Fontana City Council
October 25, 2022

Tuesday, October 25, 2022
7:00 PM
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Regular Agenda
Ord. No. 1908 Reso. No. 2022-126
Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers
City Council Meeting
Acquanetta Warren - Mayor
Peter A. Garcia - Mayor Pro Tem
John B. Roberts - Council Member
Jesus "Jesse" Sandoval - Council Member
Phillip Cothran - Council Member
Germaine McClellan Key - City Clerk
Janet Koehler-Brooks, City Treasurer
1 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022
Welcome to a meeting of the Fontana City Council.

Welcome to a meeting of the Fontana City Council. A complete agenda packet is located in the binder on the table in the lobby of the Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335. To address the Council, please fill out a card located at the entrance to the right indicating your desire to speak on either a specific agenda item or under Public Communications and give it to the City Clerk. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. In compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC § 12132), the Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 is wheelchair accessible, and a portable microphone is available. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative forms to persons with disabilities, as required by Section 12132 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such a request to the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 350-7602 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Any public record, relating to an open session agenda item, that is distributed within 72 hours prior to the meeting is available for public inspection in the Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335.

Traduccion en Español disponible a peticion. Favor de notificar al Departamento "City Clerk".

Para mayor informacion, favor de marcar el numero (909) 350-7602.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - CLOSED SESSION:

This is an opportunity for citizens to speak to the City Council for up to 3 minutes on the following Closed Session. The Mayor and City Council reserve the right to adjust this time limit based on the number of speakers who wish to address the Mayor and City Council.

A. Public Communications - Closed Session
CLOSED SESSION:

A. 6:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION

2 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING

LITIGATION
(Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1))
David Moore/Andrew Anderson, et al. v. City of Fontana, et al.,
San Bernardino County Superior Court
Case No. CIVDS 1610471

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED

LITIGATION
(Government Code section 54956.9 (d)(2))
Potential Case: One Matter

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING

LITIGATION
(Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1))
Southern California Edison v. California State Board of Equalization et al.,
Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 30-2022-01258109-CU-MC-CJC

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code section 54956.8)
Property: APN # 0191-162-05, 0191-163-24, 0191-163-16,
0191-163-17, and 0191-163-26
City Negotiator: Phillip Burum, Deputy City Manager
Negotiating Party: Cushman & Wakefield
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
21-1810
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL:

A. 7:00 P.M. Call To Order/Roll Call:

INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

A. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance:

PROCLAMATION:

A. Proclamation

3 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022
A. 1. Mayor Warren and City Council to proclaim the week of October 23-29, as National Lead Poisoning Prevention
Week (Department of Health Environmental Health
Specialist, Waguih Boctor, to accept).

2. Mayor Warren and City Council to proclaim the month of November 2022 as National Epilepsy Awareness Month
(Legacy Bridges Foundation, Inc. Executive Director,
Melanee A. Stovall, to accept).

3. Mayor Warren and City Council to proclaim the month of October 2022 as National Community Planning Month
(Planning Commission Chair Cathline Fort, and Director of Planning Patty Nevins to accept).

4. Mayor Warren and City Council to proclaim the month of October 2022 as Cyber Security Awareness Month
(Information Technology Manager Chris Beck to accept).
21-1785
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

A. Special Presentations
A. 1. Mayor Warren and City Council to recognize Senior Planner Rina Leung as the 2022 Planning Department
Employee of the Year (Director of Planning Patty Nevins to present).

2. Mayor Warren and City Council to recognize Officer
Samuel Saenz as the Fontana Police Department
September 2022 Employee of the Month (Captain Burton to present).
21-1786
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS:

This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council for up to three ( 3) minutes total on items either on the Agenda or items not on the Agenda, but within the City Council's jurisdiction. Note that Public Hearing items have individual and specific public input opportunities during the public hearing and testimony on those items will only be taken during the public hearing. The Council is prohibited by law from discussing or taking immediate action on non-agendized items. The Mayor and City Council reserve the right to adjust this time limit based on the number of speakers who wish to address the Mayor and City Council .

A. Public Communications

4 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022
CONSENT CALENDAR:

All matters listed under CONSENT CALENDAR will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time Council votes on them, unless a member of the Council requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

A. Approval of Minutes 21-1784
Approve the minutes of the October 11, 2022, City Council meeting.

Attachments: City Council Meeting - October 11.pdf
B. Adoption of Ordinance No. 1906 (Second Reading) 21-1809 Second Reading / Adoption of Ordinance No. 1906, approving Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 amending Sections of Chapter 2, Chapter 25, Chapter 26, and Chapter 30 to remove the Development Advisory Board (DAB); amending Chapter 9 to revise the definition of “sensitive receptors”; amending Chapter 30 to exempt the City from certain zoning regulations for City owned, controlled, or leased properties or facilities; amending Chapter 30 to allow development projects over two acres to develop common open space; adding Article XV to Chapter 30 creating a No Net Loss density bonus/replacement program; and amending Section 30-489 and Table Nos. 30-489 and 30-453 to rename commercial cannabis to cannabis retail stores and reference special regulations for same; and making minor modifications to Chapter 33 related to phasing and authorization letters for permit applications.

Fontana - Ordinance No 1906.pdf
Written Correspondence 10.11.2022.pdf
Attachments:

C. Fontana Forward Grant Program - Fontana Eats 21-1672

1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to establish and implement the Fontana Grant program not to exceed $3,000,000.

2. Approve and authorize the use of funds in the amount of $3,000,000 in Fund 302 as part of the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Expenditure Plan.

3. Approve and authorize the recategorization of the allocated $3,000,000 Small Business Loan/Grant Program to Assistance to Households Grant Program as part of the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Expenditure Plan.

4. Approve Program Creation and Name of Fontana Eats
Attachments: FontanaEats_HouseholdGrant.pdf

5 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022
D. Adopt Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) 21-1714
Adopt the City of Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and direct staff to use the Plan to guide future project planning and grant funding opportunities Fontana LRSP July2022
Fontana LRSP Stakeholder Outreach Summary
Fontana
LRSP_Equity_Policy_Engagement_Analysis_09.13.2022.pdf
Attachments:

E. Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Geotechnical Engineering and Materials Testing Services for the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I.
21-1765

1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement in a not to exceed amount of $165,854.00 with Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants, Inc. for Geotechnical Engineering and Materials Testing Services for the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I, Request for Proposals SQ-06-DE-23.

2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute any future amendments to the Professional Services Agreement.

Vicinity Map.pdf
Scoring Matrix.pdf
[DRAFT] PSA (CHRP-PI; Geotech; SQ-06-DE-23; 2022-10-6)
.pdf
Attachments:

F. 2023 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program Grant Award (STEP) PT23029
21-1775

1. Accept the State of California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) 2023 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Grant, number PT23029 in the amount of $327,000

2. Authorize the Chief of Police to sign the Standard Agreement and any Amendments between the Office of Traffic Safety and the Fontana Police Department

3. Approve the expenditure plan for the use of the funds to help offset the cost of personnel within the Police Department.

4. Approve to increase revenues and appropriation in the amount of $327,000 to fund #301
Attachments: Grant Agreement -PT23029.pdf

6 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022
G. Authorize the City Engineer to Execute all Right-of-way Certifications
21-1777
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-126, Authorizing the City Engineer to Execute all Right-of-way Certifications.

Attachments: Right-of-Way Resolution No. 2022-126.pdf
H. Accept perimeter CFD Landscape improvements for Sierra Avenue & Segovia Lane for Tract No. 18944
21-1739
Accept perimeter CFD Landscaping improvements for Sierra Avenue & Segovia Lane for Tract No. 18944 and release the related Faithful Performance Bond
TM 18944- SHEET 2.pdf
TR18944-Vicinity Map-Layout1.pdf
Attachments:

I. Approve a Construction Contract Amendment for the
Construction of the Valley Boulevard/Kaiser Sewer Project Bid No. SB-19-PW-22
21-1778
Approve and authorize the City Manager to increase the construction contract with GRBCON for the construction of the Valley Blvd/Kaiser Sewer Project (Bid No. SB-19-PW-22) in the amount of $160,317.15 for a total contract authorization of $937,737.75.

J. Authorize the Transition of PARS Alternate Retirement Services to Bencor
21-1773
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-127, of the City Council of the City of Fontana, Authorizing the Transition of the City of Fontana PARS Alternate Retirement System Plan from Public Agency Retirement Services to Bencor.

Attachments: CC Reso 2022-127 ARS Transition from PARS to Bencor.pdf K. Police Department Monthly Information Update 21-1770 Accept the Police Department monthly information update for September 2022.

Attachments: September 2022 Report for City Council (2).pptx

7 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022
L. Purchase and Sale Agreement for 16708 Spring Street - Downtown Fontana Property
21-1804

1. Approve a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of a building and associated land located at 16708 Spring Street, east of Juniper in Downtown Fontana, more specifically described as APN #0191-161-02.

2. Approve the budget adjustment in Fund 602 Capital Improvement increasing land acquisition expenses in the amount of $990,000 to be added in the Mid-Year Budget Report

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute any documents necessary or appropriate to effectuate said approvals and/or agreement.

Attachments: Attachment No. 1 - Purchase Agreement
M. Award Bid for Air Purifiers for City Buildings 21-1726

1. Award bid (SP-19-PW-23) and authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase Equipment Agreement for Portable Air Purifiers and Monitors to Alliance Building Solutions, Inc. of San Diego, California in the amount not to exceed $1,831,725.00.

2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute any future amendments to the Purchase Equipment Agreement (SP-19-PW-23).

Building maps and sq ft.pdf
City of Fontana - RFP Response RFP.SP.19.PW.23.pdf
DRAFT Alliance Building Solutions Agreement SP-19-PW-23 (002)-c1.pdf
Bid comparison.pdf
Attachments:

8 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022
N. Award bid for Security Services SP-92-CW-22 for City Facilities 21-1722

1. Award bid and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with American Global Security of Riverside, CA for a two-year period for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $1.95 Million, including options to extend the contract for three (3) additional one(1) year increments at the City’s sole discretion.

2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute any future amendments to the contract.

Scoring Matrix.pdf
DRAFT Professional Services Agreement SP-92-CW-22.pdf
Cost Proposal.pdf
Attachments:

O. Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement to Apply for a Community Transportation Needs Assessment (CTNA)
Voucher.
21-1808
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with EVGIDE Inc. to provide technical services and assistance related to applying for the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program - Community Transportation Assessment Needs (CTNA) Voucher.

EVGIDE INTAKE FORM - CTNA.pdf
Fontana CTNA Application Consultant Agreement.pdf
Attachments:

Approve Consent Calendar Items as recommended by staff.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

To speak on Public Hearing Items, submit comments via e-mail at [email protected]. In the subject of your e-mail please indicate whether you are in favor or opposition of the item. Comments must be received no later than 5:00 P.M. on the day of the meeting. Comments of no more than three (3) minutes will be read into the record at the appropriate time during the meeting. If you challenge in court any action taken concerning a Public Hearing item, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.

All Public Hearings will be conducted following this format:
(a) hearing opened (e) oral - favor
(b) written communication (f) oral - opposition
(c) council/staff comments (g) hearing closed
(d) applicant comments (applicant not limited to 5 minutes)

9 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022
A. Combined General Plan Amendments and Projects for the 3rd General Plan Cycle of 2022; Part No. 1 (Redesignation of 6th Cycle Housing Element Properties), and Part No. 2 (Citrus Avenue Residential Development)
21-1737

1.a Adopt Resolution No. 2022-128, (Part No. 1 of General Plan Amendment Cycle No. 3 of 2022,) a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Fontana, adopting an Addendum to the City of Fontana General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Section 8.06 of the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA, approving General Plan Amendment No. 22-006 (Part No. 1 of General Plan Amendment Cycle No. 3 of 2022) amending the General Plan Land Use designation on one parcel of approximately 1.14 adjusted gross acres (APN: 0241-051-13) from General Commercial (C-G) to Multi-Family Medium High Density Residential (R-MFMH) and amending the General Plan Land Use designation on three parcels of approximately 3.06 adjusted gross acres (APN: 0241-051-02, -16 and -32) from Multi-Family Medium High Density Residential (R-MFMH) to General Commercial (C-G); and

1.b Read by title only and waive further reading of and introduce Ordinance No.1908, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Fontana, approving Zone Change No. 22-008 for an amendment to the Zoning Map changing the zoning designation of one parcel of approximately 1.14 adjusted gross acres (APN: 0241-051-13) from General Commercial (C-2) to Multi-Family Medium High Density Residential (R-4) and changing the zoning designation of three parcels of approximately 3.06 adjusted gross acres (APN: 0241-051-02, -16 and -32) from Multi-Family Medium High Density Residential (R-4) to General Commercial (C-2), and that the reading of the title constitutes the first reading thereof; and

2.a Adopt Resolution No. 2022-129, (Part No. 2 of General Plan Amendment Cycle No. 3 of 2022,) a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Fontana, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 6.04 of the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA, approving General Plan Amendment No. 21-008 (Part No. 2 of General Plan Amendment cycle No. 3 of 2022) amending the General Plan Land Use designation on approximately 4.6 adjusted gross acres (APN: 0240-011-17) from General-Commercial (C-G) to Multi Family Residential (R-MF) and removing the site from the Fontana auto center overlay, approving Tentative Tract Map No. 20521 (TTM No. 21-007) to establish 68 attached multi-family residential condominium units and approving Design Review No. 21-043 for the development of 68 attached multi-family units with amenities, landscaping and parking; and

2.b Read by title only and waive further reading of and introduce Ordinance No. 1909, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Fontana, approving Zone Code Amendment No. 21-0010 for changes to the Zoning District Map to change the zoning on one parcel (APN: 0240-011-17) from General

10 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022 Commercial (C-2) to Multi Family Residential (R-3), remove the parcel (APN:
0240-011-17) from the Fontana Auto Center Overlay and amend Section 30-639 Figure 1 of the Fontana Zoning Code to remove the project site from the Fontana Auto Center Overlay District and that the reading of the title constitutes the first reading thereof.

Attachment No. 1 (Part 1) - City Council Resolution
2022-128
Attachment No. 2 (Part 1) - City Council Ordinance 1908 Attachment No. 3 (Part 1) - Planning Commission Staff
Report and Attachments - October 4, 2022
Attachment No. 4 (Part 1) - Draft Planning Commission
Minutes
Attachment No. 5 (Part 2) - City Council Resolution
2022-129
Attachment No. 6 (Part 2) - City Council Ordinance 1909 Attachment No. 7 (Part 2) - City Council Project Plans
Attachment No. 8 (Part 2) - Planning Commission Staff
Report and Attachments
Attachment No. 9 (Part 2) - Draft Planning Commission
Minutes
Attachments:

11 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022 B. Second Reading and Public Hearing for the Adoption of the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and Corresponding Base Model Codes
21-1781
(1) Determine that the adoption of the ordinance of the City of Fontana adding, amending and deleting certain articles, sections and subsections of Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Fontana, California pertaining to the construction and maintenance of buildings, and adopting the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, known as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, consisting of the California Building Code, Volumes 1 & 2, based on the 2021 International Building Code; the California Plumbing Code, based on the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code; the California Electrical Code, based on the 2020 National Electrical Code; the California Mechanical Code, based on the 2021 Uniform Mechanical Code; the California Existing Building Code, based on the 2021 International Existing Building Code; the California Green Building Standards Code; the California Residential Code, based on the 2021 International Residential Code; and the 2021 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA guidelines, projects with no possibility of significant effects upon the environment, and direct staff to file a notice of exemption.
(2) Waive further reading of and adopt Ordinance No. 1906, an ordinance of the City of Fontana adding, amending and deleting certain articles, sections and subsections of Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Fontana, California pertaining to the construction and maintenance of buildings, and the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, known as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, consisting of the California Building Code, Volumes 1 & 2, based on the 2021 International Building Code; the California Plumbing Code, based on the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code; the California Electrical Code, based on the 2020 National Electrical Code; the California Mechanical Code, based on the 2021 Uniform Mechanical Code; the California Existing Building Code, based on the 2021 International Existing Building Code; the California Green Building Standards Code; the California Residential Code, based on the 2021 International Residential Code; and the 2021 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code; and that the reading of the title constitute the first reading thereof.

Attachments: Fontana 2022 Building Code Ordinance 1906.docx NEW BUSINESS:

12 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022 A. Fiscal Year 2022-23 First Quarter Budget Status Report 21-1793

1. Approve the recommended Fiscal Year 2022-23 First Quarter Budget Adjustments

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-130, of the City Council of the City of Fontana adopting new job descriptions and salary ranges for the following classifications:
· Section 1. Director of Building & Safety at range EXE01 ($135,000/year - $188,958.39/year) and the updated Executive Group salary table.
· Section 2. Deputy Finance Officer at range MC86
($10,987.60/month - $13,357.07/month), Homeless Solutions Manager at range MC87 ($8,578.27/month - $10,429.47/month), Purchasing Manager at range MC88 ($7,735.87/month -
$9,408.54/month), Revenue Operations Manager at range MC89 ($7 735.87/month - $9,408.54/month), Risk Manager at range MC90 ($9,597.47/month - $11,668.80/month) and the updated Management Confidential Group salary table.
· Section 3. Buyer I/II at ranges CH23 ($4,251.87/month - $5,172.27/month) and CH78 ($4,803.07/month -
$5,841.34/month) respectively and the updated Teamsters Local 1932 City Hall Unit salary table.

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2022---131, of the City Council of the City of Fontana eliminating the classification of Building Official and adopting the updated Management Confidential salary table.

4. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-132, of the City Council of the City of Fontana adopting the updated salary range for classifications of Senior Civil Engineer at range MC55 ($9,035.87/month - $10,985.87/month) and Senior Traffic Engineer at range MC74 ($9,035.87/month - $10,985.87/month) and the updated Management Confidential salary table.

5. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-133, of the City Council of the City of Fontana adopting the updated salary table for Non-Classified, Part-time classification due to minimum wage order.

FY22-23 First Quarter Report.pdf
CC Reso Q1 FY 2022-23 Various Job Descriptions Salary
Tables.pdf
CC Reso Q1 FY 2022-23 - Salaries for Sr Civil Engr and Sr Traffic Engr_.pdf
CC Reso Q1 FY 2022-23 Eliminate Building Official Class.pdf CC Reso Q1 FY 2022-23 - PT Minimum Wage Salary Table
Update_.pdf
Attachments:

CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS:

13 City Council Meeting Regular Agenda October 25, 2022 A. City Manager Communications
ELECTED OFFICIALS COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTS:

A. Elected Officials Communications/Reports
ADJOURNMENT:

A. Adjournment
Adjourn to the Special City Council Meeting on November 9, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers located at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California.

14 City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1810 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: Category: Closed Session
Closed Session
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
6:00 P.M.

City Hall - Executive Conference Room
City Council
Acquanetta Warren, Mayor
Peter Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem
John Roberts, Council Member
Jesus “Jesse” Sandoval, Council Member
Phillip W. Cothran., Council Member
City of Fontana Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™ 15
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1785 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: A. Category: Proclamation
Proclamations
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
7:00 P.M.

Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers
City Council
Acquanetta Warren, Mayor
Peter Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem
John Roberts, Council Member
Jesus “Jesse” Sandoval, Council Member
Phillip W. Cothran., Council Member
City of Fontana Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™ 16
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1786 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: A. Category: Special Presentation
Special Presentations
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
7:00 P.M.

Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers
City Council
Acquanetta Warren, Mayor
Peter Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem
John Roberts, Council Member
Jesus “Jesse” Sandoval, Council Member
Phillip W. Cothran., Council Member
City of Fontana Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™ 17
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1784 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: A. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

City Clerk
SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the minutes of the October 11, 2022, City Council meeting.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Create and maintain a dynamic team by promoting stability and predictability by providing consistent policy direction.
· Create and maintain a dynamic team by communicating Goals and Objectives to all commissions and employees.

DISCUSSION:

The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the October 11, 2022, Regular City Council meeting. The draft minutes are attached to this report for Council review and approval.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™ 18
Tuesday, October 11, 2022
7:00 PM
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers
City Council Meeting
Acquanetta Warren - Mayor
Peter A. Garcia - Mayor Pro Tem
John B. Roberts - Council Member
Jesus "Jesse" Sandoval - Council Member
Phillip Cothran - Council Member
Germaine McClellan Key - City Clerk
Janet Koehler-Brooks, City Treasurer
Minutes

19 CLOSED SESSION:
6:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION
The Closed Session meeting of the Fontana City Council was held on Tuesday, October 11, 2022, in the Executive Conference Room at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.

Mayor Warren called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. with the following roll call:

ROLL CALL:

Present: Mayor Warren, Council Members Cothran, Roberts and Sandoval

Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Garcia
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - CLOSED SESSION:

A. Public Communications - Closed Session
There were no public communications received for the following Closed Session items:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1))
Frank Copetillo v. City of Fontana, USDC Case No. 5:19-cv-01959 MEMF (SHKx)

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Gov. Code section 54956.8)
Property: APN # 0232-091-18 and 0232-091-19
City Negotiator: Ray Ebert, Deputy City Manager
Negotiating Party: Gerardo Herrera
Under Negotiating: Price and Terms of payment

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Gov. Code section 54956.8)
Property: APN # 0232-201-12 and 0232-201-13
City Negotiator: Ray Ebert, Deputy City Manager
Negotiating Party: Mark Nuaimi
Under Negotiating: Price and Terms of payment
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL:

A. 7:00 P.M. Call To Order/Roll Call:

20 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
The Regular Meeting of the Fontana City Council was held on Tuesday, October 11, 2022, in the Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers located at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA, 92335.

Mayor Warren called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

PRESENT: Mayor Warren, Council Members Cothran, Roberts, and Sandoval ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Garcia
City Clerk McClellan Key and City Treasurer Koehler-Brooks were also in attendance.

INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

A. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance:

The invocation was led by Ellen Miller from Rancho Christian Center, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cothran.

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
City Attorney Duran noted that the Mayor and City Council met on Closed Session items listed on the agenda, provided direction to City staff but took no reportable action.

PROCLAMATION:

A. Proclamation
A. 21-1746
Mayor Warren and City Council proclaim the 2nd Week of October 2022 as Code Compliance Officer Appreciation Week (Sandra Pelayo, Community Improvement Program Manager, to accept).

Mayor Warren and City Council recognized the Code Compliance Department and thanked the team for their hard work and service to the community.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

A. Special Presentations
A. 21-1767

21 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
2022 Mayor's Youth Advisory Council Board Introduction (Community Services Coordinator Andrew Solares to present).

Community Services Coordinator Solares introduced the 2022 Mayor's Youth Advisory Council Board for 2022:

Seanbiron Johnson, Chairperson
Matthew Gillen, Vice Chairperson
Aleish Yzhabelle P. Cuaresma, Secretary
Varnika Shanmugam, Historian
Mayor Warren and City Council congratulated the new Board and thanked them for their service to the youth of the community in their new roles.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Public Communications

22 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
The following individuals spoke under public communications:

1. Lamaar Daniels, representing American Cancer Society, promoted the upcoming Relay for Life event.

2. Donny Jackson, spoke on current bike race hindering's due to not having access onto specific private properties.

3. Bobbi Jo Chavarria spoke on indigenous people's day; and spoke on warehouse developments and health concerns.

4. Betty Sandoval, promoted upcoming community event at the Fontana Senior Center.

Robert, representative of the Senior Center, provided Spanish translations.

Mayor Warren announced that staff is available for Spanish translation services for future comment translation needs.

5. Elizabeth Sena, commented on Closed Session items; commented on recent housing project grant from Assembly Majority Leader Reyes; inquired on monies for Safe Route to School grant; and candidate campaign contribution limits.

6. Antonio Avina commented on air quality in Fontana due to warehouse and industrial properties.

Prior to the next speaker, City Attorney Duran interjected noting for the record that the materials that the next speaker, Ben, gave to Deputy City Clerk Arocho, will not be distributed to the dais due to campaign material being present.

7. Ben commented on candidate campaign contribution limits.

Mayor Warren called a recess at 7:37 p.m. due to disturbance in the Chambers.

Mayor Warren reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.

The following individual requested Spanish translation for his comments. Executive Assistant Tanya Ruiz was the translator.

8. Oskar Zambrano commented on the change in the community throughout the years; spoke on warehouse development and affects in South Fontana; and commented on Closed Session items.

City Attorney Duran interjected on the public comment requesting that the speaker does not campaign from the podium.

8. Oskar Zambrano concluded his comments asking the community to participate and attend public meetings.

23 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
CONSENT CALENDAR:

ACTION: Motion was moved by Council Member Roberts, seconded by Council Member Cothran to approve the Consent Calendar Items 'A-J'. The motion was moved by a unanimous vote of 4-0-1, with the exception of Council Member Sandoval voting NO for Consent Calendar Item 'F'. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Warren, Cothran, Roberts, and Sandoval; NOES: None (exception of Item 'F';Sandoval); ABSENT: Garcia A. Approval of Minutes 21-1745
Approve the minutes of the September 27, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting.

B. Award a Bid for BMW Motorcycle Purchase, Parts and Repair Services SB-93-PW-22.
21-1689

1. Award a bid with Ride-On Powersports for the purchase of BMW Police Motorcycles, parts and repair services on an as-needed basis.

2. Authorize the Purchasing Office to issue a purchase order to Ride on Powersports for a period of two (2) Years, renewable with three (3) additional one-year increments at the City’s sole discretion for an approximate amount of $60,000 per year for an aggregate amount not to exceed $300,000 for the term of the purchase order.

3. Authorize the Purchasing Office to issue purchase orders to Ride on Powersports for the purchase of new and replacement motorcycles for five (5) years.

C. Authorize the purchase of an ADA compliant restroom trailer from Comforts of Home Services, Inc.
21-1695
Authorize the Purchasing Office to “Piggy-Back” on the General Services Administration (GSA) Purchasing Program (Contract No. GS-07F-0236V) for the purchase of one (1) new ADA compliant restroom trailer from Comforts of Home Services, Inc. in the amount of $117,671.88 plus sales tax (7.75%) for a total of $126,266.58.

D. Authorize to purchase Fuel for City Vehicles and Equipment. 21-1701 Approve and authorize the Purchasing Office to “Piggy-Back” from San Bernardino County’s gasoline and diesel fuel contract (Agency 22-PURC-4372) for the purchase of fuel for the City vehicles and equipment through June 14, 2027.

E. Approve a Development Impact Fees Credit Agreement Related to Parcel Map No. 20183 (TPM No. 19-021) and Parcel Map No. 20184 (TPM No. 19-022)
21-1735
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Development Impact Fees Credit Agreement with TDC Boyle Partners, LLC, related to Parcel Map No. 20183 (TPM No. 19-021) and Parcel Map No. 20184 (TPM No. 19-022).

F. Naming Rights Agreement - Center Stage Theater 21-1758

1. Approve Naming Rights Agreement for the Center Stage Theater

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any documents necessary or appropriate to effectuate said agreement and/or associated approvals.

24 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
G. Purchase and Sale Agreement for 16766 Arrow Blvd. - Downtown Fontana Property
21-1760

1. Approve a Purchase & Sale Agreement for the purchase of a building and associated land located on the north side of Arrow Blvd, east of Juniper in Downtown Fontana, more specifically described as APN #0191-162-09.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any documents necessary or appropriate to effectuate said approvals and/or agreement.

H. Purchase and Sale Agreement for 8443 Nuevo Avenue -
Downtown Fontana Property
21-1761

1. Approve a Purchase & Sale Agreement for the purchase of a building and associated land located on the southeast corner of Nuevo Avenue and Spring Street in Downtown Fontana, more specifically described as APN #0191-163-27.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any documents necessary or appropriate to effectuate said approvals and/or agreement.

I. Purchase and Sale Agreement for 16762 Spring St. - Downtown Fontana Property
21-1762

1. Approve a Purchase & Sale Agreement for the purchase of a building and associated land located on the north side of Spring Street, east of Juniper in Downtown Fontana, more specifically described as APN #0191-161-29.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any documents necessary or appropriate to effectuate said approvals and/or agreement.

J. Purchase and Sale Agreement for 16717 Spring St. - Downtown Fontana Property
21-1763

1. Approve a Purchase & Sale Agreement for the purchase of a building and associated land located on the south side of Spring Street, just east of Juniper in Downtown Fontana, more specifically described as APN #0191 -162-18.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any documents necessary or appropriate to effectuate said approvals and/or agreement.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 - Fontana Municipal Code amendment to Chapter 2
(Administration), (Chapters 9 (Environmental Protection and Resource Extraction) Chapter 25 (Streets, Sidewalk, and Other Public Ways), Chapter 26 (Subdivisions), Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), and Chapter 33 (Cannabis Businesses and Activities).
21-1743

25 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
Mayor Warren opened the public hearing.

City Clerk McCllelan Key noted for the record that the City Clerk's Department received a total of four (4) written correspondences in opposition of the item and such correspondences have been emailed to the City Council prior to the meeting, as well as provided at the dais for their review and reference.

Senior Planner Sal Quintanilla provided the staff report.

Deputy City Manager Phil Burum stated for the record that staff reviewed the four (4) received correspondences and does not agree with the arguments from the public.

Council Member Cothran asked for further clarification on the deletion of the Design Advisory Board.

Council Member Sandoval asked for further clarification on the reasoning for the deletion of the Design Advisory Board and the relevance of SB 330 within the changes.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of this item:

1. Bobbi Jo Chavarria

2. Elizabeth Sena

3. Ana Gonzales

4. Jasmine Cunningham

5. Joaquin Castellejos

6. Angel Ramirez

7. Ben

8. Oskar Zambrano (Received Spanish Translation services from Executive Assistant Tanya Ruiz)
Following public comment, Mayor Warren asked for clarification on some of the comments made by the members of the public. Deputy City Manager Burum assisted with such request.

Mayor Warren closed the public hearing.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Cothran, seconded by Council Member Roberts, and passed by a vote of 3-1-1 to approve staff's recommendation for Public Hearing Item 'A'. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Warren, Cothran and Roberts; NOES: Sandoval; ABSENT: Garcia
NEW BUSINESS:

A. First Reading and Set Public Hearing for the Adoption of the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and
21-1753

26 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
Corresponding Base Model Codes
Building Official Jeffrey Baughman provided the staff report and answered questions of the City Council.

Mayor Warren asked for a motion and a second.

City Attorney Duran interjected asking for Mayor Warren to confirm that there is no public comment for this item.

Deputy City Clerk Arocho identified that the public comment portion for this item was taken at the beginning of the meeting.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Roberts, seconded by Council Member Cothran, and passed unanimously by a vote of 3-1-1 to approve New Business Item 'A' as follows:
(1) Determine that the adoption of the ordinance of the City of Fontana adding, amending and deleting certain articles, sections and subsections of Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Fontana, California pertaining to the construction and maintenance of buildings, and adopting the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, known as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, consisting of the California Building Code, Volumes 1 & 2, based on the 2021 International Building Code; the California Plumbing Code, based on the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code; the California Electrical Code, based on the 2020 National Electrical Code; the California Mechanical Code, based on the 2021 Uniform Mechanical Code; the California Existing Building Code, based on the 2021 International Existing Building Code; the California Green Building Standards Code; the California Residential Code, based on the 2021 International Residential Code; and the 2021 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15061(b) (3) of the State CEQA guidelines, projects with no possibility of significant effects upon the environment, and direct staff to file a notice of exemption. (2) Waive further reading of and introduce Ordinance No. 1907, an ordinance of the City of Fontana adding, amending and deleting certain articles, sections and subsections of Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Fontana, California pertaining to the construction and maintenance of buildings, and the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, known as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, consisting of the California Building Code, Volumes 1 & 2, based on the 2021 International Building Code; the California Plumbing Code, based on the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code; the California Electrical Code, based on the 2020 National Electrical Code; the California Mechanical Code, based on the 2021 Uniform Mechanical Code; the California Existing Building Code, based on

27 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
the 2021 International Existing Building Code; the California Green Building Standards Code; the California Residential Code, based on the 2021 International Residential Code; and the 2021 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code; and that the reading of the title constitute the first reading thereof.
(3) Set Public Hearing for October 25, 2022 and deem the Notice of Hearing sufficient to give interested persons notice of the purpose of the ordinance and subject matter thereof.

The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Warren, Cothran, and Roberts; NOES: Sandoval; ABSENT: Garcia
City Attorney Duran interjected announcing that the reading of the title of Ordinance No. 1906 was inadvertently missed prior to the motion for Public Hearing 'A' and as such, requests that the Mayor and City Council motion and vote to reconsider Public Hearing Item A.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Cothran, seconded by Council Member Roberts, to open and reconsider Public Hearing Item A to read the title of Ordinance No. 1906 into the record. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 4-0-1 as follows: AYES: Warren, Cothran, Roberts and Sandoval; NOES: None; ABSENT: Garcia
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 - Fontana Municipal Code amendment to Chapter 2
(Administration), (Chapters 9 (Environmental Protection and Resource Extraction) Chapter 25 (Streets, Sidewalk, and Other Public Ways), Chapter 26 (Subdivisions), Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), and Chapter 33 (Cannabis Businesses and Activities).
21-1743
ACTION: Motion was moved by Council Member Roberts, seconded by Council Member Cothran, to approve staff's recommendation of Public Hearing Item A as follows:
(a) Determine that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15060(c), Section No. 15061 (B)(3) (the “common sense” exemption), Section 15378 and Sections No. 3.01, 3.22, and 10.59 of the 2019 Local Guidelines for implementing the CEQA, and direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption; and
(b) Read by title only and waive further reading of and introduce Ordinance No. 1906, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Fontana approving

28 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 amending Sections of Chapter 2, Chapter 25, Chapter 26, and Chapter 30 to remove the Development Advisory Board (DAB); amending Chapter 9 to revise the definition of “sensitive receptors”; amending Chapter 30 to exempt the City from certain zoning regulations for City owned, controlled, or leased properties or facilities; amending Chapter 30 to allow development projects over two acres to develop common open space; adding Article XV to Chapter 30 creating a No Net Loss density bonus/replacement program; and amending Section 30-489 and Table Nos. 30-489 and 30-453 to rename commercial cannabis to cannabis retail stores and reference special regulations for same; and making minor modifications to Chapter 33 related to phasing and authorization letters for permit applications; and the reading of the title constitutes the first thereof.

The motion was carried by a roll call vote of 4-0-1 as follows: (AYES:

Warren, Cothran, Roberts, and Sandoval; NOES: None; ABSENT: Garcia) CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS:

A. City Manager Communications
No communications were received.

ELECTED OFFICIALS COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTS:

A. Elected Officials Communications/Reports

29 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
City Treasurer Koehler-Brooks commented on recent community events and thanked staff for their hard work putting community events on.

City Clerk McClellan Key commented on the introduction of the Mayor's Youth Advisory Board; congratulated the Code Compliance Officers for their recognition; and commented on recently attended community events.

Council Member Cothran commented on recently attended community events and upcoming events.

Council Member Sandoval proposed that the City take a stance on proclaiming the second Tuesday of October as Indigenous People's Day and provided a draft Resolution to the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk; proposed a second Resolution that the City take action on a 90 day moratorium on warehouses and provided a draft Ordinance to the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk; discussed traffic concerns near warehouse developments and throughout the City; inquired on traffic officer recruitment.

Mayor Warren asked for a second from the Council to set a 90 day moratorium on warehouses. There was no second received. Motion failed.

Council Member Sandoval requested for a left-turn signal on Juniper and Foothill; requested involvement of the City C.O.A.S.T team to be included in activities at the Senior Center for resource and education; and commented on candidate forums at public facilities.

Mayor Warren commented on some of the items presented by Council Member Sandoval.

Council Member Roberts commented on recently attended community events; and thanked the Fire Protection District for presenting an 'Open House'.

Mayor Warren thanked the City staff; commented on upcoming community events and community projects; promoted recruitment for bus drivers; spoke on police response and community assistance for the homeless population; and concluded with comments regarding resident mailboxes that have been vandalized and urging residents to contact the City.

ADJOURNMENT:

A. Adjournment

30 City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2022
Mayor Warren adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. to the next Regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 25, 2022, in the Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers located at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California.
________________________________
Ashton R. Arocho, MMC
Deputy City Clerk

THE FOREGOING MINUTES WERE ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE FONTANA CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 25, 2022.
_______________________________
Germaine McClellan Key
City Clerk

31 City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1809 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: B. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Planning Department
SUBJECT:

Adoption of Ordinance No. 1906 (Second Reading)
RECOMMENDATION:

Second Reading / Adoption of Ordinance No. 1906, approving Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 amending Sections of Chapter 2, Chapter 25, Chapter 26, and Chapter 30 to remove the Development Advisory Board (DAB); amending Chapter 9 to revise the definition of “sensitive receptors”; amending Chapter 30 to exempt the City from certain zoning regulations for City owned, controlled, or leased properties or facilities; amending Chapter 30 to allow development projects over two acres to develop common open space; adding Article XV to Chapter 30 creating a No Net Loss density bonus/replacement program; and amending Section 30-489 and Table Nos. 30-489 and 30-453 to rename commercial cannabis to cannabis retail stores and reference special regulations for same; and making minor modifications to Chapter 33 related to phasing and authorization letters for permit applications.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Promote economic development by pursuing business attraction, retention, and expansion.
· Promote economic development by establishing a quick, consistent development process.

