category is envisioned to accommodate employee-intensive office, entertainment facilities, live/work, and supporting retail uses in a campus environment designed to leverage proximity to the park and maintain compatibility with surrounding residential areas. Stand-alone and mixed-use residential is also permitted outside of the Chino Airport safety zone. As previously discussed, sites within the Chino Airport safety zones 1-4 are not included in the Opportunity Area. This land use category allows residential development with a density range of 25 to 45 dwelling units per acre, which is sufficient to facilitate the development of lower- and moderate-income housing. To account for potential non-residential development, only 40 percent of the land area on each site is estimated to have residential potential. A realistic density of 35 dwelling units per acre is used to establish the total housing capacity on each site. 1538
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-197
Twenty-nine parcels (219.5 acres) are proposed to be classified as MixedUse Great Park (currently called the NMC West Mixed-Use Area). Areas with this land use classification accommodate a vertical and horizontal mixture of commercial, office, entertainment, and residential uses, all connecting to the Great Park in a pedestrian-oriented atmosphere. These mixed-use areas are envisioned as low-rise (3-5 stories) with some midrise (5-10 stories) near the intersection of Euclid and Edison/Ontario Ranch Road. The land use category allows densities up to 65 dwelling units per acre, which is sufficient to facilitate the development of lowerand moderate-income housing. To account for non-residential development, 70 percent of the land area on each site is estimated to have residential potential. Seventy percent is estimated because similar large mixed-use areas on the eastern side of the Channel have developed as primarily residential, and several developers have approached the City with plans to reduce the size of commercial areas in existing specific plans east of the Channel. A realistic density of 35 dwelling units per acre is used to establish the total housing capacity on each site.

Using the metrics described above, the Great Park Corridor Opportunity Area has a total capacity of 13,080 new units, 6,509 of which have the capacity to accommodate lower-income housing, 3,286 are presumed to have capacity for housing affordable to moderate-income households, and 3,286 are presumed to have capacity for housing affordable to above moderate-income households.

Grove Corridor
The Grove Corridor Opportunity Area extends along Grove Avenue north from the Great Park Corridor Opportunity Area and terminating at Riverside Drive. The corridor provides a vital connection between southern Ontario and the city's existing urban fabric. This area is envisioned as a mixed-income residential district with a mixed-use activity node at Chino Avenue and a new community park near Riverside Drive. Housing within the Opportunity Area will benefit from proximity to the Great Park and the new community park. The extents of the Opportunity Area are shown in Figure 5-9 and described below. 1539
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-198 Draft October 2021
Figure 5-9 Grove Corridor Housing Opportunity Area
The sites along the Grove Corridor were identified for higher-density housing development for several reasons, including planning objectives like activating the street and enhancing transit options, development potential, and infrastructure availability.

Bringing a higher concentration of mixed-income residents to the corridor will create energy on the street, distinguishing Grove Avenue as an important community connector. The influx of new residents will also make the corridor a prime candidate for expanded bus service, improving transit options for residents and strengthening the connection between north and south Ontario.

The Opportunity Area consists of 25 parcels (186.8 acres) that are identified as suitable for housing development. Like the Great Park Corridor, several of these sites continue to house the agricultural operations that once dominated this portion of Ontario. Several sites have also already begun to transition to interim uses such as truck parking and open storage. There are approximately six existing homes that were built in conjunction with agricultural operations. Because of the extremely low density of housing and the anticipated type of development, the existing residential uses are not expected to impede development potential. Land with very similar conditions to the sites identified in this area has recently developed on the eastern side of the Cucamonga Channel, forming new residential neighborhoods. The same trend is expected to continue westward as infrastructure expands.

One of the planned sewer lines will travel along Grove Avenue. As service is expanded from the south, the properties identified in this Opportunity Area will have prime access to expanded infrastructure. 1540
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-199
To account for the need to extend infrastructure and to address the greater distance from the planned trunk line and other facilities, the percentage of units estimated to be affordable to lower-income households is reduced based on distance from Merrill Avenue and the estimated timing within the planning period when infrastructure is expected to be available. The corridor is divided into two sections. · South of Schaefer Avenue. In this area, OMUC estimated that utilities could be available in three to five years, depending on the rate of development. In recognition of the reduced time during the planning period when development is expected to be feasible, only 40 percent of the realistic development capacity is estimated as affordable to lower incomes.
· North of Schaefer Avenue. In this area, OMUC estimated that utilities could be available in four to six years, depending on the rate of development. In recognition of the reduced time during the planning period when development will be feasible, only 25 percent of the realistic development capacity is estimated as affordable to lower incomes.

Throughout the Opportunity Area, the housing capacity that is not counted toward the City’s lower-income RHNA is estimated to facilitate the development of above moderate-income housing. It is assumed that the above moderate-income housing will not only help to create integrated mixed-income communities but will also help to finance the expansion of infrastructure.

As previously discussed, all sites in this area are currently zoned SP-AG, and they will be rezoned to SP-AG-AH for inclusion in the Affordable Housing Overlay District (Program 13). The Agriculture Overlay District will remain in place until the parcel is ready for development consistent with the Policy Plan and Affordable Housing Overlay District. Property owners and developers alike have expressed interest in redeveloping this area, so existing agricultural operations are not expected to limit development potential.

In addition, Policy Plan land use categories are used to establish each site’s capacity and affordability potential.

There are20-21 parcels (150.8 acres) currently or proposed to be classified as MDR in the Policy Plan. The definition for MDR will be amended to allow up to 30 dwelling units per acre if at least 25 percent of units are affordable to lower incomes, consistent with the Affordable Housing Overlay District. Projects that do not have housing affordable to lower incomes and projects that include less than 25 percent of affordable units will be subject to a maximum density of 25 units per acre. To account for the development of circulation, sidewalks, and other site requirements, 1541
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-200 Draft October 2021
the realistic density of 22 dwelling units per acre is used to establish the maximum capacity on all MDR sites.

Four parcels (36 acres) are proposed to be classified as Mixed-Use Grove in the Policy Plan. This activity center is envisioned as a low-rise (three to five stories) mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents. The land use category allows densities up to 65 dwelling units per acre, which is sufficient to facilitate the development of lower- and moderate-income housing. To account for non-residential development, only 65 percent of the land area on each site is estimated to have residential potential. A realistic density of 35 dwelling units per acre is used to establish the total housing capacity on each site.

Using the metrics described previously, the Grove Corridor Opportunity Area has a total capacity of 4,130 new units, 1,152 of which have the capacity to accommodate lower-income housing, and 2,978 units are presumed to have capacity for housing affordable to above moderateincome households.

Euclid Corridor
The Euclid Corridor Opportunity Area includes the parcels on the city’s western border along Euclid Avenue between Schaefer Avenue and Riverside Drive. The extents of the Opportunity Area are shown in Figure 5-10 and described in the text that follows.

Figure 5-10 Euclid Corridor Housing Opportunity Area
The sites along the Euclid Corridor were identified for higher-density housing development to complement the multifamily housing across the street in Chino, fulfill regional transit goals, and because of their development potential as well as infrastructure availability. 1542
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-201
SBCTA has plans to expand a BRT route along Euclid Avenue. While potential BRT stops have not yet been identified, rapid transit stops are typically one-half mile to one mile apart. If future transit stops are placed at Riverside Drive, and halfway between Chino and Schaefer Avenues approximately three-quarters of a mile apart, 54 percent of the land area identified in the Euclid Corridor Opportunity Area will be within a 5- minute walk of a BRT; nearly 100 percent of the sites will fall within a 10- minute walk of the same BRT stops.

The Opportunity Area includes 22 parcels (132.2 acres) that are identified as suitable for housing development. Two parcels (10.3 acres) are vacant.

Eighteen parcels (110.0 acres) continue to house the agricultural operations that once dominated this portion of Ontario. One parcel (8.8 acres) is principally occupied by the parking area that serves the nearby swap meet and livestock sales yard. The final three parcels (3.1 acres) are underutilized commercial sites fronting Euclid Avenue. These sites were identified for redevelopment because they consist of small buildings operated by independent tenants, and they are surrounded by agricultural and vacant land. It is anticipated that these properties will redevelop concurrent with the rest of the Opportunity Area. There are approximately 12 existing homes that were built primarily in conjunction with agricultural operations. Because of the extremely low density of housing and the anticipated type of development, the existing residential uses are not expected to impede development potential. Land with very similar conditions to the sites identified in this area has recently developed on the eastern side of the Cucamonga Channel.

AB 1397 requires additional justification to include parcels larger than 10 acres in the sites inventory for lower-income housing. Five of the parcels identified in this area (68.3 acres) are larger than 10 acres. The City has included these sites because Ontario has ample recent evidence of large greenfield sites developing with residential uses. Areas east of the Channel had nearly identical parcel patterns to those in this area. Many properties to the east have already been subdivided and developed as housing. The remaining undeveloped land east of the Channel is expected to develop likewise. Other large urban greenfield projects, such as Irvine’s Great Park neighborhood, reflect the same pattern of subdividing larger parcels to create mixed-income communities. Several of the communities in Irvine’s Great Park neighborhood include multifamily affordable housing, indicating that this process can produce opportunities for lower-income housing. The Affordable Housing Overlay District that will be applied to all parcels in the Opportunity Area (Program 13) also provides incentives to promote housing affordable to lower-income households. The development of the Euclid Corridor Opportunity Area is expected to mirror the trends already established on the eastern side of the Channel, with infrastructure availability determining where projects will develop first.
1543
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-202 Draft October 2021
The Euclid Corridor was identified as suitable for development during the 2021-2029 planning period because one of the planned sewer lines will travel along Euclid Avenue. As service is expanded from the south, the properties identified will have prime access to expanded infrastructure.

To account for the need to extend infrastructure and to address the distance from the planned trunk line and other facilities, the percentage of units estimated to be affordable to lower-income households is reduced based on distance from Merrill Avenue, and the time in the planning period when infrastructure is expected to be available. The corridor is divided into two sections.
· Adjacent to Schaefer Avenue. In response to property owner and developer interest, the City is changing the land use immediately south of the Opportunity Area (between Schaefer Avenue and the Great Park Opportunity Area) to allow light industrial, business park, and logistics facilities. Because land for these types of operations is in extremely high demand, it is anticipated that the development of such facilities will bring infrastructure to the Opportunity Area earlier in the planning period than would occur if the area were designated for residential. It is estimated that the seven parcels closest to Schaefer Avenue could have access to infrastructure in three to five years. In recognition of the reduced time during the planning period when development will be feasible, 40 percent of the realistic development capacity is estimated as affordable to lower incomes.
· North to Riverside Drive. For the remaining sites in the Opportunity Area, a more conservative estimate of four to six years, depending on the rate of development, is assumed. In recognition of the reduced time during the planning period when development will be feasible, only 25 percent of the realistic development capacity is estimated as affordable to lower incomes.

Throughout the Opportunity Area, the housing capacity that is not counted toward the City’s lower-income RHNA is estimated to facilitate the development of above moderate-income housing. It is assumed that the above moderate-income housing will not only help to create integrated mixed-income communities but will also help to finance the expansion of infrastructure.

As previously discussed, all sites in this area are currently zoned SP-AG, and they will be rezoned to SP-AG-AH for inclusion in the Affordable Housing Overlay District (Program 13). The Agriculture Overlay District will remain in place until the parcel is ready for development consistent with the Policy Plan and Affordable Housing Overlay District. Property owners and developers alike have expressed interest in redeveloping this 1544
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-203
area, so existing agricultural operations are not expected to limit development potential.

In addition, Policy Plan land use categories are used to establish each site’s capacity and affordability potential.

There are 21 parcels (117.2 acres) currently or proposed to be classified as MDR in the Policy Plan. The definition for MDR will be amended to allow up to 30 dwelling units per acre if at least 25 percent of units are affordable to lower incomes, consistent with the Affordable Housing Overlay District. Projects that do not have housing affordable to lower incomes and projects that include less than 25 percent of affordable units will be subject to a maximum density of 25 units per acre. To account for the development of circulation, sidewalks, and other site requirements, the realistic density of 22 dwelling units per acre is used to establish the maximum capacity on all MDR sites.

One parcel (15 acres) is proposed to be classified as Mixed-Use Neighborhood Activity Hub (MU-NH) in the Policy Plan. This activity center is envisioned as a low-rise (three to five stories) mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents. The land use category allows densities up to 75 dwelling units per acre, which is sufficient to facilitate the development of lower- and moderate-income housing. To account for non-residential development, 75 percent of the land area on the site is estimated to have residential potential. Seventy-five percent is estimated because recent projects in mixed-use areas on the eastern side of the Channel have developed as primarily residential, and several developers have approached the City with plans to reduce the size of commercial areas in existing specific plans east of the Channel. In addition, a realistic density of 35 dwelling units per acre is used to establish the total housing capacity on the site.

Using the metrics described, the Euclid Corridor Opportunity Area has a total capacity of 2,960 new units, 731 of which have the capacity to accommodate housing affordable to lower-income households, and 2,229 units are presumed to have capacity for housing affordable to above moderate-income households.

