Ontario City Council
June 20, 2023

6875
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources APP2201
SB-06818 2010 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Chino Desalter Phase 3
Expansion Project, Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties, California.

Tang, Bai “Tom”, Deirdre CRM TECH
Encarnacion, Daniel
Ballester, and Laura H.

Shaker
NADB-R - 1066818
SB-07655 2012 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed City Substation and Mira LomaJefferson Subtransmission Line Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties,
California.

Hoffman, Robin, Timothy ICF International
Yates, and Karen
Crawford
NADB-R - 1067655
SB-07756 2014 Update to Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey: Chino Desalter Phase 3
Expansion Project, Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties, California.

NADB-R - 1067756 Tang, Bai "Tom" CRM Tech
SB-07956 2007 Archaeological Survey report for Southern California Edison's G.O. 131-D Assessment
of the Chino A-Bank System and System
Split Project San Bernadino County, California
Doolittle, Christopher J. Eath Tech, Inc.

SB-07968 2011 Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report:

Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project
Segement 8 East (Phases 2 and 3) and West
(Phase 4), Los Angeles and San Bernardino
Counties, California
Holm, Lisa and John Pacific Legacy, Inc.

Holson
36-012533, 36-012621, 36-012622
SB-07977 2010 Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report:

Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project
Segment 8 East (Phases 2 and 3), San
Bernardino County California
Panich, Lee, Tsim D. Pacific Legacy, Inc.

Schneider, and John
Holson
36-013330, 36-013636

6876
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
APP2201
P-36-008857 CA-SBR-008857H Resource Name - So. Sierras
Power Line;
Resource Name - Lytle Canyon
Transmission Lines;
PSBR-37H;
SRI-1607 (Update)
SB-03418, SB03530, SB-07960Site Historic HP16 1986 (John F. Elliott, ECOS); 1997 (Philip de Barros and Joel
Paulson, Professional
Archaeological Services);
2010 (J. Coleman, Solano
Archaeological Services);
2011 (Joshua TramPier, SRI);
2016 (Audry Williams, SCE)
P-36-012621 Resource Name - 10513 East
Riverside Drive, Ontario;
13191 South Haven Ave
Building, SB-07968
Structure
Historic HP02; HP04; HP33 2006 (TANIGUCHI+SMITH, Galvin Preservation Associates Inc)
P-36-012622 Resource Name - 13751 Haven
Ave, Ontario;
Standard Feeding Co.

Building, SB-07968
Structure
Historic HP02; HP04; HP33 2006 (TANIGUCHI+SMITH, Galvin Preservation Associates Inc)
P-36-025440 Resource Name - Chino-Mira
Loma No. 1 Transmission Line
Structure Historic HP11 2010 (Wendy Tinsley Becker, SB-06037 Urbana Preservation & Planning)
P-36-026051 Resource Name - Devers-San
Bernardino 220kV;
Other - P-33-015035;
Resource Name - SCE HayfieldChino 220kV Transmission Line; Other - Julian Hinds-Mirage
220kV, Devers-Mirage 220 kV,
Devers-San Bernardino No. 1
220kV;
Other - Mira Loma-Vista 220 kV,
and Chino Mira Loma No. 3 220
kV Transmission Lines;
Voided - 36-027693
SB-07946, SB07955, SB-08426Structure Historic HP11 2012 (Davidson, et al., LSA Associates, Inc.);
2013 (Wendy Tinsley/Steven
Treffers, Urbana
Preservation/SWCA);
2014 (Daniel Ballester, CRM Tech);
2018 (Robert Cunningham,
ECORP);
2019 (Riordan Goodwin, LSA)

6877
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX B
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIONS 523 FORMS
6878
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-36-12621 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Please note: The subject residence at 10601 East Riverside Drive is part of a larger historic-period agricultural complex designated P-36-12621 in 2006 (Dice 2006). This effort documents the building that was constructed at this property in 1976. It was not thoroughly addressed in 2006 because it was not yet historic in age (45 or more years old). It is now old enough to warrant consideration as a potential historical resource. The 1976 building is documented on pages 1 and 2; the evaluation for the entire property is updated on page 3; and an updated record of the portions of the property that do not include the 1976 residence is provided on page 4.

P1. Other Identifier: N/A
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County: San Bernardino
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)

*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Guasti, CA Date: 1981 T2S; R7W; Section 12 c. Address: 10601 E. Riverside Drive City: Ontario Zip: 91761 d. UTM: Zone: 11S; 446967 mE/ 3764311 mN Elevation: 800’ AMSL e. Other Locational Data: Southeast of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Haven Avenue. APN: 021816104. *P3a. Description: The subject property is occupied by a 1976 single-family residence that features a rectangular layout and a stucco finish. The house has two steep pitched front-gabled elevations, a cross-gabled second story with roof dormers featuring side walls and two single-hung windows flanked by decorative shutters on the north elevation, and a gabled inset dormer on the south elevation.

Composite shingles cover the roof which features wide eaves that are boxed without brackets. Most of the windows on the front elevation are also single-hung modern windows with decorative shutters, but there is a bay window that is flanked by two single-hung windows to the left of the main entrance. A shallow porch supported by unelaborated square columns makes up the front entrance to the building which is accessed through a wood-paneled double-door. The porch exhibits a decorative brick façade. The building has an attached three-car garage, and a brick chimney sits near the center of the building. It has been re-roofed and the windows do not appear to be original.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: Single-Family Residential
*P4. Resources Present:
 Building ☐Structure
☐Object ☐Site ☐District
☐Element of District ☐Other
P5b. Description of Photo:
(View, date, accession #)
Photo 1: View SW.
*P6. Date Constructed/
Age and Sources: Historic
CA 1976 (see BSO, page 2).
☐ Prehistoric ☐ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:

American Superior Land,
LLC.
3161 Michelson Dr., St. 425,
Irvine, CA 92612
*P8. Recorded by:

N. Shepetuk
BCR Consulting LLC
Claremont, California 91711
*P9. Date: 6/13/2022
*P10. Survey Type:

Intensive.
*P11. Report Citation: Cultural Resources Assessment Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
*Attachments: ☐NONE ☐ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map  Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐Archaeological Record ☐District Record ☐Linear Feature Record ☐Milling Station Record ☐Rock Art Record ☐Artifact Record ☐Photograph Record ☐Other (List):

P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 6879
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-36-12621 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

B1. Historic Name: N/A
B2. Common Name: N/A
B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence
B4. Present Use: Single-Family Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Custom
*B6. Construction History: The subject property was constructed in 1976. Aerial imagery shows that the building footprint has remained the same with no additions. A building permit search through the city of Ontario showed no evidence of any alterations or additions. The Property Information Management System for San Bernardino County only showed Frank and his wife Lois Hilarides as the owners from 1976 to 1998 before it came under the ownership of L & F Properties from 1998 to 2021. It was recently acquired by American Superior Land LLC.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agricultural Development
Area: Chino Valley Period of Significance: Late-20th Century Property Type: Single Family Property Applicable Criteria: N/A Applicable Criteria: N/A. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical/architectural context by theme, period, and geographic scope. Address Integrity.) The subject property was originally developed as a dairy farm complex between 1956-57 with a residence that was followed by the construction of two barns (Dice 2006). The property was purchased by dairy farmers Frank and Lois Hilarides in 1976 when another residence was built on the parcel and dairy production was expanded. Frank and Lois had operated a dairy farm in Cerritos since soon after their engagement in 1952. Population increases made dairy farming difficult in L.A. county which prompted the Hilarides to relocate the Chino Valley (Long Beach Press-Telegram 1952; Independent Press Telegram 1976). They built the 1976 residence on the property and Frank subsequently won awards for milk quality and was a member of the California Milk Advisory board (Chino Champion 1978; Chino Valley News 1980). Assessor records indicate that Frank and Lois remained at the property until selling in 1998.

Local History
The history of the local dairy industry is closely tied to the surrounding cities: Corona, Ontario, Chino, and Norco (DeGrandpre 2018).

An agricultural center had been established during the rancho (or Mexican) period and, being located on an alluvial plain at the nexus of three meandering watercourses, the region exhibited as much as four feet of fertile topsoil (USGS 1981). As a result, the area became known for successful orchard and row crops, and eventually (and perhaps most enduringly) dairy. Chino, which shares a border with Ontario, remained agricultural throughout the depression and World War II, but by the 1950s semi-rural subdivisions and dairies began to define the economic landscape (Musselwhite 2005). Favorable zoning encouraged dairy-farmers to settle, resulting in the formation of the most productive milk-producing community in the United States. Encroaching suburban settlements and the resulting zone changes have since caused many dairies to relocate, resulting in a reconfiguration of many parcels from agricultural to a retail/bedroom community (ibid).
(Continued on Continuation Sheet, page 3).
*B12. References:

DeGrandpre, Deanne. 2018. City of Eastvale: History. (http://www.eastvaleca.gov/ abouteastvale/history).

Chino Champion. 6/2/78: 25. Grant’s Warning: Too Much Milk Could Be Problem.

Chino Valley News. 10/22/80: 1. Frank Hilarides Nominated to Milk Advisory Board.

Chino Valley News. 3/11/92: 13. Milk Advisory Board Making Marketing Plans.

Dice, Michael. 2006. Rich Haven Specific Plan City of Ontario.

First American Title Insurance Company. 2017. File No: NCS-929239-ONT1.

Independent Press Telegram. 1/3/76: 3. Cerritos Dairyman Keeps Battling for Improvements.

Long Beach Press Telegram. 1952. Uncredited Article. Newspapers.com Musselwhite, Bryan. 2005. Beet Sugar, Cows, and Bedrooms: The Transformation of Chino from a Rural Community to a Modern Suburb. Cal Poly, Pomona.

United States Geological Survey. 1981. Guasti. 7.5 Minute Topo Quadrangle. *B14. Evaluators: David Brunzell, BCR Consulting, Claremont, California *Date of Evaluation: 8/15/22
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
6880
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-36-12621 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

CONTINUATION SHEET

Recorded by: N. Shepetuk *Date:  Continuation  Update *B10 (continued from page 2).

Evaluation
California Register of Historical Resources requires that a significance criterion (1-4) be met for a resource to be eligible. A resource is eligible if (1) it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (2) it is associated with the lives of persons important in California's past; (3) it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; or (4) it has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. The California Register also requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance (normally 45 years) to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources” (CCR 4852 [d][2]). The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Please note that the following evaluates the entire property designated P-36-12621.

Although the subject property fits within a local dairy context of the second half of the 20th century, considerable research has failed to associate it with important events related to the founding and/or development of the industry. It is therefore not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Due to a lack of documentation, it was not possible to ascertain who was the original owner of the building when it was constructed between 1956 and 1957. Research has shown that Frank and Lois Hilarides purchased the property and constructed a residence there in 1976. While Frank Hilarides was an award-winning dairyman who sat on the California Milk Advisory Board, research did not indicate that he had any particular impact on the progression of the dairy industry, nor was he notable in local, state, or national history. It is therefore not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3: One residence was built in the Minimal Traditional style and still maintains some of those elements such as a moderately pitched hipped roof, smooth stucco cladding with horizontal wood board siding below façade windows, decorative wood shutters flanking a façade window, a narrow rectangular wood vent below a façade gable pitch and porch supports with decorative brackets. However, there have been alterations to the building that include replacement of windows, doors, roof shingles and possibly the wood porch supports of the north elevation. These alterations have diminished its integrity as an example of the Minimal Traditional style. Also, the builder and architect are unknown and it does not appear to be the work of a master. With these considerations in mind, the 1956-1957 building does not appear to qualify for the California Register under Criterion 3 (see also Dice 2006:29). The 1976 residence remains in good condition, but it does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, and does not represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. With these considerations in mind, the 1976 building does not appear to qualify for the California Register under Criterion 3. Criterion 4: Extensive research has exhausted this resources data potential, and as such the resource has not and is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

The subject property and its constituent historic-age buildings are therefore recommended not eligible under any of the four criteria for listing on the California Register, and as such the property is not recommended a historical resource under CEQA. 6881
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-36-12621 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

CONTINUATION SHEET

Recorded by: N. Shepetuk *Date:  Continuation  Update Updated Documentation of P-36-12621
P-36-12621 is on a parcel of 17.71 acres comprising five buildings, including a single-family residence constructed circa 1957, a 1976 residence, and two hay shelters and a detached garage constructed after 1980. The residence was recorded in 2006 as a minimal traditional style building that featured a moderately pitched hipped roof, smooth stucco cladding and horizontal wood board siding below the façade windows, decorative wood shutters flanking a façade window, narrow rectangular wood vent below the façade gable pitch and porch supports with decorative brackets (Dice 2006). BCR Consulting revisited the parcel on June 13, 2022 and identified the 1957 residence in the same condition and location recorded during the original study. The 1976 residence is located on the north side of the parcel at 10601 E. Riverside Drive. Since this is an independent residence that is over 45 years old, it has been individually designated and identified by address, and is evaluated on its own DPR form (above). The 2006 study recommended that the 1957 residence is not eligible for California Register of Historical Resources listing eligibility. BCR Consulting finds that this eligibility recommendation remains valid. The post-1980 elements are not historic in age and do not warrant further consideration. 6882
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-36-12622 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Nick Shepetuk and Fabian Reyes-Martinez *Date: June 13, 2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P-36-12622 is on a parcel that consists of 38.99 acres and originally contained 12 buildings and structures, as well as 27 animal pens/barns/shelters (Dice 2006). BCR Consulting revisited the parcel on June 13, 2022 and discovered that all the buildings and structures had been demolished and condiminiums had been built with some units still being constructed.

Buildings A and B were originally recorded in 2006 as identical residences that were built in 1947 in the Minimal Traditional Style.

Both were demolished during the construction of condominiums.

Buildings C and D were originally recorded in 2006 as garages that were constructed in 1947. Both were demolished during the construction of condominiums.

Building E was originally recorded in 2006 as a rectangular, prefabricated building that was built circa 1947. It was demolished during the construction of condominiums.

Building F was originally recorded in 2006 as a rectangular, prefabricated building that was most likely constructed in 1947. It was demolished during the construction of condominiums.

Building G was originally recorded in 2006 as a livestock sun shade that was demolished during the construction of condominiums.

Building I was originally recorded in 2006 as, “a shed roof supported by metal poles that covered a single width mobile home” (Dice 2006) that was demolished during the construction of condominiums.

Building H was originally recorded in 2006 as a residence constructed in the Minimal Traditional style in 1947. It was demolished during construction of condiminiums.

Building J was originally recorded in 2006 as a, “small outbuilding” (Dice 2006) and was demolished during construction of condiminiums.

Building K was originally recorded in 2006 as a modern double-width mobile home that was demolished during construction of condiminiums.

Building L was originally recorded in 2006 as large garage that was built circa 1990 and was demolished during construction of condiminiums.

Building M was originally recorded as, “several long and low barns of small animal pens in rows of three…located within the cluster of pens are some slightly larger structures that appear to be feed storage” (Dice 2006). All buildings and structures were demolished during the construction of condiminiums.

Reference:

Dice, Michael
2006 Historic Architecture Assessment for the Rich Haven Specific Plan City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.

On File at the SCCIC. Fullerton, California.
6883
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-36-012623 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Nick Shepetuk and Fabian Reyes-Martinez *Date: June 13, 2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Ben Taniguchi and Rebecca Smith recorded P-36-012623 in 2006 as four buildings constructed in 1953 that comprised part of a dairy (Dice 2006).

Building A was originally described in 2006 as a vernacular style barn built in 1953 that sat on a concrete foundation with a singlestory, timber frame. It had one bay on its principal façade with the main entrance consisting of a large wood sliding door on the east elevation. The building featured a front gable roof with composition shingles that was moderately pitched. There were also four stalls located on the south elevation that were most likely used for hay storage. Building A was revisited by BCR Consulting on June 13, 2022 and it was in poor condition with the roof caved in and the walls slumped.

Building B was originally described in 2006 as a vernacular style barn built in 1953 that featured a timber framed, one-story, modified box plan with a side gable addition. The building featured a moderately-pitched, double front gabled roof with a side-gable addition constructed at an unknown date. The building was in fair condition, but had a side-gabled addition to the west elevation. BCR Consulting revisited the barn on June 13, 2022 and discovered that the side gable addition was the only part intact. The main barn was in poor condition with a roof that had caved in and walls that had slumped.

Building C was originally recorded in 2006 as a residence constructed in the Minimal Traditional style. It featured an L-shaped plan with an asymmetrical principal façade that has five bays. The building is covered by a moderately-pitched, hipped roof covered with composition shingles. The building is clad in stucco. The majority of the windows are wood sash double-hung type. The building exhibited no visible alterations and was in good condition. When BCR Consulting revisited the building on June 13, 2022, the building was in good condition and had undergone minimal alterations since 2006.

Building D was originally recorded in 2006 as a Minimal Traditional style, single-family residence built in 1953. It featured a single story and rectangular plan with an attached garage. It had an exterior of smooth stucco and moderately-pitched, side gable roof that consisted of composite shingles. There were four windows on the primary façade that are square wood sash fixed windows. Two of the windows were flanked by decorative wood shutters. The windows and doors had been replaced, and the building was in good condition. When BCR Consulting revisited the building on June 13, 2022, it was in good condition and had undergone minimal alterations since 2006.

Reference:

Dice, Michael
2006 Historic Architecture Assessment for the Rich Haven Specific Plan City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. On File at the SCCIC. Fullerton, California.
6884
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-36-012623 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Nick Shepetuk and Fabian Reyes-Martinez *Date: June 13 2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

Building A Building B

Building C Building D
6885
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-36-025440 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: John Defachelle *Date: February 28, 2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
This resource is a segment of an east-west oriented approximately 12-mile 220kV electrical transmission alignment that crosses the southern portion of the project site. The alignment connects SCE Chino and Mira Loma Substations. It was originally built in 1937 as a parallel two-line single circuit but had several towers replaced in 1940. Insulators were replaced and other maintenance was performed on the greater alignment in 1953 (Tinsley Becker 2010). Topographic maps and aerial photos do not show the subject segment on the project site prior to 1981. It appears next to a second modern alignment between 1981 and 1985 (United States Geological Survey 1981; United States Department of Agriculture 1985). BCR Consulting revisited the site on February 28, 2022 and found it in place as recorded in 2010.

P-36-025440 Overview (View West)

Reference:

Tinsley Becker, Wendy L.
2010 Site Record for P-36-025440. On File at the SCCIC. Fullerton, California.

United States Department of Agriculture
1985 Aerial Photographs of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com. Accessed Multiple Dates.

United States Geological Survey
1981 Guasti, California 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. 6886
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-36-026051 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Transmission Line
*Recorded by: John Defachelle *Date: February 28, 2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
This resource is a segment of the Hayfield-Chino 220kV electrical transmission alignment that crosses the southeast corner of the project site. The greater alignment was constructed between 1945 and 1946 as a three-phase single circuit line between Chino and east of Coachella. As substations were added, segments of the transmission line were renamed to match the names of their substations (Tinsley Becker 2014). One tower from this alignment is located in the subject segment. It is visible on aerials after 1959 and as such does not appear to be original (United States Department of Agriculture 1959, 1966). According to recent documentation, the original transmission line had been completely removed and replaced by modern transmission lines by 2014 (Tinsley Becker 2014). BCR Consulting revisited this resource on February 28, 2022 and found it in place as recorded in 2014.

Overview of P-36-026051 (View NW)

Reference:

Tinsley Becker, Wendy L.
2014 Site Record for P-36-026051. On File at the SCCIC. Fullerton, California.

United States Department of Agriculture
1959 Aerial Photographs of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com. Accessed Multiple Dates. 1959 Aerial Photographs of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com. Accessed Multiple Dates. 6887
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX C

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COUNCIL SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH 6888
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

March 30, 2022
David Brunzell
BCR Consulting, LLC
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project, San Bernardino County Dear Mr. Brunzell:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
6889
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
[email protected]
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
[email protected]
Quechan
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project, San Bernardino County.

PROJ-2022-
001619
03/30/2022 08:47 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
3/30/2022
6890
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project, San Bernardino County.

PROJ-2022-
001619
03/30/2022 08:47 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
3/30/2022
6891
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX D

PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
6892
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T Photo 1: Southern Project Site Overview (View North)
Photo 2: Southeastern Project Site Overview (View S)
6893
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T Photo 3: Southern Project Site Overview (View S)
Photo 4: Southern Project Site Overview (View NW)
6894
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T Photo 5: Southern Project Site Overview (View NE)
Photo 6: Northern Project Site Overview (View SE)
6895
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T Photo 7: Northern Project Dump Site Overview (View SE)
6896
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX E

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW
6897
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org March 2nd, 2022
BCR Consulting LLC
Nicholas Shepetuk
505 W 8th St.

Claremont, CA 91711
Dear Mr. Shepetuk,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project located in the City of Ontario, CA. The project area is located west of Interstate 15, east of Haven Avenue, north of Edison Avenue and south of East Riverside Drive in Township 2 South, Range 7 West, Sections 12 and 13 on the Guasti, California USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.

The geologic unit underlying this project are mapped as young Eolian sand and dune deposits from the Holocene period (Morton and Miller, 2006). Eolian units are considered to be of some preservation value, but any material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius.

Should excavation activity associated with the development of the project area extend beyond the current project into surrounding alluvial units, paleontological resources would be possible.

However, under current project parameters, and with the geologic units described, it would be unlikely for fossil material to be preserved.

If you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Brittney Elizabeth Stoneburg
Collections Technician
6898
6899
-

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND

WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENT WATER
SUPPLY
RICH-HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3
(PSPA19-006)
Prepared for:

March 18, 2021
www.webbassociates.com 6900
6901
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA 3
i
H:\2021\21-0011
TABLE OF CONTENTS – WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 1-1 Law _______________________________________________________________1-1

1.1. Purpose ____________________________________________________________ 1-2

1.2. Background _________________________________________________________ 1-3

1.3. Proposed Project ____________________________________________________ 1-4

1.4. Prior Water Supply Assessment _______________________________________ 1-8 Law _______________________________________________________________1-8

1.5. Project Relation to the Urban Water Management Plan ___________________ 1-9 Relation of Water Supplier to other Urban Water Management Plans ____ 1-11 Law _____________________________________________________________ 1-12

1.6. Statewide and Local Water Conservation Efforts ________________________ 1-14

1.7. Methodology of Analysis_____________________________________________ 1-15 SECTION 2 - WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS .............................................................. 2-1 Law _______________________________________________________________2-1

2.1. Citywide Demographic Factors ________________________________________ 2-1 Climate ____________________________________________________________2-2 Population _________________________________________________________2-2

2.2. City of Ontario's Current and Future Water Demand ______________________ 2-3

2.3. Project Site Land Use Assumed in the UWMP ___________________________ 2-7

2.4. Project Water Demand _______________________________________________ 2-8 Conclusion _________________________________________________________2-9 SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS................................................................ 3-1 Law _______________________________________________________________3-1

3.1. Documenting Wholesale Water Supplies ________________________________ 3-2 Wholesale Supplies Received _________________________________________3-2 Dry Year Yield Storage Program ______________________________________3-4

3.2. Documenting Water Supplies _________________________________________ 3-6 6902
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA 3
ii
Water Supply Capacities _____________________________________________3-8

3.3. Descriptions of All Water Supply Projects ______________________________ 3-10 City Well Production _______________________________________________ 3-10 Chino Basin Desalter Authority Groundwater Production _______________ 3-11 Inland Empire Utilities Agency Recycled Water Supply _________________ 3-12 San Antonio Water Company Potable Water Supply ___________________ 3-14

3.4. Documenting Normal Year Water Supply and Demand _________________ 3-15

3.5. Documenting Dry Year Water Supply and Demand _____________________ 3-16

3.6. Documenting Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand _____________ 3-17

3.7. Comparison of Available Water Supply and Demand ___________________ 3-18 SECTION 4 - GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS............................................................... 4-1 Law _______________________________________________________________4-1

4.1. Review of Urban Water Management Plan (Section 10910(f)(1)) ____________ 4-2

4.2. Groundwater Basin Descriptions (Section 10910(f)(2)) ____________________ 4-3 Chino Groundwater Basin Description _________________________________4-3 Legal Right to Pump from the Chino Basin _____________________________4-5

4.3. Recorded Use of Groundwater by the City of Ontario (Section 10910(f)(3)) _ 4-10

4.4. Projected Use of Groundwater by the City of Ontario (Section 10910(f)(4)) _ 4-10

4.5. Sufficiency of Groundwater Basin (Section 10910 (f)(5)) __________________ 4-11 Conclusion _______________________________________________________ 4-18 SECTION 5 - PRIMARY ISSUE FOR ASSESSMENT................................................. 5-1 Law _______________________________________________________________5-1

5.1. Findings ____________________________________________________________ 5-2 SECTION 6 - REFERENCES....................................................................................... 6-1 SECTION 7 - SPREADSHEETS.................................................................................. 7-1 6903
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA 3
iii

APPENDICES
A. City of Ontario. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers, June 2016.

B. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.

C. Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Water Facilities Authority. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016.

D. Chino Basin Desalter Authority. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Water Resources Planning. June 2016.

E. San Antonio Water Company. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Civiltec Engineering, Inc. June 2016.

F. December 2014 Purchase Order Agreement between MWD and IEUA, and IEUA Resolution No. 2014-12-1.

G. October 1985 City of Ontario Installment Purchase Agreement with WFA.

H. WFA Ordinance No. 99-07-02.

I. April 2003 Local Agency Agreement between IEUA and City of Ontario in relation to the Dry year Yield Program.

J. November 2014 Agreement between City of Ontario and Jurupa Community Services District in relation to the Dry Year Yield Program.