DISCUSSION:

Ordinance No. 1906 was introduced by a vote of 4-0-1 (Mayor Pro Tem Garcia absent) at the October 11, 2022, Regular City Council meeting. Included in the attachments are the four (4) written correspondences in opposition of this item received at the public hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™ 32

ORDINANCE NO. 1906

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MASTER CASE NO.
22-110 AND MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT (MCA) NO.
22-007 AMENDING SECTIONS OF CHAPTERS 2, 25, 26,
AND 30 TO ELIMINATE THE DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
BOARD (DAB); AMENDING CHAPTER 9 TO REVISE THE
DEFINITION OF “SENSITIVE RECEPTORS”; AMENDING
CHAPTER 30 TO EXEMPT THE CITY FROM CERTAIN

ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CITY OWNED,
CONTROLLED, OR LEASED PROPERTIES OR FACILITIES;
AMENDING CHAPTER 30 TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS OVER TWO ACRES TO DEVELOP COMMON
SPACE; ADDING ARTICLE XV TO CHAPTER 30 CREATING

A NO NET LESS DENSITY BONUS/REPLACEMENT
PROGRAM; AND AMENDING SECTION 30-489 AND TABLE
NOS. 30-489 AND 30-453 TO RENAME COMMERCIAL

CANNABIS TO CANNABIS RETAIL STORES AND

REFERENCE SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR SAME, AND

MAKING MINOR CLARIFYING MODIFICATIONS TO
CHAPTER 33 RELATED TO PHASING AND
AUTHORIZATION LETTERS FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. City staff initiated Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 – Update to the Fontana Municipal Code for amendments to:

Chapter 2, 25, 26, and 30 to remove the Development Advisory Board (DAB) process; Chapter 9 to revise the definition of sensitive receptors; Chapter 30 to modify park/open space requirements within the Form Based Code, add language for density bonus/replacement units to address Senate Bill 330, and provide exemptions for City initiated projects, amend Chapter 30 Section 30-489 and Table No. 30-489 and 30-453; and Chapter 33 to include minor text modification to the Cannabis Business regulations.

Section 2. On September 20, 2022, the Planning Commission received public testimony and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties, at the Public Hearing held with respect hereto on Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 as it relates to a request to amendment to Chapter 2, 25, 26, and 30 to remove the Development Advisory Board (DAB) process; Chapter 9 to revise the definition of sensitive receptors; Chapter 30 to modify park/open space requirements within the Form Based Code, amend Section 30-489 and Table No. 30-489 and 30-453, add language for density bonus/replacement units to address Senate Bill 330, and provide exemptions for City initiated projects; and Chapter 33 to include 33

minor text modification to the Cannabis Business regulations. During this hearing, the Planning Commission approved Resolution PC No. 2022-040 to recommend approval to City Council of Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007.

Section 3. On October 11, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007, received testimony, and the supporting documents in evidence, the City Council found that the Municipal Code Amendment is in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan to plan Fontana as a complete community, promote a diversified economy, and promote diverse economic and social opportunities for our citizens and those who wish to invest here.

Section 4. The City of Fontana City Council hereby makes the following findings for Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 accordance with Section 30-40 “Purpose” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:

Finding: A Zoning and Development Code may be amended by changing the development standards (text) or zoning designation map boundaries of any zone whenever such an amendment is
deemed necessary to protect or promote the public's health, safety or general welfare or when modification is viewed as appropriate in the context of generally accepted planning principles, surrounding land uses, and the General Plan.

Findings of Fact: The city initiated the proposed Municipal Code Amendment (Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007) to amend: Chapter 2, 25, 26, and 30 to remove the Development Advisory Board (DAB) process; Chapter 9 to revise the definition of sensitive receptors; Chapter 30 to modify park/open space requirements within the Form Based Code, amend Section 30-489 and Tables No. 30-489 and 30-453 to clarify cannabis business titles and special regulations, add language for density
bonus/replacement units to address Senate Bill 330, and provide exemptions for City initiated projects; and Chapter 33 to include minor text modification to the Cannabis Business regulations. These amendments would provide clarity, eliminate inconsistencies, and streamline City processes, and will improve implementation of the Municipal Code which will be beneficial to the community to promote public welfare and furthers good planning principals.

Below are the Amendments to Chapters 2, 9, 25, 26, 30, and 33 of the Municipal Code.

Section 5. Chapter 2, Article VIII. – Boards, Commissions and Committees, Footnote 6 of the Code is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Footnotes:
--- (6) ---
34

Cross reference— Historic preservation commission, § 5-353 et seq.; fly abatement and appeals board, § 13-98; parks and community services commission, § 19-31 et seq.; planning commission, § 21-51 et seq.; development advisory board, § 30-1072.

Section 6. Amendments to Chapters 9 (Environmental Protection and Resource Extraction), Article V of the Municipal Code, as follows:

Sec. 9-71. - Buffering and screening/adjacent uses.
(a) For any warehouse building larger than 50,000 square feet in size, a tenfoot-wide landscaping buffer shall be required, measured from the property line of all adjacent sensitive receptors. For any warehouse building larger than 400,000 square feet in size, a 20-foot-wide landscaping buffer shall be required, measured from the property line of all adjacent sensitive receptors. The buffer area(s) shall include, at a minimum, a solid decorative wall(s) of at least ten feet in height, natural ground landscaping, an d solid screen buffering trees, as described below, unless there is an existing solid block wall. For any warehouse building equal to or less than 50,000 square feet in size, a solid decorative wall(s) of at least ten feet in height shall be required when adjacent to any sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptor shall be defined as any residence including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters, schools, preschools, daycare centers, in-home daycares, health facilities such as hospitals, long term care facilities, retirement and nursing homes, community centers, places of worship, parks (excluding trails), prisons, dormitories, and any residence including; private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters, where such residence is that are not located on a parcel with an existing industrial, commercial, unpermitted or non-conforming use as determined by the Director of Planning. (b) Trees shall be used as part of the solid screen buffering treatment. Trees used for this purpose shall be evergreen, drought tolerant, minimum 36- inch box, and shall be spaced at no greater than 40-feet on center. The property owner and any successors in interest shall maintain these trees for the duration of ownership, ensuring any unhealthy or dead trees are replaced timely as needed.
(c) All landscaping shall be drought tolerant, and to the extent feasible, species with low biogenic emissions. Palm trees shall not be utilized. (d) All landscaping areas shall be properly irrigated for the life of the facility to allow for plants and trees to maintain growth
35

(e) Trees shall be installed in automobile parking areas to provide at least 35 percent shade cover of parking areas within 15 years. Trees shall be planted that are capable of meeting this requirement.
(f) Unless physically impossible, loading docks and truck entries shall be oriented away from abutting sensitive receptors. To the greatest extent feasible, loading docks, truck entries, and truck drive aisles shall be located away from nearby sensitive receptors. In making feasibility decisions, the city must comply with existing laws and regulations and balance public safety and the site development's potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, loading docks, truck entries, and drive aisles may be located nearby sensitive receptors at the discretion of the planning director, but any such site design shall include measures designed to minimize overall impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. (g) For any warehouse building larger than 400,000 square feet in size, the building's loading docks shall be located a minimum of 300 feet away, measured from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the nearest dock door which does not exclusively serve electric trucks using a direct straight-line method.

Section 7. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapters 25 (Street, Sidewalks and other Public Ways), Article VII (Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of-way) is hereby amended as followings:

Sec. 25-252. Applications.
(a) Preapplication (PAM) application and wireless facilities in the public rightof-way application are required for all new wireless facilities in the public right-of-way (collocation, small cell facility, and all other types of wireless facilities that are not modifications or eligible facilities requests). An applicant proposing to install a new wireless facility on either an existing or new pole/infrastructure shall submit a PAM in conjunction with an application for wireless facilities in the public right-of-way (collocation, small cell facility, and all other types of wireless facilities that are not considered modifications or eligible facilities requests) and any required supplemental information to the planning division, at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana Ca. 92335. Pre-applications will be reviewed by the Planning Department. at a development advisory board conference meeting to discuss the proposed facility, the requirements of this article, and any potential impacts of the proposed facility. (b) Wireless facilities in the public right-of-way application is required for modifications/replacement of existing wireless facilities in the public right-of-way (including eligible facilities requests). Applications to modify/replace existing wireless facilities on an existing pole/infrastructure in the public right-of-way and for projects qualifying as eligible facilities requests shall be filed with the engineering department, 36

at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana Ca. 92335. City staff will review the proposal along with the requirements of this article, and any potential impacts of the proposed facility. (c) Additional applicable permits. In addition to the applications mentioned in subsections 25-252(a) and 25-252(b) above, the applicant is required to file applications for and obtain all applicable permits, such as, but not limited to, the following: Building permits, electrical permits, excavation permit and traffic control permit, landscaping plan check, certificate of appropriateness, and annual blanket permit for wireless facilities in the public right-of-way. (d) Fees. Application fee(s) shall be submitted with any applications. (e) Incompleteness. For personal wireless facilities and eligible facilities requests, applications will be processed, and notices of incompleteness provided, in conformity with state, local, and federal law. If such an application is incomplete, the city may notify the applicant in writing, and specifying the material omitted from the application.
(Ord. No. 1862 , § 5(Exh. A), 1-26-21)
Section 8. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 26, Subdivisions, Article II. - Tract Maps - Division 1 is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Section 26-26. – Definitions.
“The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Board of building commissioners means the five-member board appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council which hears matters pertaining to buildings and structures relative to the Uniform Building Code.

Circulation master plan means the plan for streets and thoroughfares which has been adopted and approved by the city council, together with any approved revisions or modifications thereof.

City attorney means the city attorney, acting either directly or through properly authorized agents acting within the scope of the particular duties entrusted to them.

City engineer means the city engineer, acting either directly or through properly authorized agents acting within the scope of the particular duties entrusted to them.

County means the County of San Bernardino, and when used to modify an officer, office or department shall mean that officer, office or department of the county and shall include properly authorized agents of that officer, office or department acting within the scope of the particular duties entrusted to them. 37

Development advisory board means a board composed of various city departments, county agencies and other autonomous agencies which reviews projects for consistency with adopted codes and standards and makes recommendations to the planning commission.”
General plan means the general plan of the city providing goals, objectives and policies for the longterm orderly development of the city.

Notice of official filing means a written notice issued by the planning department indicating that a project has received environmental clearance and is now considered as officially filed providing that all submittal requirements have been met.

Owner means the person having sufficient proprietary interest in the land to be subdivided to commence and maintain proceedings to subdivide the land under this article.

Public improvements includes streets, roads, highways, freeways, bridges, overcrossings, street interchanges, flood control or storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, water facilities, lighting facilities and traffic controls, including traffic control devices and traffic control signals.

Specific plan means a detailed plan which reviews economic, environmental and design impacts of development within a specific area and sets forth goals, objectives, policies and regulations for the development of that specific area.

Subdivider means any person commencing proceedings under this article to effect a subdivision of land under this article for himself or for another.

Subdivision means the division, by any subdivider, of any unit of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future, except for leases of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. Property shall be considered as contiguous units even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easements or railroad rights-of-way. The word "subdivision" includes a condominium project as defined in Civil Code § 1350, a community apartment project as defined in Business and Professions Code § 11004, or the conversion of five or more existing dwelling units to a stock cooperative as defined in Business and Professions Code § 11003.2.

Vesting tentative tract or parcel map means a tentative tract or parcel map which, if approved, allows development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time a notice of official filing is issued by the planning department in conformance with the state Subdivision Act.

Section 9. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 26, Article II – Tract Maps - Division 2. – Tentative Tract Map Requirements, Section 26-52 – Application is hereby restated and amended as follows:
38

Sec. 26-52. - Application.
(a) All subdividers requesting approval of tentative tract maps shall file with the planning department a tentative tract map application in form, format and content as established by ordinance and resolution of the city council. The application shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 30, article XVI. (b) At least one copy of the map shall be forwarded to each of the following agencies and departments, which shall have 21 calendar days after receipt thereof to comment or make recommendations with respect to the subdivision:
(1) Each government agency entitled by law to review and recommend thereon.
(2) The district engineer of the division of highways of the state, as provided by Business and Professions Code § 11528.1.
(3) The affected school districts which are not members of the development advisory board.
(4) Publicly and privately owned utilities serving the area. (c) At least one copy of the map shall be forwarded to each of the following entities members of the development advisory board:
(1) The building and safety department.
(2) The Central Valley Fire District.
(3) The Fontana Unified School District.
(4) The parks and recreation department.
(5) The police department.
(6) The public works and engineering department.

The development advisory board shall review the map and forward a recommendation with appropriate conditions to the planning commission within the processing time limits prescribed by section 30-1365.

Section 10. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Zoning and Development Code, Article I. – Provisions and Definitions is hereby restated and amended as follows:
39

Sec. 30-1. Purpose.

This article establishes official land use zoning regulations and design guidelines. The zoning districts and regulations set forth in this article are consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and are designed to:
(1) Encourage the most appropriate use of land and ensure compatibility between uses;
(2) Provide open space for light, air, and the preservation of resources; (3) Facilitate the timely provision of adequate infrastructure and community facilities;
(4) Promote excellent architectural design; and
(5) Promote health, safety, and general welfare of the residents and visitors of the City.

Sec. 30-2. Minimum requirements.

The interpretation and application of the provisions of this article shall be the minimum requirements for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. It is not the intent of this article to limit standards to minimums.

Sec. 30-3. Greater or conflicting provisions.

Where any provision of this article imposes more stringent requirements, regulations, restrictions, or limitations than are imposed or required by any other provisions of the Municipal Code, law, ordinance, restrictive covenant, or easement, this article shall govern.

Sec. 30-3.1 Public Projects.

Notwithstanding any other lawful exemptions to zoning regulations, the provisions of this title, shall not apply to any development standards or entitlement processes any buildings, improvements, lots, or premises, owned, leased, operated or controlled by the City or any City Project for public purpose by the City of Fontana. Such projects would still require discretionary review by the City. 40

Section 11. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. - Division 4. - Hearing Bodies and Notification is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Section 30-22. – Hearing bodies.

The following three hearing bodies shall make decisions on the various procedures provided for in this Development Code. All hearing bodies shall be responsible for the hearings indicated in Table No. 30-22.

Decisions of any “reviewing body” may be appealed to the City Council, except where State law limits such appeal to the City Engineer. If the Planning Commission is listed above as the “appeal body,” the Commission must first review an appeal before it may be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.

DAB—Development Advisory Board—Recommending body
DCD—Director of Community Development—Approval body
PC—Planning Commission—Approval body
CC—City Council—Approval body
PR—Parks, Community, and Human Services Commission—
Recommending body
X- Indicates the reviewing and/or the approval body
a—Indicates that the reviewing body is to provide a recommendation to the City Council
b—Indicates that the reviewing body is to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission
Table No. 30-22
Reviewing Bodies Appeal Body
Project Type DAB DCD PR PC CC PC CC
Administrative Site Plan, Amendment
X X X
41

Administrative Site Plan, Major
X X X
Administrative Site Plan, Minor
X X X
Administrative Site Plan, Modification
X X X
Area Plan
X Xa X
Certificate of Appropriateness
X
Conditional Use Permit
X X X
Conditional Use Permit Amendment
X X X
Conditional Use Permit Modification
X X X
Density Bonus
X Xa X
Design Review
X X X
Design Review, Amendment
X X X
Design Review, Modification
X X X
Design Review, Signs
X X
Director’s Determination
X X
Development Agreements Xa X
42

Development Agreements,
Amendment
Xa X
General Plan Amendments
X Xa X
Home Occupation Permit
X X
Lot Line Adjustment
X X
Minor Use Permit
X X X
Minor Use Permit, Amendment
X X X
Minor Use Permit, Modification
X X X
Parcel Maps, Tentative
X X X
Parcel Maps, Final
X X
Park Review X Xb
X X
Specific Plan, Amendment
X Xa X
Temporary Use
X X
Tract Maps, Tentative
X X X
Tract Maps, Final
X
Variances
X X X
Variances, Administrative
X X X
43

Time Extension, Parcel Map
X
Time Extension, Tract Map
X X
Time Extension, Projects
X X X
Development Code and Zoning District
Map, Amendment
X Xa X
Section 12. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 4. – Hearing Bodies and Notification is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Section 30-24. – Posting.
(a) City initiated projects. If a notice of public hearing for a City initiated general plan amendment, specific plan, zone change, design review, and tentative tract or any other application affecting a specific property or properties exceeding 20 acres and/or would result in the mailing or delivering of more than 1,000 notices, the notice of public hearing shall also either be:
(1) Published in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City no less than one time and no less than ten days prior to the date of the hearing; or
(2) Posted at least ten days prior to the hearing in at least three public places in the City, including one public place in the area directly affected by the proceeding.
(b) Applicant initiated projects. Notice of public hearing for applicantinitiated projects affecting a specific property shall also be made by a posting on the site (by the applicant) in a conspicuous location no longer than ten days after the initial Development Advisory Board (DAB) review. (1) A four-foot by eight-foot sign or signs shall be required to be posted at the project site. Daycare notification may be a two by two banner visible from the right-of-way. The purpose of the sign notice requirement is to notify the community and the neighbors in the affected area early in the review process, allowing the applicant and the City the benefit of citizens' comments during the initial stage of project review. A cash deposit to the City is required to ensure compliance with the notification requirements including removal of 44

the notification sign. The project application shall not be deemed complete until the large sign is installed.
(2) Sign criteria. In order to implement the signs as an effective form of public notification, the following rules and standards shall apply. a. Sign size and specification. All sign(s) shall be four feet by eight feet in size and be constructed to the specifications determined by the Planning Division. The specific project information text on the sign shall be provided by the Planning Division.
b. Location and installation standards. All sign(s) shall be installed according to the specifications determined by the Planning Division. The signs shall be posted on each street frontage. Additional signs may be required as determined by the Planning Division.
c. Sign removal and maintenance. All sign(s) shall be
maintained and remain in place until the final decision on the application has been made or the application has been
withdrawn. All sign(s) shall be removed by the applicant after 15 days of the final decision or date of withdrawal. Failure to remove the sign(s) within the prescribed period may result in forfeiture of the cash deposit.

Section 13. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 6 – General Plan Amendment is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Section 30-33 – Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a general plan amendment, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The Staff recommendations should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application.

Section 14. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. – Administrative Procedures - Division 4. – Hearing Bodies and Notification, Section 30-35 “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Section 30-35 – Reserved.

Section 15. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 8. - Area Plan and Area Plan Amendment, Subdivision I. Area Plan is hereby restated, amended, and renumbered as follows:
45

Sec. 30-49. - Submission requirements.

A proposal for an area plan shall be processed upon the application of the property owner(s), subject to the following provisions:
(1) Submission of a preliminary application and area plan for review by the Development Advisory Board.
(1) Submission of a formal area plan and related material as required on the application form for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and final decision by the City Council.
(2) Submission of a conditional use permit and design review applications.

Section 16. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 8. - Area Plan and Area Plan Amendment, Subdivision I. – Area Plan, Section 30-51 is hereby deleted in entirety and amended to read as follows:

Section 30-51. – Pre-application meeting for area plan.

Prior to the filing of an application for an area plan, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall hold apply for a pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project.

The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application.

Section 17. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. – Division

8. - Area Plan and Area Plan Amendment, Subdivision I. – Area, Section 30-54 “Development Advisory Board (DAB) Review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Section 30-54 – Reserved.

Section 18. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 8. - Area Plan and Area Plan Amendment, Subdivision II. – Area Plan Amendments, Section 30-60 – Pre-application meeting for area plan is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Section 30-60 – Pre-application meeting for area plan.
(a) Prior to the filing of an application for an area plan amendment, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the 46

project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application.
(b) Following the preliminary consultation of the applicant and City staff, The Director of Community Development Planning will determine when the conceptual project will be submitted to the Planning Commission for a workshop. The presentation to the Planning Commission shall be an informal presentation for informative purposes only and is only intended to obtain Planning Commission comments on the proposed project. The applicant shall not receive any rights or entitlements pursuant to this informal review procedure and the Planning Commission shall not be bound by their comments. The Planning Commission or City Council may request changes to the project when it is formally presented for their consideration even if those changes differ from the Planning Commission comments and requests made during the informal review procedure.