Vineyard Corridor / Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan
The Vineyard Corridor / Armstrong Ranch Opportunity Area includes the parcels on either side of Vineyard Avenue between Chino Avenue and Riverside Drive. The extents of the Opportunity Area are shown in Figure 5-11 and described in the text that follows.
1545
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-204 Draft October 2021
Figure 5-11 Vineyard Corridor / Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan Housing Opportunity Area
The sites along Vineyard Avenue were identified as "overflow" sites to help the City maintain a large inventory of potential sites as development occurs throughout the planning period.

The Opportunity Area includes seven parcels (64.3 acres), all of which are currently used for agricultural purposes. Land with very similar conditions to the sites identified in this area has recently developed on the eastern side of the Cucamonga Channel.

The greatest deterrent to the development of these sites is the availability of infrastructure, which may be available in four to six years, depending on the rate of development. In recognition of the reduced time during the planning period when development will be feasible, only 25 percent of the realistic development capacity is estimated as affordable to lower incomes, while the remaining housing capacity is estimated to facilitate the development of above moderate-income housing. It is assumed that the above moderate-income housing will not only help to create an integrated mixed-income community but will also help to finance the expansion of infrastructure.

The three sites (28.2 acres) on the western side of Vineyard Avenue are currently zoned SP-AG. They will be rezoned to SP-AG-AH for inclusion in the Affordable Housing Overlay District (Program 13). The Agriculture Overlay District will remain in place until the parcel is ready for development consistent with the Policy Plan and Affordable Housing Overlay District. Property owners and developers alike have expressed interest in redeveloping this area, so existing agricultural operations are not expected to limit development potential.

In addition, Policy Plan land use categories are used to establish each site’s capacity and affordability potential.
1546
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-205
The sites are proposed to be re-classified as MDR in the Policy Plan. As previously noted, the definition for MDR will also be amended to allow up to 30 dwelling units per acre if at least 25 percent of units are affordable to lower incomes, consistent with the Affordable Housing Overlay District. Projects that do not have housing affordable to lower incomes and projects that include less than 25 percent of affordable units, will be subject to a maximum density of 25 units per acre. To account for the development of circulation, sidewalks, and other site requirements, the realistic density of 22 dwelling units per acre is used to establish the maximum capacity on all MDR sites.

The four sites (36.2 acres) on the eastern side of Vineyard Avenue are governed by the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan. The City will update the Specific Plan as part of its rezoning program (Program 13) to allow at least 30 dwelling units per acre on the sites included in the Opportunity Area.

To account for the development of circulation, sidewalks, and other site requirements, the realistic density of 22 dwelling units per acre is used to establish the maximum capacity on these sites.

Using the metrics described, the Vineyard Corridor/Armstrong Ranch Opportunity Area has a total capacity of 1,416 new units, 354 of which have the capacity to accommodate lower-income housing, and 1,062 units are presumed to have capacity for housing affordable to above moderateincome households.

Strategy 7: Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwellings are a part of the strategy for meeting the City’s share of its RHNA for housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Ontario has many single-family homes on lots that would allow space to build an ADU.

State law has been amended to facilitate and encourage the production of accessory dwellings. In 2016, AB 2299 and SB 1069 required cities to revise their zoning code to conform to the new ADU law. In 2019, SB 68, AB 881, and SB 13 further amended California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, and Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12 pertaining to local regulations for ADUs. In January 2020, the City Council enacted Ordinance 3175 to incorporate recent changes to state law with respect to ADUs.

Ontario has seen an influx in ADU applications, increasing from just 30 units permitted in 2019 to 69 permits issued in 2020. Based on past and current trends, the City expects that 120 to 360 ADUs will be built during the Housing Element period of 2021-2029.
1547
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-206 Draft October 2021
The affordability for ADUs built in Ontario is based on SCAG’s ADU survey and affordability assumptions for San Bernardino County.

Applying those affordability assumptions to Ontario and the range of production estimates, the City can expect the production of 69 to 207 lower-income ADUs over the Housing Element period. Table 5-3 includes the summary of ADU projection estimates by affordability level. To encourage this level of production, the Housing Plan proposes a program to incentivize the production of ADUs (Program 27).

Table 5-3
Accessory Dwelling Unit Projections, 2021–2029
Household Income
Category
Percent of ADUs
Projected1
Range of ADU Estimates
Conservative Trend2 Maximum Trend3
Lower 57.5% 69 207
Moderate 34.8% 42 125
Above Moderate 7.7% 9 28
ADUS Projected (2021-2029) 120 360
Source: City of Ontario, 2021.

Notes:

1. The methodology for the affordability distribution of ADUs can be accessed online at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/adu_affordability_analysis_120120v2.pdf?1606868527

2. The conservative trend assumes 15 dwelling units will be built per year. This estimate is based on half of the reduced number of permits issued in 2019.

3. The maximum trend assumes 45 dwelling units will be built per year. This estimate is based on the average of the permits issued in 2019 and 2020.

Summary of Capacity to Accommodate RHNA Allocation
Table 5-4 summarizes the City’s strategy to achieve its 2021-2029 RHNA.

It is recognized, however, that these strategies are deemed conservative– the City expects that additional residential and mixed-use projects will occur within specific plan areas and on underutilized sites throughout the city. The City's RHNA strategy reflects the City's policy to support the creation of mixed-income communities by assuming a mix of lower- and moderate-income housing on identified sites in established neighborhoods and a mix of lower-, moderate-, and above moderateincome housing in areas where there is no existing residential component.

The following provides a high-level summary of the City's RHNA strategies.
· Above moderate-income. In addition to the capacity identified in pipeline projects and the analysis of strategies, the City has entitled additional capacity for several thousand homes that have not been credited toward the RHNA. Areas with development potential that are not included in the inventory include entitled specific plans, the downtown mixed-use district, and mixed-use 1548
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-207
areas along the I-10 corridor. Several specific plans were also recently amended to allow more housing at higher densities, a trend the City expects to continue. There is sufficient capacity to accommodate the above moderate-income housing requirement of the RHNA.
· Moderate-income. Prior sections contained an analysis of the strategies that will be used to accommodate the moderate- and lower-income RHNA. Sites and densities were demonstrated to be sufficient to accommodate housing affordable to moderateincome households. · Lower-income. Prior sections contained an analysis of the strategies that will be used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. Sites and densities were demonstrated to be sufficient to accommodate affordable housing. In addition, specific programs were shown for each strategy that would encourage and facilitate housing production and that would also remove any potential constraints to development.

Table 5-4
Availability of Land to Meet RHNA, 2021–2029
Site Area Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Capacity
2021–2029 RHNA 8,926 3,329 8,599 20,854
Project Credits - - (1,650) (1,650)
Remainder 8,926 3,239 6,949 19,204
Strategies
#1 Downtown 20 20 - 40
#2
West Holt 227 227 - 454
East Holt 250 249 - 499
#3 Old Cardenas Market 33 32 - 65
#4 Ontario Center Specific Plan 151 152 - 303
#5 Ontario Mills Specific Plan 1,564 782 782 3,128
#6
Great Park Corridor 6,509 3,286 3,286 13,081
Grove Corridor 1,152 - 2,978 4,130
Euclid Corridor 731 - 2,229 2,960
Vineyard Corridor / Armstrong
Ranch Specific Plan 354 - 1,062 1,416
#7 Accessory Dwelling Units 69 42 9 120
Total Capacity 11,060 4,790 10,346 26,196
Surplus / Buffer 2,134 (24%) 1,461 (44%) 3,397 (40%) 6,992 (34%) RHNA met RHNA met RHNA met RHNA met
Source: City of Ontario, 2021.
1549
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-208 Draft October 2021
Administrative and Financial Resources
Funding Sources for Affordable Housing
The City’s local housing programs are supported through federal funding and state funding programs that assist first-time homebuyers, build affordable housing, and help special-needs groups, such as seniors and large households, as listed in Table 5-5. In most cases, other entities, including for-profit and nonprofit developers, apply for funds or other program benefits. For example, developers apply directly for Section 202 grants. In general, the City relies on the private sector to develop new affordable units.
1550
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-209
Table 5-5
Federal and State Housing Funding Programs
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Federal Funding Programs
Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awards CDBG annually to entitlement jurisdictions and states for general activities, including housing and economic development activities. HUD also offers various other programs that can be used by the City and nonprofit and for-profit agencies for the preservation of low-income housing units, such as Section 202 and Section 108 loan guarantees.

The annual appropriation for CDBG is split between states and local jurisdictions called “entitlement communities.” Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homebuyer Assistance
Economic Development Assistance
Homeless Assistance
Public Services
Infrastructure
Replacement
HOME Investment Partnerships
Program
The Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) was created under the Cranston Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act enacted in November 1990. HOME funds are awarded annually as formula grants to participating jurisdictions. HUD establishes Home Investment Trust Funds for each grantee, providing a line of credit that the jurisdiction may draw upon as needed. The program’s flexibility allows states and local governments to use HOME funds for grants, direct loans, loan guarantees, or other forms of credit enhancement or rental assistance or security deposits.

Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homebuyer Assistance
Rental Assistance
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
Rental Assistance (Section 8) Provides rental assistance payments to owners of market-rate properties on behalf of very low-income tenants. Rental Assistance Section 811
Provides grants to nonprofit developers of supportive housing for disabled persons. The grants may be used to construct or rehabilitate group homes, independent living facilities, and intermediate care facilities. The grants may also have a rental assistance component.

Acquisition
Rehabilitation
New Construction
Rental Assistance
Section 203(k) Provides fixed-rate, low-interest loans to organizations wishing to acquire and rehabilitate property.

Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Refinancing of Existing Debt
Section 202 Grants to private nonprofit developers of supportive housing for very low-income seniors. New Construction 1551
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-210 Draft October 2021
Table 5-5
Federal and State Housing Funding Programs
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC)
In 1986, Congress created the federal LIHTC program to encourage private investment in the acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction of low-income rental housing. Because high housing costs in California make it difficult, even with federal credits, to produce affordable rental housing, the California legislature created a state low-income housing tax credit program to supplement the federal credit. The state credit is essentially identical to the federal credit, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee allocates both, and state credits are only available to projects receiving federal credits. Twenty percent of federal credits are reserved for rural areas and 10 percent for nonprofit sponsors. To compete for the credit, rental housing developments have to reserve units at affordable rents to households at or below 46 percent of area median income. The targeted units must be reserved for the target population for 55 years.

New Construction
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program Offers income tax credits to first-time homebuyers. The County distributes the credits. Homebuyer Assistance Supportive Housing Program (SHP) Offers grants to agencies who offer supportive housing and services to the homeless.

Transitional Housing
Housing for Disabled Persons
Supportive Housing
Support Services
Community Reinvestment Act
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), enacted by Congress in 1977, is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderateincome neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. The CRA requires that each insured depository institution’s record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically.

That record is taken into account in considering an institution’s application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
Acquisition
Support Services
Supportive Housing
Homebuyer Assistance
Emergency Solutions Grant Awards grants to nonprofits for the provision of shelter support services. Support Services Emergency Solutions Grant-CARES
(ESG-CV)
One-time funding for programs targeted to homeless or those at-risk for housing to prepare for, respond to, or prevent impacts of the coronavirus pandemic.

Support Services (Homeless Facilities
and Program)
Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) Provides loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental housing. Payments on the loans are deferred for a specified period of time.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
Preservation
CalHOME Provides grants to local governments and nonprofit agencies for homebuyer assistance, rehabilitation, and new construction. The agency also finances acquisition, rehabilitation, and replacement of manufactured homes.

Homebuyer Assistance
Rehabilitation
New Construction
1552
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-211
Table 5-5
Federal and State Housing Funding Programs
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
California Self-Help Housing
Program Provides grants for the administration of mutual self-help housing projects.

Homebuyer Assistance
New Construction
Administrative Costs
Emergency Housing and Assistance
Program Provides grants to support emergency housing.

Shelters
Transitional Housing
Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program Provides funding to support infill development projects with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
Veterans Housing and Homeless
Prevention Program
Provides funding to buy, construct, rehabilitate or preserve affordable multifamily housing for veterans and their families.

Acquisition
Construction
Rehabilitation
Preservation
Senate Bill 2 – Building Jobs and
Homes Act
Provides planning grant funding to jurisdictions for plans and process improvements that will help to accelerate housing production.

Technical Assistance
Planning Document Updates
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP)
Grants
The (LEAP grants program provides over-the-counter grants complemented with technical assistance to local governments for the preparation and adoption of planning documents, and process improvements that:

Accelerate housing production.

Facilitate compliance to implement the sixth-cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

Housing element updates
Updates to zoning, plans or procedures to
increase/accelerate housing production
Pre-approved
architectural and
site plans
Establishing State-defined Pro-housing
policies
See complete list in LEAP program
materials
No Place Like Home Through a County application process, provides loans to acquire, develop, preserve, or rehabilitate permanent supportive housing facilities. Permanent Supportive Housing Infrastructure Infill Grant Provides gap financing for infrastructure improvements necessary to support the development of affordable infill housing. Infrastructure Improvements
1553
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-212 Draft October 2021
Table 5-5
Federal and State Housing Funding Programs
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Local Housing Trust Fund Program Provides matching grants to funds provided by Local Housing Trust Funds.