K. City of Ontario. Water Master Plan. Prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers, April 2012.

L. City of Ontario. Recycled Water Master Plan Update. April 2012.

M. Chino Groundwater Basin 1978 Judgment and amendments thereto.

N. 2008 City of Fontana and City of Ontario Agreement Regarding Transfer of Right of First Purchase of Recharged Reclaimed Water.
6904
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA 3
iv

FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Location _________________________________________________ 1-17 Figure 2 Project Vicinity ____________________________________________________ 1-18 Figure 3 Existing Land Use Plan and Implementing Projects ____________________ 1-19 Figure 4 Proposed Project Land Use Plan ___________________________________ 1-20 Figure 5 Land Uses Assumed in the UWMP __________________________________ 1-21 TABLES
Table 1-1a Project Residential District Land Use Summary ______________________ 1-4 Table 1-1b Project Mixed-Use District Land Use Summary ______________________ 1-5 Table 1-2 Land Uses Assumed in the UWMP _________________________________ 1-10 Table 2-1 OMUC Service Area Population Estimates, 2010-2040 _________________ 2-2 Table 2-2 Recorded Citywide Water Demand (AFY) _____________________________ 2-4 Table 2-3 Future Citywide Water Demand (AFY) ________________________________ 2-5 Table 2-4 Existing (2015) and Ultimate Citywide Land Use ______________________ 2-6 Table 2-5 Summary Water Demand of the Land Use Assumed in the UWMP ______ 2-7 Table 2-6 Summary Project Water Demand____________________________________ 2-8 Table 3-1 Wholesale Water Supplies Available to IEUA and WFA (AFY) ___________ 3-4 Table 3-2 Recorded OMUC Water Supplies (AFY) ______________________________ 3-7 Table 3-3 Projected OMUC Water Supplies (AFY) ______________________________ 3-8 Table 3-4 Supply Capacities of Existing Sources _______________________________ 3-9 Table 3-5 Ultimate Capacities of Supply Sources _____________________________ 3-10 Table 3-6 Recorded Groundwater Production, 2011-2015 (AFY) ________________ 3-13 Table 3-7 Recorded and Future Recycled Water Supply (AFY) __________________ 3-13 Table 3-8 Recorded and Future SAWCo Water Supply (AFY) ___________________ 3-15 Table 3-9 OMUC Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AFY) _____________ 3-16 Table 3-10 OMUC Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) _________ 3-17 6905
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA 3
v
Table 3-11 OMUC Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) _______ 3-18 Table 4-1 Ontario Groundwater Rights Summary _______________________________ 4-9 Chart 4-1 Annual OMUC Groundwater Production, 2000 - FY19/20 (AFY) ________ 4-10 Remainder of Page Left Blank
6906
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA 3
vi
This Page Intentionally Blank.
6907
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-1
H:\2021\21-0011
SB 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was signed into California state law with an effective date of January 1, 2002. SB 610 amended existing legal requirements for confirmation of water supply sufficiency as a condition of approval for development projects. The confirmation of water supply sufficiency is achieved through an assessment of the water supplier's existing and future water sources, and existing and projected water demand in relation to a "project" as defined by California Water Code (CWC) section 10912, resulting in the production of a project-specific Water Supply Assessment (“WSA” or “Assessment”). Additional analysis is required in the WSA if any portion of the water supply includes groundwater. The WSA is prepared and adopted by the water supplier and included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for the project. The CEQA Lead Agency must then independently determine, based on the entire record, whether water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses (CWC section 10911).

Law
CWC section 10910:
(a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part.

CWC section 10912:

For the purpose of this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) "Project” means any of the following:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. 6908
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-2
(2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision.
(7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.

1.1 Purpose
The Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) is a department of the City of Ontario (City) and the water supplier to the City. OMUC commissioned this Assessment from Albert A. Webb Associates (WEBB) on January 25, 2021 to answer the following key question pursuant to SB 610: whether the projected supply for the next 20 years, based on normal, single dry and multiple dry years, will meet the demand projected for the project plus existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

This WSA has been prepared for Amendment No. 3 to the Rich-Haven Specific Plan (PSPA19-006) (SPA3 or “Project”). The City of Ontario Planning Department is preparing a 2021 addendum to The Ontario Plan Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and therefore, this Project is considered to be “subject to CEQA” pursuant to CWC section 10910.

The Project is considered a “project” pursuant to the following CWC section 10912 definition:
6909
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-3
(5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.

1.2 Background
The Rich-Haven Specific Plan encompasses approximately 602 gross acres in the County of San Bernardino, within the City of Ontario’s 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch (previously referred to as the New Model Colony [NMC]) (Figure 1, Regional Location). The Rich-Haven Specific Plan is bounded to the north by East Riverside Drive and the western property line for Colony High School, to the west by Haven Avenue, to the south by Edison Avenue, and bounded to the east by Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue (Figure 2, Project Vicinity).

The Rich-Haven Specific Plan was first adopted by the Ontario City Council on Dec. 4, 2007 which included approximately 512 acres with potential development of 4,256 residential units and 889,200 square feet of commercial/office use. The first Specific Plan Amendment (SPA1) was adopted by City Council in March 2016, which brought the Specific Plan into conformance with the City General Plan that was adopted in 2010, which is referred to as The Ontario Plan (TOP). The second SPA (SPA2) was adopted by City Council in February 2018 and included the annexation of Planning Areas 9A & 9B (an additional 72.3 acres). This annexation brought the entire “NMC East Mixed Use District” within the boundaries of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan. As such, the maximum residential dwelling units and maximum commercial/office area increased to 7,194 units and 1,131,702 square feet, respectively. Two implementing projects within the Specific Plan have been approved by the City including Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 20134 and TTM No. 20081 (Figure 3 – Existing Land Use Plan and Implementing Projects).
6910
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-4

1.3 Proposed Project
The proposed Project is the third SPA (SPA3); the primary changes of which are to transfer 518 dwelling units (DUs) from the NMC East Mixed Use District to the Residential District of the Specific Plan, and replace approximately 50 acres of Commercial with Light Industrial use. As stated in the 2021 Addendum to The Ontario Plan Certified EIR for the Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2021 Amendment, the changes made by the Project to the previously approved 2018 land use plan include:
• Certain Specific Plan Planning Areas would be reorganized/re-classified; • Alternative residential products would be implemented; • The Regional Commercial within Planning Area 6A is moved into Planning Area 9A with no net change to the combined 6A/9A uses in the Specific Plan; • The maximum allowable development of commercial/office uses would be decreased; and
• A new Light Industrial Land Use would be established, allowing for development of light industrial warehouse uses in the southeasterly portion of the Specific Plan, adjacent to Hamner Avenue.1
The changes proposed by SPA3 compared to the prior approved land use plan are shown below in Table 1-1a and Table 1-1b in strikethrough for deletions and underline for additions. The proposed Project land uses are shown in Figure 4 – Proposed Project Land Use. Currently, TTM No. 20345 is being proposed to the City within Planning Area 6A. This project currently proposes condominiums with 77 single-family attached units and 26 single-family detached units on approximately 7 acres. 1 The Specific Plan Mixed Use District allows for combinations of commercial, office, light industrial, and residential development at various densities/intensities. Any given proposal within the Specific Plan Mixed Use District is required to conform to applicable Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Development Standards; and trip generation (Average Daily Trips, ADT) of such proposals shall not exceed trip generation estimates (the “trip budget”) identified in The Ontario Plan EIR. Such proposals shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director or Assignee. Proposals that exceed The Ontario Plan EIR trip budget and/or do not conform to applicable Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Development Standards may require further amendment of the Specific Plan and additional CEQA analysis (2021 Addendum, p. 2-5). 6911
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-5
Table 1-1a Project Residential District Land Use Summary Residential
District
Planning Area
Specific Plan Land Use
Maximum
Dwelling Units
(DU)
Gross Acres
(ac)
Gross
Density
(DU/ac)
1A Residential - SFD 58 115 12.8 25.5 4.5
1B Residential - SFD 57 175 112.7 24.5 4.5 7.1
1C Residential - SFD 68 731 14.9 60.6 4.5 12.1
1D Residential - SFD 91 20.5 4.5
1E Residential - SFD 109 23.4 4.5
1F Residential - SFD 120 26.3 4.5
Subtotal 503 1,021 110.6 4.5 9.2
2 Edison Parcel
Open Space Non-Recreational -- 20.0 --
3 Park
Open Space Recreational -- 27.0 --
Subtotal 47.0
4A Residential – SFD/Attached 154 14.1 10.9
4B Residential – SFD/Attached 101 9.2 11.0
4C Residential – SFD/Attached 108 9.8 11.0
Subtotal 363 33.1 11.0
5A Residential – SFD/Attached 109 9.1 12.1
5B Residential – SFD/Attached 165 14.2 11.7
5C Residential – SFD/Attached 332 27.0 12.3
5D Residential – SFD/Attached 361 30.3 11.9
Subtotal(1) 967 80.6 12.0
5E Edison Easement
Open Space Non-Recreational -- 17.8 --
Subtotal(1) -- 17.8 --
Subtotal Residential Planning Areas 1,833 2,351 224.3 6.7 10.0 Total Residential District 2,351 289.1 --
Notes: SFD = Single Family Detached
Source: RHSPA3, p.3-5.
(1) Planning Areas 5A-5E are included in approved TTM No. 20134, which proposes 196 single family dwelling units and 428 multi-family dwelling units for a total of 624 dwelling units. This is 343 units less than the maximum allowed by the Specific Plan.
6912
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-6
Table 1-1b Project Mixed Use District Land Use Summary
Mixed Use
District
Planning
Area
Specific Plan
Land Use
Maximum
Dwelling
Units (DU)
Gross
Acres
(ac)
Commercial/Office Light
Industrial
Maximum (SF)
Minimum
(SF)
Maximum
(SF)
6A(1) + 9A
Residential &
Commercial 2,178 85.6 109,335 166,182 --
6B + 9B
Residential &
Commercial 1,406 65.1 36,639 76,320 --
7A
Commercial Light
Industrial 725 81.1 49.4 100,000 440,800 1,183,525
7A
Open Space NonRecreational -- 6.6 -- -- --
7B Commercial -- 25.1 125,000 300,000 --
8A
Residential &
Commercial 852 61.4 95,000 325,000 --
8B
Residential &
Commercial 200 407 19.7 20,000 123,400 --
Total Mixed Use District 5,361 4,843 312.9
360,974
385,974
1,131,702
990,902 1,183,525
Total Residential and Mixed Use
Districts 7,194 602.0
360,974
385,974
1,131,702
990,902 1,183,525
Notes: SF = square feet
Source: RHSPA3, p.3-5.
(1) Planning Area 6A includes approved TTM No. 20081, which proposes a combined total of 587 DU on 50.1 acres with no Commercial land uses.

With implementation of the Project, the Rich-Haven Specific Plan will continue to allow for up to a maximum of 7,194 dwelling units (all residential types), a new maximum of 990,902 square feet of commercial/office uses, and a new maximum of 1,183,525 square feet of light industrial uses.

According to the SPA3, there are currently 11 wells on the Project site, which will be destroyed. Two new potable water production wells will be constructed – one in Planning Area 5 and another in Planning Areas 1 or 8. The Conceptual Domestic Water Plan in the SPA3 states the following (p. 4-16):
6913
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-7
Local backbone domestic water mains to be constructed as part of the RichHaven Specific Plan project will include 8-inch to 12-inch [diameter] water mains throughout the local backbone street system. Additionally, the Chino Basin Watermaster Water Quality Map identifies the Rich Haven area within an optimum water quality zone and requires that the owner/developer dedicate a total of two wells within the Specific Plan area to the City of Ontario for production of potable water. The owner/developer of Planning Area 5 has identified a well location site within the greenbelt in the area east of Mill Creek Avenue. A second well location site within the Specific Plan area shall be located within Planning Areas 1 or 8 as approved by the City. Master planned domestic water main lines serving the surrounding area and within the Specific Plan, as identified in the most currently approved Water Master Plan Update, shall be constructed prior to issuance of first occupancy.

Within the project site, a network of minimum 8-inch water lines will be installed.

The proposed on-site public water system sizing is subject to the recommendations and approval of the required hydraulic analysis. All water mains and wells internal to the Rich-Haven Specific Plan project, will be provided by the merchant builder. In-tract water system design will be provided at the time of subdivision. Offsite water improvements to serve the Specific Plan will be implemented according to the most current version of the City’s Water Master Plan.

Eleven existing wells have been identified within the Rich-Haven Specific Plan project site.

In compliance with the Chino Basin Watermaster’s Well Procedure for Developers, a well use/destruction plan and schedule for all existing private/agricultural wells shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for approval prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity. If a private well is actively used for water supply, the Developer shall submit a plan to abandon 6914
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-8
such well and connect users to the City’s water system (residential to the domestic water system and agricultural to the recycled water system) when available. Wells shall be destroyed/abandoned per the California Water Resource Guidelines and required permitting from the County Health Department. A copy of such permit shall be provided to the Engineering and Public Works Agency prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits.

City Ordinance No. 2689 requires all new development to connect to, and use recycled water for all approved uses, including but not limited to landscape irrigation (codified in City Municipal Code Sections 6-8.7 to 6-8.279). A Water Master Plan has been developed for the Rich-Haven Specific Plan, which shall conform to the City of Ontario’s Water Master Plan and will include both domestic and recycled water infrastructure (RHSPA3, p. 4-14). Recycled water will be used in the Rich-Haven Specific Plan area for irrigation of parks, schools, street landscaping, recreational trails, parkways, common area residential landscaping and commercial/industrial landscaping (RHSPA3, p. 4-17).

1.4 Prior Water Supply Assessment
A WSA and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply (WV) prepared pursuant to Senate Bill 221 for the 8,200-acre NMC (Ontario Ranch) was prepared by WEBB on behalf of the City dated October 27, 2004. The 2004 NMC WSA/WV was used for demonstrating water supply sufficiency for previous amendments to the Rich-Haven Specific Plan. Because SPA3 proposes a new land use not previously included in the land use plan (i.e., Light Industrial) and the industrial land use has a maximum area of more than 650,000 SF, and the City has updated its water use and water supply information since 2004, a new WSA is prepared herein consistent with CWC section 10910(3).

Law
CWC Section 10910:
6915
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-9
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, if a project has been the subject of a water assessment that complies with the requirements of this part, no additional water assessment shall be required for subsequent projects that were part of a larger project for which a water assessment was completed and that has complied with the requirements of this part and for which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has concluded that its water supplies are sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses, unless one or more of the following changes occurs:
(1) Changes in the project that result in a substantial increase in water demand for the project.
(2) Changes in the circumstances or conditions substantially affecting the ability of the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), to provide a sufficient supply of water for the project.
(3) Significant new information becomes available which was not known and could not have been known at the time when the assessment was prepared.

1.5 Project Relation to the Urban Water Management Plan OMUC is the water supplier for the Project and has prepared a 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), a copy of which is provided in Appendix A. Because the 2020 UWMP will not be adopted and supersede the previous UWMP until summer 2021, this WSA will rely on the 2015 UWMP. The 2015 UWMP was adopted by the City Council on July 21, 2016 and reviewed by the State Department of Water Resources (DWR). The assumptions on ultimate (buildout) water demand in the 2015 UWMP were derived from land use-based water demand factors (AKM, 2016), which build on the foundations laid out by the City’s TOP land use plan (TOP, 2010). The 6916
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-10
method used in the 2015 UWMP to calculate ultimate water demand assumed the NMC maximum residential densities (i.e., 5.0, 11.0, 25.0, and 40.0 du/ac) using adjusted gross acreages (i.e., acreages lacking rights-of-way for roads, flood control facilities, or railroads). Further, the method used for calculating the water demands of each Mixed Use District within the City was done individually based on unique density/intensity assumptions.

The land use designations on the Project site that were assumed in the 2015 UWMP are shown in Figure 5 – Land Uses Assumed in the UWMP and Table 1-2 (next page).
6917
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-11
Table 1-2 Land Uses Assumed in the UWMP
TOP Land Use Designation
TOP
Adjusted
Acreage(1)
Gross
Acreage
Residential
Units
(Minimum)(2)
Residential
Units
(Maximum)(3)
Planning Areas 1A – 1F
Low Density Residential
(2.1 – 5.0 du/ac) 106.16 110.6 223 531
Planning Areas 2 and 3
Open Space Non-Recreational
(Edison Parcel) 18.01 20 0 0
Open Space Recreational 25.71 27 0 0
Planning Areas 4A - 4C
Low Medium Density Residential
(5.0-11.0 du/ac) 33.41 33 167 368
Planning Areas 5A - 5D
Medium Density Residential
(11.1 – 25.0 du/ac) 62.06 80.6 689 1,552
Planning Area 5E
Open Space Non-Recreational
(Edison Easement) 17.76 17.76 0 0
Subtotal 263.1 289 1,079 2,451
Planning Areas 6A – 9B
NMC East Mixed Use Area(4)
• > 14.0 – 50.0 du/ac.
• 0.7 FAR for office and retail uses.
• Subject to approved Specific
Plans.
264.3
TOP Assumed Density/Intensity:
(5)
• 30% of area at 25 du/ac = 1,978 du.
• 30% of area at 0.35 FAR for office & 40% of
area at 0.30 FAR for retail uses=2,584,524 SF.

Open Space Non-Recreational (SCE
Corridor) / Neighborhood Edge 23.93 - 0 0
Total(6) 551.33 577 -- 4,429
Source: For PAs 1A–5E, Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment 3, Section 9.2 TOP Consistency Tables (Nov. 2020).

Notes: TOP = The Ontario Plan; FAR = floor to area ratio; SCE = Southern California Edison; SF = square feet; du/ac = dwelling unit per acre; NMC = New Model Colony.
(1) Development area acreagesare based upon TOP Adjusted Gross Acreages. The TOP Adjusted Gross Acreage does not include the rights-of-way for roadways, flood control facilities, or railroads. (2) Minimum dwelling units are calculated as the minimum density allowed multiplied by TOP Adjusted Acreage. (3) Maximum dwelling units are calculated as the maximum density allowed multiplied by TOP Adjusted Acreage. (4) From City of Ontario, The Ontario Plan Draft EIR, Chapter 3. Project Description, p. 3-38. (5) From Technical Memorandum, City of Ontario – Ultimate Citywide Water Demand Estimate, May 2016, Table 3 (TOP Approved Land Use Buildout Estimate (modified)), included as Appendix B to the Ontario 2015 UWMP. (6) Total areas and maximum units/square feet vary somewhat with each iteration of the land use plan because of adjustments to acreages over time and the Edison properties are not always included consistently. 6918
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-12
As part of this Assessment, WEBB has confirmed with OMUC that there have been no substantial changes to the water supply portfolio as it is described in the 2015 UWMP and the same unit water demand factors are used herein as those used in the 2015 UWMP.

If a project’s water demand has been accounted for in the water supplier’s most recent UWMP, then the WSA may use the UWMP as the source of the information required in the WSA. The determination as to whether the Project’s water demand has been accounted for in the most recent UWMP is located in Section 2 – Water Demand Analysis.

Relation of Water Supplier to other Urban Water Management Plans The City is a member agency of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), which is the local distributor of recycled water and a local wholesale supplier of untreated imported water (State Water Project) from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). OMUC is also a member of the Water Facilities Authority (WFA), a Joint Powers Authority from which the City purchases treated imported water received from IEUA. In addition, OMUC is a member of the Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA), a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency from which OMUC purchases treated groundwater. Lastly, OMUC owns shares of the San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo), a mutual water company that provides potable water to OMUC through the WFA.

MWD has prepared a 2015 UWMP that includes IEUA and its member agencies (Appendix B); IEUA and WFA have prepared a 2015 Regional UWMP (Appendix C); CDA has prepared a 2015 UWMP (Appendix D); and SAWCo prepared a modified 2015 UWMP (Appendix E).

Law
CWC Section 10910:
6919
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-13
(c) (1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code [CEQA], shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).
(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g).
(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
(4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
6920
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-14

1.6 Statewide and Local Water Conservation Efforts
Governor Brown proclaimed a statewide State of Emergency due to ongoing drought conditions on January 17, 2014. Since then, at least six Executive Orders and other Proclamations have been issued in response to impacts from extended statewide drought conditions. Executive Order B-37-16 issued on May 9, 2016, established a new water use efficiency framework for California. The order established longer-term water conservation measures that include permanent monthly water use reporting, new urban water use targets, reducing system leaks and eliminating wasteful practices, strengthening urban drought contingency plans and improving agricultural water management and drought plans. On April 7, 2017, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-40-17 that ended the drought State of Emergency in all California counties except Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne. The Executive Order maintains the mandatory water reporting requirements and prohibitions on wasteful practices contained in Executive Order B-37-16, as described previously. In a related action, State agencies released a plan to implement Executive Order B-37-16 entitled, “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life.”
The Ontario City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3027 on September 1, 2015 in response to the Emergency Conservation Regulations mandated at that time by the State Water Resources Control Board. Ordinance 3027 updated the City’s Water Conservation Plan that is codified in Chapter 8A, Title 6 of the City’s Municipal Code (“Water Conservation Plan”). Updates included more stringent prohibitions and penalties, a voluntary conservation stage that is always in effect, and mandatory water shortage stages 1 through 4 that target a strict enforcement of water conservation routines following a water crisis (UWMP, p. 8-1). In addition, OMUC’s citywide Water Shortage Contingency Plan describes the methods to achieve and the implications of reducing water supplies up to 50 percent (UWMP, Chapter 8). Lastly, the City and OMUC implement various programs to reduce water consumption, identified as Demand Management Measures in the UWMP, which include the Best Management Practices recommended by the California Urban Water Conservation Council, of which 6921
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-15
the City and OMUC is a member. Currently, the City is in the voluntary stage of the Water Conservation Plan, which has the following voluntary water use restrictions:
• Avoid hose washing of sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas or other paved surfaces, except as required for sanitary purposes; • Avoid using a hose for washing of an automobile unless equipped with a fitted shut-off nozzle;
• Public places (i.e., restaurant) where food is served, should avoid serving water unless requested by customer;
• Avoid watering outdoor landscaping more than every other day and during the hours of 6 AM and 6 PM;
• Avoid causing or allowing water to be applied to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff; and
• Promptly repair all leaks from indoor and outdoor plumbing fixtures • Avoid using water to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains, ponds, lakes or other similar aesthetic structures unless such water is part of a recycling system.

With the signing of Assembly Bill 1668 and SB606, the state has set an Indoor Residential Standard of 55 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) which will decrease to 50 GPCD by 2030 (CWC section 10609.4(a)). The per person unit water use factors used by the City in the 2015 UWMP for water demand planning purposes are based on a minimum of 60 gpd/person for high density residential with recycled water, up to 95 gpd/person for low density residential with recycled water use (UWMP Appendix B, p. 3).

1.7 Methodology of Analysis
This Assessment follows the DWR Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 (DWR 2003). Section 1 of this Assessment describes the existing and proposed land use designations of the Project site, the proposed Project’s 6922
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-16
relation to a previous WSA and the water supplier’s most recent UWMP. Section 2 provides the water demand analysis of the Project; Section 3 reviews the projected water supplies for the Project; Section 4 contains the required discussion of the water supplier’s groundwater supplies; and Section 5 concludes the Assessment by answering the primary question at hand.

Remainder of Page Left Blank
6923
Rich-Haven SPA3
Figure 1 – Regional Location
Map revised May 18, 2020. H:\2021\21-0011\GIS\Regional.mxd San Bernardino Co.

Riverside Co.

Los Angeles Co.

San Bernardino Co.

San Bernardino Co.

Orange Co.

Riverside Co.

Orange Co.

Prado
Lake Basin
Lake
Mathews

ONTARIO
CHINO
CORONA
NORCO

RIVERSIDE
Ontario MUC
Service Area
SAN

BERNARDI

RIALTO UPLAND
RANCHO

CUCAMONGA

MONTCLAIR
POMONA

CLAREMONT

DIAMOND
BAR
YORBA
LINDA

FONTANA
JURUPA
VALLEY
EASTVALE Project
Site
(New Model
Colony)
·|}þ210
·|}þ83
·|}þ71
·|}þ142
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
£¤66
·|}þ241
·|}þ91
·|}þ55
·|}þ90
·|}þ57
·|}þ60
·|}þ39
§¨¦10
§¨¦210
·|}þ91
·|}þ60
·|}þ71
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
Map
Area
0 2 4 6
Miles
I
6924
Figure 2 - Project Vicinity
}þ60
}þ60
§¨¦15
§¨¦15

HAVEN AVE

MILLIKEN AVE

RIVERSIDE DR MILL CREEK AVE

CHINO AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

HAMNER AVE

BELLGRAVE AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

MILIKEN AVE

MILL CREEK AVE

EDISON AVE

CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH RD
SCE
Substation
Colony
High
School
City of Ontario/S.B. County
Riverside County
LEGEND
Project Area
H:\2021\21-0011\GIS\Project_Vicinity.mxd; Map created 16 Feb 2021 Rich-Haven SPA3
0 1,000
I
2,000 3,000
Feet
Sources: San Bernardino Co. GIS,
2021 (streets) and 2020 (imagery).
6925
Source: Rich Haven Specific Plan,
Feb. 20, 2018, Figure 3-1
TTM 20081
TTM 20134
H:\2021\21-0011\GIS\Existing_LU.mxd; Map created 18 Feb 2021 Rich-Haven SPA3
Not to Scale
I
Figure 3 - Existing Land Use Plan and
Implementing Projects
Tract Map No. 20134 is located in Planning
Areas 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D,and 5E and proposes
196 single-family units and 428 multi-family units.

Tract Map No. 20081 located in Planning Area
6A proposes 484 units on 43.46 net acres.
6926
Source: Rich Haven Specific Plan,
Amendment, Nov. 2020, Figure 3-1
Implementing
Project Tract
No. 20345
H:\2021\21-0011\GIS\Proposed_LU.mxd; Map created 18 Feb 2021 Rich-Haven SPA3
Not to Scale
I
Figure 4 –Proposed Project Land Use
Tract Map No. 20345 is currently being
proposed to the City and includes 77
single-family attached units and 26 singlefamily detached units. 6927
Source: City of Ontario Agenda
Report, March 15, 2016, Exhibit "A",
TOP Land Use Plan
G:\2018\18-0183\GIS\TOP_LU_changes_v2.mxd; Map created 07 Sep 2018 Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Assessment
Not to Scale
I
Figure 5 - Land Uses Assumed in the UWMP
6928
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Rich Haven SPA3 Introduction 1-22
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
6929
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Demand Analysis 2-1
SECTION 2 - WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS
The purpose of this section is to evaluate whether the proposed Project was considered in the water supplier’s planning for water demand. This section will: 1) identify the various water use sectors, 2) identify water demand by those sectors for the next twenty years, and 3) compare the calculated water demand of the proposed Project to the water demand assumed in the most recent UWMP for the same property.

Law
CWC Section 10910:
(c) (2) (2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g).
(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

2.1 Citywide Demographic Factors
A variety of demographic factors may affect water use. The UWMP Act lists several demographic factors to be detailed in UWMP’s including climate, current and projected population, density, and the mix of customer types (CWC sections 10631(e)(1)-(2)). As 6930
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Demand Analysis 2-2
suggested by DWR, these data are provided herein and are taken generally from Ontario’s 2015 UWMP (Appendix A).

Climate
The climate of the City including the Project site can be described as generally mild temperatures, virtually no days below freezing, and approximately 312 days of sunshine per year. The average annual high temperature is approximately 78 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and the average annual low temperature is 53.2°F. The average annual rainfall is roughly 11.3 inches, which occurs between October and April. (UWMP, p. 3- 8)
Population
The City is divided into two distinct areas: Old Model Colony (OMC) and Ontario Ranch. The OMC mostly consists of residential, commercial, and industrial developments including the Ontario Airport. Ontario Ranch is currently in the process of a planned conversion from agriculture to residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses. The combined OMUC service area population as of 2015, including both OMC and Ontario Ranch, is estimated at 168,777 persons. Based on the City General Plan (TOP) and anticipated development patterns, population at citywide buildout in 2040 is estimated at 368,239 persons as shown in Table 2-1, which is an increase of more than 118 percent over 20 years. Most of the anticipated growth will occur through infill, densification in the Old Model Colony and development in Ontario Ranch. (UWMP, p. 3-8)
Table 2-1 OMUC Service Area Population Estimates, 2010-2040 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040(b)
Population Served(a) 163,924 168,777 180,591 202,262 236,647 288,709 368,239 Source: UWMP, p. 3-8.
(a) Does not include the residents located within the City but receive water service from Cucamonga Valley Water District.
(b) The City estimates buildout by 2040.
6931
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Demand Analysis 2-3
As of 2015, the number of housing units in the City is estimated at 47,871 units with a

5.3 percent vacancy rate. The population per household was estimated at 3.7 persons.