Section 19. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. – Administrative Procedures – Division 8. - Area Plan and Area Plan Amendment, Subdivision II. – Area Plan Amendments, Section 30-62 – Development Advisory Board (DAB) is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Section 30-62 – Reserved.

Section 20. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 9. – Specific Plan Amendment, Section 30-68. – Pre-application meeting is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-68. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for an amendment to a specific plan, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application.

Section 21. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 9. – Specific Plan Amendment, Section 30-70. – Development Advisory Board (DAB) review is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-70. – Reserved.

Section 22. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division

10. – Administrative Site Plan, Major, Minor, Amendment, and Modification, Subdivision 47

I. – Administrative Site Plan – Major, Section 30-76 – Authority is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-76. - Authority.

The Director of Community Development Planning or designee is authorized to approve or deny administrative site plan, major, minor, modifications and amendment review applications, upon review of the Development Advisory Board comments, and to impose reasonable conditions upon such approval. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for special yards, open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress, egress, and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other characteristics of operation; requirements for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion.

Section 23. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

10. – Administrative Site Plan, Major, Minor, Amendment, and Modification, Subdivision I. – Administrative Site Plan – Major, Section 30-78 is hereby restated and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-78. – Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for an administrative site plan, major, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application.

Section 24. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

10. – Administrative Site Plan, Major, Minor, Amendment, and Modification, Subdivision II. – Administrative Site Plan – Minor, Section 30-88. – Pre-application meeting is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-88. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for an administrative site plan, minor, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application.
48

Section 25. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

10. – Administrative Site Plan, Major, Minor, Amendment, and Modification, Subdivision II. – Administrative Site Plan – Minor, Section 30-90. – Development Advisory Board (DAB) review is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-90. – Reserved.

Section 26. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

10. – Administrative Site Plan, Major, Minor, Amendment, and Modification, Subdivision III. – Administrative Site Plan – Amendment, Section 30-97 is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-97. - Authority.

The Director of Community Development Planning or designee is authorized to approve or deny administrative site plan, amendment review applications, upon review of the Development Advisory Board comments, and to impose reasonable conditions upon such approval. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for special yards, open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress, egress, and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other characteristics of operation; requirements for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion.” Section 27. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 10, Subdivision III. Administrative Site Plan Amendment, Section 30-98 “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-98. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for an administrative site plan, amendment, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The preapplication meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application. Projects determined minor in nature may be waived of this process by the Director of Community Development.

Section 28. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

10. Subdivision III., Administrative Site Plan Amendment, 30-100. – “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-100 – Reserved.
49

Section 29. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

10. Subdivision IV., Administrative Site Plan Modification, Section 30-107 “Authority”, is hereby restated and amended as follows
Sec. 30-107. - Authority.

The Director of Community Development Planning or designee is authorized to approve or deny administrative site plan, modification review applications, upon review of the Development Advisory Board comments, and to impose reasonable conditions upon such approval. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for special yards, open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress, egress, and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other characteristics of operation; requirements for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion.” Section 30. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

10. Subdivision IV. Administrative Site Plan Modification, Section 30-108 “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-108. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for an administrative site plan, modification, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The preapplication meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application. Projects determined minor in nature may be waived of this process by the Director of Community Development.

Section 31. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

10. Subdivision IV. Administrative Site Plan Modification, Section 30-110. “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-110 – Reserved.

Section 32. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

11. – Design, Review, Amendment, and Modification, Subdivision I. Design Review, Section 30-117 – Pre-application meeting is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-117. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a design review, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review by City 50

staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application.

Section 33. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 11, Subdivision I. Design Review, Section 30-119. “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-119 – Reserved.

Section 34. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 11, Subdivision II. Design Review Amendment, Section 30-126 is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-126. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a design review, amendment, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application.

Section 35. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

11. Subdivision II. Design Review Amendment, Pre-application meeting Section 30-128, “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-128 – Reserved.

Section 36. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. – Division

11. Subdivision II. – Design Review - Modification, Section 30-137. “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-137. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a design review, modification, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application. Projects determined minor in nature may be waived of this process by the Director of Community Development.

Section 37. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. – Division

11. Subdivision II. – Design Review - Modification, 30-139. – “Development Advisory 51

Board (DAB)” review are hereby deleted in their entirety is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-139 – Reserved.

Section 38. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 12. – Conditional Use Permit, Amendment, and Modification, Subdivision I. – Conditional Use Permit, Section 30-146 is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-146. - Authority.

The Planning Commission is authorized to approve or deny applications for conditional use permit, upon review of the Development Advisory Board comments, and to impose conditions upon such approval.

Section 39. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

12.Subdivision I. Conditional Use Permit, Section 30-147. “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-147. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a conditional use permit, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application. Projects determined minor in nature may be waived of this process by the Director of Community Development.

Section 40. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

12. Subdivision I. – Conditional Use Permit, Section 30-149. “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-149 – Reserved.

Section 41. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 12, Subdivision II. Conditional Use Permit - Amendment, Section 30-157 “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-157 – Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a conditional use permit amendment, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a preapplication review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The Staff recommendations should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application. Projects 52

determined minor in nature may be waived of this process by the Director of Community Development Planning.

Section 42. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 12, Subdivision II. Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Section 30-159, “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-159 – Reserved.

Section 43. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 12, Subdivision III, Conditional Use Permit Modification, Section 30-166 “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-166 – Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a conditional use permit modification, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a preapplication review by City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application. Projects determined minor in nature may be waived of this process by the Director of Community Development.

Section 44. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 12, Conditional Use Permit, Amendment, and Modification, Subdivision III, Conditional Use Permit, Section 30--168. “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-168 – Reserved.

Section 45. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 13, Minor Use Permit, Section 30-175. “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-175 – Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a minor use permit, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall hold apply for a pre-application conference with the Development Advisory Board review by City staff.

Projects determined minor in nature may be waived of this process by the Director of Community Development.

Section 46. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 13 Minor Use Permit, Section 30-177, “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-177 – Reserved.
53

Section 47. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 13, Subdivision II, Minor Use Permits Amendment, Section 30-186 “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-186 – Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a minor use permit amendment, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall hold apply for a preapplication conference with the Development Advisory Board review by City staff. Projects determined minor in nature may be waived of this process by the Director of Community Development.

Section 48. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 13, Subdivision II, Minor Use Permits Amendment, Section 30-188 “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-188 – Reserved.

Section 49. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

13. – Minor Use Permits, Amendment, and Modification, Subdivision III. – Minor Use Permits Modification, Section 30-194 “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-194. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a minor use permit modification, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall hold apply for a preapplication conference with the Development Advisory Board review by City staff. Projects determined minor in nature may be waived of this process by the Director of Community Development.

Section 50. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 13, Subdivision III. Minor Use Permits Modification, Section 30-196 “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-196 – Reserved.

Section 51. Amendments to the Municipal Code, 30, Article II, Division 14, Subdivision I. Administrative Variance, Section 30-204 “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-204. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for an administrative variance, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall hold apply for a preapplication conference with the Development Advisory Board City staff.

Projects determined minor in nature may be waived of this process by the Director of Community Development.
54

Section 52. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 14, Variance, Subdivision I. Administrative Variance, Section 30-207. “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-207 – Reserved.

Section 53. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 14, Subdivision II. Variance, Major, Section 30-214 “Authority” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-214. - Authority.

The Planning Commission is authorized to approve or deny applications for variance, major, upon review of the Development Advisory Board comments, and to impose conditions upon such approval.

Section 54. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

16. – Park Review, Section 30-231 – Authority, is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-231. - Authority.

The Parks, Community, and Human Services Commission (PCHSC) is authorized to review and provide comments for parks. The park review shall be presented to the PCHSC at a regular meeting. during the Development Advisory Board review.

The Planning Commission is authorized to approve or deny applications for park review upon review of the Development Advisory Board and PCHSC, and to impose conditions upon such approval.

Section 55. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division

16. Park Review, Section 30-232 “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-232. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a park review, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall file apply for a pre-application review meeting application in order to meet with the Director of Planning Community Development and the Development Advisory Board prior to submitted the formal application.

Section 56. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

16. – Park Review, Section 30-234. – Development Advisory Board (DAB) review is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-234 – Reserved.
55

Section 57. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

17. - California Redemption Value (CRV) Recycling Collection Facility, Section 30-241. – Authority, is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-241. - Authority.

The Director of Community Development Planning or designee is authorized to approve or deny California Redemption Value (CRV) Recycling Collection Facility through the process of minor use permit review applications, upon review of the Development Advisory Board comments, and to impose reasonable conditions upon such approval. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements for vehicular ingress, egress, and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other characteristics of operation; requirements for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion.

Section 58. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

17. - California Redemption Value (CRV) Recycling Collection Facility, Section 30-246. – Development Advisory Board (DAB) review is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-246 – Reserved.

Section 59. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. – Administrative Procedures – Division 18. – Temporary Use, Section 30-354. – Authority, is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-254. - Authority.

The Director of Community Development Planning or designee is authorized to approve or deny temporary use applications, upon review of the Development Advisory Board comments, and to impose reasonable conditions upon such approval. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for buffers and/or barriers; requirements for vehicular ingress, egress, and on-site traffic circulation; regulation of hours or other characteristics of operation; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion.

Section 60. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

21. – Mapping, Tentative Parcel Map, Tentative Tract Map, and Lot Line Adjustment, Subdivision I – Tentative Parcel Map, Section 3-280 ”Authority” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-280. - Authority.
56

The Director of Community Development Planning or designee is authorized to approve or deny tentative parcel map applications, upon review of the Development Advisory Board comments, and to impose reasonable conditions upon such approval.

Section 61. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 21, Subdivision I – Tentative Parcel Map, Section 30-281 “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-281. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a tentative parcel map application the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application meeting application review with City Staff. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application.

Section 62. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 21, Subdivision I – Tentative Parcel Map, Section 30-283 “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-283 – Reserved.

Section 63. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division

21. Subdivision II – Tentative Tract Map, Section 3-290. “Authority” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-290. - Authority.

The Planning Commission is authorized to approve or deny applications for design review, upon review of the Development Advisory Board comments, and to impose conditions upon such approval. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for special yards, open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress, egress, and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other characteristics of operation; requirements for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion.

Section 64. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division 212. Subdivision II – Tentative Tract Map, Section 3-292, “Development Advisory Board (DAB) review” is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-292 – Reserved.
57

Section 65. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

22. – Time Extension, Mapping and Project, Subdivision II – Time Extension - Tentative Tract Maps, Section 3-310. “Authority”, is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-310. - Authority.

The Planning Commission is authorized to approve or deny applications for time extension for tentative tract maps upon review of the Development Advisory Board comments, and to impose conditions upon such approval.

Section 66. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 24 Planned Unit Development (PUD), Section 30-328 “Pre-application meeting” is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-328. - Pre-application meeting.

Prior to the filing of an application for a planned unit development, the applicant or the applicant's representative shall apply for a pre-application review with City staff. meeting application. The pre-application meeting is presented to the Development Advisory Board for recommendation for the project. The recommendation should be incorporated into the project prior to filing the formal application
Section 67. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

24. – Planned Unit Development (PUD), Section 30-330. – Development Advisory Board (DAB) review is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-330 – Reserved.

Section 68. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II. Division

25. – Density Bonus, Section 30-343, Development Advisory Board (DAB) review is hereby deleted and amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-343 – Reserved.

Section 69. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article II, Division 27 Non-Conforming Structures, Section 30-353, “Special exemption to permit incremental improvements to nonconforming buildings, structures, and sites with administrative site plan approval” is hereby restated, renumbered, and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-353. - Special exemption to permit incremental improvements to nonconforming buildings, structures, and sites with administrative site plan approval.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of Division 10 of this article herein to the contrary, the Director of Community Development Planning may permit the following limited improvements to be made to an existing nonconforming building, structure or site without the requirement that 58

the building, structure and/or site be improved to current Development Code standards:
(1) Additions to existing commercial and/or industrial buildings or structures that do not exceed ten percent of the total square footage of the existing building or structure, provided said additions meet the fire protection requirements of Chapter 11 of the City Code; (2) Paving, repaving or realignment of parking lots and areas, provided that the number of parking spaces is not reduced to less than currently existing and provided that all applicable drainage, storm water (NPDES), and similar requirements are met;
(3) Alteration of the exterior of an existing building or structure; (4) Installation of new landscaping or alteration of existing landscaping, provided that the amount of landscaping is not reduced to less than currently existing unless the Director of Community Development Planning further finds that other improvements approved under this section require a reduction in the landscaping. Any allowed reduction in landscaping shall be the minimum required to permit the improvements to be constructed.
(b) Any person seeking a special exemption under this section shall submit a completed administrative site plan application to the Community Development Planning Department in a manner prescribed by the Director of Community Development Planning and shall pay any applicable fees.
(c) Applications under this section shall be processed as prescribed in Division 3 of Article III of Chapter 30 of this Code (administrative site plan review), except for the following:
(1) At the option of the Director of Community Development, the application may (but is not required to) be reviewed by the Development Advisory Board prior to a decision by the Director of Community Development;
(2) Notice required by Division 4 of this article shall be provided, however, it shall be sent ten calendar days prior to the decision by the Director of Community Development.
(c) Notwithstanding Division 10 of this article herein, the Director of Community Development Planning shall make the following findings before granting approval of the exemption and the administrative site plan application:
(1) All of the existing building(s), structures(s) and uses on the site are preexisting and legal nonconforming, and are not illegal or unpermitted; 59

(2) The improvement(s) subject to the exemption support(s) a pre-existing legal nonconforming building, structure and/or use already on the site; (3) The exemption will provide an incremental improvement to the building, structure or use on the site in furtherance of the requirements of Chapter 30 of this Code;
(4) The improvement(s) subject to the exemption will not, physically, legally, or otherwise, preclude the building(s), structure(s) or the site to come into compliance with current Development Code standards at a future date;
(5) Granting the exemption will not substantially expand or intensify the existing or anticipated use of the building(s) and/or the site; (6) Granting the exemption will not be contrary to the goals of the City's general plan or any applicable specific plan; and
(7) Granting the exemption will not otherwise be deleterious to the public health, safety and welfare.
(d) The Director of Community Development Planning is authorized to impose such reasonable conditions upon an exemption in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area. (e) Except as expressly set forth herein, the benefits of this section shall not abrogate, extend, expand or otherwise alter the provisions of this Division 22 and shall not eliminate or extend pre-existing legal nonconforming rights, or create them where they do not otherwise exist. (f) The benefits of this section shall apply only to complete applications, as provided for in subsection (b), which have been submitted to the Community Development Planning Department within a period of two years following the effective date of this section. Any exemptions requested after said two-year period must be sought pursuant to Section 30-85.

Section 70. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article IX. Division

5. – Auto Center Overlay District, Section 30-643. – Minimum development standards, is hereby restated, renumbered, and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-643. - Minimum development standards.

The minimum site development standards listed in this section shall only apply to the specific planning area within the overlay district. (1) Planning area 1—Auto center development standards.
a. Building and parking setbacks.

1. All buildings and parking, except for vehicle display pads and allowed monument signs, shall be setback from all street property lines as follows:

Sierra Avenue: 25 Feet
60

Citrus Avenue: 20 Feet
South Highland Avenue: 15 Feet
Secondary Streets: 10 Feet
Collector Streets: 10 Feet
Local Streets: 10 Feet

2.Vehicle display pads shall have no required setback and shall be allowed to encroach into the landscape setback.

Adequate site distance must be demonstrated at street
intersections and driveway entrances for each vehicle display pad. Display pads shall not exceed 14 inches in height as measured from the sidewalk grade.

3.Monument signs are required to be set back a minimum of five feet from the street property line.
b. Building height.

1.Buildings and other structures shall not exceed a maximum of 60 feet in height as measured from the top of curb located adjacent to the street property line to the highest building ridge.
c. Lot coverage.

1.No more than 50 percent of the net lot area may be covered with buildings or other structures.
d. Off-street parking and circulation.

1.Required off-street parking spaces for vehicle dealerships shall be provided at the following ratios:

Show Room: One space per 300 square feet.

Service Area: One space per 300 square feet.

Outdoor Display: One space per 2,500 square feet.

Employees: One space per employee on the maximum shift.

Note: Service department parking/stacking is counted and included as required parking spaces.
61

2. Except for vehicle display pads, all parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine feet wide and 19 feet deep.

3. Drive aisle widths are required to be 26 feet wide, unless otherwise required by the San Bernardino County Fire
Department.

4.Driveway approaches on South Highland Avenue are
required to be 55 feet deep to allow for adequate stacking distance if entry gates are closed. Driveways must
demonstrate adequate turning movement widths for car
carrier trucks, per the City of Fontana Traffic Engineer. e. Landscaping.

1. All vehicle dealerships shall have a minimum of 15 percent landscaping of the net project site (minus the dealership building footprint). A maximum of seven percent of the
required landscape area can be provided as decorative
hardscape, including vehicle display pads and driveway
approaches.

2.Required setback areas shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs, plants, grasses and hardscape as set forth within the overlay district landscape design guidelines plant palette.

3.There shall be a five-foot landscape setback between
abutting auto dealership display areas.
f. Lighting.

1.On-site lighting plans shall be submitted showing the design, intensity, layout and exact fixture mounting. Lighting plans shall be reviewed and approved through the required Development Advisory Board (DAB) process.

2.Lighting plans shall be consistent with the lighting design criteria and guidelines set forth within this overlay district.

3.Shielded fixtures shall direct all lighting downward, and shall illuminate areas used for parking and driveways.

4.All exterior areas shall have light standards no taller than 20 feet in height.

5.All lighting fixtures shall be properly shielded to prevent offsite glare. Spot fixtures shall only be downward directed, 62

except at strategic areas such as monument signs and other landscape locations along the project's perimeter.

6.Strings of incandescent fixtures are not allowed in any exterior commercial area.

7.Strings of incandescent fixtures are not allowed in any exterior dealership area.
g. Walls, fences and screening. Walls and fences constructed on an interior lot line, at the rear of the required landscape setback area, or along the 210 Freeway right-of-way shall comply with the development standards set forth herein.

1.Walls shall not exceed eight feet in height, except that within the required building and parking landscaped setback, vehicle pad display areas, walls may not exceed three feet in height.

2.All perimeter walls and fences shall be designed to be consistent with the design guidelines set forth herein.

3.Chain link fencing and all types of barbed wire are
prohibited, except that chain link fencing is allowed during construction for security purposes.

4.The Freeway edge treatment shall consist of eight-foot tall pilasters at 30 feet on center with tubular or wrought iron fencing between pilasters. These pilasters shall be consistent with the design as set forth within the auto center design guidelines.