Site Acquisition
Site Development
Homebuyer Assistance
Transitional Housing
Emergency Shelter
Multifamily Housing
Transit-Oriented Development
Program Supports the development of affordable multifamily rental housing near transit stations through low-interest loans.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
Infrastructure Improvements
State Funding Programs
Affordable Housing Partnership
Program (AHPP) Provides lower interest rate CalHFA loans to homebuyers who receive local secondary financing. Homebuyer Assistance Self-Help Builder Assistance
Program
Provides lower interest rate CalHFA loans to owner-builders who participate in mutual self-help housing projects.

Also provides site acquisition, development financing, and construction financing for self-help projects.

Homebuyer Assistance
Site Acquisition
Site Development
Home Construction
California Housing Assistance
Program
Provides 3% silent second loans in conjunction with 97% CalHFA first loans to give eligible homebuyers 100% financing. Homebuyer Assistance
Extra-Credit Teacher Program Provides $7,500 silent second loan with forgivable interest in conjunction with lower-interest-rate CalHFA first loans to assist eligible teachers in buying homes. Homebuyer Assistance Housing Enabled by Local
Partnerships
Provides 3% interest rate loans, with repayment terms up to 10 years, to local government entities for locally determined affordable housing priorities. Wide Range of Eligible Activities Predevelopment Loan Program
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) administers the program, which provides funds to pay the initial costs of developing affordable housing developments. Priority is given to applications with matching financing from local agencies or federal programs.

Pre-development
Multifamily Housing Program
HCD conducts the acquisition and rehabilitation component of the Multifamily Housing Program to acquire and rehabilitate existing affordable rental housing. Priority is given to projects currently subject to regulatory restrictions that may be terminated. Assistance is provided through low-interest construction and permanent loans. Eligible applicants include local government agencies, private nonprofit organizations, and for-profit organizations.

Rental Acquisition
Rental Rehabilitation
Transitional Housing Program for
Emancipated Foster/Probation
Youth (THP-Plus)
This program provides funds for housing and services for persons who need support services for transition-age youth.

Supportive Housing
Foster Care
1554
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-213
Table 5-5
Federal and State Housing Funding Programs
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Special-Needs Housing Program Allows local governments to use Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds to finance the development of permanent supportive rental housing.

New Construction
Supportive Housing
Home Mortgage Purchase Program CalHFA sells bonds to raise funds for providing below-market-rate loans to qualifying first-time homebuyers. Homebuyer Assistance 1555
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-214 Draft October 2021
Housing Choice Vouchers
The federal government provides approximately $3 million to the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino to administer the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. These funds are used to maintain the affordability of publicly subsidized affordable housing projects in Ontario. This allocation includes funding for approximately 501 Housing Choice Vouchers, and the Family Self-Sufficiency Program.

Within Ontario, the approximate number of HCVs have been available:
496 in 2016, 422 in 2017, 527 in 2018, 676 in 2019, and 747 in 2020. As of July 2021, there are 773 vouchers in use for the City of Ontario. This includes 735 in traditional voucher programs and 38 in special voucher programs, such as the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing. The waitlists, which are for the entire County of San Bernardino remain closed as of July 2021. In March 2021, there were 20,382 tenant-based households on the waitlist and 60,744 total households on the waitlist. (See Programs 23, 25, 27, and 31)
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The federal government provides funds for a range of housing and community development activities, including acquisition and disposition of real estate or property, public facilities and improvements, relocation, rehabilitation and construction of housing, homeownership assistance, and demolition activities. In addition, these funds can be used to acquire or subsidize at-risk units. The City of Ontario received approximately $1.8 million in funding in 2019–2020.
(See Programs 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 27, 31, and 33)
HOME Partnership
Ontario received approximately $666,000 in 2019–2020 in federal HOME funds. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and lower-income homeownership, including building acquisition, new construction, reconstruction, moderate or substantial rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, and tenant-based assistance, as well as the preservation of affordable housing. (See Programs 1, 3, 4, 24, 27, 32, and 33)
1556
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-215
Transformative Climate Communities
Ontario received funding through the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) grant program from the State of California ($33.2 million) for a variety of project types, including housing. The TCC housing component included gap funding of approximately $14 million for the development of a 101-unit affordable housing project known as Vista Verde. The construction of the Vista Verde Apartments begun on June 17, 2019, and was completed in March 2021. Within the project area, 24 solar photovoltaic (PV) systems were installed on the single-family homes, providing approximately 31 kilowatts (kw) in renewable energy capacity. Of the 101 units, 11 will be rented to households making below 30 percent of the area median income (AMI), 37 units will be rented to households at 50 percent AMI, and 42 units will be rented out to households at 60 percent AMI. The affordable housing units will be made available through a lottery process. Applicants who already work and live in Ontario will be given preference.
(See Programs 8 and 10)
Permanent Local Housing Allocation
Ontario received funds that will be used for housing programs and homeless programs. The City is planning to use a portion of the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds for first-time homebuyer programs in conjunction with reuse funds on hand from the CalHome and BEGIN programs formerly offered. Programs are currently in design development to determine income targeting and benefits. (See Program 24)
1557
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-216 Draft October 2021

6. PROGRAM EVALUATION
The 2021–2029 Housing Element sets forth goals, policies, and programs to address the community’s housing needs. An important step in developing the City’s housing strategy is the evaluation of the prior Housing Element in meeting the community’s housing needs. This section evaluates progress in meeting the objectives of the 2013–2021 Housing Element.
2013–2021 Housing Element Goals
The 2013–2021 Housing Element defined four general goals to guide the allocation of financial, administrative, and land resources in Ontario.

These broad goals and quantified objectives are summarized here. · Goal 1: Encourage a diverse supply of housing types to accommodate a variety of incomes and lifestyles, support household and job growth, and facilitate mobility.
· Goal 2: Provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of residents, be affordable to all economic segments, and meet the City’s share of the region’s need for housing.
· Goal 3: Promote and encourage housing opportunity for all, regardless of age, race, sex, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, marital status, physical condition, or family size.
· Goal 4: Promote and encourage the rehabilitation of deteriorated units and the conservation of the currently sound housing stock. 2013–2021 Special Housing Needs Summary of Accomplishments California Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. Special needs are those associated with specific demographic or occupational groups that call for specific program responses, such as preservation of single-room occupancy hotels or the development of units with larger bedroom counts. The statute specifically requires analysis of the special housing needs of people who are elderly or disabled (including developmental disabilities), female-headed households, large families, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness. These special-needs groups often spend a disproportionate amount of their income to secure safe and decent housing and are sometimes subject to discrimination based on their specific needs or circumstances. 1558
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-217
As shown in Table 6-1, Review of Previous Housing Element, the 2013 - 2021 Housing Element included several programs that addressed the community’s special housing needs. Some of the accomplishments are highlighted below:
· In partnership with the Housing Authority of San Bernardino County, the approximate number of Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) that were used by Ontario residents are: 496 in 2016, 422 in 2017, 527 in 2018, 676 in 2019, and 747 in 2020.
· In 2020, City staff worked with the National Foundation of Affordable housing to assist with the rehabilitation and preservation of the Ontario Townhouses project including an extension of the Project Based Vouchers (PBV) contract for an additional 20 years.
· From 2016-2020, the city’s Homeless Continuum of Care implemented programming for homeless residents through
Mercy House providing basic needs and services to 4,662 clients.

During Fiscal Year 2019-20, funding for the street outreach team was increased from 10 hours per month to 40 hours per week to better deliver services designed to house persons experiencing homelessness.
· The City has provided a range of supportive services for seniors.

Between 2013 and 2020, 182 seniors were assisted with fair housing issues, 1,008 seniors were assisted with landlord/tenant mediation, 1,964 seniors were assisted with supportive services, two seniors received housing rehab grants, nine seniors received tenant-based rental assistance, and 782 units of affordable housing units were restricted for seniors.
· The City worked with two different developers on affordable housing developments that were completed in Fiscal Year 2020-21 - Emporia Place (75 units) and Vista Verde (101 units). These two new developments provide family housing for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.
· From 2016-2020, the City, in conjunction with Mercy House Living Centers, implemented the HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance program to provide rental assistance for chronically homeless individuals and families through rental assistance subsidies, security deposits, and utility deposits.
1559
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-218 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete Neighborhoods and Housing

1. Code Enforcement
Code compliance is an important tool to ensure that
the value, character, and quality of neighborhoods,
property, and housing are well maintained. Listed
below are the programs implemented by the Code
Enforcement program specifically designed to improve
the quality of Ontario neighborhoods and eliminate
health and safety related to building conditions:
· General Code Enforcement: The City utilizes
an interdepartmental approach for inspecting
properties for compliance with state and local
regulations regarding the condition and
maintenance of residential buildings and
properties. If deficiencies are found, the
property owner is notified of the code
deficiency and compliance measures required,
and the property owner is granted a period of
time to correct the matter. To facilitate timely
compliance, City staff direct the property
owners to City–administered rehabilitation
loans and/or other nonprofit housing loan
programs, where available.
· Community Improvement Team: This team
has been specifically designed to proactively
implement an intensive code compliance
program to address serious code violations
within focus areas. As part of this team
approach, various City departments work
together to bring a myriad of resources to the
focus area to arrest neighborhood decline and
improve the living conditions within the area.
· Systematic Health and Safety Inspection
Program: The program is designed to ensure
the quality of the rental stock and reduce
substandard building conditions. Through this
program, all rental housing units over seven
Objectives: Continue code enforcement using
a progressive approach of voluntary
compliance, citations, and court action if
needed. Continue to apply for funding.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Improvement, Police, Fire,
Economic Development, Building, and
Planning Departments
Funding: CDBG, HOME, ORA, and CalHOME
funds
Timing: Ongoing, inspect properties annually
The Community Improvement Team completed the
following:

Inspections: 5,305 in 2016, 4,646 in 2017, 5,201 in 2018, 5,283 in 2019, and 3,878 in 2020
Cases closed: 2,076 in 2016, 2,166 in 2017, 1,925 in
2018, 2,145 in 2019, and 1,607 in 2020.

The Rental Inspection Program completed the following:

Inspections: 4,018 in 2016, 7,477 in 2017, 6,948 in 2018, 5,134 in 2019, and 1,372 in 2020.

Abated violations: 1,963 in 2016, 4,190 in 2017, 5,960 in 2018, 4,083 in 2019, and 317 in 2020.

The COVID-19 crisis severely hindered Community
Improvement Department activities in 2020.

Continue
1560
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-219
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete years old are inspected on a four-year
schedule unless it is necessary to inspect
more frequently due to substandard
conditions.
· Abandoned and Distressed Property Program
and Foreclosure Opportunities Response
Team (FORT) Program: These programs were
established to protect Ontario neighborhoods
from becoming blighted through the lack of
adequate maintenance and security of
abandoned and distressed properties.

2. Quiet Home
Residential neighborhoods located directly west of
Ontario International Airport experience high noise
levels. In the early 1990s, the Federal Aviation
Administration, City of Los Angeles, and City of
Ontario created a program to improve the quality of
life in noise-impacted neighborhoods and
community/airport compatibility. Eligible homes are
outfitted with sound insulation to reduce the interior
noise levels to 45db CNEL. The second component
consists of the voluntary acquisition of eligible
properties and reuse of properties in a manner
compatible with the airport.

Eligibility is restricted to properties located within the noise contour map. Currently, the Los Angeles World
Airport is updating the Part 150 Study, which may
impact the eligibility area. The study is anticipated to be completed within 2014–2015.

Objectives: Continue to implement program.

Responsible Agencies: Ontario Housing
Authority
Funding: Federal Aviation Administration, Los
Angeles World Airport
Timing: Ongoing
Since the program began in 1994, 1,599 units have been
insulated and 256 properties were acquired. The program has sold 30 parcels for future airport-compatible
development.

The program was terminated in September 2015 because
of updated noise exposure maps (NEM) eligibility noise
contour, which eliminated funding for the program.

Delete – program no longer
exists, and the noise contours
have been modified in such a
way that there is not a
qualifying area for the funding
from the Federal Aviation
Administration.