The City aims to have a full range of housing types and community services that meet the special housing needs for all its residents, regardless of income level, age, or other status. (UWMP, p. 3-8)

2.2 City of Ontario’s Current and Future Water Demand
OMUC serves at least 33,720 customer connections as part of its potable and nonpotable water distribution system (UWMP, p. 2-1). In fiscal year 2019/2020 (FY 19/20), the total potable water demand in the OMUC service area was 31,385 acre-feet (AF) and the recycled water demand was 7,812 AF (OMUC 2021). The recorded water demands by customer type for the OMUC service area are provided in Table 2-2. 6932
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Demand Analysis 2-4
Table 2-2 Recorded Citywide Water Demand (AFY)
Customer
Type
2005(a) 2010(a) 2015(b) FY19/20
Volume
(AFY)
No. of
Accounts
Volume
(AFY)
No. of
Accounts
Volume
(AFY)
No. of
Accounts(C)
Volume
(AFY)(d)
Single Family
Residential 16,421 28,932 13,253 29,473 10,941 26,838 12,502 Multi-family
Residential 6,147 2,244 5,425 2,069 4,839 1,968- 5,068
Commercial 8,369 3,095 6,692 3,285 6,584 3,201- 5,359
Industrial 2,402 327 2,044 278 1,471 268- 2,078
Institutional/
Governmental 1,178 320 - - - - 538
Landscape 6,813 1,246 7,170 1,245 4,564 1,100- 4,631
Agriculture - - - - - -
Other 378 161 819 308 340 66 368
Sales/transfers/
exchanges - - - - 206 - 841
Subtotal 41,709 36,325 35,403 36,658 28,945 33,441- 31,385 Recycled Water 1,829 - 1,547 178 7,208 279 7,812
Total Demand 43,538 36,325 36,950 36,836 36,153 33,720 39,197 Note: Does not include water losses. AFY = acre feet per year (a) AKM 2011, pp. 3-2.
(b) UWMP 2016, pp. 2-1, 4-2, Appendix B.
(c) CY 2015 Annual Report to Division of Drinking Water. (d) OMUC 2021.

The projected citywide water demands from 2025 to 2040 are shown in Table 2-3. 6933
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Demand Analysis 2-5
Table 2-3 Future Citywide Water Demand (AFY)
Customer Type 2025 2030 2035 2040
Single Family Residential 12,063 13,271 14,864 16,557
Multifamily Residential 7,563 9,832 13,273 17,699
Commercial 7,635 8,398 9,406 10,277
Industrial 2,298 2,988 3,884 5,138
Institutional/Governmental - - - -
Landscape 5,032 5,535 6,365 7,422
Agriculture - - - -
Other - - - -
Sales/transfers/exchange to
other agencies - - - -
Subtotal Potable Demand(a) 34,591 40,024 47,792 57,093
Recycled Water(b) 9,118 10,942 13,677 16,547
Total Demand 43,709 50,966 61,469 73,640
Notes: Does not include areas within the City that are not served by OMUC. (a) UWMP 2016, p. 4-2.
(b) UWMP 2016, p. 4-3. Includes agricultural demands.

AFY = acre-feet per year
Water use patterns change during dry years. The expected changes to water demand and water supply during dry years are provided in Section 3 – Water Supply Analysis.

The two most common land use types in the OMUC service area are residential (8,762 acres or 28 percent) and industrial (4,671 acres or 15 percent), followed by undeveloped land (3,290 acres or 11 percent) (UWMP, p. 3-3). The ultimate citywide land use plan that was used for the 2015 UWMP plans for an increase of residential uses to 10,915 acres (34 percent of total), and the employment area including business parks and industrial uses is expected to cover about 8,103 acres (25 percent of total) at buildout (UWMP, p. 3-6). A comparison of acreage for existing (2015) and ultimate land uses within the OMUC service area according to the TOP is provided below in Table 2-4.
6934
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Demand Analysis 2-6
Table 2-4 Existing (2015) and Ultimate Citywide Land Use Land Use Designation
Existing
Land Use
(acres)
Ultimate
Land Use
(acres)
Percent
change
Rural residential 566 453 -20%
Single-family residential 7,074 7,466 6%
Multifamily residential 1,122 2,996 167%
Subtotal Residential: 8,762 10,915 25%
Commercial 1,821 3,321 82%
Industrial 4,671 8,103 73%
Open Space 734 2,293 212%
Public 341 99 -71%
Schools 457 627 37%
Airport 1,500 1,422 -5%
Landfill 209 137 -34%
Agriculture 2,939 - -
Infrastructure 954 - -
Right-of-ways 4,734 4,794 1%
Undeveloped 3,290 - -
Unknown 735 - -
Vacant buildings 198 - -
Subtotal Non-Residential: 22,583 20,796 -8%
TOTAL 31,345 31,711 1%
Source: UWMP, p. 3-6.

Does not include areas within the City that are not served by OMUC.

The TOP anticipates buildout of the City by approximately 2040. As shown in Table 2- 4, the land use types with the greatest increase in acreage from 2015 to buildout is planned to be in Open Space and Multifamily Residential. Conversely, the City is planning for a reduction in the area dedicated to Rural Residential, Public Facilities, Airport, and Landfill. Areas currently used by agriculture, infrastructure, undeveloped, unknown, and vacant buildings are expected to convert to other land use types.

Overall, residential land uses may increase 25 percent from current, and nonresidential land uses are expected to decrease moderately. 6935
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Demand Analysis 2-7

2.3 Project Site Land Use Assumed in the UWMP
The City’s 2015 UWMP cites the same “Existing” and “Ultimate” Land Use Maps that were used in the City’s 2012 Water Master Plan (AKM 2012), 2010 UWMP (AKM 2011), and 2010 TOP (p. 3-7). The land use designations within the Project site at the time of the 2015 UWMP and buildout assumptions are shown in Table 1-2 and Figure 5. The estimated water demand of the land uses assumed in the UWMP within the boundary of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan are detailed in Spreadsheet 1, using the City’s current unit water demand factors. As summarized in Table 2-5, using the TOP land use types shown in the land use plan that was used in the 2015 UWMP, the UWMP buildout assumptions for the residential land uses including the mid-range (not the maximum) development assumptions for the NMC East Mixed Use District (Table 1-3), the estimated total water demand for the site that was accounted for in the 2015 UWMP is 2,241 acre-feet per year.

Table 2-5 Summary Water Demand of the Land Use Assumed in the UWMP Potable Water Demand
(AFY)
Recycled Water Demand
(AFY)
Total Water Demand
(AFY)
Residential District 1,016 225 1,241
NMC East Mixed
Use District 700 300 1,000
Total 1,716 525 2,241
Notes: AFY = acre feet per year; NMC = New Model Colony Refer to Figure 5 and Spreadsheet 1.

All open space non-recreational planning areas were assumed to only have recycled water demand and no potable demand (i.e., Edison easements/parcels). 6936
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Demand Analysis 2-8

2.4 Project Water Demand1
The proposed Project land use summary is shown in Section 1, Tables 1-1a and 1-1b and Figure 4. The estimated total water demand of the proposed Project using the City’s current unit water demand factors for potable and recycled water is detailed in Spreadsheet 2. As summarized in Table 2-6, the estimated total water demand for the Project is 2,771 AFY.

Table 2-6 Summary Project Water Demand
Potable Water Demand
(AFY)
Recycled Water Demand
(AFY)
Total Water Demand
(AFY)
Residential District 1,398 259 1,657
NMC East Mixed
Use District 862 252 1,114
Total 2,260 511 2,771
Notes: AFY = acre feet per year; NMC = New Model Colony Refer to Figure 4 and Spreadsheet 2.

All open space non-recreational areas were assumed to only have recycled water demand. Several additional assumptions had to be made that were not provided in the Project materials to estimate water demand for the Mixed Use District, as follows:
• For Mixed Use High Density Residential, the (gpd/du) water demand factors for potable and recycled were used (instead of gpd/acre) to reflect the anticipated vertical nature of the mixed use area;
• The Mixed Use Office water demand factor was used for all Mixed Use Regional Commercial areas to be conservative (instead of Mixed Use Non-Office water demand factor which is lower);
• When acreages were not provided in the Project land use plan for Regional Commercial areas in the Mixed Use District, the acreages were calculated assuming a floor-to-area (FAR) ratio of 0.70 and the given maximum building 1 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment No. 3.
6937
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Demand Analysis 2-9
square footage. FAR of 0.70 is the maximum allowed by the TOP for this Mixed Use District.
• No additional water demand was calculated for the Mixed Use Overlay in Planning Areas 6B and 8A, or the Edison easement in Planning Area 7B that is shown in the SPA3 land use map.

Conclusion
The estimated total water demand for the Project site that was assumed in the 2015 UWMP is approximately 2,241 AFY (Table 2-5). The estimated total water demand for the proposed Project is approximately 2,771 AFY (Table 2-6). This is a total difference of 530 AFY (potable and recycled combined); therefore, although the Project was accounted for in the latest UWMP, the proposed densification of the Residential District is higher than was assumed for the water demand projections of the latest UWMP. Because the water supplier’s water demand projections assumed a lower development density than that which is proposed by the Project for the same property in the Residential District, it can be deduced that the water demand for the Project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted 2015 UWMP. 6938
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Demand Analysis 2-10
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
6939
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-1
SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
This section identifies the sources of potable water utilized and available to the water supplier of the proposed Project. The purpose of this section is to evaluate the water supplies that could be utilized by the proposed Project during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years during a 20-year projection.

OMUC is the water supplier to the City and the proposed Project. OMUC has five sources of water supply: City wells in the Chino Groundwater Basin; treated groundwater from the Chino Desalter Authority (CDA); recycled water from Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA); purchased water from San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo); and imported wholesale water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA).

Law
CWC Section 10910(d)(1):

The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.
(2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following:
(A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
6940
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-2
(C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
(D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.

3.1. Documenting Wholesale Water Supplies
Many retail water suppliers in California, including OMUC, receive supplies from one or more water wholesalers. SB 610 requires the WSA to document wholesale supplies received by: 1) describing the quantities of water received from each wholesaler in prior years; 2) identifying existing entitlements, water rights, and/or water service contracts held by the City for the wholesale supply; 3) provide proof of entitlements, water rights, service contracts, relevant capital outlay programs, and construction permits for necessary infrastructure to deliver wholesale supplies, if any; and 4) regulatory approvals required to convey or deliver the wholesale supply.

Wholesale Supplies Received
OMUC receives wholesale water supplies from the WFA who purchases untreated imported water from IEUA, who in turn obtains it from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). WFA and IEUA are both wholesale water suppliers and IEUA is a member agency of MWD. MWD is a wholesaler and contractor for State Water Project water which MWD imports from northern California. State Water Project water is available as stipulated by DWR in response to the hydrology and environmental regulations that can change available supply.1 Therefore, imported
water supplies to southern California can be highly variable; in January 2014 for example, the allocation of State Water Project water to all contractors was reduced to 0 percent due to persistent drought conditions. Nonetheless, MWD has projected in its 1 DWR, State Water Project Delivery Capability Report, published every 2 years, as well as “Notice to State Water Project Contractors” issued as often as needed. 6941
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-3
2015 UWMP 100 percent water supply reliability over the next 20 years (2015-2035) during average, single-dry, and multiple-dry years (MWD, pp. 2-15 to 2-17).

The amount of imported water purchased by IEUA from MWD is limited by a purchase order agreement that allows IEUA to purchase up to 93,283 acre-feet per year (AFY) at its lowest rate (Tier I) through Dec. 31, 2024 (IEUA Resolution no. 2014-12-1 located in Appendix F). Of this amount, IEUA wholesales imported water to the WFA, Cucamonga Valley Water District, and the Fontana Water Company. The purchase order agreement includes an annual minimum purchase commitment of 39,835 AFY, which is consistent with the minimum operational needs of the four water treatment plants that treat the imported water from MWD (IEUA/WFA, p. 3-10).

The WFA was formed in 1980 as a Joint Powers Authority by the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, Upland, and Monte Vista Water District in order to construct and operate water treatment facilities for providing supplemental potable water to the member agencies. In 1985, the City established an agreement to purchase capacity in the WFA water treatment plant; a copy of which is located in Appendix G. Then, in 1988 the WFA finished construction of the Agua de Lejos Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in Upland to treat the imported water from IEUA and MWD to meet drinking water standards.

Currently, the Agua de Lejos WTP has the capacity to treat and disinfect 81 million gallons per day (mgd). Recorded flows through the Agua de Lejos WTP have ranged from 40 to 50 mgd during the peak summer months and can be as low as 9-12 mgd during winter months (www.wfajpa.org/facilities). As documented in WFA Ordinance No. 99-07-02 (located in Appendix H), the City owns 31.4 percent of the plant capacity of the Agua de Lejos WTP. As of 2015, that proportion is equivalent to approximately 28,451.6 AFY (UWMP, p. 6-14). As of CY 2020, OMUC can purchase up to 9,915 AF of imported supply through WFA at Tier 1 rates. Beyond that amount, OMUC could continue to purchase at Tier 2 rates. As of FY 19/20, OMUC purchased 6,513 AF of wholesale water from the WFA (OMUC 2021).
6942
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-4
The actual and projected wholesale water supplies that are expected to be available to IEUA and WFA through 2040 are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Wholesale Water Supplies Available to IEUA and WFA (AFY) Imported Water
2010(a) 2015(b) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Actual Projected(b)
IEUA (raw) 54,934 58,906 69,752 69,752 69,752 69,752 69,752 WFA (potable)
(c) 14,864 27,606 32,783 32,783 32,783 32,783 32,783
Note: IEUA = Inland Empire Utilities Agency; WFA = Water Facilities Authority; AFY = acre feet per year. (a) Data for 2010 Actual from 2010 IEUA UWMP, Table 3-2; and 2010 WFA UWMP, Table 3-1. (b) Data for 2015 Actual through 2040 Projected from IEUA and WFA 2015 UWMP, pp. 3-9 – 3-10 (Appendix C). (c) Assumes 47 percent of IEUA’s imported supply is for WFA for all future years beginning in 2020.

IEUA and WFA jointly prepared a 2015 Regional UWMP which states the following in terms of future water supply reliability (IEUA/WFA, p. 1-1):

The water resources management strategies detailed in this 2015 UWMP illustrate that despite past periods of extraordinary growth and prolonged drought, the region is well positioned to ensure adequate water supplies, reduce dependence on imported supplies and increase drought resilient water sources, while addressing water quality management challenges.

This 2015 Regional UWMP is reflective of IEUA’s holistic water resources management strategies to prepare for future uncertainty and to ensure sufficient water resources for the region.

To reduce dependence on imported water supplies, OMUC joined the “Dry Year Yield Storage Program,” which is described below.

Dry Year Yield Storage Program
The Dry Year Yield (DYY) storage program is a cooperative Conjunctive Use Program Agreement between MWD, IEUA, Chino Basin Watermaster, Three Valleys Municipal 6943
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-5
Water District, and the Chino Basin groundwater producers (Agreement No. 49960 [DYY 2014]). Under the DYY Program, MWD can store up to 100,000 AFY of water in the Chino Groundwater Basin during wet years when surplus water is available, and to reduce imported water deliveries up to 33,000 AFY in dry, drought, or emergency periods, but not to exceed the amount of water in the MWD storage account.

The City executed an agreement with IEUA to participate in the DYY program in 2003.

The DYY Agreement was amended in September 2014 to clarify storage measurement and extraction from the MWD storage account, define baseline conditions in calculations of performance targets, define procedures for variances in performance targets, revise administrative milestones, and make miscellaneous updates (refer herein to Appendix I for original agreement and amendments). The 2014 DYY amendments also provided for a minimum imported water delivery of 40,000 AFY during “call” years, establishing minimum needs for direct deliveries from MWD. As of June 30, 2020, the storage balance in the DYY account is 45,961 AF (OMUC 2021).

Participation in the DYY program obligates OMUC to reduce its use of imported water from WFA by a fixed amount, known as the “shift obligation” when MWD makes a “call” for their water stored in the Chino Basin. OMUC’s shift obligation is 8,076 AFY, which is the amount OMUC purchases from WFA during a baseline year. OMUC purchases an additional 2,000 AFY from WFA that is then sold to neighboring water supplier Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) who does not have an imported water connection. In 2014, JCSD entered into an agreement with the City to participate in the DYY program (a copy of which is located in Appendix J). During years when MWD makes a “call” for the water in their storage account, OMUC will decrease its purchase of WFA imported water by a combined total of 10,076 AF (8,076 AF plus 2,000 AF) compared to the previous year. To meet its obligation in the DYY program during a “call” year, JCSD will deliver 2,000 AF to OMUC from the Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) (assuming JCSD’s imported water baseline is 2,000 AFY) (JCSD 2014).
6944
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-6
DYY funds from DWR local assistance grants were used for the construction of three OMUC groundwater wells (Wells 45, 46, and 47) and an ion-exchange facility located at John Galvin Park to treat water extracted from Wells 44 and 52. When MWD makes a “call” for its stored water, OMUC can operate these facilities to meet its shift obligation. MWD will then pay for the cost of operations and OMUC would pay MWD (through IEUA) the full-service water rate. OMUC can use the DYY facilities to meet its normal water demands during other periods but OMUC is responsible for the well operation and maintenance costs. (UWMP, p. 6-7)
The additional groundwater capacity provided by this program allows OMUC to increase the percentage supply used to meet peak demands and allow OMUC to be less reliant upon imported water supplies. (UWMP, p. 6-7)

3.2. Documenting Water Supplies
As of the 2015 UWMP, approximately 69 percent of OMUC’s water supply came from groundwater, 20 percent from imported water, and 11 percent of supply was recycled water (UWMP, p. 6-16).

The recorded water supplies available to OMUC from 2000 to FY 2018/2019 are provided in Table 3-2 (next page) and the projected water supplies available to OMUC from 2020-2040 are provided in Table 3-3. In addition, each water supply source is identified as a water supply entitlement, water right, or water service contract per SB 610 guidance. Appropriative rights to groundwater are discussed in Chapter 4 – Groundwater Analysis.
6945
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-7
Table 3-2 Recorded OMUC Water Supplies (AFY)
Source 2000(a) 2005(b) 2010(c) 2015(d)
FY
19/20(e) Form of Right
Amount of
Right
Wells 36,862 28,799 20,955 19,544 18,395 Appropriative
Varies
(see Sec. 4)
Purchased
WFA 9,258 13,406 8,923 6,413 6,513
Capacity
Ownership
28,451.6 AFY
(31.4% of
plant capacity)
CDA - - 5,000 3,543 6,636
Capacity
Ownership 8,533 AFY
SAWCo - - - 443 565
Shareholder
Entitlement 765 AFY
Subtotal
Potable 46,120 42,205 34,878 29,943 32,109 -- --
Recycled 700(f) - 1,547 3,859(g) 7,812(h) Contract
Ontario’s share
of sewer flows.

Total
Supply 46,820 42,205 36,425 33,802 39,921 -- --
Notes: WFA = Water Facilities Authority; CDA = Chino Basin Desalter Authority; SAWCo = San Antonio Water Company; FY = fiscal year; AFY = acre-feet per year.
(a) Webb 2004, p. 21.
(b) AKM 2011, pp. 3-8 and 5-12.
(c) AKM 2011, p. 4-2.
(d) UWMP 2016, p. 6-16.
(e) OMUC 2021.
(f) Webb 2004, p. 29.
(g) Does not include recycled water for agriculture deliveries (3,349 AF). (h) Based on the City’s share of sewer flows in FY19/20, up to 12,715 AF was available for beneficial use (OMUC 2021).
6946
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-8
Table 3-3 Projected OMUC Water Supplies (AFY)
Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Form of Right Amount of Right
Wells 11,782 13,465 16,234 21,627 30,795 Appropriative
Varies
(see Sec. 4)
Purchased
WFA 10,000 11,000 13,000 15,000 17,000
Capacity
ownership
28,451.6 AFY
(31.4% of plant
capacity)
CDA 8,533 8,533 8,533 8,533 8,533
Capacity
Ownership 8,533 AFY
SAWCo 765 765 765 765 765
Shareholder
entitlement 765 AFY
Subtotal
Potable 31,080 33,763 38,532 45,925 57,093 -- --
Recycled 8,289 9,947 12,434 15,545 16,547 Contract
Ontario’s share
of sewer flows.

Total
Supply 39,369 43,710 50,966 61,470 73,640 -- --
Note: AFY = acre feet per year; FY = fiscal year;
Source: UWMP, Table 6-9, p. 6-16.

OMUC anticipates increasing its total water supply by pursuing: 1) full utilization of OMUC’s groundwater rights in the Chino Basin allowed under the Chino Basin Groundwater Adjudication Judgment (including increased groundwater recharge with stormwater and recycled water described in Section 4); 2) expanding use of recycled water; and 3) expanding use of desalter water (UWMP, p. 6-16).

Water Supply Capacities
The capacity of each source of supply available to OMUC is provided in the 2012 Ontario Water Master Plan (AKM 2012), which is provided in Appendix K. The City is currently preparing an update to its Water Master Plan; because it is not yet finalized and adopted, this Assessment will use the City’s 2012 Water Master Plan. The capacity of the supply system refers to the maximum production rate based on the pumps and infrastructure. For example, the capacity of groundwater wells refers to a 6947
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-9
pumping rate based on running the pumps at full utilization, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week. Although this maximum rate of pumping is assumed in terms of comparing capacities, pumps are rarely used at more than two-thirds capacity. Knowing the system capacity is important to ensure OMUC can meet all demands imposed upon the system, specifically meeting “average day demand” and “maximum day demand.” Demand can be met with multiple supply sources, storage, or a combination of both.

OMUC’s reservoirs are not discussed in this Assessment, however, they are used to regulate hourly fluctuations in demand, provide fire flow, and supplement supply during an extended outage of a source (AKM 2012, p. 9-1).

OMUC is required to meet the following water supply criterion from the California Code of Regulations: “a source of supply equal to one maximum day demand, with one average day demand from local sources (AKM 2012, p. 9-1).” As the land uses and population changes in OMUC service area, so does the average and maximum day demands. The maximum capacities of existing sources of supply available to OMUC are provided in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Supply Capacities of Existing Sources
Source AFY mgd gpm
Existing Wells(a) 63,936 57 39,638
WFA at Aqua de Lejos WTP(b) 28,490 25.4 17,663
CDA from Chino I Desalter 1,500 1.34 930
CDA from Chino II Desalter 7,033 6.3 4,357
Total Existing Capacity 100,959 90 62,588
Note: AFY = acre-feet per year; mgd = million gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute.

From AKM 2012, Table 9-1 (Appendix K).
(a) OMUC, 2021.
(b) Combination of maximum capacities of WFA Turnouts 1 and 2 (16 mgd and 9 mgd, respectively).

The maximum capacities of the ‘ultimate’ sources of supply available to OMUC as of projections made in 2012, are provided in Table 3-5.
6948
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-10
Table 3-5 Ultimate Capacities of Supply Sources
Source AFY mgd gpm
Existing Wells(a) 63,936 57 39,638
Future Wells(b) 36,288 32.40 22,500
Subtotal 100,224 89.4 62,138
WFA at Aqua de Lejos WTP 28,490 25.4 17,663
CDA from Chino I Desalter 1,500 1.34 930
CDA from Chino II Desalter 7,033 6.28 4,361
Total 137,247 122.42 22,954
Note: AFY = acre-feet per year; mgd = million gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute.

From Table 9-3 of AKM, 2012 (Appendix K).
(a) OMUC, 2021.
(b) Future well capacities assumed to 2,500 gpm each. 9 wells planned.

As stated in the 2012 Ontario Water Master Plan, the existing supply capacity of the OMUC groundwater wells alone meets the water supply criterion for both average day demand under existing and ultimate conditions, as well as maximum day demand for existing conditions (AKM 2012, p. 9-2). However, under ultimate conditions the supply capacity will require additional future wells, as shown in Table 3-5 to meet the water supply criterion for maximum day demand.

3.3. Descriptions of All Water Supply Projects
City Well Production
OMUC currently owns 17 active groundwater wells in the Chino Basin (OMUC 2021).

The Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in southern California, with an estimated 5 million AF,2 with another 1 million AF in additional storage capacity.

OMUC is planning nine new wells with seven of those wells serving Ontario Ranch with a combined additional supply capacity of 36,288 AFY (AKM 2012, p. 9-2). 2 The 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation Final Report (May 15, 2020) indicates the estimated total volume of water in storage was 12.6 million AF in July 2018 (WEI 2020, p. 6-15). 6949
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-11
In FY 19/20, OMUC pumped 18,395 AF (Table 3-2). OMUC’s existing pumping capacity is approximately 63,936 AFY (Table 3-4). The recorded extractions from OMUC wells between 2011 and 2015 are shown in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6 Recorded Groundwater Production, 2011-2015 (AFY) Supply 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
City wells in Chino Basin 20,442 20,226 19,967 20,274 19,544 Note: AFY = acre feet per year
From UWMP, p. 6-5 (Appendix A).

As of 2015, approximately 58 percent of OMUC water supply came from groundwater pumped by its own wells in the Chino Basin. OMUC strives to maximize local water supplies and minimize the need for imported water from other regions (UWMP, p. 7-1).

A thorough description of the City’s groundwater rights pursuant to SB 610 guidance is provided in Section 4 – Groundwater Analysis.

Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) Groundwater Production OMUC is a member of the CDA, a joint exercise of powers agency created on September 25, 2001, along with JCSD, Santa Ana River Water Company, IEUA and the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Norco. Western Municipal Water District joined CDA on April 2, 2009. The goals of the CDA are:
• Achieve hydraulic control of the Chino Basin to prevent contaminated Chino Basin groundwater from entering Santa Ana River;
• Remove contamination (primarily nitrates, as well as TCE, PCE, and TCP) from groundwater in the southern portion of the Chino Basin; and • Deliver the treated water to member agencies to offset the need for imported water.
6950
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-12
CDA provides high-quality drinking water from two desalters (salt removers) that are anticipated to treat approximately 35,200 AFY of Chino Basin groundwater in 2020 and thereafter. This water is then sold to CDA members through “take or pay” contracts.

The Chino I Desalter, located at 6905 Kimball Avenue in Chino, was completed in 2000 and expanded in August 2005 to its current rated capacity of 15,906 AFY (14.2 mgd).