5.Pilasters located within 90 feet of South Highland Avenue shall also be eight-foot tall at 30 feet on center with tubular or wrought iron fencing between pilasters. These pilasters will also be covered with flagstone that matches the monument sign flagstone required along South Highland Avenue,
consistent with the design as set forth within the auto center design guidelines.

6. Solid eight-foot tall block walls located within the interior of auto dealerships are permitted, provided they are not visible from the public rights-of-way. Security walls that are visible from public rights-of-way shall consist of solid walls limited to three feet in height with pilasters on top that are limited to five feet in height (eight feet total height) and tubular or wrought iron fencing between pilasters.
63

7. All service, trash and employee parking areas shall be screened from view from all public streets by walls and approved fencing. No storage areas shall be visible from any public right-of-way, including the 210 Freeway.

8.Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened and not be visible from any public rights-of-way, including the 210 Freeway. Roof mounted equipment screening techniques
shall involve an integrated architectural design element which is compatible with the architectural design of the dealership building.

9. Solid block walls eight feet tall are required on the property line adjacent to A.B. Miller High School and Warren Ruble Middle School.
h. Sound attenuation.

1. All air compressor exhaust stacks shall contain noise-muffling devices.

2. Exterior loud speakers shall not be mounted higher that ten feet above finished grade, and shall be oriented toward the interior of each dealership.
(2) Planning area 2—Auto center supporting uses.
a. Building setbacks.

1. All buildings and parking areas, except for allowed
monument signs, shall be setback from all street property lines as follows:

Sierra Avenue: 25 Feet
South Highland Avenue: 20 Feet
Mango Avenue: 15 Feet
210 Freeway Right-of-way: 5 Feet

2.Monument signs are required to be set back a minimum of five feet from the street property line, and must comply with site distance traffic standards at all street corners and driveway entrances.
b. Building height.
64

1.Buildings and other structures shall not exceed a maximum of 60 feet as measured from the top of curb located adjacent to the street property line to the highest building ridge. c. Lot coverage:

1. No more than 50 percent of the net lot area may be covered with buildings or other structures.
d. Off-street parking and circulation.

1. Required off-street parking spaces for retail shall be provided at the ratio set forth in Chapter 30 of the Fontana Municipal Code.

2. All parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine feet wide and 19 feet deep.

3. Drive aisle widths are required to be 26 feet wide unless otherwise required by the San Bernardino County Fire
Department.
e. Landscaping.

1. All retail commercial uses shall have a minimum of 15 percent landscaping of the net project site (minus the building footprint).

2. Required setback areas shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs, plants, grasses and hardscape as set forth within the overlay district landscape design guidelines plant palette.

3. For projects that are adjacent to the 210 Freeway right-ofway, there shall be a minimum five-foot wide landscape strip planted with trees and shrubs.

4. Solid block walls adjacent to the 210 Freeway right-of-way are prohibited. The Freeway edge treatment shall consist of eight-foot tall pilasters at 30 feet on center with tubular or wrought iron fencing between pilasters. These pilasters shall be consistent with the design as set forth within the auto center design guidelines.
f. Lighting.

1. On-site lighting plans shall be submitted showing the design, intensity, layout and exact fixture mounting. Lighting 65

plans shall be reviewed and approved through the required Development Advisory Board (DAB) review process.

2. Lighting plans shall be consistent with the lighting design criteria and guidelines set forth within this overlay district.

3. Shielded fixtures shall direct all lighting downward, and shall illuminate areas used for parking and driveways.

4. All exterior areas shall have light standards no taller than 20 feet in height.

5. All lighting fixtures shall be properly shielded to prevent offsite glare. Spot fixtures shall only be downward directed, except at strategic areas such as monument signs and other landscape locations along the project's perimeter.

6. Strings of incandescent fixtures are not allowed in any exterior commercial area.
g. Walls, fences and screening. Walls and fences constructed on an interior lot line, at the rear of the required landscape setback area, or along the 210 Freeway right-of-way shall be in keeping with the development standards set forth herein.

1.Walls shall not exceed eight feet in height, except that within the required building and parking landscaped setback, walls may not exceed three feet in height.

2.All walls shall be constructed of split face or masonry material that is compatible with the building design.

3.Chain link fencing and all types of barbed wire are
prohibited, except that chain link fencing is allowed during construction for security purposes.

4. All service and trash enclosure areas shall be screened from view from all public streets by walls and approved fencing, wherever feasible. No storage areas shall be visible from any public right-of-way, including the 210 Freeway.

5. Solid block walls are prohibited. Wall edge treatments shall consist of eight-foot tall pilasters at 30 feet on center with tubular or wrought iron fencing between pilasters. These pilasters shall be consistent with the design as set forth within the auto center design guidelines.
66

6. Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened
and not be visible from any public rights-of-way, including the 210 Freeway. Roof mounted equipment screening techniques shall involve an integrated architectural design element which is compatible with the architectural design of the commercial building.
h. Sound attenuation.

1. A drive-through lane is not permitted adjacent to any parcel of land that is zoned for residential use.
(3) Planning areas 3 and 4.
a. All minimum site development standards listed in planning areas 1 and 2 apply to planning areas 3 and 4.

Section 71. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article XII. Division 12. – Administration and Enforcement, Section 30-781. – Sign variances, is hereby restated, renumbered, and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-781. - Sign variances.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of a sign variance is to provide for deviations from the literal provisions of this article in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual sign under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions align with the applicability and the findings of this section.
(b) Authority. The Planning Commission is authorized to approve or deny sign variance applications.
(c) Application.
(1) Applications for a sign variance shall be filed with the Planning Division on forms, and accompanied by data, information, and fees as required by the Community Development Planning Department. No application shall be considered by the Planning Commission until the application is determined to be complete and all required fees have been paid to the City. (2) At a minimum, the application shall include:
a. A statement that the applicant is the owner of the subject property or an agent thereof;
b. The legal description of the property involved, the proposed use, and site plans;
c. A reference to the specific provisions of this article that are applicable to the requested sign variance; and
d. The specific use and standard for which the sign variance is being requested shall be described in detail.
67

(d) Development Advisory Board Review. All applications for sign variances shall be reviewed by the Development Advisory Board to provide recommendations for the sign. The recommendations should be incorporated into the sign prior to moving forward to the Planning Commission.
(d) Limitation on variances. In no case shall any sign variance be granted that would result in a sign that exceeds the height, size, or setback provisions of this article by 25 percent or that would increase the number of signs permitted by this article by more than 25 percent.
(e) Findings. The following findings are required to be made by the Planning Commission for approval of a sign variance application, with or without conditions:
(1) Variances from the terms of this article shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the article deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits. (2) The characteristics that make compliance with the requirements of this article difficult must be related to the premises for which the sign variance is sought, not some other location;
(3) The characteristics that make compliance with the requirements of this article difficult must not have been created by the owner of the premises, a previous owner, or the applicant; and
(4) The proposed sign variance will not be harmful or alter the essential character of the area in which the property is located, will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or unreasonably increase congestion in public streets, or increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety, or unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or welfare of the inhabitants of the City.
(f) Consistency. Any sign variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will ensure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties.
(g) Noticing. Notice of hearings for sign variances shall be as set forth in Chapter 30, Article II, Division 4.
68

(h) Hearing. Upon receipt of a complete application for a sign variance, a time and place for the hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set. (i) Appeal. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final unless an appeal is filed. An appeal could be made as set forth in Chapter 30, Article II, Division 5.
(j) Time limitations. Each sign variance granted under the provisions of this article shall become null and void two years after the date of the action approving the sign variance unless:
(1) The construction authorized by the sign variance or permit has been commenced within two years after the granting of the sign variance and diligently advanced to completion;
(2) The decision approving a sign variance contains in its findings and conditions specific authority for extending the time limit defined; or (3) The Director of Community Development Planning finds that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have caused delays which do not permit compliance with the time limits established.

Section 72. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article XIII. Division 2. – Permit and Application Procedures, Section 30-941 “Processing and hearing procedure”, is hereby restated, renumbered, and amended as follows:

Sec. 30-941. - Processing and hearing procedure.

Upon submittal of a complete application for resource extraction permit and/or resource reclamation plan and filing of all environmental documents and all documents required by the Planning Manager, consideration of the resource extraction permit or resource reclamation plan for the proposed surface mining operation or exempt activity shall be completed pursuant to the following:
(1) The Planning Division shall, within 30 days of receipt of such applications, certify the application requests with regard to completeness in accordance with California Government Code § 65920 et seq. (Permit Streamlining Act). The Planning Division shall process the application(s) in accordance with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the City's environmental review guidelines.
(2) Within 30 days of acceptance of an application for resource extraction permit and/or resource reclamation plan as complete, the Planning Division shall notify the State Department of Conservation of the filing of the application(s). Whenever mining operations are proposed in the 100- year flood plain of any stream, as shown in Zone A of the flood insurance rate maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and within one mile, upstream or downstream, of any state highway bridge, the Planning Division shall also notify the State Department of Transportation that the application(s) have been received. 69

(3) Development Advisory Board. Upon deeming the application complete and completing the environmental review procedures, the Planning Division shall forward the application(s) to the Development Advisory Board (DAB). The DAB shall review the plot plan, landscape plans, elevations and any environmental review documents for the intended operation. Upon completion of the review, the DAB shall forward its recommendation and recommended approval conditions to the Planning Commission.
(3) Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one noticed public hearing on the application for resource extraction permit and/or resource reclamation plan. The Planning Division shall prepare a staff report with recommendations for consideration by the Planning Commission. The staff report shall include, but not be limited to, recommendations concerning the following:
a. A statement of the recommended intensity of use;
b. Acceptable accessory uses;
c. The suitability of the extraction and reclamation proposals; and d. Suggested conditions for approval to ensure that the resource extraction use and related accessory uses may be conducted and reclaimed without creating a public nuisance or otherwise adversely affecting the public welfare.

The staff report may recommend denial of the resource extraction permit and/or resource reclamation plan applications if it is determined that the intent of this article cannot be met by the proposed applications.
(4) Planning Commission approvals.
a. The Planning Commission shall take action approving, conditionally approving or denying the resource extraction permit. If a resource extraction permit is being processed concurrently with the resource reclamation plan, the Planning Commission may simultaneously also conceptually approve the resource extraction permit. However, the Planning Commission may defer action on the resource extraction permit until taking final action on the resource reclamation plan and financial assurances.
b. Prior to final approval of a resource reclamation plan, approval of financial assurances (as provided in this article), or any amendments to a resource reclamation plan or existing financial assurances, the Planning Commission shall:

1. Certify to the State Department of Conservation that the resource reclamation plan and/or financial assurances comply with the 70

applicable requirements of state law, and submit the plan, assurance, or amendments to the State Department of
Conservation for review. The Planning Commission may
conceptually approve the resource reclamation plan and any financial assurances before submittal to the State Department of Conservation.

2. If necessary to comply with permit processing deadlines, the Planning Commission may conditionally approve the resource extraction permit with a condition that the planning division shall not issue any required subsidiary permits for mining operations, including grading and/or building permits, until cost estimates for financial assurances have been reviewed by the State Department of Conservation and final action has been taken on the reclamation plan and financial assurances.

3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 2774(d), the State Department of Conservation shall be given 30 days to review and comment on the reclamation plan and 45 days to review and comment on the financial assurances. The Planning Commission shall evaluate written comments received, if any, from the State Department of Conservation during the comment periods. Staff shall prepare a written response describing the disposition of the major issues raised by the state for the Planning Commission's approval. In particular, when the Planning Commission's position is at variance with the recommendations and objections raised in the state's comments, the written response shall address, in detail, why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted.

Copies of any written comments received and responses prepared by the Planning Commission shall be promptly forwarded to the operator/applicant.
c. Once comments are received by the Department of Conservation, and within 30 days of receipt of such comments, the Planning Commission shall then take action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the resource extraction permit and/or reclamation plan, and to approve the financial assurances pursuant to Public Resources Code § 2770(d).
d. The decisions of the Planning Commission shall become final unless appealed to the City Council within the time period indicated in Article II, Division 5 of the Fontana Municipal Code.
e. The Planning Division shall forward a copy of each approved Resource extraction permit and/or approved reclamation plan, and a copy of the approved financial assurance to the State Department of 71

Conservation. By July 1st of each year, the Planning Division shall submit to the State Department of Conservation for each active or idle mining operation a copy of any resource extraction permit or reclamation plan amendments, as applicable, or a statement that there have been no changes or amendments during the previous year.

Section 73. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article III, Division

10. – Public Open Spaces Standards, Sections 30.399 to 30.404 are hereby restated, renumbered, and amended as follows:

DIVISION 10. COMMON AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
Sec. 30-399. Purpose.

The purpose of this section is to provide common open spaces and a catalog of pre-approved public open space types that are appropriate to use within walkable urban environments.

Sec. 30-400. Applicability.
(a) This section describes the guidelines for the development of common and public open spaces throughout the Form-Based Code areas. (b) The standards in this section shall apply to all proposed development within the Form-Based Code districts and shall be considered in combination with the standards for the applicable district. (c) Additional public open spaces can be integrated into this section as they are approved by the City of Fontana.

Sec. 30-401. Design objectives.

Common open spaces and public open spaces play an important role in place-making. Their standards must be considered alongside building form, building types, frontage types, and thoroughfares in creating urban environments. The diverse palette of common open spaces, parks and other publicly accessible open spaces are assigned to one or more downtown zones.

Sec. 30-402. Common open space and public open space required.

Each application that involves at least two acres shall be required to provide a minimum of five percent of the project area as either common open space or public open space. The required open space shall be designed in compliance with the applicable requirements from Exhibit 678404.A.—Public Open Space Types.
72 (Supp. No. 5)

For development projects that are two acres or more in size that propose only commercial development (no residential uses) or civic development, the Planning Commission shall have the authority to reduce or eliminate the requirements for open space size, type, and location if the following findings are made:
(1) The proposed commercial use(s) is incompatible with a large open space area.
(2) The Police Department recommends the elimination or reduction of the open space requirement.
(3) Eliminating or reducing the open space requirement promotes public health and safety.

Subdividing or phasing the project to separate commercial and residential uses or to reduce lot size to less than two acres shall not eliminate the open space requirement.
73 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Sec. 30-403. Regulation.
(a) Common open spaces shall be designed within private development projects for patrons of commercial development and residential communities with amenities as required in 30-404 below. (ab) Public open spaces shall be designed as one of the public open space types defined in Exhibit 30-404.A.
(bc) Public open spaces shall include amenities such as seating, lighting, and landscaping.
(cd) Public open spaces shall be built within the development area by developers as development occurs.
(de) At the discretion of the Community Development Planning Director, required open space may be constructed off-site and/or as part of a larger public open space that will be provided by the City or other private developments. Sec. 30-404. General requirements. (f) Common open spaces shall include an amenity such as a tot lot, outdoor sports recreation area, bar-b-que with picnic tables, or equivalent. This requirement can include paseos connecting the amenity to the rest of the site.
(fg) All public open spaces shall abut public right-of-way or be otherwise connected to public sidewalks and shall be open to the public 24 hours per day. At the discretion of the Community Development Planning Director, public access to a public open space may be restricted after dark.
(gh) All public open spaces shall be visible from surrounding streets and masses of shrubs around edges shall be avoided.

Sec. 30-404. General requirements.
(a) All public open spaces shall abut public right-of-way or be otherwise connected to public sidewalks and shall be open to the public 24 hours per day. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, public access to a public open space may be restricted after dark.
(b) All public open spaces shall be visible from surrounding streets and masses of shrubs around edges shall be avoided.
74 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Exhibit 404.A.—Public Open Space Types
Plazas are open
spaces available
for civic purposes
and commercial
activities. Building
frontages should
define these
spaces. Plazas are
typically
hardscaped.
½ acre to 2½ acres
2 streets
An open space
available for
informal activities
in close proximity
to neighborhood
residences.
4,000 sf to ½ acre
1 street
Passive
recreation,
accessory
structure, drinking
An open space
designed for the
recreation of
children and
interspersed in
residential areas.

May be included in
other open
spaces.

No min. or max.
size
1 street
An open space
designed as a
grouping of plots
for nearby
residents for smallscale cultivation.

May be included
within other open
spaces.

No min. or max.
size
1 street
75 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Passive
recreation,
accessory
structure, drinking
fountains, and
paths.
fountains, and
paths.

Accessory
structures,
drinking fountains,
and paths.

Accessory
structures,
drinking fountains,
and paths.

Section 74. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article V, Division 4, Section 30-453 is hereby amended to replace “Medical marijuana dispensaries in Table No. 30-453 as follows:

Table No. 30-453
Uses Permitted Within Mixed Use Development Projects
C. Business and Professional Offices R-4 R-5
Medical marijuana dispensaries Commercial Retail Cannabis Businesses
— —
Section 75. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article VI, Division 3, Section 30-489 “Uses Permitted” is hereby amended to restate and amend Sec. 30- 489.-Uses Permitted, part (b), and Table No. 30-489 as follows:
(b) Uses subject to specific requirements. Permitted uses marked with an asterisk "*" indicate that the use is subject to special use regulations in Chapter 33, Section 30-491 and Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code. Conditional uses are subject to the provisions in Section 30-492.

Table No. 30-489
Allowed Uses within Commercial Zoning Districts
Use C-1 C-2 RMU
Retail Sales
Adult Businesses P* P* —
Antique Shop P P P
Automobile Sales Agency with or without Incidental Repair and Sales Display Area
— C C
Automobile Supply Store (no machine shop) P P P
Bakery Goods Store P P P
Bar, Cocktail Lounge C C C
Bicycle Shop P P P
Boat Sales with Incidental Repair and Sales Display Area — C C Book Store P P P
76 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Building Materials, Retail Sale of (if contained within a completely enclosed building)
— P P
Building Materials with Outdoor Storage — P* P*
Blueprinting Establishment — P P
Commercial Cannabis Retailer, Storefront Business(with City Permit)
P* P* —
Caterer P P P
Clothing Store P P P
Computer Store P P P
Convenience Store P P P
Cyber Cafés C C C
Department Store — P P
Discount Store P P P
Drugstore P P P
Electrical Supply Store P P P
Feed Store C M —
Florist Shop P P P
Furniture Store P P P
Garden Furniture and Supplies Store P* P* P*
Glass or Mirror Store P P P
Grocery, Fruit, Vegetable, Meat, Fish, Poultry, or Delicatessen Store,
P P C
Hardware Store P* P* P*
Hobby Supplies Store P P P
Home Furnishing Store P P P
Household Appliance Store P P P
Ice Cream Store P P P
Ice Storage Locker (if not more than five-ton capacity) P P P Interior Decorating Shop P P P
Jewelry and Coin Store P P P
Liquor Store C C C
Micro-Brewery — C C
Newsstand P P P
Novelties Store P P P
Nursery, Plant (includes statuary sales) P* P* P*
Paint and Wallpaper Shop P P P
Pawn Shop — C C
Pet Boarding — M —
Pet Shop P P P
Plumbing Supply Store — P P
77 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Radio, Television, and Small Electrical Appliance Shop (including repair when incidental to retail sales)
P P P
Restaurant and Café, Excluding Those Having Dancing and/or Floorshows. Alcoholic Beverages are not Permitted.