3. Historic Preservation
Known as the Original Model Colony, Ontario is rich in
local history. The City operates a comprehensive
historic preservation program. It is a certified local
government, a designation that signifies that the City’s program meets state and federal historic preservation
standards. The City has six historic districts and is
surveying nine additional areas for the potential of
Objectives: Continue to implement program.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department
Funding: General Fund, state and federal
grants
Timing: Ongoing
As of 2020, 7 properties on the Ontario Register were
reviewed for historic significance, 4 were removed, and 3 received a Tier Determination. Of the 3 properties that received a Tier Determination, 2 received Local Landmark designation, and 1 received a Local Historic District
designation. Additionally, 1 Mills Act Contract
(preservation agreement) was approved, and 6 contracts
of the Annual Mills Act were completed. Staff continues to Continue
1561
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-220 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete historic district designation. It encourages historic
preservation efforts through Mills Act contracts,
surveys of potentially historic structures, and an
adaptive reuse program (for the Emporia District and
Downtown). The City also implements an awardwinning web-based historical resource management system that catalogs local historical resources and
eventually offers interface capacities for the public to search the database.
implement design review for historic properties and as of 2018, completed 237 projects for design review.

Staff participated in or coordinated the following
community outreach activities: Model Colony Awards
program, Historic Plaque program, Historic Preservation Month Photo Contest, development of an ESRI Storymap
geographically displaying photographs and information for local historical points of interest, Ontario
Showcase/Heritage Celebration, and the Ontario Festival of the Arts.

4. Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Grants
When funding is available, the City offers housing
rehabilitation loans and grants to qualified
homeowners. Due to the State elimination of
redevelopment funding and recent federal funding
cutbacks, the City of Ontario is not currently able to
provide owner-occupied rehabilitation programs.

Should funding become available, the City will reestablish this program and provide associated quantified objectives.

Objectives: Continue to implement program,
as funding is available.

Responsible Agencies: Housing Department
Funding: CDBG, HOME, CalHOME
Timing: Ongoing
The City of Ontario designed the Community Improvement
Code Abatement Loan Program. In 2019 and 2020, no
homes were rehabilitated through this program.

Under implementation of the CIT Homeowner Occupied
Rehabilitation Loan Program, no homes were rehabilitated from 2016 to 2020.

Under implementation of the CIT Emergency Grant
Program, the following number of homeowners received
assistance: 1 in 2016, 1 in 2017, and 0 from 2018-2020.

The City’s largest housing rehabilitation program, the
CARES Program, continues to remain on hold. Funding
for this program had been provided through the Ontario
Redevelopment Agency’s Low- and Moderate-Income
Housing Fund (LMIHF). To date, no replacement funding
has been identified and secured.

Using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds, the City designed the Conservation Home
Improvement Program (CHIP Loan). The program was
launched in June 2020 to assist homeowners with exterior home improvements. As of July 2021, two loans were
approved, with construction in progress and another two homeowners were proceeding through the eligibility
process.

Modify to only include
Conservation Home
Improvement (CHIP) Loan
Program
1562
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-221
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete

5. CARES
The City of Ontario implements the comprehensive
CARES Neighborhood Revitalization Program within
selected focus neighborhoods. The components of
this comprehensive, multiagency program include
code enforcement, arterial street improvement, relief
program, exterior improvement program, and sidewalk
or safe routes to school program. The program seeks
to stabilize neighborhoods through a comprehensive
approach to building community. The program has
several components:
· Single-Family Improvement Loans. The City
offers two low-interest deferred loan programs
for homeowners (with a one- to five-year
deferment) to make exterior improvements to
their home.
· Neighborhood Improvements. The City
improves streets (e.g., resurfacing, replacing
curb and gutter, improving sidewalks and
drainage), plants trees and greenways, and
enforces codes.

Objectives: Continue program
implementation, as funding is available.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization Agency
Funding: CDBG, HOME, General Fund
Timing: Ongoing
As of July 2021, the program is on hold. This program was previously funded with LMIHF, HOME, and General
Funds. However, limited availability of funding during the 5th cycle planning period hindered the City’s ability to implement this program.

Continue and modify – City will
seek funding to continue this
program and restructure it as
needed.

6. Neighborhood Plans
Ontario’s neighborhoods define the sense of identity
and community for residents, the quality of life
experienced, and the image and role of Ontario. The
City currently implements many programs to improve
neighborhoods. However, the City has identified a
need to foster a stronger sense of neighborhood
identity in the community. While this goal is being
achieved in CDBG-eligible areas (CARES program)
and in historic areas, efforts need to be expanded to
other neighborhoods. During the planning period, the
City will begin a public outreach effort to solicit input from neighborhood leaders and residents as to
particular needs and goals. This process may result in
the establishment of ongoing dialog with the City,
Objectives: Designate focus neighborhoods,
outreach plan and process, and initiate survey
efforts. Evaluate the potential of creating
neighborhood improvement plans.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department,
Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
Agency
Funding: General Fund
Timing: Ongoing
The primary Neighborhood Planning programs
implemented from 2016 to 2020 include the HEAL Zone
and Transformative Climate Communities (TCC), Zoning
Consistency Program, and Active Transportation Program
(ATP).

Through the HEAL Zone and TCC programs, feedback
from community leaders helped inform decision makers on policy and capital improvements. In 2020, over 6,000
people were invited to a variety of virtual workshops from topics including urban forestry to affordable housing and solar installation. Over four stakeholder meetings were attended through zoom.

The Zoning Consistency program was completed in 2018.

A total of 552 properties were rezoned to either be
consistent with existing residential uses or be more
Continue and modify to include
that the City will continue to
work on a Multimodal
Transportation Center (MTC)
Needs Assessment and Siting
Criteria project. This
assessment will assist in
determining the optimum
location for an MTC on or near
the Ontario International
Airport connecting future
modes of transportation,
including light-rail
opportunities.
1563
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-222 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete neighborhood organizations, or the preparation of
neighborhood improvement plans.
compatible with adjacent residential development by
limiting uses. Members of a local community garden
helped to develop language for a new Urban Agriculture
section of the Development Code that went into effect
January 2016.

The City received funding for infrastructure improvements as part of the ATP Cycle 1, Cycle 2, and Cycle 3. The ATP Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 were completed with improvements to pedestrian safety and access around Euclid, Bon View,
Corona, Vineyard, and El Camino Elementary Schools. As
part of ATP Cycle 3, design and right-of-way (ROW)
acquisition was completed for the area around Sultana
Elementary and De Anza Middle School.

Additionally, the City acquired the Systemic Safety
Analysis Report Program (SAARP) Caltrans Grant to
examine how to incorporate improved pedestrian, biking, and transit opportunities along the Euclid Avenue corridor.

The City also received a GoHuman demonstration grant
through the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) to provide an opportunity for public input to pedestrian and bicycle improvements being
considered in downtown.

As part of the Active Transportation Master Plan,
community outreach and most of the walk audits around
public schools was completed. The City continues to move forward on the Multimodal Transportation Center Needs
Assessment and Siting Criteria project that began in 2019 that will centralize multimodal options for residents and employees of and visitors to Ontario.

The City is also in the process of updating the City Parks Master Plan and initiated a city-wide parks survey in 2020.

As of July 2021, the City anticipates that the City Council will adopt the Master Plan soon.
1564
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-223
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete

7. Neighborhood Stabilization
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010 provided an additional $1 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) that
was originally established under the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008. HUD awarded grants
to 270 states and selected local governments to
mitigate the negative impact of the nation’s economic
decline and housing market collapse and to stabilize
and revitalize communities/areas hit the hardest. The
City of Ontario was provided an allocation of $1,872,
853 in NSP3 funds. The City will utilize these funds (1) to acquire, rehabilitate, and resell single-family homes; (2) to acquire and rehabilitate multiple-family
properties; (3) to provide financial assistance; (4) to establish land banks; (5) to demolish blighted
structures; (6) to redevelop demolished or vacant
properties; and (7) for administration (capped at 10
percent).

Objectives: Designate focus neighborhoods,
outreach plan and process, and initiate survey
efforts. Evaluate the potential of creating
neighborhood improvement plans.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization Agency
Funding: Federal NSP3 funds
Timing: Ongoing
Federal NSP3 funds were exhausted in 2013 and all NSP
grant funding was closed out in 2018.

In 2019, the City Council approved the Neighborhood
Preservation Strategy Plan, which designated four focus neighborhoods: Downtown, Nocta, Mission-Mountain, and
Fourth-Grove.

Modify to switch from federal
NSP to implementing Ontario’s
2019 Neighborhood
Preservation Strategy Plan

8. Community-Oriented Policing
The City of Ontario Police Department uses CDBG
funds to implement a community-oriented policing
program in designated low- and moderate-income
neighborhoods. This partnership involves working with
community leaders, businesses, and property owners
to address neighborhood issues including code
enforcement, crime-free multi-family housing, safe and
clean streets, and school interventions. With respect
to housing, the Police Department implements the
Crime-Free Multifamily Housing Program to control
and eliminate crime in apartment buildings. Under this
program, the Police Department will provide training to apartment owners, conduct a property inspection to
identify and eliminate potential crime hazards, and
certify properties where the owner signs a written
agreement and commitment to maintain the program.

Objectives: Continue implementation of COPs
program; coordinate marketing efforts with the
new Quadrennial Inspection Program.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization Agency, Code
Enforcement, and Police Department
Funding: General Fund, CDBG
Timing: Ongoing
The Community Engagement Team takes a pro-active
approach by partnering with building and property owners to prevent, deter, and solve crimes. The Crime-Free
Housing and Trespassing program completed the
following activities:
· In 2016, Code Enforcement presented the
Systematic Rental Inspection Program at the
Multifamily Crime-Free Training for apartment
complex property owners and managers.
· In 2018, 80 apartment buildings and 8 businesses
were enrolled in the Crime-Free Housing and
Trespassing program. 280 individuals were served
with trespassing forms.
· In 2019, two Crime-Free Multi-Housing classes were
hosted by the Ontario Police Department. A total of
13 properties are enrolled in the Crime-Free MultiHousing Program. A total of 16 properties are enrolled in the Trespassing Enforcement Program
Continue
1565
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-224 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete and 527 individuals were served with forbidden
trespass forms.
· In 2020, no Crime-Free Multi-Housing classes were
hosted due to COVID-19. A total of 13 properties are
enrolled in the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program. A
total of 16 properties are enrolled in the Trespassing
Enforcement Program and 427 individuals were
served with forbidden trespass forms.

Additionally, during inspections, on-site improvements are identified under the concept of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). In 2019 and 2020, the
Community Engagement Team prepared 3
comprehensive CPTED reports for businesses in the city.

These reports outlined positive aspects of the businesses, challenges, and recommendations for improvement.

Housing Supply and Diversity

9. Downtown Plan
Ontario’s Downtown covers 12 blocks along Euclid
Boulevard. In 1983, the City adopted the Center City
Redevelopment Project area to encourage
development of a high-intensity, multiuse central
business district and surrounding neighborhoods that
maximize the productivity of commercial areas and
housing opportunities. The $200 million Town Center
Square project will provide a mix of housing,
educational, retail, office, and government uses that
will stimulate the renewal of Downtown. Although the
General Plan redesignates a majority of the area for
new housing and mixed uses, a comprehensive
planning process is necessary to ensure the sensitive
integration of new housing, commercial uses, open
space, pedestrian paths, and transportation into the
fabric of Downtown.

Objectives: Create a Downtown Plan to
facilitate new mixed-use and residential
development; continue to acquire property
and assemble sites to facilitate new housing.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department
Funding: General Fund, Tax Increment
Timing: 2015
The objective of the downtown planning effort is to
facilitate new mixed-use and residential development and continue to acquire property and assemble sites to
facilitate new housing.

To facilitate new development and establish new
businesses within the downtown area, the HEART
(Historic Euclid Avenue Revitalization Team) Initiative was established in 2015. Through improved transit and
placemaking efforts that integrate arts and culture, the HEART Initiative is creating an environment that attracts new housing, improves existing housing, and encourages
a mix of uses and activities.

A strategic plan to diversify land uses and improve mobility and connectivity in the downtown area was approved in
2020.

In 2020, new affordable housing development was
completed, including a 100% affordable (low and very low income) 101-unit transit-oriented development (TOD)
project on Virginia/Holt and 100% affordable (low and very low income) 75-unit project on Vine/Holt. A 153-unit
Continue
1566
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-225
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete mixed-use development was in the entitlement phase at
the end of 2020. As of July 2021, the City was continuing to review and the project had not been approved by the
Planning Commission.

The Downtown Plan area is included in a $35 million
Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Grant
awarded to the City to increase prosperity and improve
transportation and housing within a disadvantaged
community. The TCC program includes affordable
housing, active transportation improvements, mobility hub, urban greening, carbon farm, solar photovoltaic, and
transit improvements. This grant is a collaborative effort with public and community-based organizations. Projects in the Downtown include the planting of approximately 300 right-of-way trees and development of the Vista Verde
101-unit Affordable Housing project.

10. Mountain and Euclid Corridors
Euclid Avenue and Mountain Avenue extend the entire
length of Ontario. In recent years, developers have
expressed interest in building residential and
commercial projects along these corridors. Mountain
Avenue has had numerous senior and affordable
housing projects built adjacent or near to the corridor, and developers have begun to show interest in Euclid
Avenue. Both corridors have commercial property that
is proposed for redesignation as residential. To
facilitate corridor development, the City will
redesignate properties along Euclid Avenue and
Mountain Avenue for medium- and high-density
residential development as shown on the Official Land
Use Plan (LU-01). The City will also develop a lotconsolidation ordinance to incentivize the assemblage of parcels. Incentives may include fee modifications,
flexibility in design, expedited permit processing, or
others.