However, the Chino I Desalter cannot provide this rated capacity due to the high total dissolved solids (TDS) in the raw groundwater supply. The Chino II Desalter was completed in 2006 and is located at 11202 Harrel Street in the City of Jurupa Valley.

The current rated capacity of Chino II Desalter is 11,201 AFY (10 mgd) and permitted capacity is 16,802 AFY (15 mgd), including 5,600 AFY (5 mgd) raw water bypass.

However, the Chino II Desalter has not achieved the permitted capacity as a result of insufficient raw water supply. CDA is currently expanding the Chino II Desalter to a rated capacity of 25,427 AFY (22.7 mgd). (UWMP, p. 6-15) Although Chino Desalter I capacity will not be increased, additional raw water capacity will be provided by five new CDA wells in the Chino Creek Well Field. All five wells have been drilled and equipped.

In FY 19/20, OMUC purchased approximately 6,636 AF from CDA (Table 3-2). As shown in Table 3-3, the water supply from CDA to OMUC is projected to stabilize at 8,533 AFY by 2020, which would be roughly 12 percent of the total 2040 water supply portfolio for OMUC. The City’s capacity rights to CDA are described in Section 4 – Groundwater Analysis.

Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Recycled Water Supply:

Recycled water is provided to OMUC from IEUA, which treats the City’s wastewater at its four regional wastewater reclamation plants. OMUC has been using recycled water produced by IEUA since 1972. Currently, recycled water is used in the City for agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, golf course irrigation and industrial purposes.
6951
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-13
OMUC is entitled to the recycled water generated from the City’s share of sewer flows.

In FY 19/20, this amount was 12,715 AF (OMUC 2021). In FY 19/20, 7,812 AF of recycled water was purchased by OMUC for direct use (Table 3-2). This represents roughly 60 percent utilization of recycled water supply available to OMUC in FY 19/20.

Recorded and projected supplies of recycled water available to OMUC are listed in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7 Recorded and Future Recycled Water Supply (AFY) Beneficial Use
Type 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Agricultural irrigation 3,349 2,177 1,372 1,118 529 295 Landscape irrigation 2,330 4,195 6,174 8,297 11,491 14,575 Golf course irrigation 540 600 615 570 700 720
Industrial use 989 957 957 957 957 957
Total 7,208a 7,929 9,118 10,942 13,677 16,547
Note: AFY = acre feet per year
From UWMP, p. 6-10 (Appendix A).
(a) Supply available for use in 2015 was 12,131 AF.

Over the next 20 years, landscape irrigation is projected to have the greatest increase in demand for recycled water within the OMUC service area. Agricultural properties are expected to convert to more urban land uses, while supplies to golf courses and industrial uses are expected to remain relatively stable. (UWMP, p. 6-12) IEUA has prepared several recycled water studies, plans, and strategy documents to bring a regional recycled water delivery system to fruition. OMUC updated their Recycled Water Master Plan in 2012 (located in Appendix L) to fully coordinate with IEUA’s recycled water planning efforts. OMUC is currently updating their 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan.
6952
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-14
San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo) Potable Water Supply
SAWCo is a mutual water company and corporation located in Upland. SAWCo has provided water service to its active shareholders for over 130 years. Although SAWCo does not technically meet the threshold as a retailer or wholesale water agency that needs to prepare an UWMP, they have done so nonetheless in 2015; albeit modified from the State’s format (SAWCo 2016).

SAWCo supplies water based on entitlement only, which is based on the number of shares held. The number of shares is finite and considered a commodity that can be divided or sold. The “entire water of the company” and the current entitlement for 2015 is equivalent to 11,552 AFY, which distributed among the 6,389 shares. The volume per share is variable. SAWCo has therefore determined, “…water use projections related to population growth and density, land use, zoning, development, and other typical indicators have no bearing on supply” (SAWCo 2016, p. 11). Notably, SAWCo expects to reduce entitlement in the future to 9,819 AFY based on supply trends and uses this amount for their water supply projections (SAWCo 2016, p. 36).

The City owns 295 shares of SAWCo, which equates to a current entitlement of 765 AFY of potable water to OMUC (UWMP, p. 6-8). In FY 19/20, OMUC received an actual volume of 565 AF (Table 3-2). OMUC has forecasted that future available supplies will be 765 AFY from 2020 to 2040 (Table 3-3). The City receives water from SAWCo indirectly through a connection made in 2015 from SAWCo to the WFA.

SAWCo water supplies are a mixture of surface water from San Antonio Creek, groundwater from the San Antonio Tunnel and three groundwater basins: Chino Basin, Cucamonga Basin and Six Basins (SAWCo 2016, p. 22). No new sources of supply are anticipated to be developed by SAWCo over the planning horizon. Actual and projected water productions (assuming water produced equals water demand) estimated by SAWCo are shown in Table 3-8.
6953
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-15
Table 3-8 Recorded and Future SAWCo Water Supply (AFY)
Source 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Chino Basin 1,143.84 1,232.00 1,232.00 1,232.00 1,232.00 Cucamonga Basin 4,427.94 4,500.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 Six Basin 738.02 945.62 945.62 945.62 945.62
San Antonio Tunnel 696.80 949.52 949.52 949.52 949.52
Groundwater Sub-total 7,006.60 7,627.14 7,627.14 7,627.14 7,627.14 Surface Water
(San Antonio Creek) 2,024.01 1,962.88 1,962.88 1,962.88 1,962.88 Total 9,030.61 9,590.02 9,590.02 9,590.02 9,590.02
Note: AFY = acre feet per year
From SAWCo 2016, Table 9, p. 22.

In terms of future reliability, SAWCo has stated the following in its 2015 UWMP (p. 32):
“SAWCo has sufficient supplies to meet all obligations to its shareholders through the planning horizon.” In addition, SAWCo has future transfer and exchange projects planned to mutually benefit certain shareholders during an emergency, including OMUC. The exact location, capacity and implementation schedule of these interconnections are under review (SAWCo 2016, p. 35).

3.4 Documenting Normal Year Water Supply and Demand
OMUC has assumed in its UWMP that customer water demand and available water supply are equal during “normal” precipitation years. However, OMUC has documented more than 100 percent of supply available during normal years, a singledry year, and multiple-dry years according to Table 7-1 in the 2015 UWMP (Appendix A).
6954
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-16
The normal year water supplies available to OMUC, as well as the normal year water demand projections are compared in Table 3-9. OMUC has estimated that sufficient supply will be available during any normal year occurring between 2020 and 2040.

Table 3-9 OMUC Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply 39,369 43,710 50,966 61,470 73,640
Demand 39,369 43,710 50,966 61,470 73,640
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Note: AFY = acre feet per year
From UWMP, Table 7-2 (Appendix A).

3.5 Documenting Dry Year Water Supply and Demand
The following assumptions are made in OMUC’s 2015 UWMP to estimate future water supplies and demands during a single dry year (p. 7-5):
• The provisions of a Stage 1 water shortage will be implemented, and customers will be subjected to a 10 percent consumption reduction. • The supply of recycled water will be the same as in normal years and dry years. • The reduction in WFA imported water supplies (equal to the shift obligation of 8,076 AFY) will be compensated by the extra groundwater production from the designated DYY wells during dry years. The DYY Program will expire in 2028 (unless renewed or replaced).
• The groundwater supply will be the same as in a normal year. The City has rights, storage and leases and can also purchase replenishment water.3 • Water losses have been included in the potable water demands as 7 percent of the annual demand.
3 Replenishment water, which is obtained by the Chino Basin Watermaster on behalf of all parties, can consist of reclaimed water, State water, and local supplies. 6955
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-17
OMUC has determined that surplus water supplies will be available during a single dry year occurring anytime from 2020 to 2040, as shown in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10 OMUC Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply 39,369 43,710 50,966 61,470 73,640
Demand 35,432 39,339 45,869 55,323 66,276
Difference +3,937 +4,371 +5,097 +6,147 +7,364
Note: AFY = acre feet per year
From UWMP, Table 7-3 (Appendix A).

3.6 Documenting Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand
OMUC has made the following assumptions in its UWMP to estimate future water supplies and demands during a three-year drought (UWMP, p. 7-6):
• The first dry year is like a single dry year, in which customers voluntarily reduce consumption by 10 percent.
• The second dry year is considered a Stage 2 water shortage, and a 15 percent reduction in consumption is made mandatory. This will be imposed at the City Council’s discretion.
• The third dry year is considered a Stage 3 water shortage, and a minimum of 20 percent consumption reduction is required. This will be imposed at the City Council’s discretion.
• The supply of recycled water will be the same in normal years and dry years. • The reduction in WFA supplies (8,076 AFY) will be compensated by extra groundwater production from the designated DYY wells during dry years. The DYY will expire in 2025 (unless renewed or replaced).
• The groundwater supply will be the same as in a normal year. The City has rights, storage and leases. The City can also purchase replenishment water. 6956
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-18
• Water losses have been included in the potable water demands as 7 percent of the annual demand.

OMUC has projected that surplus water supplies will be available during each year of a three-year drought that could occur anytime from 2020 to 2040, as shown in Table 3-11.

Table 3-11 OMUC Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
First Year
Supply 39,369 43,710 50,966 61,470 73,640
Demand 35,432 39,339 45,869 55,323 66,276
Difference +3,937 +4,371 +5,097 +6,147 +7,364
Second Year
Supply 39,369 43,710 50,966 61,470 73,640
Demand 33,464 37,154 43,321 52,250 62,594
Difference +5,905 +6,557 +7,645 +9,221 +11,046
Third Year
Supply 39,369 43,710 50,966 61,470 73,640
Demand 31,495 34,968 40,773 49,176 58,192
Difference +7,874 +8,742 +10,193 +12,294 +14,728
Note: AFY = acre-feet per year
From UWMP, Table 7-4 (Appendix A).

3.7 Comparison of Available Water Supply and Demand
CWC section 10910 (c)(3) states: If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted UWMP…the water assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. 6957
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-19
As described in Section 2, the annual total water demand for the proposed Project is estimated at 2,771 AFY and the total water demand estimated by the previously planned land use of the same area is 2,241 AFY (Tables 2-5 and 2-6). This increase of 530 AFY reflects a decrease as a result of the Project of -14 AFY recycled water demand and an increase of +544 AFY of potable water demand for the Project site that was not accounted for in the 2015 UWMP.

As shown in Table 3-3 and Table 3-9, the future water supplies available to OMUC do not exceed the future ultimate water demand. Further, the future water demands in the 2015 UWMP did not consider the increase in potable water demand from the proposed Project. However, the increased water demand of the Project is just 0.7 percent of the citywide ultimate 2040 water demand/water supply as estimated by the 2015 UWMP (i.e., 73,640 AFY). Notably, OMUC can purchase up to 9,915 AFY of imported supply through WFA at Tier 1 rates. Beyond that amount, OMUC could continue to purchase at Tier 2 rates. In FY 19/20, OMUC purchased about 6,513 AF from the WFA plant (Agua de Lejos WTP), which is well within their capacity rights of 28,451.6 AFY. There is ample availability for OMUC to purchase additional imported water from the WFA that is within their rights to meet the needs of the proposed Project.

With the signing of AB 1668 and SB 606, the state has set an Indoor Residential Standard of 55 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) which will decrease to 50 GPCD by 2030 (CWC section 10609.4(a)). The per person unit water use factors used by the City are based on a minimum of 60 gpd/person; therefore, a per-person savings of at least 5 gallons per day of indoor residential potable water use would be achieved. Assuming an ultimate citywide residential population of 372,392 persons4 and water conservation efforts of at least 5 GPCD over the entire City, approximately 2,085 AFY of water could be conserved. This savings would more than cover the increased and unplanned potable water demand of the proposed Project.
4 From The Ontario Plan Approved Land Use Buildout Estimate (Modified), UWMP Appendix B p. 5. 6958
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Water Supply Analysis 3-20
Agricultural properties within OMUC service area are expected to convert to urban land uses, which is consistent with ongoing trends in the City. Most agricultural operations in the City are on private wells and/or use recycled water. As shown in Table 3-7, recycled water deliveries for agricultural irrigation are projected to decrease roughly 91 percent over the next 20 years. Further, industrial land uses (which may include some manufacturing uses) are the second most common type in the City (Table 2-2) and they are planned by the City General Plan to increase (Table 2-3).

Table 3-10 and Table 3-11 show that OMUC projects surplus water supplies available during single-dry and multiple-dry years in volumes sufficient enough to meet the demand of the proposed Project over the next 20 years. Section 4 will describe the supply available to OMUC through rights held to Chino Basin groundwater that are greater than the amount currently extracted. OMUC can also bank water and pump in excess of their rights in the Chino Basin with payment of a replenishment fee.

In conclusion, based on the information provided in the 2015 UWMP and updated information provided by OMUC for this Assessment, the City has sufficient water supplies to meet the demand of the Project by purchasing additional water from WFA, and by using existing groundwater supplies and pumping capacities that are more than adequate to meet the additional water demands of the proposed Project during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years including future agricultural and manufacturing uses. With the implementation of water conservation efforts, OMUC will further ensure its ability to provide sufficient supply for the proposed Project. Section 4 will discuss the City’s water rights in light of this water supply and capacity analysis. 6959
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-1
SECTION 4 - GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS
SB 610 requires specific groundwater information to be included in the WSA if groundwater will be a source of water for the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3, groundwater is one of the sources of supply for OMUC and therefore part of the water supply for the proposed Project.

Law
CWC Section 10910 (f):

If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment:
(1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. (2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as over drafted or has projected that the basin will become over drafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. 6960
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-2
(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631.

4.1 Review of Urban Water Management Plan (CWC Section 10910(f)(1)) The City’s 2015 UWMP, prepared by AKM on behalf of the City of Ontario (OMUC) was adopted by City Council Resolution 2016-072 on June 21, 2016 (located in Appendix A). The UWMP includes information relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed Project and is incorporated herein. Relevant information includes: 1) current and projected water demands (System Water Use) through year 2040; 2) a description of the Chino Groundwater Basin (System Supplies); 3) the reliability of the water supply, projected supply and demand comparisons, and water shortage plans (Water Supply 6961
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-3
Reliability and Water Shortage Contingency Planning); and 4) water demand management efforts (Demand Management Measures).1
The 2015 UWMP contains a Technical Memorandum that describes how the City’s land use designations from the General Plan (TOP) were used to calculate future water demand by buildout in approximately 2040. The methods and calculations of the ultimate citywide water demand estimate are in Appendix B of the 2015 UWMP.

4.2 Groundwater Basin Descriptions (CWC Section 10910(f)(2)) The Chino Groundwater Basin is the direct source of groundwater for OMUC. Although water supplied to OMUC from SAWCo may include a combination of groundwater from other basins (i.e., San Antonio Tunnel, Cucamonga Basin, and Six Basins), the amount is minimal and the basins are described in the 2015 SAWCo UWMP (located in Appendix E).

Chino Groundwater Basin Description
The Chino Basin covers approximately 235 square miles in the upper Santa Ana River Watershed, and underlies parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The state Department of Water Resources (DWR) identifies the Chino Basin as Basin No. 8-002.01, which is a sub-basin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley (Bulletin 118).2
It is estimated the Chino Basin has approximately 5 million AF of water in storage, and an estimated 1 million AF of additional unused storage capacity (UWMP, p. 6-2).3 While still considered a single basin for hydrologic purposes, the Chino Basin is divided into five management zones based on similar hydrologic conditions. 1 Words and phrases italicized parenthetically are in reference to chapters so titled in the 2015 UWMP. 2 DWR collects, summarizes, and evaluates groundwater data in the “Bulletin 118” series, which present the results of basin evaluations and defines the boundaries of California’s 515 alluvial groundwater basins. An update was provided in 2016. In Bulletin 118, DWR identifies each basin and sub-basin with a number code. 3 The 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation Final Report (May 15, 2020) indicates the estimated total volume of water in storage was 12.6 million AF in July 2018 (WEI 2020, p. 6-15). 6962
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-4
Geographically speaking, the City is located in the approximate center of the Chino Basin. DWR Bulletin 118 (updated 03/05/18) describes the Chino Basin as follows:

The Chino Basin is bound on the northwest by the San Jose fault, on the north by the Cucamonga fault and impermeable rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains, and on the east by the Rialto-Colton fault. The basin is bound on the southeast by the Jurupa Mountains, Pedley Hills, La Sierra Hills, and the approximate location of the Santa Ana River. The Chino fault and impermeable rocks of the Chino Hills and Puente Hills bound the southwest side of the basin. In some areas, the basin boundary coincides with the Chino Basin (1978) groundwater adjudication boundary.

The Chino Basin is an adjudicated basin and has been extensively studied by the court-appointed Chino Basin Watermaster (CBWM), with reports available at www.cbwm.org. The following is an excerpt that describes the Chino Basin geology from the Chino Basin Watermaster’s management plan called the “Optimum Basin Management Program” or “OBMP” (1999, p. 2-2):

Chino Basin was formed when eroded sediments from the San Gabriel Mountains, the Chino Hills, Puente Hills, and the San Bernardino Mountains filled a structural depression. The bottom of the Basin – the effective base of the freshwater aquifer – consists of impermeable sedimentary and igneous rocks. The base of the aquifer is overlain by older alluvium of the Pleistocene period followed by younger alluvium of the Holocene period. The younger alluvium varies in thickness from over 100 feet near the mountains to a just few feet, south of Interstate 10 and generally covers most of the north half of the Basin in undisturbed areas.

The younger alluvium is not saturated and thus does not yield water directly to wells. Water percolates readily in the younger alluvium and most of the large spreading basins are located in the younger alluvium.

The older alluvium varies in thickness from about 200 feet thick near the 6963
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-5
southwestern end of the Basin to over 1,100 feet thick southwest of Fontana, and averages about 500 feet throughout the Basin.

Legal Right to Pump from the Chino Basin
Water rights to the Chino Basin were adjudicated by the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino in 1978 (a copy of the Judgment and amendments thereto are provided in Appendix M). The court’s Judgment declared the safe yield of the Chino Basin at 140,000 acre-feet per year (AFY).4 Withdrawal in excess of safe yield is termed overdraft. The Chino Basin Watermaster may determine that the operating safe yield (OSY) can be higher from year-to-year depending on factors including favorable precipitation and management efforts that maximize the beneficial use of the groundwater Basin.5 The Chino Basin Watermaster has undertaken a safe yield redetermination. In July 2020, the court ordered that the safe yield be reduced by 3% and reset to 131,000 AFY for the period of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2030. The court previously reset the safe yield from its initial 140,000 AFY to 135,000 AFY in 2017 for the period of 2010 to 2020.

The Chino Basin Watermaster is comprised of three stakeholder groups (or “pools”):

Overlying Agricultural Pool Committee (representing dairymen, farmers, and the State of California); the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool Committee (representing businesses and industries); and the Appropriative Pool Committee (representing local cities, public water districts and private water companies). The Chino Basin Watermaster carries out the provisions of the Judgment including monitoring of the Chino Basin and files an annual report on pumping and replenishment.
4 Judgment (1978) defines Safe Yield as, “The long-term average annual quantity of groundwater (excluding replenishment or stored water but including return flow to the Basin from use of replenishment or stored water), which can be produced from the basin under cultural conditions of a particular year without causing an undesirable result.”
5 Judgment (1978) defines Operating Safe Yield (OSY) as, “The annual amount of groundwater which Watermaster shall determine, pursuant to criteria specified in Exhibit “I”, can be produced from Chino Basin by the Appropriative Pool parties free of replenishment obligation under the physical solution herein.” 6964
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-6
The City is a member of both the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool and the Appropriative Pool. The Judgment allocates a portion of the safe yield to the Overlying NonAgricultural Pool and a portion of the OSY to the Appropriative Pool. Pursuant to the Judgment, the City has appropriative rights to 20.742 percent of the OSY allocated to the Appropriative Pool. The City has gained 53.338 percent of the safe yield assigned to the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool. The assigned share of the safe yield and OSY change depending on the safe yield set by the court.

The Judgment allocates safe yield of the Chino Basin according to the three pools as described above (Appendix M, Paragraph 13). The members of each pool are then enjoined from producing water from the Chino Basin in excess of such allocated amount "except pursuant to the provisions of the Physical Solution" (Appendix M, Paragraph 13(a)-(c)).

The Physical Solution of the Judgment is described in broad terms by Paragraphs 39 through 57 of the Judgment. Paragraph 45 provides the Chino Basin Watermaster with the authority to levy and collect assessments for the purchase of water necessary to balance the production by any party in excess of that party's allocated share of safe yield of the Chino Basin. Paragraphs 49 and 50 then describe the sources of water which are authorized to function as sources of replenishment water and methods by which water can be replenished to the Chino Basin. Exhibit H, Paragraph 7, of the Judgment describes the way in which costs for replenishment water will spread among the members of the Appropriative Pool.

The afore-cited paragraphs of the Judgment evince a clear expectation that parties, including the City/OMUC, would produce water in excess of their adjudicated production rights. The injunction in Paragraph 13 of the Judgment should thus be interpreted to mean that parties are enjoined from producing water in excess of their adjudicated rights except to the extent that they will pay a replenishment assessment.

The ability to produce water from the Chino Basin is accordingly not a matter of availability, as contemplated and sanctioned by the Judgment for the reasons 6965
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-7
discussed above, but rather a matter of cost. Water produced in excess of production rights will cost more than water produced within a party's production rights. Thus, the quantity and reliability of groundwater supplies under the Judgment for purposes of this Assessment is a matter of cost of the water produced from the Chino Basin rather than limitations on production which may otherwise operate to reduce the sufficiency of the groundwater supply.

In addition to the water supplies described in Section 3, OMUC has rights to groundwater held in the Chino Basin as described below (UWMP section 6.1.4) and in Table 4-1 (next page):
• Appropriative Right. The City has appropriative rights to 20.742 percent of the OSY allocated to the Appropriative Pool. As of FY 19/20, the OSY is 44,834 AF; therefore, the City’s assigned share is 9,299.5 AF. To supplement the 2017 decrease in safe yield, the City currently receives an additional 1,037 AFY transferred from unproduced Agricultural Pool rights (“Safe Yield Reduction”). • Overlying Non-Agricultural Right. The City has purchased and has rights to

53.338 percent of the safe yield assigned to the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool, which is currently 7,350.3 AFY. As of FY 19/20, the City’s assigned share is 3,921 AF.
• Land Use Conversions. The City gains rights to additional Chino Basin groundwater as a result of land use conversions from agricultural to nonagricultural uses. This is expected to increase from development of Ontario Ranch; the total of which is adjusted annually by the Watermaster. As of FY 19/20, the City received 4,254 AF from land use conversions. • Annual Early Transfers. The Chino Basin Watermaster can approve an “Early Transfer” of water to the Appropriative Pool equal to the quantity of water not produced by the Overlying Agricultural Pool that is remaining after all land use 6966
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-8
conversions are satisfied, pursuant to the Peace Agreement. 6 The Early Transfer
Water is annually allocated among the Appropriative Pool members in accordance with their pro-rata share of the initial Safe Yield. For the City, this is

20.74 percent of the “early transfer” water that the Watermaster may transfer from the Overlying Agricultural Pool. The amount available for transfer changes from year to year but is projected to increase. In FY 19/20, the City received 5,178 AFY as its share of Early Transfer (CBWM 2020).
• Groundwater Recharge Credits. The City is entitled to water rights due groundwater recharge with stormwater and recycled water in the Chino Basin.

The credited amount is based on the volume recharged and therefore varies annually but is projected to increase over time. In FY 2018/2019, 2,544 AF of recycled water was recharged for the City. In FY 19/20, no recharge was credited to the City (OMUC 2021).
• Fontana Recycled Water Rights. The City has a long-term contract to purchase up to 3,000 AFY of recharged recycled water rights from the City of Fontana (a copy of which is located in Appendix N). The City of Fontana does not operate a water system. The amount purchased by OMUC each year will vary. In FY 2018/2019, the City purchased 2,157 AF of Fontana’s recycled water entitlement. In FY 19/20, no recharged water rights were purchased (OMUC 2021).
• Groundwater Storage Accounts. The City has rights to store water in the Chino Basin (Appropriative and Overlying Non-Agricultural) and has been increasing its various storage accounts in recent years. The City holds water in 6 In 2007, the parties to the Chino Basin Judgement approved the “Peace Agreement” which is a set of measures proposed by Chino Basin Watermaster to supplement the OBMP Implementation Plan. Focus for the measures were placed on achieving hydraulic control (reduction of groundwater discharge from the Chino North Management Zone to the Santa Ana River). To achieve hydraulic control, re-operation (controlled overdraft) of the groundwater basin is proposed. Strategically placed wells would be constructed in the basin and the groundwater would be pumped to the Desalter to improve the longterm reliability of the basin. 6967
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-9
both local storage accounts and supplemental accounts. Local storage accounts hold un-pumped OSY groundwater rights and stormwater that has been recharged into the Chino Basin. Supplemental accounts hold both imported water and recycled water that has been recharged into the Chino Basin. As of June 30, 2020, the City has 96,544 AF in storage pursuant to Appropriative rights and 3,461 AF in storage pursuant to Overlying NonAgricultural rights (CBWM 2020).

Table 4-1 Ontario Groundwater Rights Summary
Right Current
FY 2019-2020 Future Notes
Appropriative Pool 9,299.5
(20.742% of OSY)
8,470
(20.742% of OSY) OSY determined by Watermaster.

Overlying NonAgricultural Pool
3,921
(53.338% of SY)
At least 3,921
(53.338% of SY)
Current annual production right is
7,447.2 AF with carryover. Actual
production was 1,552.7 AF.

Safe Yield
Reduction 1,037 Varies
Land Use
Conversions 4,254 16,602 Varies annually.

Annual Early
Transfer 5,178 20.742% of Early
Transfer
Subject to change by Overlying
Ag. Pool level of demand.

Groundwater
Recharge Credits 0 9,600
(in 2035)
Based on volume of stormwater
and/or recycled water recharged.

Fontana Recycled
Water Rights 0 At least 3,000 Contract to purchase.

Subtotal (AFY) 23,689.5 ±41,593
SAWCo 600
(295 shares)
At least 765 Entitlement. Volume per share
subject to change.

Total (AFY) 24,289.5 ±42,358
Groundwater
Storage Accounts
39,261
(Excess Carry Over)
Varies
(Excess Carry Over) Dependent on annual availability
of un-pumped OSY water,
stormwater, imported water, and
recycled water. 57,283
(Local Supplemental)
Varies
(Local
Supplemental)
Total Storage (AF) 96,544 ±85,000
Note: AF = acre-feet; AFY = acre-feet per year; OSY = operating safe yield; SY = safe yield.

Source: CBWM 2020, pp. 4.1, 11.1, 12, 12.1, 16.1,
6968
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-10

4.3. Recorded Use of Groundwater by City of Ontario (CWC Section 10910 (f)(3)) The City's groundwater supply currently comes from 17 active groundwater wells located throughout the OMUC service area within the Chino Basin. As of FY 19/20, OMUC produced 18,395 AF from the basin (CBWM 2020, p. 20.1). The recorded groundwater production has generally decreased from 36,842 AFY in 2000, as shown in Chart 4-1.