P* P* P*
Restaurant and Café with Entertainment and/or Dancing. Alcoholic Beverages Permitted.

C* C* C*
Restaurant and Café Without Entertainment and/or Dancing.

Alcoholic Beverages Permitted. (See Section 30-492 For Alcoholic Beverage Sales)
C C C
Restaurant, Drive-Thru and Take Out P* P* P*
Secondhand Store — P P
Shoe Store P P P
Smoke/Tobacco Shop and Vape Shop C C C
Sporting Goods Store P P P
Swap Meet (Indoor/outdoor) — — —
Tattoo Establishments P* P* P*
Trailer and Mobile Home Sales and Rental — P* C
Wholesale Auto Sales (requires one stall) C C —
Warehousing Sales, Retail C P* P*
Warehousing Sales, Wholesale — C P*
Business and Professional Offices C-1 C-2 RMU
Administrative and Professional Offices Involving no Retail Trade P P P Art Gallery P P P
Financial Institution P P P
Clinic, Medical or Dental, Acupuncture P P P
Convention Centers — — P
Government Offices P P P
Medical Laboratory — P P
Optician P P P
Pharmacy P P P
Radio/Television Studio (with transmitter) — C C
Studio (without transmitter) P P P
Studios for Professional Work or Teaching of Any Form Of Fine Art
P P P
Service Establishments C-1 C-2 RMU
Ambulance Service P P P
Animal Hospital M P C
Animal Hospital (w/ Boarding) M —
Assembly/Meeting Hall For, Private Clubs, Religious Services, or Similar Uses
C C C
Automobile Fueling Station C C C
78 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Automobile and Truck Rental, Two-Ton, Single Unit Maximum — C C Automobile/Vehicle Body and Fender Repair Shop — C C
Automobile/Vehicle Repair C C C
Automotive Custom Repair (includes lowering and lifting) C C C Automotive Stereo, Alarm and Upholstery Installation C M M Automobile Wash, — M M
Barber Shop or Beauty Parlor P P P
Chemical substance abuse facility C C C
Cleaners P* P* P*
Clothing and Costume Rental Establishment P P P
Community Care Facility C C C
Community Center C C C
Construction Trailer (Temporary Use Permit) P* P* P*
Convalescent Hospital M M C
Copying, Packing and Mailing Services P P P
Day Care—Commercial M M M
Day Care—Commercial (24 hour) — C C
Depot—Bus — P* P*
Depot—Railway, Park-and-Ride — P P
Dressmaker or Millinery Shop P P P
Equipment Rental — P* P*
Fortune-Telling P P P
Hospitals — M M
Hotels — C C
Laundromat, Self Service P P P
Locksmith P P P
Machine Shop — C C
Masseur or Masseuse, Day Spa, Acupressure — C C
Self-Storage Facility — C C
Mortuaries — C C
Library P P P
Museums P P P
Motel — C C
Music and Vocal Instruction P P P
Nightclub — C C
Nursing Home M M C
Parks P P P
Photographer P P P
Pick-Up Truck Rated Over One Ton (carrying weight), Commercial Truck or Van, or Trailer Rental
— C C
Picture Framing Store P P P
79 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Post office M M M
Printer, Blueprint Shop — P P
Private Schools C C C
Public Utility Structures and Facilities M M M
Publishing Establishments — P P
Repair Shop for Household Appliances P P P
Schools Such as Business Colleges, Music Conservatories, Dancing Schools, and Other Schools That Offer Training In NonIndustrial Professions P P P
Stenographic Services P P P
Swimming Pool, Commercial P P P
Sign Shop in Enclosed Structure — P P
Tailor P P P
Telephone Answering Service or Exchange P P P
Ticket Agency, Travel Bureau P P P
Tire Shop — C C
Truck Repair Service — — —
Truck Storage Yard — — —
Upholstery Shop — P P
Wedding Chapel P P P
Amusement Establishments C-1 C-2 RMU
Amusement Enterprise for Children Including Pony Rides (No Stables), Merry-Go-Round, and The Like When Incidental To A Permitted Use
P P P
Amusement Park — C C
Arcades—Pinball, Video, and the Like — C C
Archery Range — C C
Baseball; Batting Range — C C
Bowling Alley C C C
Boxing Arena — C C
Dance Hall — C C
Entertainment Centers C C C
Golf, Driving Range, Miniature, Pitch and Putt — C C
Gymnasiums, Health Spas, or Physical Culture Establishments Under 4,000 Square Feet in Floor Area
P P P
Gymnasiums, Health Spas, or Physical Culture Establishments Over 4,000 Square Feet in Floor Area
C C C
Pool Hall, Billiard Center C C C
Skating Rink, Roller or Ice C C C
Smoking Lounge, Hookah Lounge, Vapor Lounge, E-Lounge
(allowed only as a secondary use to a full-service restaurant) C C C
80 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Theater, Indoor C C C
Indoor Playground/Recreation P P P
Residential Uses C-1 C-2 RMU
Senior Housing M M M
Multiple-Family Dwellings with an Area Plan C
Other Uses C-1 C-2 RMU
Animal Kennel — C C
Animals, Small—Keeping and Raising P* P* P*
Antenna, Transmitting C C C
Cemetery and Related Uses — M C
Construction Trailer P* P* P*
Home Occupation P* P* P*
Homeless Shelters — — —
Emergency Shelter Subject to the activation of an Emergency Operation Center
P P P
Metal Storage Containers (temporary storage only with a temporary use permit)
P* P* P*
Museum and Art Galleries — M M
Parking Lots (not related to use on same property) — P P Parking Structures — P P
Research and Development — P P
Section 76. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 30 is hereby amended to add Article XV “No Net Loss Program” as follows:

ARTICLE XV - NO NET LOSS PROGRAM
Sec. 30-965 - Purpose and authority
The City desires to ensure its compliance with Senate Bill 330 (SB330) and establish a no Net Loss Density Bonus Program for certain residential projects. This Chapter provides, concurrent with the approval of any change in zone from a residential use to a less intensive or non-residential use, a density bonus will become available to project applicants subsequently seeking to develop property for residential use within the City. In doing so, the proposed Section will ensure that there is no net loss of residential capacity within the City as required by SB330.

On October 9, 2019, the California Legislature adopted SB330 which, among other things, adopted Government Code Section 66300, declared a 81 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

housing crisis in the State of California and imposed certain requirements designed to streamline the construction of new housing, and prevent the loss of existing housing and land available for future residential use, unless the city concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other areas of the affected jurisdiction to ensure no net loss in residential capacity. SB330 became effective on January 1, 2020.

Sec. 30-966 - Definitions.

Except as otherwise expressly set forth herein, the following words and terms as used in this Chapter shall have the following meanings:

Density Bonus. A density increase of up to those percentages above the otherwise maximum residential density as specified in this Chapter.

Density Bonus/Transfer Agreement. A legally binding agreement between a developer of a Housing Development and the City containing such terms and conditions as determined by the City Attorney, which ensures that the requirements of this Chapter are satisfied.

Density Bonus Units. Those residential units granted pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, that exceed the maximum residential density for the development site and that are available in the Unit Bank.

Housing Development. Construction projects consisting of five or more residential units or Lots, including single-family and multifamily, that are proposed to be constructed pursuant to this Chapter.

Lot. (1) a Lot when shown as a delineated Lot of land with a number or other designation on a parcel map or tract map and not to be used for the common benefit of other Lots recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County and legally created under the Subdivision Map Act ; (2) a Lot of land held under separate ownership from adjacent property that constitutes a legal lot under applicable Law.

Maximum Residential Density. The maximum number of residential units permitted by the City's General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning and Development Code, applicable to the subject property at the time an application for the construction of a Housing Development is deemed complete by the City, excluding the additional units permitted by this Chapter.

Director of Planning. The Director of Planning of the City of Fontana. 82 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Unit Bank. The number of units available to the No Net Loss Program as a result of a change of zone from a residential use to a less intensive residential use or a non-residential use. The Director of Planning, or his or her designee, shall have the sole authority to administer and maintain the Unit Bank balances, credits and availability as he or she determines, which determination shall be final.

Sec. 30-967 - Requirements.

The City shall grant a density bonus through the No Net Loss Program to projects which meet the following criteria:

A. The project is on a parcel of at least one acre, or the applicant is processing an application concurrently with a parcel merger of two or more Lots or more which will create a Lot of not less than one-acre.

B. The project takes place in one of the following residential zones in the City:
a. Residential Estate (R-E)
b. Single-Family Residential (R-1)
c. Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
d. High-Density Residential (R-3)
e. Multi-Family/Medium-High Residential (R-4)
f. Multi-Family/High Residential (R-5
g. Residential Planned Community (R-PC)
C. In determining the number of Density Bonus Units to be granted (transferred) pursuant to this Section, the maximum allowable residential density for the site shall be calculated as follows:
a. Multiplying the maximum density allowed under the applicable zoning designation and multiplying the result by 1.2 for a 20 percent density bonus. If the result, including the density bonus, contains a fraction of a unit, the number of allowable units shall be determined by rounding down to the nearest whole number if the fraction is below

0.5. Calculations containing fractions of 0.5 or above shall be rounded up.

83 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

b. Density bonuses in the No Net Loss Program can be combined with other density bonus programs as established in Article II, Division 25 – Density Bonus of the Fontana Municipal Code. i. In no case shall the number of No Net Loss/Density
Bonus Units awarded under the No Net Loss Program
exceed the number of units in the Unit Bank.
ii. In no case shall the number of No Net Loss/Density
Bonus Units available in the Unit Bank exceed 2,200
units.

D. A Density Bonus/Transfer Agreement shall be required for any project seeking a density bonus as part of the No Net Loss Density Bonus Program.

E. The Planning Department shall publish the available number of units available in the Unit Bank on the Planning Department’s page on the City’s website. The number of units available is expected to change periodically and, as such, any information contained on the City’s website or any other published source shall be considered draft for informational purposes only.

Confirmation of the number of units available shall be made upon submittal of a development application, including the payment of appropriate fees Sec. 30-968 - Types of Bonuses Allowed.

A. Density Bonus. The density bonus allowed by this Chapter shall consist of those density increases specified in Section 30-967 above the maximum residential density applicable to the site as of the date of the project land use permit application.

B. Mixed use zoning allows the Housing Development to include nonresidential uses. Approval of mixed-use activities in conjunction with the No Net Loss program is permissible if authorized elsewhere under the Fontana Municipal Code and subject to those requirements. A density bonus will be granted only for the residential portion of a mixed use development.

Sec. 30-969 - Development Standards.

All development standards for the base zone and/or overlay district shall be met. Granting of a density bonus does not constitute approval of or grounds for modification or waiver of any development standard or other requirement of the Fontana Municipal Code.
84 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Sec. 30-970 - Processing of No Net Loss Program Requests.

An Application which proposes to change a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use may request concurrent approval by the City Council to transfer the unit reduction to a No Net Loss Density Bonus Bank for the purpose of complying with SB330.

An Application which proposes to utilize units available in the No Net Loss Density Bonus Bank shall submit a density bonus transfer application in conjunction with the permit and entitlement application submittal package required for the project. A density bonus transfer application pursuant to this Chapter shall be processed along with the application for development.

The process for obtaining preliminary approval of the Density Bonus Transfer Agreement, shall be as follows:
a. Filing. An applicant proposing a Housing Development pursuant to this chapter shall submit a concurrent application for a Density Bonus Transfer Agreement as part of the submittal of any formal request for approval of a Housing Development. The application, whether a pre-application or a formal application, shall include:
b. A general description of the proposed project, general plan description, applicable zoning, maximum possible
density permitted under the current zoning and general
plan description and such other information as is
necessary.
c. A calculation of the density bonus allowed pursuant to this division.
d. A statement detailing the number of density bonus units being proposed over and above the number of units
normally permitted by the applicable zoning and general plan description.
e. City review of and action on the applicant's proposal for a density bonus shall occur concurrently with the
processing of any other required entitlements, if any.

The fact that another required entitlement might be
subject to discretionary approval does not subject the
application for a density bonus/transfer under this
section to discretionary approval; they will merely be
processed at the same time.
85 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

Sec. 30-971 - No Net Loss Program Density Bonus Agreement.

A. The terms of the draft density bonus/transfer agreement (Agreement) shall be reviewed and revised as appropriate by the Director of Planning and the City Attorney for final approval.

B. At a minimum, the Agreement shall include the following:

1. The total number of units, both permitted and available through the density bonus/transfer, proposed within the Housing Development;

2. A schedule for completion and occupancy of the units; and

3. A description of remedies for breach of the Agreement by either party.

Sec. 30-972 - Implementation.

A. The provisions of this Chapter shall be administered by the Planning Department.

B. Projects requesting density bonus/transfer through this No Net Loss Program are subject to processing through the requirements in this Chapter.

Section 77. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 33, Section 30-7 “Maximum Number of Commercial Cannabis Businesses Authorized and Designated Locations; Application Process”, is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 33.-7– Maximum Number of Commercial Cannabis Businesses Authorized and Designated Locations; Application Process.

1. The maximum number of Commercial Cannabis Permits that may be issued in the City is three (3). One may be issued for the North Area, one may be issued for the Central Area and one may be issued for the South Area based on the boundaries of the Commercial Cannabis Map approved by the City Council concurrently with the adoption of this Chapter. An Applicant will be approved for no more than one (1) Commercial Cannabis Permit within the City.

1. The process for issuing Commercial Cannabis Permits to qualified cannabis businesses is meant to result in qualified businesses that 86 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

will operate in accordance with state and local law, be successful, contribute positively to the community and local economy, and avoid secondary adverse impacts. Toward that objective, the application process includes these five four phases:
(1) PHASE ONE: Application submittal. This includes submitted complete information, completed Livescan and background check information (state and federal database) of all
Responsible Persons, processing fees, conceptual
renderings and location identification.
(2) PHASE TWO: Initial scoring of application by a qualified third party.
(3) PHASE THREE: Interview process.
(4) PHASE FOUR: Final scoring, and, if permits available, permit issuance.

Section 78. Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 33, Section 30-8 “Initial Commercial Cannabis Permit Application and Scoring”, is hereby restated and amended as follows:

Sec. 33.-8– Initial Commercial Cannabis Permit Application and Scoring
(a) The City Manager may establish additional submittal requirements for an application for a Commercial Cannabis Permit.

The intent of this Chapter is to create a merit-based, competitive evaluation system. Applications submitted by legal representatives, consultants, partners or investors will not be accepted. The following information shall be included in any application for a Commercial Cannabis Permit:
(1.) Name of Applicant
(2). Business Trade Name (if applicable) of the applicant (3.) Identification of Owner(s) (full name, primary phone number, social security number or individual taxpayer
identification number, date and place of birth, email
address, and mailing address for the primary owner
submitting the Application)
87 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

(4.) For each person that is an “owner” of the Applicant, (i.) Percentage of interest held in the Applicant
entity by each owner;
(ii.) Whether the owner has an ownership or
financial interest, as defined in section 5003 of
the Regulations, in any other Commercial
Cannabis Business licensed under the AUMA or
MAUCRSA;
(iii.) A copy of each Responsible Person’s
government-issued identification, acceptable
forms are a document issued by a federal, state,
county, or municipal government that includes
the name, date of birth, physical description,
and picture of the owner, such as a driver’s
license;
(iv.) A detailed description of the owner’s criminal
convictions, if applicable. A conviction for this
purpose means a plea or guilty verdict of guilty
or a conviction following a plea of nolo
contendere. Convictions dismissed under Penal
Code section 1203.4 or equivalent nonCalifornia law must be disclosed. Convictions dismissed under Health & Safety Code section
11361.8 or equivalent non-California law must
be disclosed. Juvenile Adjudications and traffic
infractions under $300 that did not involve
alcohol, dangerous drugs, or controlled
substances do not need to be included. For
each conviction, provide: (1) the date of
conviction; (2) dates of incarceration, if
applicable; (3) dates of probation, if applicable;
(4) dates of parole, if applicable; (5) a detailed
description of the offense for which the owner
was convicted; and (6) a statement of
rehabilitation for each conviction written by the
owner that demonstrates the owner’s fitness for
consideration;
(v.) If applicable, a detailed description of a
commercial cannabis license, revocation of a
88 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

commercial cannabis license, or sanctions for
unlicensed Commercial Cannabis Activity by a
licensing authority or local agency against the
Applicant or a business entity in which the
Applicant was an owner or officer within the
three (3) years immediately preceding the date
of the application;
(vi.) If applicable, a detailed description if the City issued the Applicant a notice or citation for
unlicensed Commercial Cannabis Activity, or if
the Applicant was a defendant in a civil or
criminal proceeding filed by the City or the
People of the State of California, for allowing,
causing, or permitting unlicensed commercial
cannabis activities within the City’s jurisdiction;
(vii.) An attestation of each owner as follows: “Under
penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that the
information contained within and submitted with
the application is complete, true, and accurate.

I understand that a misrepresentation of fact or
omission may be cause for rejection or denial of
this application, or revocation of any
Commercial Cannabis Permit or any permit,
license or approval issued in reliance thereon.”
(viii.) Authorization letter. “Authorization Letter” is Proof of ownership, lease agreement, or a
“Letter of Intent” to lease premises proposed by
Applicant for operation of a Commercial
Cannabis Business, executed with notarial
acknowledgement, by owner of premises. If a
“Letter of Intent” is furnished, no more than one
(1) Applicant may have a Letter of Intent
agreement with the landlord per address.
(5) Primary Contact: The contact information for the
Applicant’s designated primary contact person,
including the name, title, phone number, and email
address of said individual.
(6) Qualifications and Experience of Applicants and
Owners: The application shall include information
89 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

concerning any special business or professional
qualifications or licenses of the applicants and owners, and the years of relevant and related experience, that
would add to the number or quality of services that
facility would provide, or otherwise demonstrates the
Applicants’ and owners’ capacity to operate a
successful commercial cannabis facility in compliance
with applicable laws and regulations.
(7) Disclosure of Lobbying Activity: If Applicant contracted, employed or in any manner paid or will pay any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an elected
official, appointed official or any employee of the City, shall fully disclose the name of individuals and
organization(s) performing lobbying services.
(8) Description of Operating Procedures: Applications
shall include a detailed description of the Applicant’s proposed operating procedures for each commercial
cannabis activity, including an explanation for how the business will comply with the operating regulations of
this Code and state law. The application must include
copies of any applicable policies or manuals of the
Applicant and address each of the following, if
applicable:
(i.) Transportation Procedures: A description of the
procedure for transporting cannabis and
cannabis products, including whether or not the
Applicant will be transporting cannabis or
cannabis products or contracting for
transportation services.
(ii.) Inventory Procedures:

1. A description of the Applicant’s
procedure for receiving shipments of
inventory;

2. Where the Applicant’s inventory will be
stored on the premises and how records
of the inventory will be maintained; and
90 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

3. Procedure for performing inventory
reconciliation and for ensuring that
inventory records are accurate.
(iii.) Quality Control Procedures:

1. Procedures for preventing the
deterioration of cannabis or cannabis
products held by the Applicant;

2. Procedures for ensuring that cannabis
and cannabis products are properly
packaged and labeled; and

3. Procedure for ensuring that an
independent licensed testing laboratory
samples and analyzes cannabis and
cannabis products held by the Applicant.
(iv.) Security Procedures: All Applicants shall
propose sufficient security measures to deter
and prevent the unauthorized access or
entrance into areas containing cannabis or
cannabis products, and to deter and prevent the
theft of cannabis or cannabis products at the
Commercial Cannabis Business (together a
“Security Plan”). The proposed Security Plan
will remain confidential and shall include, but
shall not be limited to, all of the following:

1. Preventing individuals from remaining
on the premises of the Commercial
Cannabis Business if they are not
engaging in an activity directly related to
the permitted operations of the
Commercial Cannabis Business.