Objectives: Redesignate corridors for
medium- and high-density residential uses
and develop a lot consolidation ordinance to
facilitate the assemblage of lots into larger
parcels.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department
Funding: General Fund
Timing: Summer 2014
All sites on the Housing Element Available Land Inventory along corridors Euclid Avenue and Mountain Avenue have
been rezoned to medium-density residential, high-density residential, or mixed-use designations, and are consistent with the General Plan.

The City continues to monitor the on-going status of
development in the Euclid Avenue and Mountain Avenue
corridors.

Modify to reflect that rezoning
was completed. Continue lot
consolidation ordinance. Add
that the City will continue to
monitor the ongoing status of
development in the Euclid
Avenue and Mountain Avenue
corridors.
1567
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-226 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete

11. Holt Boulevard
Holt Boulevard is one of the original corridors
paralleling the railroad and extending through Ontario
and neighboring communities. With the development
and success of commercial uses fronting the
freeways, the commercial viability of Holt Boulevard
has gradually eroded, leaving a significant number of
underutilized uses on small parcels. The General Plan
has declared Holt Boulevard as a focus area for mixed
uses, both perpendicular to Mountain Avenue, at the
base of Downtown, and in the East Holt Boulevard
Study Area. To stimulate investment in these areas,
the City will adopt a lot consolidation ordinance and
incentives to encourage the recycling of land to
residential uses. The City will also explore the use of density incentives to encourage mixed-use
development, offering higher densities for quality
projects of a certain size.

Objectives: Redesignate Holt Boulevard for
high-density residential and mixed uses, and
develop a lot consolidation ordinance to
facilitate the assemblage of lots into larger
parcels.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department
Funding: General Fund
Timing: 2015
All sites on the Housing Element Available Land Inventory along the Holt Boulevard corridor have been rezoned to
accommodate higher densities.

The City continues to monitor the on-going status of
development in the Holt Boulevard area.

Modify to reflect that rezoning
was completed. Continue lot
consolidation ordinance. Add
that the City will continue to
monitor the ongoing status of
development in the Holt
Boulevard area.

12. New Model Colony
The New Model Colony covers 8,200 acres of the
former San Bernardino Agricultural Preserve. This
area is intended to provide a range of housing
opportunities for the city’s emerging regional and
national employment centers. Buildout of this area is
contingent on completion of infrastructure, approval of specific plans, and cancellation of Williamson Act
contracts. The City has entered into an agreement
with a consortium to fund $430 million in infrastructure serving the eastern New Model Colony. Many specific
plans for this area have been approved. Some of the
original Williamson Act contracts will also expire
during the planning period. The General Plan has
designated much of the area for medium- and highdensity residential and mixed use. Although development is not expected to occur during the
planning period, the City will continue to process
specific plan applications and work with developers to
Objectives: Continue to review, approve, and
implement plans to develop the New Model
Colony.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department
Funding: General Fund
Timing: Ongoing
New Model Colony is now known as Ontario Ranch. City
staff continues to review and process applications for
development in Ontario Ranch. Within Ontario Ranch, the following number of permits for new single-family and
multifamily homes were issued: 482 in 2016, 762 in 2017, 1,063 in 2018, 1,398 in 2019, and 864 in 2020.

Completion of infrastructure, approval of specific plans, and cancellation of the Williamson Act contracts remain ongoing as of July 2021. The City continues to coordinate with developers on planned developments.

Continue and modify to update
name to Ontario Ranch.
1568
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-227
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete address outstanding issues, in particular the financing of infrastructure in the western New Model Colony.

13. Downtown Core Catalyst Project
The City of Ontario has embarked on a strategy for a
large-scale undertaking that would act as the catalyst
for the resurgence of Downtown Ontario. The City of
Ontario was awarded one of only 13 prestigious
Catalyst awards from the State of California in 2010
for efforts to revitalize downtowns through this
strategy. Upon completion of all of the activities
included in the Downtown Core Catalyst, 519 housing
units will be developed.

Objectives: Continue to implement the
programs identified in the Downtown Core
Catalyst Project as funding is available.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization Agency
Funding: State and federal
Timing: By 2018
The Catalyst program was completed in 2017. During the
Catalyst program, 375 of the anticipated 519 housing units were completed in the Downtown area and the City met all data collection and monitoring requirements of the
program. This program did not provide funding for
development or program implementation and with the loss of redevelopment funds, the remainder of the planned
development was unable to be completed during the
project term.

Delete

14. Design Review
The City implements a design review program to
ensure quality housing, maintain property values,
stabilize neighborhoods, and improve quality of life.

For standard projects, the City’s Residential Design
Guidelines provide objective standards and graphics
to illustrate the preferred methods of planning,
neighborhood design, and construction for
subdivisions, open space and landscaping, lots and
buildings, architecture, and other aspects. For certain infill projects in the Downtown or other focus areas of the community, the City may adopt a PUD ordinance
or Planned Residential Development Overlay to
provide for more flexibility in design. Specific plans
provide another means to address the design of largescale projects. The General Plan includes a Community Design Element that provides unifying and
broader principles of community design.

Objectives: Continue to implement design
review process.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department
Funding: General Fund
Timing: Ongoing
City staff continues to implement a design review process.

The City is in the process of updating its The Ontario Plan, including the Policy Plan. The update includes Objective Design and Development Standards for single-family
residential, multifamily residential, and mixed-use
developments.

Continue and modify to refer to
Objective Design and
Development Standards that
are being developed with the
General Plan Update that is
currently in process as of July
2021. Update program name
to “Senate Bill 2
Implementation”

15. Green Building
Green building means creating structures and using
materials that are environmentally responsible and
resource efficient, considering a building’s entire life cycle. To reduce per capita energy use, the City will
promote conservation and renewable energy
generation techniques in public facilities and private
Objectives:
- Promote green building practices in the
private sector and explore point-of-sale
energy retrofits for residences.
- Renewable energy incentive and energy
efficiency programs.

The City continues to encourage opportunities in the
private sector for point-of-sale retro-fits. The City is in the process of updating its General Plan, including the section on energy discussion. The City continued to trend towards the target of 30% greenhouse gas reduction below Year
2020 business as usual by Year 2020. The City is actively Continue
1569
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-228 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete development. The City will require new construction to
reduce energy demand by incorporating building and
site design strategies. Conservation will be the priority strategy for renovation of existing facilities. The
General Plan also includes land planning strategies
that impact energy demand reduction, including
narrowing street widths, installing broad-canopied
trees for shade, and clustering compact development
to reduce automobile use.
- Develop a citywide 20-year energy plan.
- Support pilot development project as a
net-zero-energy community and
formulate solar site orientation guidelines.

Responsible Agencies:

Planning/Building/Public Works
Funding: General Fund
Timing: Ongoing
participating in the TCC Ontario Shines Program that has resulted in over 24 low-income solar installations.

Overall, City consumption of potable water has been
reduced by 21% through a combination of water use
reduction, transition to recycled water irrigation systems, and drought-tolerant landscaping.

The City is continuing to reduce emissions through
participation in GGRF Cal Fire Grant that provided
additional planting of 150 tress acting as a carbon sink and supporting reductions in the heat island effect.

16. Land Monitoring Program to Meet the RHNA
The City is in the process of updating the
Development Code for consistency with the Land Use
designations of The Ontario Plan. This program will
implement a land monitoring program to ensure that
the City has enough land to meet its Regional Housing
Needs Allocation, through out the planning period.

The City has identified 83 acres to be rezoned to allow development to occur at a density of 25–45 dwelling
units per acre. This program will ensure that the
proposed sites are rezoned to appropriate densities
and identify additional sites to be rezoned if any of the proposed sites cannot be rezoned.

All rezoned sites will permit owner-occupied and rental multi-family developments by right and will not require a conditional use permit, a planned unit development
permit, or any other discretionary review. All sites will accommodate a minimum of 20 units per acre and at
least 16 units per site, per state law requirements. In addition, the City will ensure that at least 50% of its lower- income RHNA shortfall is accommodated on
sites designated for exclusively residential uses.

Objectives: Ensure there is a sufficient supply
of multi-family zoned land to meet the housing
needs identified in the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation.

Responsible Agencies: Planning
Funding: General Fund
Timing: Within the first three years of the
planning period.

The Development Code was updated for consistency with
Land Use Designations in 2018 or 2019.

The rezoning required to meet the 5th cycle Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) was completed.

City staff monitors entitlement applications to ensure that the Available Land Inventory is maintained and verifies that development of identified sites complies with the
minimum density indicated in the Available Land Inventory or identifies alternate sites to meet the City's RHNA
needs. Safeguards have been incorporated into the City's Discretionary Permit Application, which includes an
affidavit regarding compliance with the Available Land
Inventory.

Continue and update, include
No-Net Loss and, if necessary,
another rezone program.
1570
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-229
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete Governmental Regulations/Constraints

17. Incentives
The City of Ontario offers several different types of
incentives to facilitate housing production, including:
· Financial Incentives: The City makes available
financial incentives that meet certain criteria. For
instance, impact fee reductions are allowed for
projects built in the Downtown. The City is
financially assisting a variety of nonprofit
organizations to provide senior housing, housing
for homeless people, and other services.

Density bonuses allowed for qualified projects
work as a financial incentive by increasing the
revenue stream of projects. The City also has
established its Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO) program to
leverage the nonprofit sector resources with
available HOME CHDO funding. The intent of
the CHDO funding is to work with nonprofit
CHDOs to help preserve, enhance, and improve
existing neighborhoods through acquisition,
rehabilitation, and/or new housing construction
activities. Finally, the City continues to grant lowcost leases (e.g., $1 per year leases) to qualified organizations to provide senior housing and
homeless housing. These types of financial
incentives will be provided to allow the City to
meet its community development and housing
objectives.
· Regulatory Incentives: The regulatory
incentive program is intended to realize
improved value, a rich palette of amenities,
landmarks, and identifiable places. While the
underlying land use designations still apply, the
City may offer various incentives through a
discretionary permit. Special incentives may be
granted for mixed-use developments, residential
Objectives: Offer financial and regulatory
incentives for residential projects that meet
City housing and affordable housing goals.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization Agency
Funding: General Fund
Timing: Ongoing and at least annual outreach
to developers of affordable housing, including
non-profit.

The City continues to offer financial incentives for
affordable housing projects where feasible and as funding is available. Housing incentives have also been included in the comprehensive Development Code update, which
was adopted in 2016.

Continue
1571
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-230 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete infill projects near transit facilities, the
replacement of underperforming commercial
uses with new residential use, the improvement
and/or intensification of existing, mid-block
residential uses, or lot consolidation and
development of desired projects. The menu of
incentives may include density transfers,
modifications in development standards,
increased residential density, and other
incentives to be negotiated on a case-by-case
basis.

18. Land Acquisition
Land acquisition for residential development is
perhaps one of the greatest challenges to creating
affordable housing. Over the past five years, the City
of Ontario has seen increasing land prices. To
facilitate the development of affordable housing, the
City has actively purchased land and made it available
at a low cost (typically a $1 per year lease) to
affordable housing developers and nonprofit agencies
to create affordable senior housing, emergency
shelters, affordable attached ownership projects, and
other affordable housing projects. As situations merit
and projects are proposed that meet the City’s
housing goals and the public interest, the City of
Ontario will continue to acquire residential land that
can be leased or sold at below-market rates for the
production of affordable housing.

Objectives: Continue to approve financial
incentives for residential projects that meet
City housing and affordable housing goals.

Responsible Agencies: Ontario Housing
Authority
Funding: General Fund, NSP3, and other
funding as available
Timing: Ongoing
City staff continues to implement programs as funds
become available.

The City has acquired some sites for affordable housing development and then sold those properties to qualified affordable housing developers, including sites for Emporia Place Phase I, Emporia Place Phase II, and Vista Verde.

Continue

19. Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Within an established suburban fabric, there are
considerable challenges to creating affordable
housing. As development standards and lot standards
change over time, it is not uncommon to have
irregularly shaped and nonconforming parcels that are
simply not conducive to redevelopment. The City has
adopted a Planned Unit Development Ordinance that
permits a variety of housing types in every residential zone. The City may conditionally permit attached and
Objectives: Continue to utilize the PUD to
create tailored development standards to
facilitate new housing.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department
Funding: General Fund
Timing: Ongoing, 2010
The PUD continues to be a viable tool to implement new
multifamily housing. Building permits for multifamily homes by year include 2 in 2014, 0 in 2015, 98 in 2016, 81 in 2017, 246 in 2018, 458 in 2019, and 188 in 2020, for a
total of 1,173.

Continue
1572
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-231
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete detached single-family residences, town homes, patio
homes, zero lot line, and any other type of housing
product permitted by the regulations of the underlying
zone. The PUD is a tool that has been successfully
used for Town Square to encourage and facilitate
innovative design, variety, and flexibility in the types of housing products, including the provision of affordable housing, that would otherwise not be allowed or
possible through standards in the underlying zoning
districts.