Chart 4-1 - Annual OMUC Groundwater Production, 2000 - FY19/20, (AFY) (Sources: 2000-2009 from the 2012 Ontario Water Master Plan (Appendix K); 2010-2015 from City of Ontario’s annual production reports and 2015 UWMP (Appendix A); FY 18/19 from CBWM, 2019, p. 9.1, FY 19/20 from CBWM, 2020, p. 20.1.

4.4. Projected Use of Groundwater by the City of Ontario (CWC Section 10910(f)(4)) The proposed Project will receive water from a combination of the City's groundwater wells, imported water from WFA, treated groundwater from CDA, and recycled water from IEUA.
6969
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-11
Projected groundwater use by OMUC will continue as noted in Table 3-3. The use of groundwater will continue to be dependent upon the cost of extracting, treating, and transporting the water to customers. Groundwater from the Chino Basin will be utilized by OMUC either directly by pumping into its distribution system or by treating the groundwater (Wells 44 and 52) at the John Galvin Ion Exchange Plant and then pumping the treated groundwater into the City distribution system. The current and ultimate production capacity of OMUC wells is sufficient to meet current and ultimate demand (Table 3-4).

As shown in Table 4-1, the amount of water that OMUC expects to withdraw from the Chino Basin is well within appropriate right pursuant to the Chino Basin Adjudication of 1978 (Appendix M). In addition to its well production, OMUC will also purchase treated Chino Basin groundwater from CDA. OMUC has 1,500 AFY capacity rights in the Chino I Desalter and 7,033 AFY capacity rights in the Chino II Desalter. Projected use of groundwater via CDA is projected to remain at no more than 8,533 AFY.

4.5. Sufficiency of Groundwater Basin (CWC Section 10910(f)(5)) The City’s legal right to pump water in an amount necessary to meet all demands as sanctioned and protected by the Judgment as discussed above, is buttressed by several programs and projects directed at ensuring the sufficiency of groundwater supplies from the Chino Basin, particularly during dry years. An adjudicated water right has perhaps the most substantial indicia of reliability of any water right that currently exists in California. An adjudicated right is based upon long-term studies whose purpose it is to protect the long-term functionality of the water source. These rights are coordinated in an established and binding manner with all the other users of the Chino Basin and are overseen by Chino Basin Watermaster which has the authority to mandate and proscribe activities whose purpose is to protect the water source and maximize its long-term beneficial use.

All Chino Basin Watermaster processes are governed by Rules and Regulations and receive active oversight from the Court which, as noted above, retains continuing 6970
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-12
jurisdiction over the administration of the Judgment. Consequently, the sufficiency of the groundwater is not only directed by rigorous Chino Basin Watermaster management processes but validated and ensured by continuing Court oversight.

The OBMP for the Chino Basin has guided the Chino Basin Watermaster’s activities since its adoption in 1998. Chino Basin Watermaster-led basin management activities to ensure the maximization of safe yield and OSY of the Chino Basin include objectives, projects, and programs identified in the Peace Agreement and the OBMP.

Progress is reported in annual reports, biennial and triennial reports. The key programs include:
1) a comprehensive monitoring program;
2) a comprehensive recharge program;
3) development and implementation of a water supply plan for impaired areas of the Chino Basin;
4) development and implementation of a comprehensive groundwater management plan for Management Zone 1;
5) development and implementation of a regional supplemental water program; 6) development and implementation of cooperative programs with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana Region and other agencies to improve Basin management;
7) development and implementation of a salt management program; 8) development and implementation of a groundwater storage program; and 9) development and implementation of storage and recovery programs.

As stated, the referenced elements of the OBMP collectively comprise a comprehensive regimen directed to ensuring and maximizing the long-term beneficial use of water in the Chino Basin. In particular, and specific to the location of current and future groundwater production facilities upon which the City relies or will rely to provide water to meet water demands within its service area, OBMP Program Element No. 3, “Develop and Implement Water Supply Plan for the Impaired Areas of the Chino Basin” 6971
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-13
and Program Element No. 5, “Develop and Implement Regional Supplemental Water Program”, address the sufficiency of groundwater from the Chino Basin.

Fundamentally, the goal of Program Elements 3 and 5 is to develop a regional, long range, cost-effective, equitable, water supply plan for producers in the Chino Basin that incorporates sound basin management (OBMP, p. 4-16).

The “water demand planning assumptions” used to develop and evaluate water supply plans for Program Element Nos. 3 and 5 of the OBMP are reproduced below (OBMP, p. 4-17):

Available Water Supply from the Impaired Area. As urbanization of the agricultural areas of San Bernardino and Riverside counties in the southern half of the Chino Basin occurs, the agricultural water demands will decrease, and urban water demands will increase significantly. Future development in these areas is expected to be a combination of urban uses (residential, commercial, and industrial). The cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario, and the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) are expected to experience significant new demand as these purveyors begin serving urban customers in the former agricultural area. For planning purposes, the agricultural area is assumed to be fully developed by the year 2020. (OBMP, p. 4-17)
Based on current [1999] estimates of overlying agricultural pool production, it is expected that at least 40,000 AFY of groundwater will need to [be] produced in the southern part of the Chino Basin to maintain the safe yield.

It is anticipated that CDA will meet this requirement in FY 2019/2020.

Water Supply Plans. Based on the data presented in Section 2 [OBMP, 1999], the municipal and industrial demands are projected to increase 30 percent between 2000 and 2020. Several agencies will experience increases in demand exceeding 30 percent over the next 20 years, including the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Norco, Ontario, Cucamonga 6972
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-14
County Water District [now Cucamonga Valley Water District], Fontana Water Company (FWC), JCSD, and the West San Bernardino County Water District [now West Valley Water District]. Forecasts from municipal and industrial entities indicate that water supply sources for the Chino Basin in 2020 will consist predominantly of Chino Basin wells through direct use or treatment and use, groundwater and treated surface water from other basins, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) supplies. (OBMP, p. 4-17)
For the purpose of the OBMP, it was assumed that there is approximately 48,000 AFY of agricultural production in the southern part of the Chino Basin in the year 2000, and that this production will reduce to about 8,000 AFY in the year 2020. This decline in agricultural production must be matched by new production in the southern part of the Chino Basin or the safe yield in the Chino Basin will be reduced. (OBMP, p. 4-18) Recommended Water Supply Plan for the OBMP. Considerable discussion of the alternative water supply plans occurred at the OBMP workshops in February through May of 1999. The discussions focused, in part, on the assumption and details of each alternative and cost. Based on technical, environmental, and cost considerations, the stakeholders selected Alternative 4A for detailed review and refinement. Alternative 6A was developed based on Alternative 4A and 5C, includes an accelerated desalting schedule and has no future supplemental water deliveries to the southern part of the Chino Basin. The Alternative 6A water supply plan consists of the following key elements. (OBMP, p. 4-19) Groundwater Production Pattern. Groundwater production for municipal use will be increased in the southern part of the Chino Basin to: meet the emerging demand for municipal supplies in the Chino Basin, maintain safe yield, and to protect water quality in the Santa Ana River. All new southern 6973
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-15
Basin production will require desalting prior to use. The cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario and Norco, and the JCSD will maximize their use of groundwater from the southern part of the Chino Basin prior to using other supplies.7 (OBMP, pp. 4-19 – 4-20)
Imported Water. Imported water use will increase to meet emerging demands for municipal and industrial supplies in the Chino Basin area, Chino Basin Watermaster replenishment, and conjunctive use. Expanded use of imported water in the northern part of the Chino Basin will have a lower priority than maintaining groundwater production in the southern part of the Chino Basin. (OBMP, p. 4-20)
Recycled Water. Recycled water use (direct use and recharge) will increase to meet emerging demands for non-potable water and artificial recharge. Under the current Chino Basin Plan, all new recycled water use will require mitigation for TDS and nitrogen impacts. Recycled water use will be expanded as soon as practical. The two new desalters [Chino I and Chino II Desalters] described above and the increase in storm water recharge will provide mitigation for the expanded use of recycled water. (OBMP, p. 4-20)
As indicated in the foregoing OBMP text, the City overlies groundwater supplies in the southern part of the Chino Basin which must be pumped for purposes of meeting new demands, maintaining safe yield, and to protect water quality in the Santa Ana River.

As agricultural production in the southern part of the Chino Basin declines, it will be necessary for these reasons to increase production for municipal uses. This is being achieved through the Chino I and Chino II Desalters, of which the City has a contractual right to purchase 8,533 AFY pursuant to the 2001 “Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Creating the Chino Basin Desalter Authority” and subsequent 7 Detailed discussion continues in this paragraph concerning the production capacity of the desalters and construction/expansion projects.
6974
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-16
agreements. Thus, not only was increased Chino Basin water production by the City foreseen in the OBMP, but actually sanctioned and encouraged for purposes of achieving OBMP objectives.

The sufficiency of the groundwater supply that is available to OMUC is assured due to the abundance of groundwater in the central and southern portion of the Chino Basin, OBMP objectives that prioritize and assure production from the southern Chino Basin, coupled with desalting and ion-exchange treatment facilities that enable the use of this abundant supply for municipal (potable) purposes. As indicated in the quoted text of the OBMP, southern basin production, where the City is partially located, is the linchpin of several critical OBMP objectives. Thus, the sufficiency of groundwater is heightened and prioritized by the necessity of continued pumping from the southern Chino Basin under the OBMP which is administered by the Chino Basin Watermaster and ultimately enforced by continuing court jurisdiction over the Judgment.

The other referenced OBMP Program Elements are collectively directed to ensuring the sufficiency of Chino Basin groundwater supplies, particularly during dry years, and comprehensively address water quality and quantity, thus maximizing beneficial use over the long-term. Sufficiency of groundwater from the Chino Basin is further assured for the following reasons:
• IEUA is a member agency of MWD, which provides imported water from the State Water Project for direct use by parties to the Judgment in the Chino Basin and for Chino Basin recharge purposes (when supplies are available). IEUA has also reviewed the sufficiency of supplies for its service territory that includes the Chino Basin in connection with its 2015 UWMP.
• IEUA’s UWMP is consistent with, and reiterative of, OBMP projects and programs (see Section 7.4 of IEUA/WFA in Appendix C). IEUA anticipates increased limitations for imported water for direct and recharge use while noting reductions during dry years (due to increased reliance on groundwater from the Chino Basin) and in the higher amount otherwise required in the absence of 6975
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-17
OBMP projects and programs. The UWMP also analyzes the sufficiency of water supplies for single and multiple year drought scenarios and concludes the region is expected to meet 100 percent of its dry year demand under every scenario. Key assumptions included:
o Reliance on assurances provided by MWD in its 2015 UWMP that it could meet 100 percent of projected supplemental full-service water supply demands through 2040;
o Implementation of MWD’s Chino Basin DYY Storage Program consistent with the contractual shift obligations of the participating agencies of up to 33,000 AF in a twelve-month period; and
o Sustain per capita water use reductions of 10 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020.

IEUA concluded in its 2015 UWMP that the projected available water supply will meet projected water demand due to diversified water supply and water conservation measures. Based on IEUA water supply projections, there are sufficient water supplies to meet normal year water demands and single dry year demands. However, in the multiple dry year scenario a local supply gap of 283 AF is projected for 2040. IEUA and retail agencies plan to close the supply gap through utilizing local supplemental water supply opportunities and securing additional imported water as needed to accommodate for the variability in supply from the State Water Project (Appendix C, p. 3-16).

CWC section 10631(j) provides that urban water suppliers, that rely upon a wholesale agency for a source of water, such as IEUA, may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling UWMP informational requirements.

IEUA’s independent analysis of contemporary regional water conditions in conjunction with MWD’s most recent report, provide additional and reliable assurances concerning the sufficiency of imported water supplies that comprise a portion of overall Chino Basin supply sufficiency. As stated in the above-quoted OBMP text, however, “expanded use 6976
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-18
of imported water in the northern part of the Chino Basin will have a lower priority than maintaining groundwater production in the southern part of the Chino Basin.” The City’s participation in the DYY Storage Program described in Section 3, along with future water storage and recovery projects will drought-proof the Chino Basin and all other appropriative pool members from imported water shortages. This program is consistent with OBMP Program Element No. 9, “Develop and Implement Storage and Recovery Program.” Benefits to the Chino Basin associated with this program include the construction of facilities to enhance imported water deliveries and the production of water from the Chino Basin. Further demonstrating the sufficiency of Chino Basin groundwater is MWD’s DYY program to use the Chino Basin for dry year supply purposes, thus underscoring that sufficient Chino Basin groundwater is available during dry years not only for local use by agencies such as the City but also in connection with MWD’s regional reliability programs.

In conclusion, the sufficiency of groundwater supplies available to OMUC is assured because of the OBMP programs overseen by the Chino Basin Watermaster and conducted under the auspices of continuing Court jurisdiction that specifically direct and assure the long-term production of water pursuant to the City’s legal rights to produce such water necessary to meet ultimate water demands.

Conclusion
The City’s total annual groundwater production has held relatively stable over the past 10 years at roughly 20,000 AFY (Chart 4-1). Production capacity meets current demands and is projected to increase to meet ultimate demand. The current water supply utilized by the City totals approximately 39,921 AFY (FY 19/20, Table 3-2).

Currently, the City’s water rights in the Chino Basin as recorded by the Chino Basin Watermaster total approximately 23,620 AFY, with an additional 96,544 AF in storage (Table 4-1). Although annual fluctuations will occur, the City’s rights are projected to increase over the next 20 years due to more land use conversions and credits from recharge.
6977
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-19
In conclusion, the water supplies available to OMUC currently meet and exceed citywide water demands. Groundwater production by OMUC is currently less than their existing rights and within their production capacity. Regardless, OMUC has the means and right to exceed their groundwater allocation in the Chino Basin when required to meet demand pursuant to the Judgment. Further, OMUC has rights to water held in storage that would supply all City demands for more than two years. In addition to groundwater, OMUC can supply water to the Project purchased from the WFA that is within their existing entitlements and capacities. Therefore, OMUC can meet the additional unplanned water demand of the proposed Project by producing additional groundwater or purchasing imported water supplies to which it has existing rights to and available capacity to use.
6978
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Groundwater Analysis 4-20
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
6979
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Primary Issue for Assessment 5-1
SECTION 5 - PRIMARY ISSUE FOR ASSESSMENT
The lead agency for a proposed project …shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses (CWC section 10911). The lead agency is expected to approve or disapprove the project based on several factors, including but not limited to the WSA.

Law
CWC Section 10910(g)(1): Subject to paragraph (2), the governing body of each public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request was received. The governing body of each public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this act pursuant to subdivision (b), shall approve the assessment prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting.

CWC Section 10911(b): The city or county shall include the water assessment provided pursuant to Section 10910, and any information provided pursuant to subdivision 9a), in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(c) The city or county may include in any environmental document an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document provided pursuant to subdivision (b). The city or county shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. If the city or county determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, the city or county shall include that determination in its findings for the project.

The lead agency is expected to review the Assessment and decide whether additional water supply information is needed for its consideration of the proposed Project. 6980
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Primary Issue for Assessment 5-2

5.1 Findings
Whereas:

1. The City of Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) has been identified as the water supplier for the proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 project (Project). The Project modifies the previously approved land use plan to transfer 518 dwelling units (DUs) from the NMC East Mixed Use District to the Residential District of the Specific Plan, and replace approximately 50 acres of Commercial with Light Industrial use.

2. A previous WSA/WV was prepared in 2004 for the 8,200-acre New Model Colony that includes the Project site; however, it is no longer valid.

3. The estimated potable water demand for the Project is 2,260 AFY and the recycled water demand is 511 AFY for a total demand of 2,771 AFY.

4. The TOP land use plan and buildout assumptions located in Appendix B to the Ontario 2015 UWMP were used to calculate the Project site as it was described at the time of the 2015 UWMP. This estimated potable water demand is 1,716 AFY and 525 AFY of recycled water for a total demand of 2,241 AFY.

5. The 530 AFY increase in total water demand between what was assumed in the 2015 UWMP and the proposed Project is primarily the increase in potable water demand in the Project’s Residential District as a result of transferring 518 units from the Mixed Use District.

6. The increased water demand for the Project was not included in the 2015 UWMP dated July 2016, which was adopted by the City of Ontario City Council by Resolution 2016-072 on July 21, 2016 (Appendix A).

7. OMUC produced 18,395 AF of groundwater in FY 19/20. OMUC has water rights in the Chino Groundwater Basin that currently total 23,620 AFY, as well as groundwater storage accounts that total 96,544 AF (Table 4-1). The water supply production capacity from City wells is currently 63,936 AFY, which is projected to increase to 100,224 AFY to meet demand (Table 3-5). 6981
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Primary Issue for Assessment 5-3

8. OMUC holds shareholder entitlements to potable water from SAWCo in the amount of 600 AFY, and capacity rights to imported water from the WFA in the amount of 28,452 AFY. OMUC also has capacity rights to potable water from the CDA in the amount of 8,533 AFY. In FY 19/20, OMUC purchased 565 AF from SAWCo, 6,513 AF from WFA, and 6,636 AF from CDA (Table 3-2).

9. OMUC is entitled to the recycled water generated by IEUA from the City’s annual share of sewer flows. In FY 19/20, OMUC was entitled to 12,715 AF, of which 7,812 AF was put to non-potable direct use (Table 3-2).

10.As of FY 19/20, citywide potable and recycled water demand were 31,385 AF and 7,812 AF, respectively (Table 2-2); ultimate combined potable and recycled water demand is estimated at 73,640 AFY (Table 2-3). The current production capacities are greater than needed to meet the average day demands under citywide buildout conditions. Additional wells are planned to supply the anticipated ultimate maximum day demand.

11.OMUC has forecasted excess water supplies will be available to meet citywide demand during single-dry and multiple dry water years over the next 20 years (Table 3-10 and Table 3-11).

12.Based on the evidence provided herein, the total projected potable and recycled water supplies available to the OMUC during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years over a 20-year projection will be sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project in addition to the water supplier’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. State mandated conservation efforts will reduce demand in the future.
6982
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3 Primary Issue for Assessment 5-4
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
6983
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company References
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3
6-1
SECTION 6 - REFERENCES
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company and City of Ontario, Recycled Water Master Plan, Final Report. April 2012 (Appendix L)
AKM 2011 AKM Consulting Engineers, Ontario 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011.

AKM 2012 AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario Water Master Plan. April 2012. (Appendix K)
AKM 2016
AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and Technical Memorandum “Ultimate Citywide Water Demand Estimate.” May 2016. (Appendix A)
Boyle 2000 Boyle Engineering, City of Ontario Water Master Plan. August 2000.

CBWM 2019 Chino Basin Watermaster, (Draft) 2019/2020 Assessment Package (Production Year 2018/2019), printed Oct. 15, 2019.

CBWM 2020 Chino Basin Watermaster, Approved 2020/2021 Assessment Package (Production Year 2019/2020), Nov. 19, 2020.

CDA 2016 Chino Basin Desalter Authority, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. (Appendix D)
CDA 2019
Chino Basin Desalter Authority, Special Board of Directors Meeting, July 11, 2019, Quarterly Operations Report. (Available at
https://www.chinodesalter.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07112019-267) CDA 2020 Chino Basin Desalter Authority, Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, March 10, 2020.

CDPH 1999
California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Operations Branch.

Permit Amendment-Increased Filtration Rate (System No. 3610006). Letter dated August 16, 1999.

DWR 2003
California Department of Water Resources, Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrating water and land use planning. October 8, 2003. (Available at https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/use/sb_610_sb_221_guidebook/guideboo k.pdf.)
DWR Bulletin
118
Department of Water Resources. 8-002.01 Upper Santa Ana Valley – Chino Bulletin 118 Basin Boundaries. Dated March 5, 2018. (Available at https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Bulletin-118/Files/B118-Basin-Boundary-Descriptions-2016/B118- Basin-Boundary-Description-2016---8_002_01.pdf)
DYY 2014
Amendment No. 8 to Groundwater Storage Program Funding Agreement No. 49960 By and Among The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Chino Basin Watermaster. September 17, 2014. (Appendix J)
Executive Order
B-37-16
State of California Executive Department, Executive Order B-37-16 Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life, May 9, 2016. (Available at https://www.gov.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/5.9.16_Attested_Drought_Order.pdf.) 6984
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company References
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3
6-2
Executive Order
B-40-17
State of California Executive Department, Executive Order B-40-17, April 7, 2017. (Available at https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/4.7.17_Exec_Order_B-40-17.pdf.) Fontana 2008
Agreement by and between the City of Ontario and the City of Fontana regarding transfer of right of first purchase of recharged reclaimed water. Dated Jan. 15, 2008. (Appendix N)
IEUA 2010 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. (Available at https://www.ieua.org/urban-water-management-plan-2010-june-01-2011/) IEUA/WFA Arcadis. Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Water Facilities Authority 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Final. June 2016. (Appendix C)
IEUA Resolution
No. 2014-12-1
Purchase Order for System Water to be Provided by The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Purchaser: Inland Empire Utilities Agency) and IEUA Resolution No. 2014-12-1. Effective January 1, 2015. (Appendix F) JCSD 2014
Amendment Number 1 to Agreement by and between City of Ontario and Jurupa Community Services District Establishing an Operational Plan for Metropolitan Water District/Chino Basin Groundwater Storage Program, Providing for Water Supply to Ontario’s New Model Colony and Interconnection to Increase Water Supply Reliability. November 21, 2014. (Appendix J)
Judgment
Judgment, Chino Basin Municipal Water District v. City of Chino, et al., San Bernardino Ct. No. 164327 (filed Jan. 30, 1978). Includes amendments thereto. (Appendix M)
Making Water
Conservation a
California Way
of Life
California Department of Water Resources, et. al., Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life, Implementing Executive Order B-37-16 Final Report, April 2017.

MBA Michael Brandman Associates. Rich Haven Specific Plan – Draft EIR. July 3, 2007.

MWD The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. (Appendix B)
OBMP
Wildermuth Environmental, Optimum Basin Management Program Phase I report prepared for Chino Basin Watermaster. August 19, 1999. (Available at http://cbwm.org/docs/engdocs/OBMP%20-
%20Phase%20I%20(Revised%20DigDoc).pdf)
OMUC 2019 Personal communication with Katie Gienger, P.E., Water Resources Manager, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, November 7, 2019.

OMUC 2020 Personal Communication with Courtney Jones, Senior Associate Civil Engineer, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, May 15, 2020.

OMUC 2021 Personal communication with Christopher Quach, PE, Senior Associate Engineer, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, February 18, 2021.

Ord. 2689 Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 8C: Recycled Water Use, effective Jun. 17, 1999.

Ord. 3027 Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 8A: Water Conservation Plan, effective Oct. 1, 2015.

Ord. 99-07-02
Ordinance No. 99-07-02 Ordinance of the Water Facilities Authority-JPA Repealing Ordinance 96-09-01. (Appendix H)
6985
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company References
Water Supply Assessment for Ontario West
6-3
RHSPA Draft Draft Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, November 2020.

SAWCO 2016 CivilTec Engineering Inc. San Antonio Water Company 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. (Appendix E)
UWMP Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, City of Ontario 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Final, July 2016. (Appendix A)
WEBB 2004 Albert A. Webb Associates, Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply for the New Model Colony. October 27, 2004.

WEI 2020 Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation Final Report prepared for the Chino Basin Watermaster. May 15, 2020.

WFA 1985
Installment Purchase Agreement Relating to Water Facilities Authority Water Treatment Plant by and between Water Facilities Authority, as Seller and City of Ontario, as Purchaser. Dated as of October 1, 1985. (Appendix G) WFA 2010
2010 Urban Water Management Plan for Water Facilities Authority. (Available at https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/urbanwatermanagement/2010uwmps/Water%2 0Facilities%20Authority/2010%20UWMP%20Adopted%20-
%20Water%20Facilities%20Authority%20May%202011.pdf)
6986
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Water Supply Assessment for Rich-Haven SPA3
7-1
SECTION 7 - SPREADSHEETS
6987
Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment #3 Water Supply Assessment Spreadsheet 1 March 2021 Land Use Plan for Rich-Haven Site that was assumed in 2015 UWMP (Based on Land Use from The Ontario Plan - TOP)
Residential Planning
Areas (PA) TOP Land Use Gross Acreage
TOP Max Permitted
Dwelling Units per PA
TOP Max Density
(du/ac)
Domestic Water Unit
Demand Factor (gpd/ac) 2
Domestic Water
Demand (gpd)
Domestic Water
Demand (Acre-Feet Per
Year)
Recycled Water Unit
Demand Factor (gpd/ac) 2
Recycled Water Demand
(gpd)
Recycled Water Demand
(Acre-Feet Per Year)
Total Water Demand
(Acre-Feet Per Year)
1A Low Density Residential (2.1-5 du/ac) 12.8 56 5 1,900 24,320 27.24 540 6,912 8 34.98 1B Low Density Residential 12.7 60 5 1,900 24,130 27.03 540 6,858 8 34.71 1C Low Density Residential 14.9 74 5 1,900 28,310 31.71 540 8,046 9 40.72 1D Low Density Residential 20.5 97 5 1,900 38,950 43.63 540 11,070 12 56.03 1E Low Density Residential 23.4 124 5 1,900 44,460 49.80 625 14,625 16 66.18 1F Low Density Residential 26.3 119 5 1,900 49,970 55.97 540 14,202 16 71.88 Subtotal 110.6 530 - 210,140 235 61,713 69 305
2 Open Space Non-Recreational 20 - - 0 0 1,340 26,800 30 30.02 3 Open Space Recreational 27 - - 1,000 27,000 30 1,340 36,180 41 70.77 Subtotal 47 - - 27,000 30 62,980 71 101
4A Low Medium Density Residential (5.1-11 du/ac) 14 156 11 3,960 55,440 62 625 8,750 10 71.90 4B Low Medium Density Residential 9.2 110 11 3,960 36,432 41 625 5,750 6 47.25 4C Low Medium Density Residential 9.8 102 11 3,960 38,808 43 625 6,125 7 50.33 Subtotal 33 368 - 130,680 146 20,625 23 169
5A Medium Density Residential (11.1-25.0 du/ac) 9.1 229 25 6,690 60,879 68 670 6,097 7 75.02 5B Medium Density Residential 14.2 362 25 6,690 94,998 106 670 9,514 11 117.07 5C Medium Density Residential 27 453 25 6,690 180,630 202 670 18,090 20 222.60 5D Medium Density Residential 30.3 509 25 6,690 202,707 227 670 20,301 23 249.80 5E Open Space Non-Recreational 17.76 - - - - 1,340 23,798 2 1.50 Subtotal 98.4 1553 - 539,214 604 77,800 62 666
Total Residential Planning Areas 224.2 2451 - 880,034 986 2,680 136,340 153 1,138 Total Residential District 289.0 2,451 - 907,034 1,016 223,118 225 1,241 Mixed Used District
TOP Assumed Residential Density (du/ac)/Commercial
Intensity (FAR) Acres by Land Use (Gross) 3
TOP Assumed Buildout
Projections for
Commercial/Office (SF) or
Dwelling Units (DU)
Domestic Water Unit
Demand Factor (gpd/ac) 2
or (gpd/du )
5 Domestic Water Water
Demand (gpd)
Domestic Water
Demand (AFY)
Recycled Water Unit
Demand Factor (gpd/ac) 2
or (gpd/du )
5 Recycled Water Demand
(gpd)
Recycled Water Demand
(AFY)
Total Water Demand
(AFY)
NMC East 30% of 263.7 acres at 25 DU/ac 79.11 1,978 120 237,330 265.84 18 35,600 40 305.72 30% of 263.7 acres at 0.35 FAR for Office 79.11 2,500 197,775 221.54 1,340 106,007 119 340.28 40% of 263.7 acres at 0.3 FAR for Retail Uses 105.48 1,800 189,864 212.68 890 93,877 105 317.83 Edison Easement- Open Space Non-Recreational 24.24 - 0 0.00 1,340 32,482 36 36.38 Total NMC East 288 2,584,524 624,969 700 267,966 300 1,000 Total Rich Haven 577 4,429 1,532,003 1,716 491,084 525 2,241 1 Factors from Table 2 Future Domestic Water Unit Demand Factors, AKM, Technical Memorandum (May 2016). 2 Recycled water assumed to be available for project. No potable water demand assumed for open space non-recreational planning areas. 3 Ontario 2015 UWMP, Appendix B, p. 5, May 2016.