2. Establishing limited access areas
accessible only to authorized
Commercial Cannabis Business
personnel.

3. How and where all cannabis and
cannabis products will be stored in a
secured and locked room, safe, or vault.
91 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

How all cannabis and cannabis products,
will be kept in a manner as to prevent
diversion, theft, and loss.

4. Procedures for installing 24-hour security
surveillance cameras (CCTV) of at least
HD-quality video with audio to monitor all
entrances and exits to and from the
premises, all interior spaces within the
Commercial Cannabis Business which
are open and accessible to the public, all
interior spaces where cannabis, cash or
currency, is being stored for any period of
time on a regular basis and all interior
spaces where diversion of cannabis
could reasonably occur. Procedures for
how the Applicant will ensure that the
security surveillance camera’s footage is
remotely accessible to law enforcement,
and that it is compatible with the City’s
software and hardware. In addition,
procedures on how remote and real-time,
live access to the video footage from the
cameras will be provided to law
enforcement. Procedures for ensuring
video recordings are maintained for a
minimum of sixty (60) calendar days, and
procedures to make them available to
law enforcement upon request.

Procedures to ensure video shall be of
sufficient quality for effective prosecution
of any crime found to have occurred on
the site of the Commercial Cannabis
Business.

5. A description of where sensors will be
installed to detect entry and exit from all
secure areas.

6. A description of procedures of installing
panic buttons in the premises.

7. Description of having a professionally
installed, maintained, and monitored
92 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

alarm system, with the required City
alarm permit as required by this Fontana
City Code Section 14-391, et seq.

8. A description of the physical security
features and improvements that will be
installed on the exterior and within the
interior of the building, in full compliance
with all applicable Building and Safety
and Fire Code requirements and any
applicable zoning requirements. Use of
wrought iron on any exterior door,
window or opening is prohibited.

9. Procedures on establishing a plan to
have security personnel on-site 24 hours
a day, or alternative security as
authorized by the City. Description or
documentation showing that the
proposed security personnel are licensed
by the State of California Bureau of
Security and Investigative Services
personnel. Procedure to submit to the
City and the City’s law enforcement
agency the names and contact
information of security personnel, with
copies of state-issued licenses and
permits, government-issued
identification form, and photographs of
uniforms and badges. Acknowledgement
from Applicant indicating that it shall be
responsible for providing this confirming
information to law enforcement, with
updating information within seven (7)
calendar days of a change in security
personnel, agents, or representatives.

10. Procedures on how each Applicant shall
have the capability to remain secure
during a power outage and ensure that all
access doors are not solely controlled by
an electronic access panel to ensure that
locks are not released during a power
outage.
93 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

11. Identification of a designated security
representative/liaison to the City, who
shall be reasonably available to meet
with City staff, as well as law
enforcement regarding any security
related measures or operational issues.

12. A storage and transportation plan,
describing in detail the procedures for
safely and securely receiving, storing and
transporting all cannabis, cannabis
products, including the use of child-safe
cannabis containers, and any currency.

13. An affirmative commitment that the
Applicant will cooperate with the City
whenever the City Manager, or his or her
designee, makes a request, upon
reasonable notice, to inspect or audit the
effectiveness of any Security Plan or of
any other requirement of this subsection.

14. A description and plan of how the
Applicant will notify law enforcement
within 24 hours after discovering any of
the following:
a. Significant discrepancies
identified during inventory. The
level of significance shall be
determined by the regulations
promulgated by law enforcement.
b. Diversion, theft, loss, or any
criminal activity involving the
Commercial Cannabis Business
or any agent or employee of the
Commercial Cannabis Business.
c. The loss or unauthorized
alteration of records related to
cannabis, registering qualifying
patients, primary caregivers, or
94 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

employees or agents of the
Commercial Cannabis Business.
d. Any other breach of security.
(9) All applicants shall submit a workforce plan that may include, but is neither limited to, nor required to include, a (1) commitment for local hires; (2) commitment to
offer apprenticeships and/or compensation for
continuing education in the field; (3) pay a living wage to its employees, and (4) draft collective bargaining
agreement with labor organization that currently
represents cannabis workers in the United States.
(10) Seller’s Permit: The Applicant shall provide a valid seller’s permit number issued by the California
Department of Tax and Fee Administration, if
applicable. If the Applicant has not yet received a
seller’s permit, the applicant shall attest that the
Applicant is or will before commencing operations,
apply for a seller’s permit.
(11) Indemnification Agreement: To the fullest extent
permitted by local, state and federal law, the City shall not assume any liability whatsoever with respect to
having issued a Commercial Cannabis Permit or
otherwise approving the operation of any Commercial
Cannabis Business. As a condition to the approval of
any Commercial Cannabis Permit, the Applicant is to
execute a separate Indemnification Agreement
prepared by the City that fully indemnifies the City for all liabilities associated with the Commercial Cannabis Permit, the Commercial Cannabis Permittee's
Commercial Cannabis Activities, and any action taken
by the Cannabis Permittee. The Indemnification
Agreement shall include the defense of the City and
reimbursement of all fees, costs and expenses
incurred by the City related to any action arising from the Agreement.
(12) Payment of Application Fee: Each Applicant shall pay the applicable fee(s) pursuant to this Chapter.
95 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

(13) Each Applicant shall provide the City a Security deposit or bond for code compliance costs. The Security
deposit or bond shall be in an amount established by
the City Council and shall be provided with the
application.
(14) Site identification and conceptual renderings of the interior and exterior of the proposed premises, which
shall not be less than 4,000 square feet. Site
identification shall include, but not be limited to:
(i.) A complete and detailed site plan of the
premises, interior and exterior elevations of the
premises, and a map showing the premises’
location within the City. The site plan and must
comply with the following:

1. Shows the boundaries of the
property and the proposed
premises to be utilized, showing
all boundaries, dimensions,
entrances and exits, interior
partitions, walls, rooms,
bathrooms, windows, doorways,
and common or common shared
entryways, and a brief statement
of the principal activity to be
conducted therein;

2. Map identifying any instruction in
kindergarten or any grades 1
through 12, day care, park, Youth
and Recreation Center facilities,
City boundaries and any
Commercial Cannabis Business
located within 600 feet of the
property lines of the proposed
location. If the proposed location
is not within 600 feet of any such
uses, identify on the map the
closest such use, and the distance
in feet between that use and the
property line of the proposed
location;
96 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

3. Identifies all commercial cannabis
activities that will take place in
each area of the premises, and
identification of limited access
areas;

4. The location of all proposed
security cameras with a number
assigned to each for identification
purposes;

5. The diagram shall be clear,
legible, and to scale, and shall not
include any highlighting; and

6. If the proposed premises include
only a portion of a property, the
diagram must be labeled
indicating which part of the
property is the proposed premises
and what the remainder will be
used for.
(ii) The Commercial Cannabis Permit Application
Evaluator may conduct a site inspection as part
of the review.
(b) Background Check. Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(11) and 13300(b)(11), which authorizes City authorities to access state and local summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, or certification purposes; and authorizes access to federal level criminal history information by transmitting fingerprint images and related information to the Department of Justice to be
transmitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, every Applicant and Responsible Person of the Commercial
Cannabis Business must submit fingerprints and other
information deemed necessary by the Fontana Police
Department, or the City’s law enforcement agency, for a background check. No person shall be issued a permit to operate a Commercial Cannabis Business unless they have first cleared the background check, as determined by the City, Fontana Police Department, or the City’s law enforcement agency as required by this section.
97 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

(c) The City Manager may adopt any procedure(s) to supplement the initial application process. The City Manager is authorized to prepare the necessary applications, forms, adopt any necessary rules to the application, regulations and processes, and solicit applications.
(d) Any Applicant whose ’ownership’ includes a person with a past plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere for operating a non-licensed cannabis
business shall be disqualified from receiving a Commercial Cannabis Permit.

Section 79. Based on the foregoing, the City Council determines that this Ordinance qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(B)(3) (the common-sense exemption), and 15378 and Sections No. 3.01, 3.22, and 10.59 of the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA, that this Ordinance is nonetheless exempt from the requirements of CEQA in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.; therefore, a Notice of Exemption has been prepared.

Section 80. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Fontana hereby approves Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007.

Section 81. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of the adoption and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage thereof, shall be published by the City Clerk at least once in the Herald News, a local newspaper of the general circulation, published and circulation in the City of Fontana, and henceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this October 11, 2022
READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
_________________________________________
City Attorney
I, Germaine McClellan Key, City Clerk of the City of Fontana, and Ex-Officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is the actual Ordinance 98 Resolution PC No. 2022-_____

adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting on the 11th day of October 2022, and was finally passed and adopted not less than five days thereafter on the 25th day of October 2022, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
_________________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Fontana
_________________________________________
Mayor of the City of Fontana
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
City Clerk

99 October 11, 2022
Via Electronic Mail Only
Mayor Acquanetta Warren
E-Mail: [email protected]
Mayor Pro Tem Peter Garcia
E-Mail: [email protected]
Councilmember John Roberts
E-Mail: [email protected]
Councilmember Jesse Sandoval
E-Mail: [email protected]
Councilmember Phillip Cothran
E-Mail: [email protected]
City Manager Matt Ballantyne
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: October 11, 2022 City of Fontana Council agenda File #21-1743 Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22- 007 - Fontana Municipal Code amendment to Chapter 2
(Administration), (Chapters 9 (Environmental Protection and Resource Extraction) Chapter 25 (Streets, Sidewalk, and Other Public Ways), Chapter 26 (Subdivisions), Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), and Chapter 33 (Cannabis Businesses and Activities)
Dear City Manager Ballantyne, Mayor Warren, and Honorable Councilmembers:

This Firm represents the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) in matters related to the City of Fontana’s proposed No Net Loss zoning ordinance amendment. On May 17, 2022, and again on September 20, 2022, the Fontana Planning Commission reviewed and recommended City Council approval of amendments to Chapter 26 (Subdivisions) and Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code) of the Municipal Code. If approved, this ordinance would codify several changes to the Municipal Code, including a “No Net Loss” program, described below. This proposed ordinance is on the City Council agenda for the second time for consideration on October 11, 2022.
100
Mayor Acquanetta Warren, et al.

October 11, 2022

We write to again express CCAEJ’s concerns with this ordinance and our legal opinion that, far from complying with Senate Bill 330, the ordinance violates it.

Specifically, the proposed “No Net Loss” provisions would allow downzoning without concurrent upzoning; instead, an applicant that wishes to downzone her residential property or rezone from residential to commercial could do so without a concurrent upzone to other property. The “lost” units would be put into a “bank,” and other developers could “withdraw” them if they wanted to build more units than allowed by their current zoning. But whether and how they could do that is completely uncertain, as doing so requires City approval, and despite the additions to the draft ordinance outlining the items required to file an application for a Density Bonus Transfer Agreement, there are no objective standards for granting or denying the approval. For these reasons, the proposed ordinance is inconsistent with SB 330, which not only prohibits such downzoning but also prohibits the adoption of new development standards that are subjective rather than objective.

For these reasons, as well as those expressed by CCAEJ in a comment letter to the Planning Commission dated May 17, 2002, CCAEJ opposes the adoption of the proposed “No Net Loss” ordinance. And, even if the ordinance did comply with SB 330, the City would have to conduct environmental review prior to adopting it, as the court held in Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 892.

I. The proposed Chapter 30, Article XV Amendment is not in compliance with Senate Bill 330 due to lack of concurrent upzoning.

In simple terms, SB 330 prevents a jurisdiction from downzoning a parcel without concurrent upzoning of another parcel, to ensure no net loss of residential capacity within the jurisdiction. “Upzone” and “downzone” refer to development regulations that allow greater or lesser density/intensity of residential development, respectively. Specifically, SB 330 added the following provision to the Government Code (italics added for emphasis):
66300. (b) (1) Notwithstanding any other law except as provided in subdivision (i), with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:
(A) Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, 101
Mayor Acquanetta Warren, et al.

October 11, 2022

specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed under the land use designation and zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B). For purposes of this subparagraph, “less intensive use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing.
. . .
(C) Imposing or enforcing design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards.
. . .
(2) Any development policy, standard, or condition enacted on or after the effective date of this section that does not comply with this section shall be deemed void. . . .
(i) (1) This section does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.

The proposed Chapter 30, Article XV amendment attempts to avoid this clear mandate by allowing a developer to downzone without a concurrent upzone as long as they “bank” the lost units for potential future development at another site. However, this is not a concurrent upzone. Presumably, any future developers who wish to use these units would still have to go through the rezone/general plan amendment process at that time to avoid inconsistencies. Thus, the ordinance does not ensure “no net loss” and violates SB 330.

II. The proposed ordinance includes new subjective standards for development, in violation of Senate Bill 330.

If adopted, the proposed Chapter 30, Article XV amendment would violate the SB 330 prohibition on adopting, imposing, or enforcing new design standards for 102
Mayor Acquanetta Warren, et al.

October 11, 2022

residential development that are not “objective.” “Objective standards” involve “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official,” and are “uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official.” Government Code § 66300(a)(7).

With the proposed Chapter 30, Article XV amendment, a developer is only allowed to claim and develop the banked units if the City approves a Density Bonus Housing Agreement for their project. The proposed Article XV defines a Density Bonus Housing Agreement as “A legally binding agreement between a developer of a Housing Development and the City containing such terms and conditions as determined by the City Attorney, which ensures that the requirements of this Chapter are satisfied.” There are no objective standards governing this approval process. As a result, it violates SB 330.

III. In addition to the legal shortcomings of the proposed Chapter 30, Article XV amendment, the program has several practical shortcomings.

A. Potential to increase development pressure in older residential neighborhoods. CCAEJ is concerned about increasing commercial investment and development pressure on existing neighborhoods to transition to non-residential uses. This can impact the remaining neighborhood, which is not only losing the opportunity to develop more residential units to provide much-needed housing, but it is losing existing unit(s) with the rezoning to non-residential uses and redevelopment of the site. This likely exacerbates additional nonresidential development pressure and decreases the ability to create affordable housing. For example, the City of Eastvale adopted a No Let Loss ordinance in October 2021. By July of this year, Eastvale already had 14 units in their Unit Bank – a result of two properties being rezoned from residential to commercial uses (for a retail center and a self-storage facility).

B. Unclear cap on unit bank. The proposed amendment includes a cap on the Unit Bank of 2,200 units. It is unclear how the number was developed or what would happen if a project proposed to exceed the unit bank maximum.

The above points serve to further illustrate why approval of the Article XV of Chapter 30 amendment is ill-advised.
103
Mayor Acquanetta Warren, et al.

October 11, 2022

IV. The City Must Analyze the Environmental Impacts of the Ordinance before Adopting It.

The staff report and proposed findings claims that the ordinance is either not a project subject to CEQA or is exempt from CEQA under the common sense exemption. However, the City has failed to provide evidence to support these claims. In fact, courts have found that similar ordinances are not exempt. See, e.g., Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 892. As a result, the City must prepare an environmental analysis of the ordinance’s impacts before considering its adoption.

First, the ordinance clearly is a project subject to CEQA. If the ordinance were to go into effect, it is reasonably foreseeable that up to 2,200 residential units could be developed in locations other than where the zoning and general plan have planned for them. In addition, it is reasonably foreseeable that the City would see more nonresidential development than called for in the zoning code and general plan. When presented with similar facts, the court in Terminal Plaza Corp. found that the City was required to analyze the impacts resulting from that change in development, even if it is not known exactly where the new development would go.

For similar reasons, the City cannot rely on the common sense exemption, which only applies “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” Here, the ordinance would facilitate changes in development patters—allowing denser developments in some places and non-residential development where only residential is currently allowed. These changes could have a significant effect on the environment, such as where industrial uses are allowed near sensitive receptors.

Because the ordinance is subject to CEQA and is not exempt, the City must prepare an initial study or EIR to analyze the ordinance’s potential environmental impacts.

V. The City Must Refrain from Approving the Proposed Municipal Code Amendment Ordinance.

On behalf of CCAEJ, we respectfully request that the City Council refrain from adopting an Ordinance for Municipal Code Amendment (MCA) No. 22-004 to amend Chapter 26 and Chapter 30 of the Municipal Code. Any action by the City to approve the No Net Loss Program could expose the City to litigation on the grounds that 104
Mayor Acquanetta Warren, et al.

October 11, 2022

the ordinance violates Senate Bill 330 and the goal of maintaining existing residential development capacity in the City of Fontana.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Winter King
cc: Ana Gonzalez, Executive Director, CCAEJ
1575134.1
105
October 11, 2022
Regarding: Notice of Opposition to Agenda A File 21-1743.

Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 - Fontana Municipal Code
amendment to Chapter 2 (Administration), (Chapters 9 (Environmental Protection and Resource
Extraction) Chapter 25 (Streets, Sidewalk, and Other Public Ways), Chapter 26 (Subdivisions),
Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), and Chapter 33 (Cannabis Businesses and Activities).

Dear Fontana City Council,
On April 18, 2022, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement with the City of Fontana to protect vulnerable communities, sensitive receptors, from the culminative pollution impacts. This act was to force the City of Fontana to comply with the intent of CEQA to mitigate projects that have significant effects on the community and to adhere to SB1000.

Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 would once again seek circumvent California Code § 65302(h)(1) which states (h)(1) An environmental justice element, or related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, that
identifies disadvantaged communities within the area covered by the general plan of the city, county, or city and county, if the city, county, or city and county has a disadvantaged community. The environmental justice element, or related environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity. (B) Identify objectives and policies to promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process.
(C) Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.

In accordance to CA Health and Safety Code § 42705.5 Sensitive receptors are defined as:
106
(5) “Sensitive receptors” includes hospitals, schools and day care centers, and such other locations as the district or state board may determine.