20. Mixed-Use and High-Density Residential Zone
and Standards
The General Plan directs significant housing growth to
mixed-use areas. These areas include the Downtown,
Euclid Avenue, the I-10 Corridor, the New Model
Colony, and Holt Boulevard. These mixed-use areas
each have a distinct mix of land uses and density
ranges (see Policy Plan Land Use Exhibit LU-11, Land
Use Designation Summary Table). To facilitate the
development of quality housing and exemplary design,
the City will create mixed-use zoning and
development standards allowing up to 125 units per
acre and a high-density residential zone and
standards allowing 25 to 45 units per acre. The
parameters of the ordinance have yet to be designed;
however, the intent of the ordinance is to facilitate
high-density housing. In both these zones, highdensity residential and mixed use will be allowed by right.

Objectives: Develop new mixed-use and highdensity residential development zone and standards to implement the General Plan.

Allow residential uses by right in both zones.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department
Funding: General Fund
Timing: 2014
New General Plan land use designations were adopted in
2010. The 2016 comprehensive update to the
Development Code implements the General Plan land use
designations and allows residential uses by right within the High-Density Residential and Mixed-Use zones. The City
continues its efforts in processing zone changes to bring alignment with the adopted General Plan. In 2020, no
additional parcels were rezoned to High-Density
Residential or Mixed-Use zones.

Continue and modify to refer to
Objective Design and
Development Standards that
are being developed with the
General Plan Update that is
currently in process, as of July
2021.
1573
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-232 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete Housing Assistance

21. Public Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of San
Bernardino administers the Housing Voucher rental
program for the City of Ontario. Funded by the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Housing Voucher program extends rental subsidies to
very low-income households by offering the tenant a
voucher that pays the difference between the current
fair market rent (FMR) established by the Housing
Authority and 30 percent of the tenant’s income. A
tenant has the option to choose housing that costs
more than the FMR, if the tenant pays the extra rent
above the payment standard. The Housing Authority
also implements the scattered site program, Family
Self-Sufficiency program, Section 8 project-based
assistance, and HUD-assisted multiple-family housing
units. This program serves up to 600 individuals and
families in the City of Ontario.

Objectives: Continue to assist up to 600
households under the public housing program
and seek additional vouchers as available.

Responsible Agencies: Housing Authority of
the County of San Bernardino
Funding: US Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Timing: Ongoing
Public housing programs in Ontario are administered
through the Housing Authority of the County of San
Bernardino (HACSB). Within Ontario, the approximate
number of Housing Choice Vouchers have been available:
496 in 2016, 422 in 2017, 527 in 2018, 676 in 2019, and 747 in 2020.

Continue, add mobility
objectives and commitment to
facilitating the movement of
voucher holders to areas of
high opportunity and
resources.

22. Homeownership
The City has a broad-based homeownership program
for residents. The City uses a combination of funds
(BEGIN, HOME, CalHome, and other available
funding) to provide down payment assistance to
homebuyers seeking to purchase homes in Ontario.

The City of Ontario also works in conjunction with
Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services (NPHS),
a nonprofit organization, and the Inland Fair Housing
and Mediation Board (IFHMB) to further the City’s
homeownership goals through homebuyer education,
counseling, and down payment assistance.

Objectives: Implement down payment
assistance programs citywide.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization
Funding: HCD, BEGIN, CalHOME
Timing: Ongoing
In 2016, the City secured $1 million in CalHome Mortgage Assistance Program funds to offer down payment
assistance to qualified low-income families, assisting a total of one household. The CalHome Mortgage
Assistance program ended in 2017. City staff continue
tracking the use of loan funds paid off in a reuse account for use on eligible projects.

The City is planning to use a portion of the Permanent
Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds for first-time
homebuyer programs in conjunction with reuse funds on
hand from the CalHome and BEGIN programs formerly
offered. Programs are currently in design development to determine income targeting and benefits.

Continue and modify
1574
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-233
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete

23. Preservation of At-Risk Housing
The City maintains more than 1,500 units of rental
housing affordable to seniors, families, and individuals earning lower incomes. The City is committed to
preserving its stock of affordable housing, some of
which is at risk of conversion and/or needs significant renovation and improvement. The City remains
committed to preserving its affordable housing and will monitor the status of the affordable housing projects,
provide technical assistance, and consider appropriate
actions should these projects be at imminent risk of
conversion.

Objectives: Monitor the status of at-risk
projects and, if they are at imminent risk of
conversion, provide technical assistance
and/or financial assistance to preserve the
properties as deemed feasible.

Responsible Agencies: Ontario Housing
Authority
Funding: Federal government
Timing: Ongoing
The 2013-2021 Housing Element reported the existence
of one development with affordable units that were at risk of converting to market rate within 10 years of the start of the planning period. That development, the Ontario
Townhouses project, a project-based Section 8 voucher
property, was preserved in 2020. City staff worked with the National Foundation for Affordable Housing to assist with the rehabilitation of the Ontario Townhouses project, a project-based Section 8 voucher property, including an
extension of the Project Based Vouchers (PBV) contract
for an additional 20 years. The project was completed
during early 2020.

As of September 2021, there are a total of 3,539 assisted, multifamily rental units in the city, of which, 460 units were “at-risk” of conversion to market rate. To address the
preservation of public housing for very low- and lowincome persons, the City maintains contact with owners of at-risk units as the use restriction expiration date
approaches to communicate with the owner the
importance of the units to the supply of affordable housing in Ontario, as well as its desire to preserve the units as affordable. The City will make every effort in using local incentives that can be offered to property owners to
preserve any at-risk units.

Continue

24. Jack Galvin Accord
The City of Ontario has more than 2,100 mobile
homes, which provide affordable market-rate housing
for lower-income families, seniors, and individuals. In 1990, the City Council adopted an ordinance to
regulate mobile home space rents but later repealed
that ordinance per state law. Subsequently, in working
with mobile home park owners and tenants, the City
drafted the Jack Galvin Mobile Home Park Accord,
which was accepted by park owners. The accord
places limits on the allowable increases based on the
Consumer Price Index; allows for additional
adjustments for changes utilities, taxes, and capital
improvements; provides a process for requesting rent
Objectives: Continue to implement the Jack
Galvin Accord and monitor the effectiveness
of the accord.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization
Funding: General Fund
Timing: Ongoing
City staff administered the Accord that covers 1,697
mobile home units in 10 mobile home parks throughout
Ontario. City staff distributed the annual rent adjustments allowed as part of the Accord and designed to limit rental increases within the participating mobile home parks. The Accord was approved for a 5-year extension on November
15, 2019, with an expiration date of January 5, 2025.

Continue
1575
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-234 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete reductions for service reductions; and allows for rent
adjustments for resale. The term of the agreement
was adopted in 1999, and per extensions continues in
effect today. The City will continue to implement and
enforce this ordinance.

Special-Needs Housing

25. Fair Housing
Ontario is committed to furthering fair housing
opportunities so that people in all walks of life have
the opportunity to find suitable housing in the
community. To that end, the City contracts with a fair
housing service provider to provide landlord/tenant
education, conduct testing of the rental and ownership
market, and investigate and mediate housing
complaints where needed. The City periodically
prepares the required federal planning reports,
including the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice (AI), to document the City’s progress in
improving and maintaining fair housing opportunities.

As part of the AI update, the City will review its
Municipal Code, local government regulations, and
other practices such as the definition of a family.

Recommendations will be made to eliminate potential
constraints and further fair housing in Ontario.

Objectives:
- Continue to contract with local fair
housing providers to provide educational,
outreach, advocacy, and mediation
services.
- Conduct AI concurrently with the
development of the Consolidated Plan,
and review and change potential
impediments, including the definition of a
family.
- Provide fair housing information at City
Hall, the Ontario Senior Center, and the
Ontario Housing Authority.

Responsible Agencies: Ontario Housing
Authority
Funding: CDBG
Timing: Ongoing
The City of Ontario has worked in conjunction with the
Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board to affirmatively further fair housing opportunities in this community. The Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board “actively
supports and promotes freedom of residence through
education, advocacy, and litigation to the end that all persons have the opportunity to secure the housing they desire and can afford, without regard to their race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, familial status, marital status, disability, ancestry, age, source of income or other characteristics protected by law.” The
definition of the family has been updated to one or more persons living together in a dwelling unit, with common access to, and common use of all living, kitchen, and
eating areas within the dwelling unit. In addition, the City has provided fair housing information at City Hall, the Ontario Senior Center, and the Ontario Housing Authority.

Continue and update to
comply with Assembly Bill 686.

Modify to remove reference to
definition of family.

26. Homeless Continuum of Care
The City implements a Homeless Services Continuum
of Care to prevent homelessness and assist people in
becoming self-sufficient. Working together with
homeless service providers, the City has developed a
full-service homeless continuum of care consisting of
a homeless outreach service center, transitional
housing, permanent housing, and supportive housing
services. The City funds other programs that assist
homeless people utilizing Emergency Solutions Grant
funds.

Objectives: Continue to fund Mercy House to
implement the Continuum of Care program for
homeless residents and other programs as
funding is available.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization
Funding: Federal funds and private financing
Timing: Ongoing
The City's Continuum of Care implements programming
for homeless residents.

The Mercy House Ontario Access Center has provided
basic needs and services to the following number of
(unduplicated) clients: 1,385 in 2016, 1,041 in 2017, 809 in 2018, 683 in 2019, and 744 in 2020.

The Assisi House and Aftercare Services Program has
provided transitional housing and aftercare services to the following number of (unduplicated) clients: 47 in 2016, 59 in 2017, 38 in 2018, 59 in 2019, and 50 in 2020.

Continue
1576
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-235
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete The City also actively participates in regional
homeless efforts, including the Interagency Council on
Homelessness, which is a countywide effort of
governmental and nonprofit organizations working to
end homelessness within the County of San
Bernardino.

HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) has
provided tenant-based rental assistance to the following number of households: 15 in 2016, 17 in 2017, 23 in 2018, 25 in 2019, and 34 in 2020.

Through HUD’s Supportive Housing Program, Project
Gateway has helped secure permanent housing with
wrap-around services for chronically homeless individuals with disabilities and their families. The following number of households have been served: 13 in 2016, 12 in 2017, 12 in 2018, 12 in 2019, and 13 in 2020.

In cooperation with Ontario Housing Authority, Mercy
House, and Mercy House 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.
· In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the funding for the street
outreach team was increased 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 begin the COVID-19 motel voucher
program in March 2020, serving 57 households from
March 2020 to September 2020. The Emergency
Motel Voucher Program was implemented in
November 2020 to provide shelter to unhoused
individuals and families. During Fiscal Year 2020-21,
92 households were served by the Emergency Motel
Voucher Program. 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
1577
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-236 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete canceled in March 2020 in an effort to focus
resources on housing unsheltered 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 2020, 2
households received assistance.

27. Senior Housing
The City is actively working with nonprofit housing
groups to build senior housing projects in the
community. In addition to facilitating housing
construction, the City also provides a range of
supportive services for seniors. These include fair
housing services, housing rehabilitation grants,
preservation of subsidized senior housing, low-cost
transportation services, and a range of other services
tailored to meet the unique needs of Ontario’s senior
population.

Objectives: Continue to provide a full range of
housing support services.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization
Funding: State and federal funds
Timing: Ongoing
The City continues to monitor 762 units of affordable
senior housing. The City continued to work with non-profit housing groups to build senior housing projects in the
community. The City provided a range of supportive
services for seniors. Between 2013 and 2020, 182 seniors were assisted with fair housing issues, 1,008 seniors were assisted with landlord/tenant mediation, 1,964 seniors
were assisted with support services, 2 seniors received housing rehab grants, 9 seniors received tenant-based
rental assistance, and 782 units of affordable housing
were restricted for seniors.

Continue

28. Housing for People with Disabilities
The City enforces state and federal accessibility laws
to facilitate the improvement of housing for disabled
people. The City also prepares a Transition Plan to
comply with state and federal accessibility laws. The
City has adopted a reasonable accommodation
process and administratively allows modifications to
land use, building codes, and the permitting process
to facilitate the reasonable accommodations without
going through a standard variance process. However,
Objectives:
- Continue to assist with the development
of housing for persons with disabilities,
including those with developmental
disabilities.
- Update the definition of family to comply
with state law.

Responsible Agencies: Building and Planning
Department
The City enforces state and federal accessibility laws to facilitate the improvement of housing for persons with
disabilities and encourages reasonable accessibility
accommodations. The definition of the family has been
updated to one or more persons living together in a
dwelling unit, with common access to, and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit.