FAR = floor to area ratio
ac - acre
du - dwelling units
4 From Draft Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendment 3, Section 9.2 TOP Consistency Tables (Nov. 2020). 5 MU Residential Uses use Potable and Recycled Water Demand Factor of (GPD/DU) Water Demand 1 TOP Land Uses and Buildout Densities Assumed in 2015 UWMP Buildout Projections Assumed in 2015 UWMP for NMC East Mixed Use District3 Water Demand1 2,584,524
6988
Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment # 3 Water Supply Assessment Spreadsheet 2 March 2021 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 Water Demand
(Based on Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment #3 Land Use Summary Table 3-1, 2021) Planning Areas Project Land Use
Project
Maximum
Dwelling Units
(DU)
Project Gross
Acres
(AC)
Project Gross
Density
(DU/AC)
TOP Max
Density
Potable Water
Demand Factor
(GPD/AC)
Recycled Water Demand
Factor (GPD/AC)
Potable Water Demand
(GPD)
PotableWater Demand
(AFY)
Recycled Water Demand
(GPD)
Recycled Water
Demand (AFY)
Total Water Demand
(AFY)
1A Residential - SFD 115 25.5 4.5 Low Density Residential (w/ RW) 5 1,900 540 48,450 54.27 13,770.00 15.42 69.70 1B Residential - SFD 175 24.5 7.1 Low Medium Density Residential (w/ RW) 11 3,960 625 97,020 108.68 15,312.50 17.15 125.83 1C Residential - SFD 731 60.6 12.1 Medium Density Residential (w/ RW) 25 6,690 670 405,414 454.12 40,602.00 45.48 499.60 Subtotal 1,021 110.6 9.2 550,884 617.07 69,684.50 78.06 695.12 2 Edison Parcel - 20.0 - Open Space Non-Recreational (w/ RW) - 1,340 0 0.00 26,800.00 30.02 30.02 3 Park - 27.0 - Open Space Recreational (w/ RW) - 1,000 1,340 27,000 30.24 36,180.00 40.53 70.77 Subtotal - 47.0 - 27,000 30.24 62,980.00 70.55 100.79
4A Residential - SFD/Attached 154 14.1 10.9 Low Medium Density Residential (w/ RW) 11 3,960 625 55,836 62.54 8,812.50 9.87 72.42 4B Residential - SFD/Attached 101 9.2 11.0 Low Medium Density Residential (w/ RW) 11 3,960 625 36,432 40.81 5,750.00 6.44 47.25 4C Residential - SFD/Attached 108 9.8 11.0 Low Medium Density Residential (w/ RW) 11 3,960 625 38,808 43.47 6,125.00 6.86 50.33 Subtotal 363 33.1 11.0 131,076 146.82 20,687.50 23.17 170.00 5A Residential - SFD/Attached 109 9.1 12.0 Medium Density Residential (w/ RW) 25 6,690 670 60,879 68.19 6,097.00 6.83 75.02 5B Residential - SFD/Attached 165 14.2 11.6 Medium Density Residential (w/ RW) 25 6,690 670 94,998 106.41 9,514.00 10.66 117.07 5C Residential - SFD/Attached 332 27.0 12.3 Medium Density Residential (w/ RW) 25 6,690 670 180,630 202.33 18,090.00 20.26 222.59 5D Residential - SFD/Attached 361 30.3 11.9 Medium Density Residential (w/ RW) 25 6,690 670 202,707 227.06 20,301.00 22.74 249.80 Subtotal 967 80.6 12 539,214 604.00 54,002.00 60.49 664.48 5E Edison Easement - 17.8 - Open Space Non-Recreational (w/ RW) - 1,340 0 0.00 23,798.40 26.66 26.66 Subtotal - 17.8 - 0 0.00 23,798.40 26.66 26.66
Residential Land Uses Total 2,351 224.3 10 1,221,174 1,367.89 144,374.00 161.72 1,529.60 All Residential District Planning Areas Total 2,351 289.1 1,248,174 1,398 231,152.40 259 1,657 Mixed Used
Planning Areas Land Use
Maximum
Dwelling Units
(DU)
Gross Acres
(AC)
Gross Acres by
Land Use
Gross Res. Density
(du/ac)
Maximum Commerical /
Office / Industrial
(SF) Max Density
Potable Water Demand
Factor (GPD/AC) or
(GPD/DU )
3 Recycled Water Demand
Factor (GPD/AC) or
(GPD/DU )
3 Potable Water Demand
(GPD)
Potable Water Demand
(AFY)
Recycled Water Demand
(GPD)
Recycled Water Demand
(AFY)
Total Water Demand
(AFY)
- - - - -
Regional Commercial - 2.50 - 76,320 MU-Office (w/ RW) - 2,500 1,340 6,257.38 7.01 3,353.96 3.76 10.77 Stand Alone Residential Overlay 1,406 49.24 28.60 - MU-High Density Residential (w/ RW) 40 120 18 168,720.00 188.99 25,308.00 28.35 217.34 Edison Easement/Neighborhood Edge - 13.36 - - Open Space Non-Recreational (w/ RW) - 1,340 - - 17,902.40 20.05 20.05 Light Industrial - 49.4 49.40 - 1,183,525 Industrial (w/ RW) - 1,400 890 69,160.00 77.47 43,966.00 49.25 126.72 Open Space-Non Recreation - 6.6 6.60 - - Open Space Non-Recreational (w/ RW) - 1,340 - - 8,844.00 9.91 9.91 7B2 Regional Commercial 25.1 25.10 - 300,000 MU-Office (w/ RW) - 2,500 1,340 62,750.00 70.29 33,634.00 37.67 107.96 Regional Commercial - 10.66 - 325,000 MU-Office (w/ RW) - 2,500 1,340 26,646.33 29.85 14,282.43 16.00 45.85 Stand Alone Residential Overlay 852 49.04 17.40 - MU-High Density Residential (w/ RW) 40 120 18 102,240.00 114.52 15,336.00 17.18 131.70 Edison Easement/Neighborhood Edge 1.70 - - Open Space Non-Recreational (w/ RW) - 1,340 - - 2,278.00 2.55 2.55 Regional Commercial - 4.05 - 123,400 MU-Office (w/ RW) - 2,500 1,340 10,117.41 11.33 5,422.93 6.07 17.41 Stand Alone Residential Overlay 407 15.65 26.00 - MU-High Density Residential (w/ RW) 40 120 18 48,840.00 54.71 7,326.00 8.21 62.91 Regional Commercial - 5.45 - 166,182 MU-Office (w/ RW) - 2,500 1,340 13,625.05 15.26 7,303.03 8.18 23.44 Stand Alone Residential Overlay 2,178 79.45 27.40 - MU-High Density Residential (w/ RW) 40 120 18 261,360.00 292.76 39,204.00 43.91 336.67 Edison Easement - 0.70 - - Open Space Non-Recreational (w/ RW) - 1,340 - - 938.00 1.05 1.05 Total Mixed-Use District Residential Land Uses 4,843 193.38 25.0 581,160.00 650.98 87,174.00 97.65 748.63 Total Mixed-Use District 4,843 312.9 312.9 25.0 2,174,427 769,716.17 862 225,098.75 252 1,114 Total- Rich Haven Residential and Mixed Use Districts 7,194 602.0 602.0 17.22 2,017,890.17 2,260 456,251.15 511 2,771

1. The Rich-Haven Land Use Summary Table 3-1 does not contain acreages for Mixed Use Overlay that appears to be within PAs 6B and 8A. Potential water demand is captured in the unit water demand factors of PAs 6B and 8A.

2. The Rich-Haven Land Use Summary Table 3-1 does not contain SCE easement acreages that appear to be within PA 7B. Potential water demand of these easements is assumed to be captured in the unit water demand factors of the nearby land uses within PA 7B.

3. Mixed Use Residential (MU-High Density Residential) land uses used Potable and Recycled Water Demand Factor GPD/DU; Non-Residential land uses used Potable Water Demand Factor GPD/AC

4. Acreages for Edison Easement/Neighborhood Edge in Mixed Use District were obtained from Section 9.2 (TOP Consistency Tables) of the SPA3.

5. Unit water use factor for Mixed Use-Office instead of Mixed Use Non-Office was assumed to be conservative. w/ RW = with recycled water
No potable water demand for Edison easements, neighborhood edge, or Edison parcel.

A FAR of 0.7 was assumed in order to calculate an acreage for Regional Commercial in PA 6B+9B, 8A, 8B, and 6A+9A. FAR of 0.7 is the maximum allowed per the TOP NMC East Mixed Use District Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment #3 Water Demand
Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment # 3 Residential District 2015 UWMP Water Demand Factors Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment #3 Water Demand Corresponding TOP Land Use
SFD = single family detached.
8A1

85.6 6A + 9A
2015 UWMP Water Demand Factors
7A
8B

19.7 61.4
UWMP Land use
6B1
+ 9B 65.1
Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment # 3 Mixed Use District \\elsinore\WO4\2021\21-0011\Rich Haven WSA-WV\Report\Tables\_SPA 3 Water Demand 6989
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich Haven SPA 3

H:\2021\21-0011

WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY
RICH-HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3
6990
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich Haven SPA 3
H:\2021\21-0011
TABLE OF CONTENTS – WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY

1.1. Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 1

1.2. Purpose ______________________________________________________________ 2

1.3. Project Description and Water Demand ___________________________________ 2

1.4. Verification of Sufficient Water Supply ____________________________________ 3 20-Year Water Supply Availability ________________________________________ 3 Urban Water Shortage Contingency Analysis ______________________________ 4 Supply Reduction for Specific Water Use Sector___________________________ 5 Amount Reasonably Relied Upon from Specific Supply Project(s) ____________ 5

1.5. Substantial Evidence of Verification of Sufficient Water Supply ______________ 5

1.6. Impacts to Agricultural and Industrial Users _______________________________ 6

1.7. Priority to Proposed Lower Income Housing Projects ______________________ 7

1.8. Verification That Relies on Groundwater __________________________________ 8

1.9. Finding of Sufficient Water Supply _______________________________________ 9 6991
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich-Haven SPA3
1 H:\2021\21-0011
SB 221 WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Senate Bill 221 (SB 221) was enacted in 2001 and became effective as of January 1, 2002. SB 221 establishes the relationship between the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for a project pursuant to Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), and the project approval under the Subdivision Map Act. SB 221 amends Section 11010 of the Business and Professional Code, and amends Section 65867.5 to add Sections 66455.3 and 66473.7 to the California Government Code. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.7, the public water supplier must provide a written verification of sufficient water supply (WV) prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for a subdivision of property of more than 500 dwelling units, except as specified, including the design of the subdivision or similar type of improvement.

1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the WV is to provide the legislative body of a city, county or the designated advisory agency with written verification from the applicable public water supplier that a sufficient water supply is available, or, in addition, a specified finding is made by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion of the project.

The WV shall be supported by substantial evidence, which may include relevant portions of an applicable Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) or a WSA prepared per SB 610. Many of the requirements for SB 610 compliance will satisfy the requirements of SB 221. There are four factors to be considered in a WV which are not required in a WSA as specified by Government Code Section 66473.7. Those four factors, which are specifically addressed in this WV are as follows:

1. Historical water supplies for at least 20 years;
6992
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich-Haven SPA3
2 2. Urban Water Shortage Contingency Analysis prepared for the water supplier’s UWMP;

3. Supply reduction for “specific water use sector” per water supplier’s resolution, ordinance, or contract; and

4. Amount of water that can be reasonably relied upon from specific supply projects, subject to the determinations outlined in Government Code Section 66473.7.

1.3 Project Description and Water Demand
This WV has been prepared in conjunction with a WSA for Amendment No. 3 to the Rich-Haven Specific Plan (PSPA19-006) (SPA3 or “Project”). The Rich-Haven Specific Plan encompasses 602 acres within the City of Ontario’s 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch.

This includes Southern California Edison parcels and easements that are within the Project boundary. Annexed in 1999, the presently agricultural Ontario Ranch is planned to be developed into residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses (UWMP, p. 3- 1). The proposed Project is the third specific plan amendment; the primary changes of which are to move 518 dwelling units (DUs) from the Mixed Use District to the Residential District of the Specific Plan, and replace approximately 50 acres of Commercial with Light Industrial use.

With the land use changes that are proposed by the Project implemented, the RichHaven Specific Plan will allow for up to a maximum of 7,194 DUs, a maximum of 990,902 square feet (SF) of commercial/office uses, and a maximum of 1,183,525 SF of light industrial uses. The Mixed Use District allows for combinations of commercial, office, light industrial, and residential development at various densities/intensities. The projected total water demand for ultimate development of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan with SPA3 is 2,771 acre-feet per year (AFY) (Table 2-6, Water Supply Assessment).
6993
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich-Haven SPA3
3 The City of Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC)1 is the water supplier for the Project and for the City. OMUC commissioned a WSA and WV from Albert A. Webb Associates (WEBB) on January 25, 2021. The purpose of preparing this WV for the entire Project is to preclude the need for individual “Written Verification” letters being prepared for the individual residential development projects that will qualify for a WV within the Rich-Haven Specific Plan area. SB 221 applies to the Project because there will be residential subdivisions that will have more than 500 DUs which exceed the criteria set in 66473.7(a) of 500 DUs.

The key question for this WV to address per SB 221: whether the water supplier is able to provide a sufficient water supply based upon an analysis as to whether water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agriculture and industrial uses (DWR 2003).

1.4 Verification of Sufficient Water Supply
A detailed evaluation of OMUC’s water supply was performed under the attached WSA for the Project. Attached to the WSA is the adopted City of Ontario 2015 UWMP which addresses normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions (Appendix A). The 2015 UWMP determined that sufficient water supply exists to support the demands of the OMUC service area. The WSA determined that the water demand of the Project is greater than the water demand for the same site that was assumed in the 2015 UWMP; therefore, the increased demand was not accounted for in the 2015 UWMP. However, the WSA concludes that sufficient water supply exists to support the Project. 20-Year Water Supply Availability
OMUC has been able to meet all water demands with its available water supplies for the past 20 years. Table 3-2 of the attached WSA shows the recorded water supplies 1 OMUC is a department of the City of Ontario and the terms may be used interchangeably herein. 6994
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich-Haven SPA3
4 from 2000-2020 that were utilized to meet the demand within OMUC’s service area. A supply source that is available to OMUC that is not included in Table 3-2 are the groundwater storage accounts to which OMUC has rights to store water in the Chino Basin. As of FY 19/20, the City has approximately 96,544 AF held in storage (Table 4- 1).

Urban Water Shortage Contingency Analysis
The urban water shortage contingency analysis prepared for the most recent UWMP is contained within Chapter 8 of Ontario’s 2015 UWMP (Appendix A). The UWMP water shortage contingency analysis is based on the provisions adopted in City of Ontario Ordinance No. 3027 (effective Oct. 1, 2015), which updated the City’s Water Conservation Plan that is codified in Chapter 8A of the City municipal code. The analysis includes stages of action, prohibitions on end uses, penalties and enforcement measures, determination of water shortage reductions, revenue and expenditure impacts, catastrophic supply interruption, and minimum supply for the next three years.

Ordinance No. 3027 made the City’s Water Conservation Plan consistent with the more stringent emergency conservation regulations mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board in response to statewide drought conditions. The purpose of the ordinance and the Water Conservation Plan are to minimize the potential for a water shortage through the practice of water conservation, and to minimize the effect of a shortage of water supplies on the water customers of the City. In addition, it is the intent of the ordinance and the Water Conservation Plan to adopt provisions that will significantly reduce the inefficient consumption of water, thereby extending the available water resources necessary for domestic, sanitation, and fire protection of the community to the greatest extent possible (Municipal Code Sec. 6-8.21).

The City’s Water Conservation Plan describes the methods to respond to a water supply shortage of up to 50 percent. Fives stages of conservation are described 6995
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich-Haven SPA3
5 (Stages 0-4) with Stages 1-4 being mandatory with increasing conservation requirements and penalties depending on the severity of the shortage (UWMP, p. 8-1).

The water supply and water demand comparisons incorporated herein from the 2015 UWMP do reflect the implementation of water shortage contingency measures corresponding to Stages 0-4. Specifically, during normal years and the first single dry year, voluntary Stage 0 reductions in water consumption of up to 10 percent are assumed. During the second dry year, a Stage 2 mandatory reduction in water demand of 15 percent is assumed in demand projections. Further, the third dry year is assumed to be in a Stage 3 with mandatory minimum reductions in water demands of 20 percent. (UWMP, p. 7-6)
Supply Reduction for Specific Water Use Sector
OMUC’s current Water Conservation Plan establishes voluntary and mandatory water conservation requirements which shall take effect upon implementation. During a water shortage crisis, certain mandatory restrictions on water use will be imposed on the public. Stage 0 prohibitions are entirely voluntary. Stages 1 to 4 prohibitions will be progressively implemented according to the severity of the water crisis (UWMP, p. 8-2).

The restrictions and prohibitions on end users that correspond to Stages 0 to 4 are outlined in Table 8-2 of the City’s 2015 UWMP (p. 8-3). OMUC does not have a water supply allocation plan. No single water use sector is identified in the Water Conservation Plan for supply reductions in the event of a water shortage crisis.

Amount of Water That Can Be Reasonably Relied Upon from Specific Supply Project(s)
This requirement of the WV pertains to projected water supplies that the water supplier can reasonably rely on that are not currently available to the public water system. All projected water supplies are currently available to OMUC but may not be fully utilized to date. Descriptions of the supplies available to OMUC are in Section 3 of the attached WSA.
6996
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich-Haven SPA3
6 1.5 Substantial Evidence of Verification of Sufficient Water Supply This WV does not rely on projected water supplies that are not currently available to OMUC. The water supplies that OMUC will continue to rely on that are projected to be sufficient to meet current and future needs are described in Section 3 of the attached WSA. Because projected supply sources are currently available to OMUC, supporting information pursuant to Gov. Code section 66473.7 is not provided herein. This would include This would include written contracts or other proof of valid rights to supplies under development, an adopted capital outlay program to finance delivery of supplies under development, permits to construct supply infrastructure for supplies under development, and regulatory approvals for conveyance or delivery of supplies under development. Copies of the rights, contracts, and other entitlements to water supplies available to OMUC are provided in the appendices to the attached WSA.

1.6 Impacts to Agricultural and Industrial Users
Gov. Code section 66473.7 requires this WV to contain a description of reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed subdivision on the availability of water resources for agricultural and industrial uses within the water supplier’s service area that are not currently receiving water from the water supplier but are utilizing the same sources of water. Water supplies that industrial and agricultural users may be using that are not provided to them by OMUC would be their private wells to access the Chino Groundwater Basin, which OMUC also utilizes. Adverse impacts to such entities as a result of the Project is not anticipated because the Chino Basin is an adjudicated basin with a court appointed Watermaster who monitors and enforces the provisions of the 1978 Judgment and subsequent orders of the court. As discussed in Section 4 of the attached WSA, the Watermaster develops and implements an Optimum Basin Management Program to sustainably manage the basin for all users.

The Rich-Haven Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by MBA and dated July 3, 2007, addressed the conversion of the existing agricultural land use to a mixed urban use development. As stated in the Draft EIR section on 6997
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich-Haven SPA3
7 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts: Implementation of this project would permanently convert agricultural operations and agricultural production on the project site to urban uses. Specifically, the Prime Farmland would be permanently converted and no longer available for agricultural uses or agricultural production (p. 6-1). The document further states, The project is being proposed despite significant and unavoidable impacts because it represents one of thirty planning subareas within the NMC [Ontario Ranch] planned for cohesive, identifiable neighborhoods within the NMC [Ontario Ranch] for the purpose of implementing the vision of the NMC [Ontario Ranch] (p. 6-2).

As discussed in the attached WSA, agricultural properties are projected to decrease with the conversion of Ontario Ranch to non-agricultural activities (Table 2-4). Table 3- 7 of the attached WSA forecasts declines in recycled water use by agriculture. Further, industrial is currently (2015) one of the two most common land use types in the City, making up approximately 4,671 acres or 15 percent (UWMP, p. 3-3). The ultimate citywide land use plan plans for an increase of business parks and industrial uses to cover about 8,103 acres or 25 percent at buildout (UWMP, p. 3-6). Table 2-3 in the attached WSA shows an increasing citywide projection of water use by industrial uses from 1,839 AFY in 2020 to 5,138 AFY in 2040.

For each acre of agricultural land that converts to urban use, the initial Safe Yield of the appropriative pool member serving the converted land is increased by 2 acre-feet. In addition, properties that were on private wells are expected to connect to OMUC infrastructure. Therefore, OMUC’s share of the safe yield will continue to increase as Ontario Ranch develops, and a decline in private wells is expected.

1.7 Priority to Proposed Lower Income Housing Projects
Pursuant to Gov. Code section 65589.7, the determinations made by the WV shall be consistent with the obligation of a public water system to grant a priority for the provision of available and future water resources or services to proposed housing 6998
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich-Haven SPA3
8 developments that help meet the City’s (or County’s) share of the regional housing needs for lower income households.

The 2015 UWMP states that 2,592 very low income units are planned between 2013 and 2021, and half of those units are designated for extremely low income families (p. 3-9). Further, the 2015 UWMP estimates 15,143 AFY of water demand will come from lower income households by buildout in 2040 (p. 4-4).

The following excerpt from the Draft Rich-Haven SPA3 General Plan Consistency Analysis describes the Project’s consistency with applicable policies from the TOP Housing Element (p. 9-20):
6999
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich-Haven SPA3
9 1.8 Verification That Relies on Groundwater
Law
Gov. Code Sec. 66473.7 (h) Where a water supply for a proposed subdivision includes groundwater, the public water system serving the proposed subdivision shall evaluate, based on substantial evidence, the extent to which it or the landowner has the right to extract the additional groundwater needed to supply the proposed subdivision. Nothing in this subdivision is intended to modify state law with regard to groundwater rights.

Section 4 of the attached WSA describes OMUC’s legal right to extract groundwater from the Chino Basin.

1.9 Finding of Sufficient Water Supply
As depicted in Table 3-2 and Table 3-9 of the attached WSA, the City’s existing and future total water supply (39,921 AFY in FY 19/20 and 73,640 AFY in 2040, respectively) are sufficient to meet the existing and anticipated water demands from its service area including the proposed Project’s demand of 2,771 AFY (Table 2-6 of attached WSA). Based on the analysis herein and the attached WSA, OMUC finds that “sufficient water supply” is available to support the projected subdivisions within the Rich-Haven Specific Plan as currently described in SPA3. 7000
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Rich-Haven SPA3
10 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
7001
7002
Your Property. Our Priority.
1745 W. Orangewood Avenue, Suite 110, Orange, CA 92868
Telephone (714) 634-9500 Fax: (714) 634-9507
www.HillmannConsulting.com

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
1601 E. RIVERSIDE DRIVE
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761
Prepared For:

Richland Ventures, Inc
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, California 92612
July 28, 2016
Hillmann Project No: C3-6603

7003
Your Property. Our Priority.

Corporate Headquarters: 1600 Route 22 East, Suite #107, Union, NJ 07083 (908) 688-7800 Fax: (908) 686-2636 Toll free: (800) 232-4326 Office Locations: California, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia www.HillmannConsulting.com
July 28, 2016
Mr. John Schafer
Richland Ventures, Inc.
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, California 92612
RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
10601 E. Riverside Drive
Ontario, CA 91761
Hillmann Project Number: C3-6603
Dear Mr. Schafer:

Hillmann Consulting, LLC, is pleased to provide the results of our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the above referenced property. This assessment was performed in accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13, which is the latest version of the E1527 standard published by the ASTM, and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Final Rule 40 CFR Part 312.

This report is for the exclusive use of the entities named on the front cover, and no other party shall have any right to rely on any service provided by Hillmann Consulting, LLC, without prior written consent.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide environmental due diligence services. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact the Project Manager at (714) 634-9500.