The City’s Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
Program has served 17 disabled households since
inception in 2014. For the next cycle, the definition of a Continue and modify to
remove reference to definition
of family. Add reference to
Inland Regional Center.
1578
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-237
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete given the large number of people with disabilities, the growing need for housing opportunities, and changing
legal context for housing planning, additional efforts
are needed. Many homes were built before the advent
of modern accessibility standards and thus many
homes remain inaccessible to people with disabilities
and persons with developmental disabilities. To
address this issue, the City will evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness of modifying building standards
to encourage visitability concepts in new housing.

Additionally, to ensure compliance with state law, the
City will update its definition of “family” to state “One or more persons living together in a dwelling unit, with common access to, and common use of all living,
kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit.”
Funding: General Fund
Timing: Ongoing, update the definition of
family within one year of adoption of the
Housing Element.
family will be changed to one or more persons living
together in a dwelling unit, with common access to, and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit. This program will continue to assist with the development of housing for persons with disabilities, including those with developmental disabilities.

29. Family Housing
Ontario has a large number of family households,
specifically large families with five or more members.

The City has a multifaceted program for increasing
and maintaining the supply of family housing. The
Housing Authority of San Bernardino County allocates
housing choice vouchers to lower-income families in
Ontario, many of whom are large families. Another key
effort is the City’s program to acquire, rehabilitate, and preserve existing affordable housing units that
accommodate families and large families. Over the
past five years, the City and the Housing Authority
have preserved the vast majority of publicly
subsidized affordable units for families. Finally, the
City funds through its Community Development Block
Program programs such as child care, after-school
programs, food programs, and other services targeted
for lower-income households, including large families.

Objectives: Continue program
implementation.

Responsible Agencies: Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization, Housing
Authority of the County of San Bernardino
Funding: General Fund, CDBG
Timing: Ongoing
The City continues to monitor 1,228 units of affordable family housing. In addition, Ontario worked with two
different developers to construct two affordable housing developments with construction that were completed
during Fiscal Year 2020-21 - Emporia Place (75 units) and Vista Verde (101 units). These two new developments will provide for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income units for families.

Continue
1579
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-238 Draft October 2021
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete

30. Extremely Low-Income Households
The City offers programs to address the housing
needs of extremely low-income (ELI) households. As
funding is available, the City provides a number of
incentives to encourage the production of ELI housing.

The City offers fee reductions for ELI housing,
supports grant applications to increase the supply of
affordable housing, works with nonprofit organizations
to build affordable housing, and provides land
writedowns.

Objectives:
- Work with nonprofits and/or for-profit
developers to build housing for ELI
households through supporting grants
and funding applications.
- Offer fee reductions and land writedowns
for new affordable housing for lowincome, very low-income, and ELI households.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department,
Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
Funding: CDBG, HOME, federal and state
grants
Timing: Annually
The City continues to provide housing assistance to
extremely low-income households.

The City has restricted the following number of housing units for extremely low-income occupants: 12 in 2016, 12 in 2017, 12 in 2018, 20 in 2019, and 20 in 2020.

Under implementation of Project Gateway, the following
number of housing units were occupied by extremely lowincome households: 8 in 2016, 10 in 2017, 10 in 2018, 6 in 2019, and 13 in 2020.

The HOME Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) has
assisted the following total number of households: 9 in 2016, 11 in 2017, 14 in 2018, 13 in 2019, and 34 in 2020.

The CoC Permanent Housing (excluding Project Gateway
and HOME TBRA) has assisted the following number of
households: 6 in 2016, 6 in 2017, 6 in 2018, 2 in 2019, and 2 in 2020.

The Assisi House and Aftercare Services program has
served the following number of (unduplicated) persons: 47 persons in 2016, 29 in 2017, 38 in 2018, 59 in 2019, and 50 in 2020.

The Ontario Access Center has served the following
number of (unduplicated) persons: 1,385 in 2016, 1,039 in 2017, 808 in 2018, 683 in 2019, and 744 in 2020.

Foothill Family Shelter has assisted the following number of (unduplicated) persons: 12 in 2016, 26 in 2017, and 7 in 2018.

Services for Victims of Domestic Violence and Their
Children has assisted the following number of
(unduplicated) persons: 54 in 2016, 25 in 2017, 74 in
2018, 52 in 2019, and 86 in 2020.

The Family Stabilization Program at SOVA Program
Center has assisted the following number of
Continue
1580
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-239
Table 6-1
Review of Previous Housing Element
Program Implementation Result/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete (unduplicated) persons: 2,444 in 2016, 2,589 in 2017,
2,503 in 2018, 1,890 in 2019, and 2,776 in 2020.

Fair Housing services has assisted the following number of (unduplicated) households: 101 in 2016, 71 in 2017,
106 in 2018, 105 in 2019, and 126 in 2020.

Landlord-Tenant Mediation services has assisted the
following number of (unduplicated) households: 863 in
2016, 740 in 2017, 718 in 2018, 539 in 2019, and 892 in 2020.

Senior Services has assisted the following number of
(unduplicated) persons: 142 in 2016, 133 in 2017, 166 in 2018, 122 in 2019, and 157 in 2020.

Child Care Subsidies has assisted the following number of (unduplicated) persons: 18 in 2016, 17 in 2017, 6 in 2018, 14 in 2019, and 56 in 2020.

31. Special-Needs Housing
In implementing affordable housing programs, the City
will work with housing providers to ensure that special housing needs are addressed for seniors, large
families, female-headed households, single-parent
households with children, persons with disabilities and developmental disabilities, homeless individuals and
families, and farmworker families. The City will seek to meet these special housing needs through a
combination of regulatory incentives, zoning
standards, new housing construction programs,
housing rehabilitation, homebuyer assistance
programs, and supportive services programs. In
addition, the City may seek funding under the federal
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS,
California Child Care Facilities Finance Program, and
other state and federal programs designated
specifically for special needs groups such as seniors,
persons with disabilities, and persons at risk for
homelessness.

Objectives: Collaborate with affordable
housing developers and secure funding, if
feasible, to assist with the development of
special needs housing projects.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department,
Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
Funding: CDBG, HOME, federal and state
grants
Timing: Annually
In conjunction with public agencies and community
organizations, the following number of Supportive Housing Program project-based vouchers are available each year
for chronically homeless with disabilities and their families:
12 in 2016, 12 in 2017, 12 in 2018, 12 in 2019, and 13 in 2020.

The City, in conjunction with Mercy House Living Centers, implemented the HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
to provide rental assistance and assistance with security deposits and utility deposits to chronically homeless
individuals and households. Each year, the following
number of homeless households have received
assistance for permanent housing: 15 in 2016, 17 in 2017, 23 in 2018, 25 in 2019, and 34 in 2020.

The City continues to pursue funding under the federal
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, California Child Care Facilities Finance Program, and other state
and federal programs designated specifically for specialneeds groups such as seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons at risk for homelessness.

Continue
1581
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-240 Draft October 2021
7 HOUSING ELEMENT OUTREACH
The City of Ontario conducted a housing element outreach program that included a combination of public meetings, consultations, and surveys. 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan
The community outreach process for the preparation of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 One-Year Action Plan offered numerous opportunities for public input, comment, and review. The City hosted and coordinated a public hearing, three community forums, resident surveying, and stakeholder consultations. The culmination of public input provided the City with priority areas to help address housing needs and homelessness.

Public Outreach
A public hearing was held on February 3, 2020, to provide the public an overview of the process and components of a Consolidated Plan and for the public to submit comments and input on the Community Needs Assessment Survey. Bilingual staff was available for translation. Display advertisements and legal advertisements to promote the public hearing were published on January 9 and January 17, 2020, in the local newspaper Inland Valley Daily.

Three community forums were held on February 19, 2020, at Veterans Memorial Park Community Center, February 25, 2020, at Dorothy Quesada Community Center, and February 28, 2020, at De Anza Park Community and Teen Center. Residents were provided with the Community Needs Assessment Survey and information about the Consolidated Plan. Attendees were invited to participate in an engagement activity where residents selected their highest priority in select categories among activities eligible for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding.

The City held a community fair on February 29, 2020, with over 500 residents in attendance. At the Housing department booth, attendees were invited to complete the Community Needs Assessment Survey and participate in the engagement activity presented at the community forums.
1582
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-241
Stakeholder Consultations
The City consulted with 18 stakeholder groups representing public and private entities, service providers, or community organizations. Table 7- 1 provides more information on the stakeholder consultation process, including the type of stakeholder, specific housing topics discussed, and anticipated outcomes of the consultation.

Table 7-1
Stakeholder Consultations
Agency/Group/
Organization
What section of the 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
How was the Stakeholder consulted and what are the
anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Ontario Housing
Authority
Housing Need Assessment
Public Housing Needs
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination in providing affordable housing.

Neighborhood
Partnership Housing
Services, Inc.

Housing Need Assessment
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination with first-time homebuyer and owner-occupied rehabilitation loan programs, and other programs and services relating to homebuyer education, financial literacy, and homeowner assistance.

AOF/Golden State
Community
Development Corp.

Housing Need Assessment
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination with a possible Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO).

Mercy Housing Living
Centers
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs – Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination in providing homeless services and permanent supportive housing.

Inland Fair Housing and
Mediation Board
Housing Need Assessment
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Fair Housing Strategy
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination in providing increased services for senior citizens, fair housing services, landlord/tenant mediation services, fair housing education, testing, and enforcement, first-time homebuyer education, and financial literacy programs.

County of San
Bernardino Office of
Homeless Services
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs – Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination in providing homeless services in the region, HMIS services, Continuum of Care coordination, and coordinated assessment system.

Ontario-Montclair
YMCA
Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination of childcare for affordable housing residents.

Ontario-Montclair
School District
Homeless Needs - Families with
children
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Identification and coordination of services for homeless families within the school district.
1583
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-242 Draft October 2021
Table 7-1
Stakeholder Consultations
Agency/Group/
Organization
What section of the 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
How was the Stakeholder consulted and what are the
anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Ontario Senior Center Non-Homeless Special Needs
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings. Coordination of Homeowner Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) services and social services for senior residents within affordable senior housing projects.

Rolling Start, Inc. Non-Homeless Special Needs
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination of Section 504 outreach and identifying potential participants for affirmative marketing outreach for affordable housing units.

San Bernardino County
Department of
Behavioral Health
Housing Need Assessment
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs – Chronically homeless
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination of Project Gateway (Shelter Plus Care vouchers) and proactively working together to secure additional resources to serve Ontario residents.

Foothill AIDS Project Housing Need Assessment
Homelessness Strategy
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination and identification of potential participants for affirmative marketing outreach for affordable housing units.

County of San
Bernardino Children
and Family Services
Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination for potential bridge housing resources.

Inland Valley Hope
Partners
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs – Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination in providing services for the homeless and those at-risk of homelessness and identification of potential participants for affirmative marketing outreach for affordable housing units.

House of Ruth, Inc. Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination of providing services for victims of domestic violence and potential identification of participants for affirmative marketing outreach for affordable housing units.

State of California
Housing and
Community
Development
Housing Need Assessment
The City reviews all possible leveraging resources and will investigate opportunities to use various programs that will fund identified community needs (Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC), Veteran Housing and Homeless Prevention (VHHP), Emergency Housing and Assistance Program Capital Development (EHAP-CD), and others). Actively support efforts to create permanent affordable housing funding sources.

Foothill Family Shelter Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Invited to participate in community meetings/public hearings and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments.

Coordination in providing homeless services, transitional housing, and identification of potential participants for affirmative marketing outreach for affordable housing units.

Housing Authority of the
County of San
Bernardino
Public Housing Needs
Requested review of public housing needs section and a copy of the executive summary was provided for feedback and comments. Implement permanent supportive housing programs and work together to secure state and federal resources for the region.
1584
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-243
Summary of Priority Needs
The Community Needs Assessment Survey, in concert with the feedback at meetings and consultations, highlight the City’s clear and detailed need for investment in affordable housing for both owner-occupied and renteroccupied households, programs for homeless persons, and homelessness prevention. Table 7-2 summarizes the city’s housing needs, including level of priority, identified throughout the outreach process.

Table 7-2
Summary of Priority Needs
Need Priority
Level Description Basis for Priority Level
Affordable housingrental assistance High
Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) extend rental
subsidies to very low-income households by offering
the tenant a voucher that pays the difference
between the current fair-market rent (FMR)
established by the Housing Authority and 30 percent
of the tenant’s income.

Rental assistance programs are a high priority
because they are a way to meet the pressing need for
affordable housing. (See Program 23.)
Affordable housingproduction of new units High
Projects to produce new affordable housing units
may be targeted to owner-occupied or renteroccupied housing types.

Production of new units is a high priority because they are a way to meet the pressing need for affordable
housing. (See Programs 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 32)
Affordable housingrehab of existing units Medium
Rehabilitation of existing units could be targeted to
owner-occupied or renter-occupied households. The
programs would preserve the existing housing stock.

Rehab of existing units is important because
preservation and maintenance are critical to maintain
quality housing conditions. Nearly 60% of existing
units were built prior to 1979, indicating a potential
need for rehab. (See Programs 1, 3, 31, and 33)
Affordable housing –
acquisition of existing units High
The acquisition or preservation of existing units may
assist in creating new affordable housing units or
ensuring the continued affordability of units
preserved.

Acquisition of existing units is a high priority because they are a cost-effective way to meet the pressing
need for affordable housing (See Programs 16, 25,
and 26)
Homelessness- outreach High
The City has developed a Continuum of Care in
Ontario that serves all segments of the homeless
population and those at risk of homelessness.

Outreach programs provide basic needs to homeless
individuals and families and also provide appropriate
referrals to services needed by specific populations,
such as those with chronic substance abuse, victims
of domestic violence, veterans, and persons with
HIV/AIDS.

Outreach services are a high priority because they
can provide the necessary first step toward the goal of transitioning someone from homelessness to stable
housing.
(See Programs 27, 28, 32 and 33)
Homelessnessemergency/
transitional shelter
High
The City has developed a Continuum of Care in
Ontario that serves all segments of the homeless
population and those at risk of homelessness.

Emergency shelter and transitional housing
programs provide temporary housing for homeless
individuals and families.

An emergency/transitional shelter is a high priority
because it can provide a temporary roof as someone
works toward the goal of transitioning from
homelessness to stable, permanent housing.
(See Programs 17, 20, 27, 28, and 33)
Homelessnessrapid re-housing High
The City has developed a Continuum of Care in
Ontario that serves all segments of the homeless
population and those at risk of homelessness.

Rapid re-housing is a high priority because it can
provide a temporary roof as someone works toward
the goal of transitioning from homelessness to stable,
permanent housing. Ontario will continue to work with
its partners at the Housing Authority for the County of San Bernardino and the County of San Bernardino
1585
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-244 Draft October 2021
Table 7-2
Summary of Priority Needs
Need Priority
Level Description Basis for Priority Level
Rapid re-housing programs provide a needed
resource to quickly move those living on the streets
or in shelters into permanent housing.

Department of Behavioral Health to provide rapid rehousing services. (See Programs 17, 20, 27, 28, and 33)
Homelessness- prevention High
The City has developed a Continuum of Care in
Ontario that serves all segments of the homeless
population and those at risk of homelessness.

Prevention services can often be the link to keep a
household in their current housing and diminish the
growth of the homeless population.

Services that keep someone who is at risk of
becoming homeless in their home is a high priority
because it meets a pressing need and is more costeffective than providing housing for someone once they’ve become homeless.
(See Programs 17, 20, 27, 28, and 33)
Assessment of Fair Housing
The City of Ontario’s outreach process for the Consolidation Plan also included outreach for fair housing. A broad array of outreach was conducted, such as community forums, focus groups, and public hearings to ensure that the analysis contained in the Fair Housing Assessment truly reflects conditions in a community and that the goals and strategies are targeted and feasible.

Stakeholder Consultations and Surveys
In preparation of the Fair Housing Assessment, the City reached out to a wide array of stakeholders to hear directly about fair housing issues affecting residents. Stakeholders included Spanish-speaking groups, tenants, homeowners, fair housing organizations, civil rights and advocacy groups, organizations serving people with disabilities (including physical disabilities and people with HIV/AIDs), organizations serving domestic violence survivors, social services providers, and homeless providers. All community meetings had translation services available in Spanish. In addition, all meetings were held in locations accessible to people with mobility issues.

Fair housing surveys were conducted in-person both in English and Spanish at the community meetings and community fair. The majority of respondents were members of protected classes. Of the 73 respondents, 21 found housing discrimination to be an issue in Ontario, and 14 directly experienced discrimination. Survey respondents cited race as the reason for discrimination, followed by color, familial status, national origin, and disability.
1586
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-245
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues
The 2020 Assessment of Fair Housing Choice identified the following contributing factors to fair housing issues:
· Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency (See Programs 24 and 27)
· Lack of affordable housing in moderate- and high-resource areas of the city (See Programs 13 and 23)
· Lack of investment/community revitalization strategies in lowresource areas of the city (See Programs 4, 10, and 27) · Availability of rentals that accept HCV in moderate- and highresource areas of the city (See Program 23 and 31) · Displacement of residents in moderate- and/or high-resource areas of the city because of economic pressure (See Programs 23, 27, and 32)
· Concentration of affordable housing in low-resource areas of the city (See Programs 13 and 23)
· Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing cost (See Programs 11 and 27)
· Instances of private discrimination (See Programs 20 and 27) · Lack of accessible affordable housing appropriate for persons with disabilities (See Programs 3, 27, 30, and 33)
· Availability of affordable housing units in a range of sizes (See Programs 23 and 31)
· Age of housing stock in northwest area of the city (See Programs 1, 3, 16, 31, and 33)
· Cost of home repairs (See Programs 1, 3, 16, 29, 31, and 33) · Availability of affordable housing in the form of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) (See Programs 20, 27)
· Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency to learn about rehabilitation options (Program 27)
1587
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-246 Draft October 2021
· Lack of investment/community revitalization strategies in lowresource areas of the city that would improve health outcomes for residents (See Programs 1, 4, 6, 10, and 27)
· Lack of investment/community revitalization strategies in lowresource areas of the City to improve economic outcomes for residents (See Programs 1, 4, 6, 10, and 27 )
Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
The following goals and strategies will serve as an effective basis for affirmatively furthering fair housing by reducing patterns of segregation, mitigating displacement, addressing disproportionate housing needs, and increasing access to opportunity for members of protected classes.

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 less than 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 indicate a need to expand the supply of affordable housing. The following strategies address Goal 1.
· Explore the creation of new funding sources of affordable housing.
· 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, expedited permitting and review, and reduced building permit fees for nonprofit developers.
· 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 ADUs with affordability restriction on their property. · Align zoning codes to conform to recent California affordable housing legislation.
(See Programs 1, 6, 16, 24, and 27)
1588
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-247
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. By 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 Credit (LIHTC) and Mental Health Services Act assistance. The following strategy addresses Goal 2.
· Prioritize HOME funding for developments that include permanent supportive housing for non-elderly persons with disabilities.
(See Programs 3, 16, 27, and 33)
Goal 3: Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness.

Although California law provides strong legal tools to combat source of income discrimination, some landlords violate these laws, as they do housing discrimination laws more generally. Targeted education efforts would help to reduce the incidence of unlawful source of income discrimination. Attendees at community stakeholder meetings were unaware that landlords are required to accept vouchers and third-party checks and would benefit from fair housing education. The following strategies address Goal 3.
· 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.
(See Program 23 and 27)
Homelessness
The 2020 San Bernardino County Homeless Count identified 102 homeless persons residing in Ontario, including 74 persons unsheltered and 28 homeless individuals living in emergency shelters or transitional housing.

Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan
In 2019, the City developed the Neighborhood Preservation Strategy Plan (NPSP) to focus on improving the overall quality of life in neighborhoods and develop a nexus between the conditions of the neighborhood and the solutions to improve it. The NPSP focused on four target neighborhoods 1589
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-248 Draft October 2021
where the NPSP could significantly address neighborhood conditions:

Downtown, Nocta, Mission-Mountain, and Fourth-Grove
neighborhoods. Each of these neighborhoods were identified based on demographics, land use data, and Community Improvement active cases, including outcomes from Systematic Health and Safety Inspection Program inspections, select My Ontario app reports, and calls for police service data. In reviewing the base conditions of these neighborhoods, the City determined that:
· All target neighborhoods have a lower median income than the city as a whole.
· Three of the four target neighborhoods have a higher proportion of renter-occupied households than owner-occupied households. · The majority of the target neighborhoods have both renteroccupied and owner-occupied households that are experiencing housing cost burden at a rate higher than the city as a whole, where households are paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs.
· Two of the four target neighborhoods have a higher proportion of housing stock built prior to 1980 than the city as a whole. · My Ontario App has the highest number of reports for debris in the public right-of-way among all reports evaluated for all four target neighborhoods.

To strengthen and improve quality of life in the four target neighborhoods, the City identified six strategic components to address over a three-year span: community engagement, neighborhood fairs, new resident marketing initiatives, establishment of the Neighborhood Action Team, evaluation of opportunities for affordable homeownership, and evaluation of community resources and infrastructure.

Strengthening community engagement is a primary objective of the NPSP. Community engagement strengthening efforts can be divided into three main components: capitalizing on existing community outreach and engagement, creating new events for engagement opportunities, and non-event based ongoing engagement in a variety of mediums. To accomplish this, the City will undertake the following actions. · The Community Improvement Department will work in
collaboration with the Neighborhood Action Team to identify existing events, workshops, and meetings that impact the four target neighborhoods. These include Integrated Waste quarterly clean-up days, Ontario Night Out, Neighborhood Watch
meetings, Crime-Free Multi-Housing meetings, Community Life 1590
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-249
and Culture events (Culture Fest, Arts Festival, etc.), Downtown Strategic Plan workshops, and Community Health Workers
monthly community engagement forums.
· One neighborhood fair is planned to be held annually within targeted neighborhoods. This event will bring together various City, County, and School District agencies, along with business owners, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and community organizations for a oneday event designed to bring services and information to the residents within their neighborhood.
· The City will purchase and fund a new mobile recreation program, including the purchase of a customized vehicle, related supplies, and staffing for 1,500 hours of operation per year. · The City will develop an initial community survey that will be distributed at workshops, meetings, and engagement events to residents within the target neighborhoods to identify the opinions and needs of those residents, with the purpose of developing more focused engagement and programs/projects within each target neighborhood.
(See Program 6)
Neighborhood fairs are a key strategy to educate neighborhood residents about city programs available to them, develop relationships between the City and residents, and obtain feedback from residents through day-of activities and surveys. The City will hold at least one “block-party” style neighborhood fair over the course of the three years. The City will partner with other public sector agencies that impact community life within the target neighborhoods, such as San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, San Bernardino County Workforce Development Department, Ontario-Montclair School District, and Chaffey Joint Union School District, private local business owners, including the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Ontario Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and community organizations and non-profit agencies that work in the community, such as Habitat for Humanity, Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board, Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Rotary Club, and Kiwanis.
(See Program 6)
1591
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
H-250 Draft October 2021
The Neighborhood Action Team is the implementing entity for this strategy. The core team will include staff members from Housing Department, Community Improvement Department, Ontario Police Department, Community Life and Culture, Public Works, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, Information Technology, Management Services, Ontario Fire Department, San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, Ontario-Montclair School District, and Chaffey Joint Union School District. In addition to the monthly meetings and solutions or other options to address “flash point” properties or blocks, the Neighborhood Action Team will implement community clean-up programs to address property maintenance issues within the targeted neighborhoods. These include Property Clean-Up Programs, Neighbors Helping Neighbors Program, and Community Clean-Up Days. (See Program 6)
An important component of this strategy will be identifying possible means to create opportunities to expand homeownership within the target neighborhoods and throughout Ontario. Housing Department staff, along with strategic community partners, have evaluated homeownership models, from down-payment assistance programs to innovative in-fill development opportunities that would promote more affordable homeowner housing. Each target neighborhood has undeveloped land that may be suitable for housing and during the course of the strategy, undeveloped lots will be evaluated to determine possible housing options for affordable homeownership. Homeownership models may include small-lot development and community land trusts. In addition, opportunities for funding down-payment assistance loans to assist lower-income households purchase their first home from the State of California or other federal resources will be explored to develop new homeownership assistance programs. To educate residents of the four target neighborhoods of tools available through the city, the NPSP includes developing educational material to distribute to new homeowners and renters within the target neighborhoods. Again, this will be a multi-agency effort to provide residents with information that would be helpful to new residents in the community.

The final component of the NPSP will be to implement a small commercial façade improvement program within Downtown Ontario. (See Program 6)
1592
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Draft October 2021 H-251

8. HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES
The City of Ontario aspires to be the premier city of the Inland Empire.

Building from the Ontario International Airport, the Ontario Ranch, the City’s rich cultural and historic heritage, and transportation and economic assets, the City seeks to define a prosperous future through design. How we design our housing, neighborhoods, and community, and how we provide public services are critical to the achievement of that vision.

The City’s vision is underpinned by four principles supporting Ontario as a unified and prosperous community:
· A dynamic balance that enables our community to confront the continued dynamic growth of the region and technological change with confidence and a sense of opportunity.
· A prosperous economy that sustains the reality of prosperity across our entire community that positively impacts all the people of Ontario.
· Distinctive development that integrates our varied and diverse focal points, districts, villages, and neighborhoods to provide a feeling of coherence without sacrificing uniqueness.
· Recognized leadership in local governance that stimulates excellence and serves to unify the people.

The Housing Element plays a critical role in achieving this vision.

Housing Ontario residents and the workforce, creating quality neighborhoods of distinctive design, assisting residents with special needs, and responsibly accommodating growth and community development are fundamental to achieving the City’s long-term vision of prosperity.

The Housing Plan sets forth goals and policies to achieve this end. This includes goals and policies for housing and neighborhood quality, housing diversity and supply, removal of governmental constraints, housing assistance, and special needs. Within this framework, this chapter proposes both existing and new programs to implement these goals and policies.