Very Truly Yours,
Hillmann Consulting, LLC

Scott Alburn Christopher W. Baker
Environmental Technician Vice president of Operations
7004
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -i- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Details Summary Table .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Findings Summary Table ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 General Description, Current and Historic Property Use ............................................................................. 4

1.4 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 7

2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Property Location/Legal Description ......................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Significant Assumptions............................................................................................................................. 10

2.4 Limitations and Exceptions ........................................................................................................................ 10

2.5 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................................... 11

2.6 Special Terms and Conditions .................................................................................................................... 11

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Prior Reports and other Provided Documentation ...................................................................................... 13

3.2 Title Records/Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations ............................................................ 13

3.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience ....................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information ................................................................... 13

3.5 Property Value Reduction due to Environmental Conditions .................................................................... 14

3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA .......................................................................................................... 14

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 15

4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources ................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources ................................................................................................ 18

4.3 Physical Setting Sources ............................................................................................................................ 19

4.4 Historical Use – Property and Adjoining Properties .................................................................................. 20

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ..................................................................................................................... 25

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ...................................................................................................... 25

5.2 General Site Setting .................................................................................................................................... 25

5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations ................................................................................................................ 27

6.0 INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................................................ 30

6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants .......................................................................... 30

6.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials ......................................................................... 30

7.0 NON-ASTM SCOPE CONCERNS ......................................................................................................... 31

7.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) ....................................................................................................... 31

7.2 Lead-Based Paint ........................................................................................................................................ 31

7.3 Radon ......................................................................................................................................................... 31

7.4 Mold ........................................................................................................................................................... 31

7.5 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................... 31

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT ..................................................................... 33

9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 34

10.0 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Appendix A Site Diagram/Vicinity Map
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Questionnaires / User Provided Information
Appendix D Historical Records Documentation
Appendix E Regulatory Records Documentation
Appendix F Other Documents
Appendix G Project Personnel Qualifications
7005
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -ii- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
List of Abbreviations/Acronyms
Hillmann may use the following abbreviations and acronyms for common terminology described in our report. Not all abbreviations or acronyms may be applicable to this report:

ACM – Asbestos Containing Material
AST – Aboveground Storage Tank
ASTM – American Standard for Testing Materials
CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act CERCLIS – Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System CESQG – Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
CORRACTS – Corrective Action Sites
CREC – Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
DNPL – Delisted National Priority List
DTSC – Department of Toxic Substances Control
ENG – Engineering
ERNS – Emergency Response Notification System
FOI – Freedom of Information
FOIA – Freedom of Information Act
FOIL – Freedom of Information Letter
HVAC – Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning
HREC – Historic Recognized Environmental Condition
IAQ – Indoor Air Quality
INST – Institutional
LBP – Lead-Based Paint
LQG – Large Quantity Generator
LUST – Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MSDS – Material Safety Data Sheet
NFA – No Further Action
NFRAP – No Further Remedial Actions Planned
NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL – National Priority List
RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS – Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System REC – Recognized Environmental Condition
RWQCB – Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD – South Coast Air Quality Management District
SQG – Small Quantity Generator
TSDF – Treatment Storage and/or Disposal Facility
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
UST – Underground Storage Tank
7006
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -1- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hillmann Consulting, LLC (Hillmann), performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of 10601 E. Riverside Drive in Ontario, California (the “Property”). This assessment has been conducted in accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13 for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Final Rule 40 CFR Part 312.

1.1 Project Details Summary Table
A summary of the pertinent details of the project is provided below:

PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE
Name of Client Richland Ventures, Inc.

Client Project No.: N/A
Client Contact: Mr. John Schafer
Description of Project Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Project Name: N/A
Street Address: 10601 E. Riverside Drive
City: Ontario County: San Bernardino State: California
Tax ID/Parcel Number: 0218-161-04-0000, 0218-161-05-0000, 0218-161-10-0000, 0218-161- 11-0000
Zoning Designation: Field Crops, Dairy
Approx. Property Area: 104.77 Acres
Approximate Building Area:
2,500 SF Milk Barn, 3,000 SF Equipment Barn, 1,500 SF Mechanical Shed, one 2,200 SF home, one 1,400 SF home, one 1,300 SF home, 3,300 SF storage building, 1,800 SF dairy processing facility.

Year Built: Homes built in 1976, Dairy equipment built in 1982.

General Type of Usage: Field & Seed, Dairy Farm
Property Owner: L&F Properties
Occupant(s): Northview Dairy
Assessment Personnel: Mr. Jonathan McConnell
Property Contact: Mr. Daryl Koops
Property Escort(s): Mr. Daryl Koops
Inspection Date: July 12, 2016
Weather Conditions: Clear, 77 degrees F
7007
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -2- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

1.2 Findings Summary Table
The following table summarizes the key findings of this assessment. This table, alone, does not constitute the complete assessment. The report must be reviewed in its entirety.

Assessment Section No Sig.

Concern
Potential Env Concern REC Recommended
Follow-up
Rep.

Ref.

User Provided Info X 3.0
Data Gaps X 2.5
Regulatory Review
Property listed on numerous
environmental databases for
operations including the
generating and disposal of
wastes produced from Dairy
operations.

No NFA 4.1
Historical Review Historical usage as
agricultural/ orchard land REC Perform Phase II Investigation 4.4 Site Use Use of the Property as a
dairy farm. REC Perform Phase II Investigation 5.2
Adjoining Properties X 4.1.2

5.2.8 Hazardous Materials
Usage and storage of various
materials, hydraulic fluid,
used oil, and lubricants were
found in storage areas
around the Property.

Stained soil observed
adjacent compressors.

REC Perform Phase II
Investigation 5.3
Bulk Petroleum Storage X
Several unregulated
underground storage tanks
and above ground storage
tanks of varying size were
identified containing
molasses, beer for livestock
feed, water, and reclaimed
water.

Additional
investigation/
remedial actions

5.3 PCBs X 5.3
Waste / Discharges
Water being discharged into
leaching pond towards the
southern portion of
Northview Dairy.

Several areas of landfilling
were identified on the area.

REC Perform Phase II
Investigation 5.3
Asbestos Containing
Materials (ACM)
Potential for ACM in
Property buildings.

Compliance with
regulations 7.1
Lead Based Paint (LBP) Potential for LBP in
Property buildings
Compliance with
regulations 7.2
Radon X 7.3
Mold X 7.4
7008
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -3- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
Assessment Section No Sig.

Concern
Potential Env Concern REC Recommended
Follow-up
Rep.

Ref.

Wetlands X 7.5
NA = Not Applicable, TBD = To Be Determined, UNK = Unknown 7009
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -4- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

1.3 General Description, Current and Historic Property Use The Property consists of four rectangular and square shaped parcels on the south side of East Riverside Drive, between South Haven Avenue and Mill Creek Road. The Property is currently occupied by a dairy on the northern portion of the lot and vacant land on the southern portion.

The Property is developed with three residential houses, one milk processing facility, and a storage building. The total Property area is approximately 104.77 acres and is located in a suburban developed area characterized by a mix of single and multi-family homes, plant nurseries, dairies, and a high school. The terrain of the Property appeared to be relatively flat.

No natural surface bodies of water were observed.

The Property appears to have first been used as agricultural orchards in 1938 until a dairy was constructed on the northern portion of the Property in 1985. The dairy was listed as Northview Dairy and currently remains on the northern portion of the Property. By 2009, the southern portion of the Property changed from crops and orchards to undeveloped land. The Property currently resembles this configuration.

1.4 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions

1.4.1 Notable Findings
WDS, HAZNET, EMI, ENF, San Bern. Co. Permit – Northview Dairy. The WDS listing indicates that the facility type is “Agricultural” and a facility status of “Active.” The primary waste type includes “nonhazardous solid wastes or solid wastes that contain nonhazardous putrescible and non-putrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes. These primary wastes have a moderate threat to water quality if a violation were to occur. The HAZNET listing indicates that in 1996 and 2000, the Property used a transfer station, treatment tank, and a recycler to dispose of aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent. No violations were noted on the Property. The EMI listing indicates that the site emitted up to six tons of total organic hydrocarbon gases and up to three tons of particulate matter between the years 2006 and 2014.

The ENF listing indicates the site as “Agricultural” due to having solid wastes and NEC under stormwater runoff. No violations were noted on the Property. The San Bernardino County Permit listing indicates the site has a permit for a small quantity generator and hazardous materials 1-10 chemicals with San Bernardino County as the permitting agency. The FINDS listing indicates the environmental interest and information system is registered under the air emissions classification. The ECHO listing indicates the Property is listed under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as a NPDES permit and a concentrated animal feeding operation. The site is also listed under the Emission Inventory System (EIS) which indicates the air emissions status as unknown. Considering a lack of reported spills or releases, as well as the relatively small quantity of reported wastes, the above listings are not considered to be RECs in connection with the Property.

A&E Project No. E96004.00, Report of Underground Storage Tank Removal – Northview Dairy, 10601 Riverside Drive, Ontario, California prepared by A&E Inc. and dated March 7, 1996. The Report references that on February 16, 1996, four underground storage tanks (USTs) at the Northview Dairy Farm were removed. Two 4,000-gallon storage tanks containing gasoline and two 6,000-gallon storage tanks containing diesel fuel were removed from the Property. 7010
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -5- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
A&E observed no evidence of contaminated soil surrounding the USTs and a total of ten (10) soil samples were collected surrounding the storage tanks. Laboratory results detected no concentrations of diesel fuel or gasoline in any of the ten soil samples. Results also indicated no concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, or methyl tert-butylethene in any of the ten soil samples. It was concluded by A&E Inc. that no significant release of fuels to the subsurface soil was observed at the subject site. A letter from the County of San Bernardino Fire Department, dated June 23, 1999, stated, “…it has been determined that the extent of contamination or lack thereof would indicate that no further investigation is warranted at this time.”
File review issued at the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – Santa Ana Region (8) indicated records for the Property were found. Files included animal discharge reports, cleanup and abatement orders, and waste management plans for Northview Dairy. The provided Engineered Waste Management Plans state that in January of 2003, Northview Diary proposed to create measures of reducing potential run-off through construction of berms alongside the western and eastern borders. No violations were observed from Northview Dairy.

The truck trailer mounted above ground storage tank (AST) containing diesel fuel is considered a REC due to staining on the pavement from use of the attached pump station. Hillmann recommends that a sub-surface phase II inspection be conducted to measure the effects of petroleum in the soil. It is recommended that proper removal practices and disposal of diesel tanks prior to redevelopment on the central portion of the Property.

Storage of acid cleaners, zinc sulfate monohydrate powder, hydraulic fluid, used oil, and lubricants were all found within various storage areas around the Property. These materials should be removed and properly disposed prior to redevelopment of the Property.

Significant soil staining was observed in the vicinity of the operational and unused air compressors along the northeastern exterior wall of the garage.

Three locations of solid waste dumping was noted within a City of Ontario Assessor’s Map. On the central portion of the Property, three locations of buried tree stumps, concrete rip rap, and buried construction debris are noted.

1.4.2 Non-ASTM Scope Considerations
Hillmann has also performed preliminary evaluations for ASTM “Non-Scope” items, such as asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint, radon, mold and wetlands. Our observations and research did not identify any notable concerns, except for the following:

Considering the dates of construction of the existing buildings, asbestos containing materials (ACM) may be present at the Property. Suspected ACM observed during a preliminary visual screening included roofing materials, plaster walls, drywall, ceiling tiles, cove base, adhesive, and stucco. It is possible that additional quantities of suspect ACM may exist in enclosed areas or areas not accessed during the assessment. It is emphasized that this limited screening does not constitute a comprehensive asbestos survey of the premises and is meant only to provide a preliminary evaluation regarding the potential presence of ACM at the Property. 7011
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -6- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
Considering the dates of construction of the existing buildings, lead-based paint may be present at the Property. In general, interior painted surfaces within the space were observed to be in fair condition with the exception of the ceiling within the garage where a majority of the paint was peeling from the roof and roof joists. It is emphasized that this limited screening does not constitute a comprehensive lead-based paint survey of the premises and is meant only to provide a preliminary evaluation regarding the potential presence of LBP at the Property.

1.4.3 Significant Data Gaps
No data gaps that significantly impacted Hillmann’s ability to identify RECs in connection with the Property have been identified.

1.4.4 Recognized Environmental Conditions
Hillmann has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 of the Property as described in Section 2 of this report. Any additions to, exceptions to, or deletions from this practice are also described in Section 2 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property, except for the following:

Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs):
 Based on the historic usage as agricultural land, historical applications of pesticides have likely occurred at the Property. Therefore, there is the potential for residual pesticide levels to exist in shallow soils in the Property, which is considered to be a REC.  Due to the current Property usage as a dairy farm, there is a potential for vapor intrusion by methane gas, which is considered to be a REC.
 The southern portion of the property was utilized as farmland and orchard from the late 1930’s until the mid-2000’s. This activity is considered a REC due to the likely usage of pesticides and fertilizers.
 Three areas of unregulated dumping were identified on the Property. This activity is considered a REC due to the unknown nature of the landfilling.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs):
 No evidence of any CRECs in connection with the Property was identified.

Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs):
 Based on previous reports published by A&E Inc., four underground storage tanks were removed from the Property on February 16, 1996. Two 4,000-gallon storage tanks containing gasoline and two 6,000-gallon storage tanks containing diesel fuel were removed.

Ten soil samples were taken from the surrounding area with no visual signs of leaking. 7012
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -7- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
Laboratory results reported detected no concentrations of diesel fuel or gasoline in any of the ten soil samples. The removal of the four underground storage tanks creates a historical recognized environmental condition for the Property.

1.5 Recommendations

1.5.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions
Based on the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a phase two environmental site assessment is recommended in order to address the following items:
 Agricultural/ orchard usage of the southern portion of the Property,  Methane Gas Testing for the northern portion of the Property,  Soils in the areas of unregulated dumping, and,
 Soils in the area of the leaking air compressors in the garage.

1.5.2 Non-ASTM Considerations
The following should be considered with regard to further investigation or management of NonASTM considerations addressed by this report:
 Compliance with all applicable rules and regulations pertaining to the presence of ACM and lead based paint at the Property.
7013
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -8- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose and Scope
This assessment was conducted utilizing generally accepted Phase I ESA industry standards in accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13. The ASTM describes these methodologies as representing good commercial and customary practice in the United States of America for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and petroleum products. As such, this practice is intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on CERCLA liability (hereinafter, the “landowner liability protections,” or “LLPs”): that is, the practice that constitutes all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses the property consistent with good commercial and customary practice as defined at 42 U.S.C. §9601(35) (B). The primary goal of the processes established by ASTM E1527-13 is to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property.

The term recognized environmental condition (REC) is defined by the ASTM as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or at a property: (1) due to a release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

The ASTM has also defined the terms historical recognized environmental conditions and controlled recognized environmental conditions as two additional types of RECs. The term historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) is defined as a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the Property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the Property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls or engineering controls).

The term controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) is defined as a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.

Conditions determined to be “de minimis conditions” are not considered to be RECs nor CRECs. De minimis condition is defined by the ASTM as a condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.” The chief components of this assessment are described as follows:
7014
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -9- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
 A non-invasive visual reconnaissance of the Property and adjoining properties in accordance with ASTM guidelines for evidence of RECs.
 Interviews of past and present owners and occupants and state and local government officials, seeking information related to the potential presence of RECs at the Property.  A review of standard physical record sources for available topographic, geologic and groundwater data.
 Review of standard historic record sources, such as fire insurance maps, city directories, aerial photographs, prior reports and interviews, etc., to determine prior uses of the Property from the present, back to the Property’s first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier.
 Review of standard environmental record sources including federal and state environmental databases, and additional environmental record sources, to identify potential regulatory concerns with the Property, adjoining properties and properties located within the surrounding area.

These methodologies are described as representing good commercial and customary practice for conducting an Environmental Site Assessment of a property for the purpose of identifying recognized environmental conditions.

2.1.1 Non-ASTM Scope Considerations
In accordance with our contract agreement, Hillmann may have addressed the following potential environmental concerns that are outside of the requirements of the ASTM E1527-13 standard:

Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM): A preliminary visual inspection for the presence of suspect ACM within the accessed areas of buildings on the Property.

Lead-Based Paint (LBP): A preliminary visual inspection of the condition of painted surfaces in the accessed areas of buildings on the Property.

USEPA Designated Radon Potential: Review of general non-site specific data published by the USEPA regarding the potential for elevated indoor levels of radon gas to occur in the area of the Property.

Mold: A preliminary visual inspection within the accessed areas of buildings on the Property for evidence of systemic microbial problems, including visible mold growth, water damaged building materials or musty odors.

Wetlands: A preliminary review of data published by the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the presence or absence of mapped wetlands on the Property. The US Fish and Wildlife Service wetlands data is typically provided to Hillmann by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR).
7015
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -10- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

2.2 Property Location/Legal Description
The Property is located at 10601 E. Riverside Drive in Ontario, California. The legal designations of the Property are Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0218-161-04-0000, 0218- 161-05-0000, 0218-161-10-0000, and 0218-161-11-0000. The Property is located along the south side of East Riverside Drive, between South Haven Avenue and Mill Creek Road. The latitude and longitude of the Property is approximately North 34.0171 degrees, and West 117.5724 degrees.

2.3 Significant Assumptions
The following significant assumptions are made:
 Hillmann can neither warrant nor guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information obtained from EDR during the course of this assessment.  Hillmann can neither warrant nor guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information that was obtained from ostensibly knowledgeable individuals, regulatory agency representatives or other secondary sources.
 Hillmann has assumed that the site operations at the time of the site visit reflect typical site conditions relative to potential environmental conditions and that no concealment of environmental conditions or releases by site owners or occupants has occurred. Likewise, Hillmann has also assumed that no areas of the Property with potential environmental concerns or RECs were concealed or otherwise not made known to us, intentionally or unknowingly, by the Property owners/occupants and/or site escort at the time of the site visit.
 For the purpose of estimating the approximate direction of groundwater flow in the absence of site specific groundwater data, unless indicated otherwise, Hillmann has assumed that the gradient of groundwater flow follows the surface topography of the Property and immediate surrounding area.

2.4 Limitations and Exceptions

2.4.1 Limiting Conditions
Hillmann was unaware of any significant limiting conditions at the time of the assessment.

2.4.2 Other Exceptions or Deletions:

No exceptions or deletions from the ASTM Standard E 1527-13 are reported. 7016
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -11- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

2.5 Data Gaps
A data gap is defined by the ASTM as a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. A data gap is only significant if other information and/or professional experience raises reasonable concerns involving the data gap and the ability to determine the presence or absence of recognized environmental conditions.

Data Gap: Significant
(Yes/No)?
Discussion
Response to agency records
requests not received as of date
of report.

No Any additional information indicative of a REC will be forwarded upon receipt.

2.6 Special Terms and Conditions
Hillmann has prepared this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment using reasonable efforts in each phase of its work to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with hazardous substances, wastes and petroleum products at the Property. The methodology of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was consistent with the ASTM Standard Practice for E 1527-13. Findings within this report are based on information collected from observations made on the day of the site visit and from reasonably ascertainable information obtained from governing public agencies and private sources.

This report is not definitive and should not be assumed to be a complete or specific definition of the conditions above or below grade. Information in this report is not intended to be used as a construction document and should not be used for demolition, renovation or other construction purposes. Hillmann makes no representation or warranty that the past or current operations at the Property are, or have been, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and codes.

Findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our visual observations of the Property, the research findings reasonably obtained, information provided by the Client, and/or a review of readily available and supplied drawings and documents. Hillmann relies completely on the information, whether written, graphic or verbal, provided by the subject Property contact(s) or as shown on any documents reviewed or received from the subject Property contact, owner or agent, or municipal source, and assumes that information to be true and correct. Although there may have been some degree of overlap in the information provided by these various sources, Hillmann did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of all information reviewed or received during the course of this assessment.

Regardless of the findings stated in this report, Hillmann is not responsible for consequences or conditions arising from facts that were concealed, withheld or not fully disclosed at the time the assessment was conducted.

This report does not warrant against future operations or conditions, nor does it warrant against operations or conditions present of a type or at a location not investigated. 7017
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -12- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
The regulatory database report provided is based on an evaluation of the data collected and compiled by a contracted data research company. The report focuses on the Property and neighboring properties that could impact the Property. Neighboring properties listed in governmental environmental records are identified within specific search distances. The search distance varies depending upon the particular government record being checked. The regulatory research is designed to meet the requirements of ASTM Standard E 1527-13. The information provided in the regulatory database report is assumed to be correct and complete.

Subsurface conditions may differ from the conditions implied by the surface observations and can only be reliably evaluated through intrusive techniques.

Reasonable efforts have been made during this assessment to identify aboveground and underground storage tanks and ancillary equipment. “Reasonable efforts” are limited to information gained from visual observation of largely unobstructed areas, recorded database information held in public record and available information gathered from interviews. Such methods may not identify subsurface equipment that may have been hidden from view due to parked automobiles and other vehicles, snow cover, vegetative growth, pavement, construction or debris pile storage or incorrect information from sources.

Unless otherwise specified in Section 2.1 of this report, an ASTM Vapor Encroachment Screening of the Property utilizing the information collected during the course of this assessment is excluded from the scope of service for this assessment.

Hillmann is not a professional title insurance firm and makes no guarantee, explicit or implied, that the records which were reviewed represent a comprehensive or precise delineation of past Property ownership or tenancy for legal purposes.

In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this report and the terms and conditions of the consulting services agreement between Richland Ventures, Inc. and Hillman Consulting, the consulting services agreement shall control. 7018
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -13- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION

3.1 Prior Environmental Reports/Documentation
A&E Project No. E96004.00, Report of Underground Storage Tank Removal – Northview Dairy, 10601 Riverside Drive, Ontario, California prepared by A&E Inc. and dated March 7, 1996. The Report references that on February 16, 1996, four underground storage tanks (USTs) at the Northview Dairy Farm were removed. Below is a summary of the findings of the underground storage tank removal:
 Two 4,000-gallon storage tanks containing gasoline and two 6,000-gallon storage tanks containing diesel fuel were removed from the Property.  A&E observed no evidence of contaminated soil surrounding the USTs and a total of ten (10) soil samples were collected surrounding the storage tanks.  Laboratory results detected no concentrations of diesel fuel or gasoline in any of the ten soil samples. Results also indicated no concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, or methyl tert-butylethene in any of the ten soil samples.  It was concluded by A&E Inc. that no significant release of fuels to the subsurface soil was observed at the subject site.
 The report included a letter from the County of San Bernardino Fire Department, dated June 23, 1999, that stated, “…it has been determined that the extent of contamination or lack thereof would indicate that no further investigation is warranted at this time.”

3.2 Title Records/Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations Review of title records is not included in the scope of work for this assessment project. No information regarding environmental liens or activity and use limitations was provided to Hillmann by the Client.

3.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience
No indication of any specialized knowledge or experience regarding the Property was reported to Hillmann by the Client.

3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information No commonly known or specialized knowledge of the Property was reported to Hillmann by the Client.
7019
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -14- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

3.5 Property Value Reduction due to Environmental Conditions No information was provided by the Client to Hillmann regarding a reduction of the Property value due to environmental problems or conditions.

3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA
It is Hillmann’s understanding that the Phase I ESA was being performed in consideration of a pending real estate transaction involving the Property. 7020
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -15- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW

4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources
An EDR Radius Map report was obtained from Environmental Data Resources of Shelton, CT.

The EDR Radius Map Report provided a search of standard environmental record sources in general accordance with the requirements of the ASTM E1527-13. Hillmann has reviewed the EDR Radius Map report and a summary of findings is presented in the following tables and report sections. Hillmann also reviewed the list of unmapped sites (referred to by EDR as “Orphan List” sites). Unmapped sites identified as falling within an applicable specific search distance or warranting discussion in the report, if any, have been included in the information presented below. Detailed descriptions of the meaning and significance of the regulatory databases can be found in the EDR Radius Map Report in Appendix E.

Regulatory Database Search
Distance
Property
Listed?
Adj.

Properties
Listed?
Total Listings
Within Search
Distance
Fed. NPL/Proposed NPL 1-mile No No 0
Fed. Delisted NPL ½-mile No No 0
Fed. CERCLIS ½-mile No No 0
Fed. CERC-NFRAP ½-mile No No 0
Fed. RCRA CORRACTS 1-mile No No 0
Fed. RCRA TSD ½-mile No No 0
Fed. RCRA LQG Site & Adj. No No
Fed. RCRA SQG Site & Adj. No No
Fed. RCRA CESQG Site & Adj. No No
Fed. ENG Control List Site No
Fed. INST Control List Site No
Fed. ERNS Site No
State/Tribal Hazardous Waste Site 1-mile No No 1
State/Tribal Landfill/Solid Waste ½-mile No No 0
State/Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks ½-mile No No 0
State/Tribal Registered Storage Tanks Site & Adj. No No State/Tribal Eng. Control List Site No
State/Tribal Inst. Control List Site No
State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites ½-mile No No 0
State/Tribal Brownfields ½-mile No No 0
Supplemental Databases Site & Adj. Yes Yes

4.1.1 Property Listings
The Property was identified on the following databases:

WDS, HAZNET, EMI, ENF, San Bern. Co. Permit – Northview Dairy. The WDS listing indicates that the facility type is “Agricultural” and a facility status of “Active.” The primary waste type includes “nonhazardous solid wastes or solid wastes that contain nonhazardous putrescible and non-putrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes. These primary wastes have a moderate threat to water quality if a violation were to occur. The HAZNET listing indicates that in 1996 and 2000, the Property used a transfer station, treatment tank, and a recycler to dispose of aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent. No violations were noted on 7021
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -16- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
the Property. The EMI listing indicates that the site emitted up to six tons of total organic hydrocarbon gases and up to three tons of particulate matter between the years 2006 and 2014.

The ENF listing indicates the site as “Agricultural” due to having solid wastes and NEC under stormwater runoff. No violations were noted on the Property. The San Bernardino County Permit listing indicates the site has a permit for a small quantity generator and hazardous materials 1-10 chemicals with San Bernardino County as the permitting agency. The FINDS listing indicates the environmental interest and information system is registered under the air emissions classification. The ECHO listing indicates the Property is listed under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as a NPDES permit and a concentrated animal feeding operation. The site is also listed under the Emission Inventory System (EIS) which indicates the air emissions status as unknown. Considering a lack of reported spills or releases, as well as the relatively small quantity of reported wastes, the above listings are not considered to be RECs in connection with the Property.

4.1.2 Adjoining Property Listings
San Bern. Co. Permit – TLC Sonlight Dairy #2, located at 13300 Haven, approximately 38 feet south-southwest at a lower elevation relative to the Property: The San Bernardino County Permit listing indicates the site has a permit category as “Hazmat Handler” and a facility status of “Inactive.” Considering the status, the above listing is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

San Bern. Co. Permit – OASIS Growers, Inc., located at 13210 Haven Ave, approximately 41 feet southwest at a lower elevation relative to the Property: The San Bernardino County Permit listing indicates the site has a permit category as “conditionally exempt small quantity generator” and a facility status of “Inactive.” Considering the status, the above listing is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

HIST UST, HAZNET – Jack Pinherio Dairy, located at 11011 Riverside Drive, approximately 85 feet north-northeast at a high elevation relative to the Property: The HIST UST listing provided a geotracker link that indicates the site had one 1,000-gallon tank containing unleaded fuel in 1978. The HAZNET listing indicates the site generated unspecified oil-containing waste, off-specification, aged or surplus organics, and other organic solids in 2006. Considering the lack of reported spills or releases the above listings are not considered to be RECs in connection with the Property.

San Bern. Co. Permit – Weststar Dairy, located at 10401 E. Riverside Drive, approximately 578 feet west-northwest and at a higher elevation relative to the Property: The San Bernardino County Permit listing indicates the site has a permit category as “Special Generator” and a facility status of “Inactive.” Considering the status, the above listing is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

San Bern. Co. Permit – Colony High School, located at 3850 E. Riverside Drive, approximately 1,226 feet northeast and at a higher elevation relative to the Property: The San Bernardino County Permit listing indicates the site has a permit category as “Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator” and “Hazardous Materials 4-10 Chemicals” and a facility status of 7022
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -17- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
“Active.” Considering the status and lack of reported spills or releases, the above listing is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

4.1.3 ASTM Search Distance Findings
The following is a summary of the findings of the regulatory database review with regard to sites identified as located within the ASTM specified search distance surrounding the Property.

In order to keep this report informative and yet concise, Hillmann has provided a brief discussion of the listed site(s) for each database category that appears most likely to impact the Property based on distance, topography and/or case status. A copy of the full EDR Radius Map Report, including available details of all listed sites, is included in Appendix E.

Note that listings for the following databases, if identified, would be discussed above in Sections

4.1.1 and 4.1.2: Registered Storage Tanks, Federal RCRA Generators, Federal and State INST and ENG Controls, ERNS.

Federal NPL: No NPL listings were identified within a one-mile radius of the Property.

Federal Delisted NPL: No DNPL listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.

Federal CERCLIS: No CERCLIS listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.

Federal CERCLIS-NFRAP: No CERC-NFRAP listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.

Federal RCRA-CORRACTS: No CORRACTS listings were identified within a one-mile radius of the Property.

Federal RCRA-TSD: No TSD listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.

State/Tribal Hazardous Waste Sites: One (1) SHWS listings were identified within a one-mile radius of the Property on the EnviroStor database. The listing is described as Chaffey High School No. 10. This site is approximately 5,277 feet south and at a lower elevation relative to the Property. The listing indicates a “No Further Action” status as of 07/01/2005. The site type is noted as School Investigation. Soil was potentially affected by Toxaphene, TPH-diesel, Dieldrin, Heptachlor, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, and DDT. A Project Wide Inventory Project Report (INPR) was issues 09/08/2005. Considering distance and topographic relation, this site is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

State/Tribal Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites: No SWF/LF listing was identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.

State/Tribal leaking Storage Tanks: No LUST listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.
7023
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -18- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites: No VCP listing was identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.

State/Tribal Brownfields: No BROWNFIELDS listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.

Review of the sites identified within the ASTM search parameters did not identify any nearby or surrounding area sites that are considered to be a REC in connection with the Property, unless as discussed otherwise previously in this section.

4.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources

4.2.1 Supplemental Database Listings
Hillmann reviewed the EDR Radius Map report for listings on supplemental databases that were searched in addition to the Standard Environmental Record Sources. Any property or adjoining property listings on such databases, if identified, would be discussed in Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

None of the other supplemental database listings identified by the EDR Radius Map report are considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

4.2.2 Local Agency & Internet Research
Hillmann performed a search of available local and municipal agencies for pertinent information pertaining to the Property, particularly with regard to potential environmental concerns such as petroleum storage tanks, storage and usage of hazardous substances and petroleum products, and/or known or suspected environmental contamination. Hillmann also conducted a cursory internet search of the Property address for information indicative of a REC. The following table summarizes the findings of the research:

Source: Inquiry
Made? Type: Outcome:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Yes Online
Request
Response not received prior to report
issuance.

County of San Bernardino Fire
Department Fire Department No FOIA Request
It was not reasonably ascertainable at
the time of the Phase I ESA to obtain
records from the San Bernardino
County Fire Department.

Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) Yes FOIA Request
Response indicates that no records for
the Property address were found.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) – Santa Ana Region (8) Yes FOIA Request
Response indicated that records were
found. Files indicated Animal
Discharge annual reports, Notices to
submit Nutrient Management Plans,
and implementation of Engineered
Waste Water Management Plans for
Northview Dairy. These reports did not
indicate any environmental concerns in
relation to the Property. See below.

South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) Yes FOIA Request
Response indicated that Northview
Dairy obtained permits to operate the
facility and engines.
7024
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -19- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
Riverside County Geographical
Information System (GIS) Yes On-line search
No information indicative of a REC
was identified.

CA DTSC EnviroStor database
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ Yes Internet The Property address was searched. No results for the Property were found.

CA GeoTracker database
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ Yes Internet The Property address was searched. No results for the Property were found.

USEPA Envirofacts search
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html Yes Internet
The Property address was searched and
Northview Dairy is listed as a general
permit covered facility.
www.google.com Yes On-line
search
The Property address search returns
results as a dairy by the name of
Northview Dairy.
www.realquest.com Yes On-line
search
Basic Property information such as
parcel number, date of construction,
and building square footages were
collected. Pertinent information, where
obtained, is referenced in the
appropriate sections of this report.

Other: NA
A file review issued at the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – Santa Ana Region (8) indicated records for the Property were found. Files included animal discharge reports, cleanup and abatement orders, and waste management plans for Northview Dairy. The provided Engineered Waste Management Plans state that in January of 2003, Northview Diary proposed to create measures of reducing potential run-off through construction of berms alongside the western and eastern borders. No violations were observed from Northview Dairy.

4.3 Physical Setting Sources

4.3.1 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
The USGS 7.5 minute series topographic maps covering the Property (Guasti, CA 2012 and Corona North, CA 2012) were reviewed. The maps indicated an approximate elevation at the Property of 789 feet above mean sea level. The topography indicated by the map appeared to be sloping downward to the south. The closest down gradient body of water appeared to be a channeled portion of the Santa Ana River, approximately 4.52 miles south.

4.3.2 Soils
Based on USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) data summarized by the EDR GeocheckPhysical Setting Source Addendum, the soil type at the Property is classified as “Delhi.” The Delhi designation is described as fine sand, with somewhat excessively drained and high infiltration rates.

4.3.3 Geology
Based on geologic data summarized by the EDR Geocheck - Physical Setting Source Addendum, the geologic formation in the vicinity of the Property is described as a stratified sequence of the Cenozoic Era, Quaternary System, Quaternary Series. 7025
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -20- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

4.3.4 Hydrology
No site specific hydro-geologic data was available for the Property.

4.4 Historical Use – Property and Adjoining Properties
Hillmann has conducted research in order to help identify the likelihood of past uses having led to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. Standard historical sources have been sought in an attempt to document the past uses of the Property as far back as it can be shown that the Property contained structures; or from the time the Property was first used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial or governmental purposes.

4.4.1 Fire Insurance Maps
A search of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for the Property and surrounding area was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Shelton, Connecticut. EDR provided a Sanborn report that stated fire insurance maps covering the target property were not found.

4.4.2 City Directories
Hillman obtained an EDR City Directory Abstract report to obtain data of historic city directory listings for the Property. The following is a generalized summary of the findings of City Directory Research:

YEAR(S) SUMMARY
2003 – 2013
Property: The Property is not listed on the City Directory report.

Adjacent
Properties:

The adjoining properties to the north are listed as East Seals and After School Academy. The adjoining property to the northeast is listed as Colony High School and McMurray BE Construction. The adjoining property to the west is listed as Fremontia Horticultural.
1985 – 2002
Property: The Property is not listed on the City Directory report.

Adjacent
Properties:

The adjoining property to the north are listed as La Petite Academy. The adjoining property to the west is listed as West Star Dairy, Wind Frank, and Slegers Milk. 1975 – 1984
Property: The Property is not listed on the City Directory report.

Adjacent
Properties:

The adjoining property to the west is listed as Slegers Hubert Dairy, Wind Frank, and Wind Fred, and Slegers LM.

4.4.3 Historical Topographic Map Review
Hillmann obtained and reviewed an “EDR Historical Topographic Map Report” from EDR containing historic aerial photography of the Property and adjoining properties. The following interpretation of land usage was made by review of the maps:

YEAR(S) DESCRIPTION
1897, 1900,
1903
Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land with a small structure on the northwestern corner of the Property.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties are depicted as undeveloped land. 7026
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -21- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
1953/1954
Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land, vineyards, and orchards with a small structure on the northwestern corner of the Property.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining property to the north is depicted with a mix of undeveloped land and vineyards and one small structure. The adjoining property to the northeast is depicted as undeveloped land, vineyards, and orchards. The adjoining properties to the east are depicted as undeveloped land. The adjoining properties to the south and west are depicted as vineyards. 1954
Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land, vineyards, and orchards with a small structure on the northwestern corner of the Property. A well is depicted on the central of the western border.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining property to the north is depicted with a mix of undeveloped land and vineyards and one small structure. The adjoining property to the northeast is depicted as undeveloped land, vineyards, and orchards. The adjoining properties to the east are depicted as undeveloped land. The adjoining properties to the south and west are depicted as vineyards. 1966/1967
Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land, vineyards, and orchards with a small structure on the northwestern corner of the Property. A well is depicted on the central of the western border.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining property to the north is depicted as undeveloped. The adjoining property to the northeast is depicted as undeveloped land, vineyards, and orchards. The adjoining properties to the east are depicted as undeveloped land. The adjoining properties to the south and west are depicted as vineyards.
1973
Property The Property is depicted as agricultural land with a well in the center along the western border and a small structure in the northwestern corner.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north, northeast, and east are depicted as undeveloped land. The adjoining property to the south is depicted as having agricultural land. The adjoining properties to the west are depicted to have agricultural land with various rectangular structures.
1981
Property The Property is depicted as having agricultural land, one well in the center along the western border, and various structures along the northern portion of the Property.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north, northeast, and east are depicted as undeveloped land. The adjoining property to the south is depicted as agricultural land. The adjoining properties to the west are depicted as having agricultural and undeveloped land with various structures. 2012
Property No building development is depicted on the Topographic map.

Adjacent
Properties
No building development is depicted on the Topographic map.

4.4.4 Aerial Photograph Review
Hillmann obtained and reviewed an “EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package Report” from EDR containing historic aerial photography of the Property and adjoining properties. In addition, Hillmann reviewed historic aerial photographs of the Property online at www.historicaerials.com. The following interpretation of land usage was made by review of the aerial photographs:

7027
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -22- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

YEAR(S) DESCRIPTION
1938
Property The Property appears to be used as agricultural land with a small structure in the northwestern corner, and undeveloped land.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining property to the north appears to be used as agricultural land with a small structure in the southwestern corner, and undeveloped land.

The adjoining property to the northeast, east, south, and west appear to be used as agricultural land.
1948
Property The Property appears to be used as agricultural land for orchards and vineyards with a small structure in the northwestern corner, and undeveloped land. A well appears to be in the central portion along the western border.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining property to the north appears to be used as agricultural land and undeveloped land with a small structure in the southwestern corner.

The adjoining properties to the northeast, south, and west appear to be developed with agricultural land. The adjoining property to the east appears to be undeveloped land.
1953, 1959,
1966, 1967
Property The Property appears to be used as agricultural land for orchards and vineyards with undeveloped land on the northern portion of the Property. A well appears to be in the central portion along the western border.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north and east appear to be undeveloped land. The adjoining property to the northeast appears to be undeveloped land and agricultural land. The adjoining properties to the south and west appear to be agricultural land.
1975
Property The Property appears to be used as agricultural and vacant land.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north, south, and west appear to be agricultural land. The adjoining properties to the northeast and east appear to be undeveloped land.
1985
Property The Property appears to be a dairy on the northern portion of the Property and agricultural land on the southern portion of the Property.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north appear to be vacant land. The adjoining properties to the north, northeast, east, and south appear to be agricultural land. The adjoining properties to the west appear to be vacant land and a residential home.
1989, 1990
Property The Property appears to be a dairy on the northern portion of the Property and agricultural land on the southern portion of the Property.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north appear to be residential homes under construction. The adjoining properties to the northeast, east, and south appear as agricultural land. The adjoining properties to the west appear with one residential home and vacant land.
1994
Property The Property appears to be a dairy under development and agricultural land.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north appear to be residential homes under development and single and residential homes already built. The adjoining properties to the northeast, east, and south appear to be agricultural land.

The adjoining properties to the west appear to be agricultural land, vacant lots, and small residential homes.
2002
Property The Property appears to be a dairy and agricultural land.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north appear to be residential homes. The adjoining property to the northeast appears to be a school under development. The adjoining properties to the east and south appear to be used as agricultural land. The adjoining properties to the west appear to be a mix of agricultural land and vacant lots.

7028
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -23- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
2005, 2006
Property The Property appears to be a dairy and agricultural land.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north appear to be residential homes. The adjoining property to the northeast appears to be a school. The adjoining properties to the east and south appear to be agricultural land. The adjoining properties to the west appear to be a mix of agricultural land and vacant lots.
2009, 2010,
2012
Property The Property appears to be a dairy and agricultural land.

Adjacent
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north appear to be residential homes. The adjoining property to the northeast appears to be a school. The adjoining properties to the east appear to be residential homes under construction.

The adjoining property to the south appears to be vacant land. The adjoining properties to the west appear to be a mix of agricultural land and vacant lots.

4.4.5 Petroleum/Natural Gas Well Review
Hillmann reviewed historical record sources for evidence of historic petroleum and/or natural gas wells at the Property. In addition, Hillmann conducted a search of the property location on the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources Well Finder database (http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/index.html). No record of any historical petroleum/natural gas wells at the Property was identified.

4.4.6 Historical Records Data Failure
Historic land use data prior to 1896 was not readily available at the time of the assessment. The Property was determined by this assessment to have been first developed with a commercial building dating back to 1924. It is Hillmann’s opinion that no significant data gaps were encountered.

4.4.7 Summary of Historic Use Research
The Property appears to have first been used as agricultural orchards in 1938 until a dairy was constructed on the northern portion of the Property in 1985. The dairy was listed as Northview Dairy and currently remains on the northern portion of the Property. By 2009, the southern portion of the Property changed from crops and orchards to undeveloped land. The Property currently resembles this configuration.

The adjoining properties appear to have been undeveloped until orchards were planted on the northeastern adjoining property. By 1975, the orchards were taken out and the land was vacant until more orchards were planted again in 1994. In 2002, Colony High School was under construction and fully built by 2005. The adjoining properties to the north appeared to be undeveloped land until 1975 when it was used for agricultural purposes. By 1985, the properties were under construction for residential homes which were fully built by 2005. The adjoining properties to the east first appeared as agricultural land in 1938 and remained until it was redeveloped with residential homes. The southern adjoining property first appeared as agricultural land in 1938 until it was turned into undeveloped land in 2006. The adjoining properties to the west first appear as agricultural land in 1938 until a residential home was built on the southern portion of the site. By 1985, the northern portion of the properties was converted 7029
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -24- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
into vacant land until Fremontia Horticultural was present on the western adjoining properties in 2005.
7030
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -25- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
The site reconnaissance consisted of visual and/or physical observations of the Property and improvements, adjoining properties as viewed from the Property boundaries and the surrounding area based on visual observations from adjacent public thoroughfares. Building exteriors were observed at ground level, unless otherwise indicated. Where applicable, Hillmann accessed and observed representative areas of building interiors to the extent they were made safely accessible with the cooperation of the site escort.

The site reconnaissance was conducted by Mr. Jonathan McConnell on July 12, 2016. Weather conditions at the time of the assessment included a temperature of approximately 77 degrees F and clear skies. Hillmann was escorted by Mr. Daryl Koops, Dairy Owner, with Northview Dairy.

5.1.1 Significant Inaccessible Areas
No significant areas were excluded from Hillmann’s visual inspection.

5.2 General Site Setting

5.2.1 Site and Vicinity Characteristics
The Property consists of four rectangular and square shaped parcels on the south side of East Riverside Drive, between South Haven Avenue and Mill Creek Road. The Property is currently occupied by a dairy on the northern portion and vacant land on the southern portion. The total Property area is approximately 104.77 acres. The Property is located in a suburban developed area characterized by a mix of single and multi-family homes, plant nurseries, dairies, and a high school.

5.2.2 Topographic Characteristics
The terrain of the Property appeared to be relatively flat. No natural surface bodies of water were observed.

5.2.3 General Description of Structures
The Property is improved with approximately one 2,500 SF milk barn, one 3,000 SF equipment barn, and three homes of varying sizes. The property currently has five buildings located throughout the property. It was said that they were developed at the time of construction. The buildings are comprised of three houses, one milk processing facility, and a storage building.

The first home located at 10601 is approximately 2,200 SF, the dairy processing facility is approximately 1,800 SF, the other home along of Riverside Drive is approximately 1,400 SF, the storage building is approximately 3,300 SF and the home on Haven Ave is approximately 1,300 SF. The buildings are set on a slab-on-grade foundation and have a roll on roof. The interior consists of typical home usages, equipment rooms, machinery, and maintenance rooms.

7031
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -26- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

5.2.4 Sources of Heating and Cooling
Heating or cooling systems were present at the Property at the time of the assessment. All buildings with the exception of the dairy processing facility and storage building have a HVAC system that appeared to be fueled by natural gas at the time of the assessment.

5.2.5 Potable Water Source/Sewage Disposal System
The Property is currently not serviced by the municipal water and sewer systems. The water on the property comes from a well and grey water is recycled and used for livestock. The black water goes into septic systems throughout the property at each of the three homes.

5.2.6 Current Use(s) of the Property
The Property is currently used as a Dairy Farm. Hillmann did observe a leaching pond, several storage tanks, and a wastewater discharge area at the time of the site visit. The homes are currently occupied by family members of the owner. The storage building is used for farming equipment and contents storage. The sheds around the property are used for feed storage and farming equipment. Cattle pens are on the northern and central portion of the property with the reclamation pond towards the south then leaching ponds following.

5.2.7 Past Use(s) of the Property
No obvious indication of past Property usage likely to have involved the use, treatment, storage, disposal or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products was observed at the time of the site visit. Please refer to Section 4.4 for findings of historical site use research.

5.2.8 Current Use(s) of the Adjoining Properties
The following describes adjacent and abutting properties:

Dir Street Address Description
N 2999 S. Haven St,
2943 Alder Creek Dr,
3551 – 3591 San Lorenzo
River Rd.,
3637 – 3655 San Lorenzo
Rd.,
2942 Tuolumne Pl
Residential homes and a preschool
NE 3850 E. Riverside Drive Colony High School
E 3933, 3934 E. Bethany
Way.,
3936 E. Millcreek Paseo,
3936, 3933 E. Colony
Paseo,
3250 S. Westmont Lane
Residential homes
S No address assigned:

APN: 0218-161-09-0000
Vacant land
W 13210 Haven Avenue Plant nursery and vacant land
7032
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -27- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
No visual observations indicative of a potential environmental concern were noted of the adjoining properties.

5.2.9 Past Use(s) of the Adjoining Properties
No indication of past uses of the adjoining properties was noted at the time of the site visit.

Please refer to Section 4.4 for the findings of historical site use research.

5.2.10 Current/Past Uses of Surrounding Area
The Property is located in suburban area of Ontario, California. The vicinity of the Property consists of a mix of single and multi-family homes, plant nurseries, dairies, and a high school.

No indications of past Property uses that differ substantially from current conditions were observed at the time of the site visit.

5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations

5.3.1 Storage/Usage of Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products The facility at the Property stored various hazardous materials including diesel fuel which was stored on the property in a large tank on front of the Property next to the milk barn. There was one large underground storage tank (UST) stored on the northern portion of the Property containing reclaimed water, one large UST stored on the western portion of the Property on Haven Ave said to be containing water for livestock, three large USTs were stored on the central portion of the Property containing molasses and old beer for livestock feed. In addition, several herbicides, lubricant containers, and other maintenance containers stored in manufacturer containers were observed on the Property. These features have the potential to represent an environmental concern to the Property and should be removed and disposed of in connection with site development activities.

5.3.2 Drums
Several drums were observed at the Property. All drums were observed to contain diesel fuel.

There were no signs of leaking or spills near or around the drums. These features do not appear to represent an environmental concern to the Property but should be removed and disposed of in connection with site development activities.

5.3.3 Other Hazardous Substances/Petroleum Products
Storage of acid cleaners, zinc sulfate monohydrate powder, hydraulic fluid, used oil, and lubricants were all found within various storage areas around the Property.

5.3.4 Unidentified Substance Containers
No unidentified substance containers were observed on the Property at the time of the site visit.

7033
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -28- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

5.3.5 Storage Tanks
Several unregulated underground storage tanks (USTs) and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were identified on the subject Property. Three USTs of approximately 8,000-gallon capacity each stored molasses on the Property. In addition, one 8,000-gallon UST containing beer used for feed for livestock, two 5,000-gallon UST of water, and one 5,000-gallon UST of reclaimed water were identified. One 1,000-gallon AST containing diesel fuel stored on a trailer was observed on the Property.

5.3.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Three (3) pole-mounted transformers were present within the north and eastern side of the Property. No leaking or surface staining was observed around the vicinity of the transformers.

The transformers do not represent a REC in relation to the Property.

5.3.7 Odors
Strong, unusual or pungent odors were noted on the Property all around the cattle pens and around the ponds. This is likely due to the off gases from decomposing fecal matter.

5.3.8 Pools of Liquid
One large pool of water was observed at the southern end of the dairy which is used as a leaching pond. The water reclamation and drainage is done through a series of piping and a screening of the water to remove fecal matter. The fecal matter is recycled by the owner for landscaping uses by a third party company. The pond appeared to be made of concrete material and appeared to not be lined. From the screening pond the liquid goes into the leaching ponds in the southern most portion of the Property.

5.3.9 Interior Stains or Corrosion
De minimis staining was observed on the pavement and soil in various locations at the Property.

No interior stains or corrosion were noted at the Property. These features do not represent an environmental concern to the Property.

5.3.10 Interior Drains/Sumps
No floor drains or sump pits were noted at the Property.

5.3.11 Exterior Pits/Ponds/Lagoons
No evidence of exterior pits, ponds or lagoons was identified on the Property in connection with waste treatment or disposal, except as noted in section 5.3.8.

7034
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -29- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

5.3.12 Stained Soil, Pavement/Stressed Vegetation
Significant soil staining was observed in the vicinity of the operational and unused air compressors along the northeastern exterior wall of the garage.

5.3.13 On-Site Solid Waste Dumping/Fill Material
Three locations of solid waste dumping was noted within a City of Ontario Assessor’s Map. On the central portion of the Property, three locations of buried tree stumps, concrete rip rap, and buried construction debris are noted.

5.3.14 Wastewater
Water was observed to being drained from pipes into a leaching pond. The leaching pond has the potential to be an environmental concern due to elevated levels of contaminants.

5.3.15 Septic Systems
One (1) septic maintenance service was observed for a septic tank on the Property of the main house on the north. Hillmann was notified that the site had additional septic systems for the other two houses.

5.3.16 Wells
One (1) water well was observed on the north central portion of the Property at the time of the site visit. Well water is only used as a water supply was pumped into an above ground storage tank (AST) for potable water and cattle on the Property. 7035
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -30- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

6.0 INTERVIEWS

6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants Type Name;
Affiliation/Title
Summary
Property Owner Mr. John Schafer,
Senior Vice
President, Richland
Ventures, Inc.

Mr. John Schafer was provided with an environmental
questionnaire with instructions to have it completed by a party knowledgeable of the Property. Pertinent information, where obtained, is referenced in the appropriate sections of the report.

Property Occupants Not applicable Hillmann was not allowed to interview individual building occupants.

Past Owners,
Occupants, Operators
Not applicable Past owners/occupants of the Property were not available for interview at the time of the assessment.

Owners/Occupants of
Adjacent or Nearby
Properties
Not applicable The Property was not an abandoned property with evidence of unauthorized uses or uncontrolled access; therefore,
interviews with adjacent or nearby property owners or
occupants were not conducted.

6.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials Written and on-line requests for environmental records of the Property from State and Local governmental agencies are detailed in Section 4.2.2.
7036
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -31- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

7.0 NON-ASTM SCOPE CONCERNS
In accordance with our contract agreement, Hillmann has conducted preliminary evaluations of the following “Non-ASTM Scope Considerations” that are outside of the requirements of the ASTM E1527-13 standard:

7.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM)
Considering the dates of construction of the existing buildings, asbestos containing materials (ACM) may be present at the Property. Suspected ACM observed during a preliminary visual screening included roofing materials, plaster walls, drywall, ceiling tiles, cove base, adhesive, and stucco in the dairy facility and houses. It is possible that additional quantities of suspect ACM may exist in enclosed areas or areas not accessed during the assessment. It is emphasized that this limited screening does not constitute a comprehensive asbestos survey of the premises and is meant only to provide a preliminary evaluation regarding the potential presence of ACM at the Property.

7.2 Lead-Based Paint
Considering the dates of construction of the dairy facility and houses, lead-based paint does not seem to be present at the Property. In general, interior painted surfaces within the space were observed to be in fair condition. It is emphasized that this limited screening does not constitute a comprehensive lead-based paint survey of the premises and is meant only to provide a preliminary evaluation regarding the potential presence of LBP at the Property.

7.3 Radon
According to data compiled by the USEPA, as summarized by the EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, the Property is located in an area with a moderate potential for radon concentrations that exceed current USEPA action guidelines. The County of San Bernardino is classified as a Zone 2 or ‘moderate risk’ area for radon. Accordingly, radon is unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the Property.

7.4 Mold
During the assessment, Hillmann conducted a preliminary inspection of the accessed areas of the building for evidence of excessive or amplified mold growth, or for conditions favorable for mold growth. No obvious evidence of excessive or amplified mold growth, or conditions favorable for mold growth, was observed on the Property during the site assessment.

7.5 Wetlands
Based on a review of the EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, no NWI mapped wetlands were indicated at the Property.

It is emphasized that the absence of NWI mapped wetland areas indicated by the EDR report does not necessarily rule out the potential presence of regulated wetland areas on or immediately 7037
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -32- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA
adjoining the Property. A wetland delineation should be sought from a qualified firm if a more comprehensive determination regarding the presence or absence of wetlands on or adjacent to the Property is warranted.
7038
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -33- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training and experience to assess a property of the nature, history and setting of the subject property. Hillmann has developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
______________________________
Christopher W. Baker
Environmental Professional
7039
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -34- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

9.0 REFERENCES
EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, Environmental Data Resources, 2016 EDR City Directory Abstract Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2016 EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2016 EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, Environmental Data Resources, 2016 EDR Sanborn Map Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2016 www.realquest.com
San Bernardino County’s On-line Geographical Information System A&E Project No. E96004.00, Report of Underground Storage Tank Removal – Northview Dairy, 10601 Riverside Drive, Ontario, California prepared by A&E Inc., March 7, 1996. 7040
Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -35- Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

10.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Diagram / Vicinity Map
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Questionnaires / User Provided Information
Appendix D Historical Records Documentation
Appendix E Regulatory Records Documentation
Appendix F Other Documents
Appendix G Project Personnel Qualifications
7041
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

APPENDIX A

SITE DIAGRAM / VICINITY MAP
7042
Figure 1: SITE VICINITY MAP SCALE: (Not to Scale) N
Project
Location:

Project No.:
10601 E. Riverside Drive,
Ontario, CA 91761
C3-6603
Property
7043
Figure 2: SITE DIAGRAM SCALE: (Not to Scale) N
Project
Location:

Project No.:
10601 E. Riverside Drive,
Ontario, CA 91761
C3-6603
Property
Location of
Water well Location of
leeching ponds
7044
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Hillmann Project No. C3-6603 10601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA

APPENDIX B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
7045

PHOTO LOG
10601 E. Riverside Drive
Ontario, CA 91761
C3-6603
View of the northeast corner of the Property View of the adjoining property to the west View of the adjoining property to the west View of the adjoining property to the northeast
View of the southern portion of the Property View of an adjoining property to the north