Therefore, CA Health and Safety Code § 42705.5 grants the right to define sensitive receptors to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), EPA, and CEQA guidance. 1,2 The City of Fontana does not have the authority to define sensitive receptors to exclude residential homes in any fashion if it is in contradiction to California Code § 65302(h)(1), §65040.12(e), §42705.5(a)(5). California Air Resource Board has defined sensitive receptors as: 3 Sensitive receptors are children, elderly, asthmatics, and others whose are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution. The locations where these sensitive receptors congregate are considered sensitive receptor locations. Sensitive Receptor locations may include hospitals, schools, and day care centers, and such other locations as the air district board or California Air Resources Board may determine In order to preserve human life and to better support planners and local leaders whose actions have the potential to directly impact life, CARB created a guide. The guide “CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook”,4 to highlight the potential health impacts associated with proximity to air pollution sources allowing planners to explicitly consider this issue throughout the land use and planning processes. CARB outlines that careful land use and planning such as infill development, green spaces, mixed use, higher density, transit-oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with protecting the health of individuals at the neighborhood level. In addition, CARB has focused on their goal that being accessible to planners and improving communication between air agencies and land use planners could go a long way to protect human health. However, the City of Fontana is refusing to adhere to this guidance. It is currently seeking to redefine sensitive receptors outside of CA Health and Safety Code § 42705.5 to exclude any residents that live on land that could be 1 Briscoe, Tony Fontana settles with California AG over alleged environmental violations. Apr 19, 2022 Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-04-19/fontanasettles-with-state-over-environmental-violations 2 Solis, Monserrat Attorney General joins environmental lawsuit against Moreno Valley. Jly 1, 2022 The Press Enterprise
https://www.pe.com/2022/07/01/attorney-general-joins-environmental-lawsuit-againstmoreno-valley/ 3 CARB https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp-resource-center/community-assessment/sensitivereceptorassessment#:~:text=Sensitive%20receptors%20are%20children%2C%20elderly,are%20consider ed%20sensitive%20receptor%20locations.
4 California Environmental Protection Agency California Air Resource Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook a Community Health Perspective April 2005
107
rezoned without their consent to into industrial, commercial, unpermitted or nonconforming use as determined of the Director of Planning.

In addition, the City seeks to remove the public’s ability to be involved in the development process by removing access to the Development Advisory Board. This would allow the city to arbitrarily rezone residential land into industrial, commercial, unpermitted or non-conforming land without community input or knowledge which is a direct violation of California Code § 65302(h)(1) which requires environmental justice communities per California Code § 65040.12 (e) which requires fairness in land use:

Fairness in the context means that the benefit of a healthy environment should be available to everyone, and the burdens of pollution should not be focused on sensitive population or on communities that are already experiencing its adverse effects.

California Code § 65040.12 (e) would qualify the residents of the City of Fontana to have a voice in matters regarding the fair use of land and its development, especially in accordance with California Code § 65302(h)(1).

The City of Fontana has already shown that it is not permitting a fair and equitable transparency required under CEQA as it continues to push forward land use and circumvent the EIR Process. A precedent that has been set with the original Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) plan area which is divided into 55 separate parcels in size ranging from 1.25 to 21.28 acres. The average parcel size is 7.03 acres. Most of the developments are oriented towards the transportation industry. However, since the adoption there have been over 15 amendments that have rezoned residential land into industrial without recirculating the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2009091089 ) and therefore the EIR continues to be out of compliance with the because the land was engulfed into SWIP despite being residential historically. In addition, the proposed method that the City is presenting to adhere with SB330 is completely out of compliance.

In addition, to the jurisdiction of CARB, the SCAQMD is another agency that is responsible for implementation and governance of the QU.S. EPA’s 1970 Clean Air Act.

Federal Clean Air Act (Act). The Act requires attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants, i.e. pollutants causing human health impacts due to their release from numerous sources. SCAQMD has also created a “Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning” that itemizes the health effects: ozone, particulate matter (PM10/PM2.5), carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.5 The document outlines that local jurisdictions have the responsibility for determining land use compatibility for sensitive receptors. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District http://www.aqmd.gov/nav/about/authority 108
contaminant. The following are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive receptors are defined as: schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, hospitals, retirement homes and residences. SCAQMD clearly defines Toxic Air Contaiminant’s (TAC) and the causational relationship of exposure to TACs and the following health impacts: cancer, birth defects, reproductive damage, neurological disorders, heart damage, damage to the circulatory system, and damage to the respiratory system.6 In order to facilitate urban planning considerations in alignment with California’s consistent action of being a leader in enacting laws specific to environmental justice, including laws directing funding to environmental justice communities (SB 535 and AB 1550), a law creating a community air quality protection program (AB 617), and another that requires environmental justice to be addressed in local government planning (SB 1000), SCAQMD created the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-II). The MATES-II project represents one of the most comprehensive air toxics monitoring programs ever conducted in a major urban area in the country, and it has been recognized as a model program. It was created with the intent that planners, local leaders, would utilize this tool to understand how the General Plan is impacting their communities. The MATES-II revealed major findings from the study that can be summarized with the following:7
Fontana in accordance to CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0, the majority of the city is defined as a sensitive receptor already over burned with pollution and the health risks it causes.

As seen in the below image.

For this reason, our family like many families stand in opposition to Master Case No. 22- 110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 - Fontana Municipal Code amendment to Chapter 2 (Administration), (Chapters 9 (Environmental Protection and Resource Extraction) Chapter 25 (Streets, Sidewalk, and Other Public Ways), Chapter 26 (Subdivisions), Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), and Chapter 33 (Cannabis Businesses and Activities).
6 South Coast Air Quality Management District Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=4 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=4 109
Image 1. CalEnviroscreen 4.0 Fontana
Sincerely,
Dana Cunningham 6133 Knox Ave
110
October 11, 2022
Regarding: Notice of Opposition to Agenda A File 21-1743.

Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 - Fontana Municipal Code
amendment to Chapter 2 (Administration), (Chapters 9 (Environmental Protection and Resource
Extraction) Chapter 25 (Streets, Sidewalk, and Other Public Ways), Chapter 26 (Subdivisions),
Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), and Chapter 33 (Cannabis Businesses and Activities).

Dear Fontana City Council,
On April 18, 2022, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement with the City of Fontana to protect vulnerable communities, sensitive receptors, from the culminative pollution impacts. This act was to force the City of Fontana to comply with the intent of CEQA to mitigate projects that have significant effects on the community and to adhere to SB1000.

Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 would once again seek circumvent California Code § 65302(h)(1) which states (h)(1) An environmental justice element, or related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, that
identifies disadvantaged communities within the area covered by the general plan of the city, county, or city and county, if the city, county, or city and county has a disadvantaged community. The environmental justice element, or related environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity. (B) Identify objectives and policies to promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process.
(C) Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.

In accordance to CA Health and Safety Code § 42705.5 Sensitive receptors are defined as:
111
(5) “Sensitive receptors” includes hospitals, schools and day care centers, and such other locations as the district or state board may determine.

Therefore, CA Health and Safety Code § 42705.5 grants the right to define sensitive receptors to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), EPA, and CEQA guidance. 1,2 The City of Fontana does not have the authority to define sensitive receptors to exclude residential homes in any fashion if it is in contradiction to California Code § 65302(h)(1), §65040.12(e), §42705.5(a)(5). California Air Resource Board has defined sensitive receptors as: 3 Sensitive receptors are children, elderly, asthmatics, and others whose are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution. The locations where these sensitive receptors congregate are considered sensitive receptor locations. Sensitive Receptor locations may include hospitals, schools, and day care centers, and such other locations as the air district board or California Air Resources Board may determine In order to preserve human life and to better support planners and local leaders whose actions have the potential to directly impact life, CARB created a guide. The guide “CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook”,4 to highlight the potential health impacts associated with proximity to air pollution sources allowing planners to explicitly consider this issue throughout the land use and planning processes. CARB outlines that careful land use and planning such as infill development, green spaces, mixed use, higher density, transit-oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with protecting the health of individuals at the neighborhood level. In addition, CARB has focused on their goal that being accessible to planners and improving communication between air agencies and land use planners could go a long way to protect human health. However, the City of Fontana is refusing to adhere to this guidance. It is currently seeking to redefine sensitive receptors outside of CA Health and Safety Code § 42705.5 to exclude any residents that live on land that could be 1 Briscoe, Tony Fontana settles with California AG over alleged environmental violations. Apr 19, 2022 Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-04-19/fontanasettles-with-state-over-environmental-violations 2 Solis, Monserrat Attorney General joins environmental lawsuit against Moreno Valley. Jly 1, 2022 The Press Enterprise
https://www.pe.com/2022/07/01/attorney-general-joins-environmental-lawsuit-againstmoreno-valley/ 3 CARB https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp-resource-center/community-assessment/sensitivereceptorassessment#:~:text=Sensitive%20receptors%20are%20children%2C%20elderly,are%20consider ed%20sensitive%20receptor%20locations.
4 California Environmental Protection Agency California Air Resource Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook a Community Health Perspective April 2005
112
rezoned without their consent to into industrial, commercial, unpermitted or nonconforming use as determined of the Director of Planning.

In addition, the City seeks to remove the public’s ability to be involved in the development process by removing access to the Development Advisory Board. This would allow the city to arbitrarily rezone residential land into industrial, commercial, unpermitted or non-conforming land without community input or knowledge which is a direct violation of California Code § 65302(h)(1) which requires environmental justice communities per California Code § 65040.12 (e) which requires fairness in land use:

Fairness in the context means that the benefit of a healthy environment should be available to everyone, and the burdens of pollution should not be focused on sensitive population or on communities that are already experiencing its adverse effects.

California Code § 65040.12 (e) would qualify the residents of the City of Fontana to have a voice in matters regarding the fair use of land and its development, especially in accordance with California Code § 65302(h)(1).

The City of Fontana has already shown that it is not permitting a fair and equitable transparency required under CEQA as it continues to push forward land use and circumvent the EIR Process. A precedent that has been set with the original Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) plan area which is divided into 55 separate parcels in size ranging from 1.25 to 21.28 acres. The average parcel size is 7.03 acres. Most of the developments are oriented towards the transportation industry. However, since the adoption there have been over 15 amendments that have rezoned residential land into industrial without recirculating the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2009091089 ) and therefore the EIR continues to be out of compliance with the because the land was engulfed into SWIP despite being residential historically. In addition, the proposed method that the City is presenting to adhere with SB330 is completely out of compliance.

In addition, to the jurisdiction of CARB, the SCAQMD is another agency that is responsible for implementation and governance of the QU.S. EPA’s 1970 Clean Air Act.

Federal Clean Air Act (Act). The Act requires attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants, i.e. pollutants causing human health impacts due to their release from numerous sources. SCAQMD has also created a “Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning” that itemizes the health effects: ozone, particulate matter (PM10/PM2.5), carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.5 The document outlines that local jurisdictions have the responsibility for determining land use compatibility for sensitive receptors. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District http://www.aqmd.gov/nav/about/authority 113
contaminant. The following are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive receptors are defined as: schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, hospitals, retirement homes and residences. SCAQMD clearly defines Toxic Air Contaiminant’s (TAC) and the causational relationship of exposure to TACs and the following health impacts: cancer, birth defects, reproductive damage, neurological disorders, heart damage, damage to the circulatory system, and damage to the respiratory system.6 In order to facilitate urban planning considerations in alignment with California’s consistent action of being a leader in enacting laws specific to environmental justice, including laws directing funding to environmental justice communities (SB 535 and AB 1550), a law creating a community air quality protection program (AB 617), and another that requires environmental justice to be addressed in local government planning (SB 1000), SCAQMD created the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-II). The MATES-II project represents one of the most comprehensive air toxics monitoring programs ever conducted in a major urban area in the country, and it has been recognized as a model program. It was created with the intent that planners, local leaders, would utilize this tool to understand how the General Plan is impacting their communities. The MATES-II revealed major findings from the study that can be summarized with the following:7
Fontana in accordance to CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0, the majority of the city is defined as a sensitive receptor already over burned with pollution and the health risks it causes.

As seen in the below image.

For this reason, our family like many families stand in opposition to Master Case No. 22- 110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 - Fontana Municipal Code amendment to Chapter 2 (Administration), (Chapters 9 (Environmental Protection and Resource Extraction) Chapter 25 (Streets, Sidewalk, and Other Public Ways), Chapter 26 (Subdivisions), Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), and Chapter 33 (Cannabis Businesses and Activities).
6 South Coast Air Quality Management District Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=4 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=4 114
Image 1. CalEnviroscreen 4.0 Fontana
Sincerely,
Jasmine Cunningham 6133 Knox Ave
115
October 11, 2022
Regarding: Notice of Opposition to Agenda A File 21-1743.

Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 - Fontana Municipal Code
amendment to Chapter 2 (Administration), (Chapters 9 (Environmental Protection and Resource
Extraction) Chapter 25 (Streets, Sidewalk, and Other Public Ways), Chapter 26 (Subdivisions),
Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), and Chapter 33 (Cannabis Businesses and Activities).

Dear Fontana City Council,
On April 18, 2022, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement with the City of Fontana to protect vulnerable communities, sensitive receptors, from the culminative pollution impacts. This act was to force the City of Fontana to comply with the intent of CEQA to mitigate projects that have significant effects on the community and to adhere to SB1000.

Master Case No. 22-110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 would once again seek circumvent California Code § 65302(h)(1) which states (h)(1) An environmental justice element, or related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, that
identifies disadvantaged communities within the area covered by the general plan of the city, county, or city and county, if the city, county, or city and county has a disadvantaged community. The environmental justice element, or related environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity. (B) Identify objectives and policies to promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process.
(C) Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.

In accordance to CA Health and Safety Code § 42705.5 Sensitive receptors are defined as:
116
(5) “Sensitive receptors” includes hospitals, schools and day care centers, and such other locations as the district or state board may determine.

Therefore, CA Health and Safety Code § 42705.5 grants the right to define sensitive receptors to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), EPA, and CEQA guidance. 1,2 The City of Fontana does not have the authority to define sensitive receptors to exclude residential homes in any fashion if it is in contradiction to California Code § 65302(h)(1), §65040.12(e), §42705.5(a)(5). California Air Resource Board has defined sensitive receptors as: 3 Sensitive receptors are children, elderly, asthmatics, and others whose are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution. The locations where these sensitive receptors congregate are considered sensitive receptor locations. Sensitive Receptor locations may include hospitals, schools, and day care centers, and such other locations as the air district board or California Air Resources Board may determine In order to preserve human life and to better support planners and local leaders whose actions have the potential to directly impact life, CARB created a guide. The guide “CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook”,4 to highlight the potential health impacts associated with proximity to air pollution sources allowing planners to explicitly consider this issue throughout the land use and planning processes. CARB outlines that careful land use and planning such as infill development, green spaces, mixed use, higher density, transit-oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with protecting the health of individuals at the neighborhood level. In addition, CARB has focused on their goal that being accessible to planners and improving communication between air agencies and land use planners could go a long way to protect human health. However, the City of Fontana is refusing to adhere to this guidance. It is currently seeking to redefine sensitive receptors outside of CA Health and Safety Code § 42705.5 to exclude any residents that live on land that could be 1 Briscoe, Tony Fontana settles with California AG over alleged environmental violations. Apr 19, 2022 Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-04-19/fontanasettles-with-state-over-environmental-violations 2 Solis, Monserrat Attorney General joins environmental lawsuit against Moreno Valley. Jly 1, 2022 The Press Enterprise
https://www.pe.com/2022/07/01/attorney-general-joins-environmental-lawsuit-againstmoreno-valley/ 3 CARB https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp-resource-center/community-assessment/sensitivereceptorassessment#:~:text=Sensitive%20receptors%20are%20children%2C%20elderly,are%20consider ed%20sensitive%20receptor%20locations.
4 California Environmental Protection Agency California Air Resource Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook a Community Health Perspective April 2005
117
rezoned without their consent to into industrial, commercial, unpermitted or nonconforming use as determined of the Director of Planning.

In addition, the City seeks to remove the public’s ability to be involved in the development process by removing access to the Development Advisory Board. This would allow the city to arbitrarily rezone residential land into industrial, commercial, unpermitted or non-conforming land without community input or knowledge which is a direct violation of California Code § 65302(h)(1) which requires environmental justice communities per California Code § 65040.12 (e) which requires fairness in land use:

Fairness in the context means that the benefit of a healthy environment should be available to everyone, and the burdens of pollution should not be focused on sensitive population or on communities that are already experiencing its adverse effects.

California Code § 65040.12 (e) would qualify the residents of the City of Fontana to have a voice in matters regarding the fair use of land and its development, especially in accordance with California Code § 65302(h)(1).

The City of Fontana has already shown that it is not permitting a fair and equitable transparency required under CEQA as it continues to push forward land use and circumvent the EIR Process. A precedent that has been set with the original Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) plan area which is divided into 55 separate parcels in size ranging from 1.25 to 21.28 acres. The average parcel size is 7.03 acres. Most of the developments are oriented towards the transportation industry. However, since the adoption there have been over 15 amendments that have rezoned residential land into industrial without recirculating the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2009091089 ) and therefore the EIR continues to be out of compliance with the because the land was engulfed into SWIP despite being residential historically. In addition, the proposed method that the City is presenting to adhere with SB330 is completely out of compliance.

In addition, to the jurisdiction of CARB, the SCAQMD is another agency that is responsible for implementation and governance of the QU.S. EPA’s 1970 Clean Air Act.

Federal Clean Air Act (Act). The Act requires attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants, i.e. pollutants causing human health impacts due to their release from numerous sources. SCAQMD has also created a “Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning” that itemizes the health effects: ozone, particulate matter (PM10/PM2.5), carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.5 The document outlines that local jurisdictions have the responsibility for determining land use compatibility for sensitive receptors. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District http://www.aqmd.gov/nav/about/authority 118
contaminant. The following are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive receptors are defined as: schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, hospitals, retirement homes and residences. SCAQMD clearly defines Toxic Air Contaiminant’s (TAC) and the causational relationship of exposure to TACs and the following health impacts: cancer, birth defects, reproductive damage, neurological disorders, heart damage, damage to the circulatory system, and damage to the respiratory system.6 In order to facilitate urban planning considerations in alignment with California’s consistent action of being a leader in enacting laws specific to environmental justice, including laws directing funding to environmental justice communities (SB 535 and AB 1550), a law creating a community air quality protection program (AB 617), and another that requires environmental justice to be addressed in local government planning (SB 1000), SCAQMD created the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-II). The MATES-II project represents one of the most comprehensive air toxics monitoring programs ever conducted in a major urban area in the country, and it has been recognized as a model program. It was created with the intent that planners, local leaders, would utilize this tool to understand how the General Plan is impacting their communities. The MATES-II revealed major findings from the study that can be summarized with the following:7
Fontana in accordance to CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0, the majority of the city is defined as a sensitive receptor already over burned with pollution and the health risks it causes.

As seen in the below image.

For this reason, our family like many families stand in opposition to Master Case No. 22- 110 and Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-007 - Fontana Municipal Code amendment to Chapter 2 (Administration), (Chapters 9 (Environmental Protection and Resource Extraction) Chapter 25 (Streets, Sidewalk, and Other Public Ways), Chapter 26 (Subdivisions), Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), and Chapter 33 (Cannabis Businesses and Activities).
6 South Coast Air Quality Management District Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=4 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=4 119
Image 1. CalEnviroscreen 4.0 Fontana
Sincerely,
Amparo Munoz Miramontes
6643 Blanchard Ave Fontana, CA 92336
120
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1672 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: C. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Economic Development
SUBJECT:

Fontana Forward Grant Program - Fontana Eats
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to establish and implement the Fontana Grant program not to exceed $3,000,000.

2. Approve and authorize the use of funds in the amount of $3,000,000 in Fund 302 as part of the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Expenditure Plan.

3. Approve and authorize the recategorization of the allocated $3,000,000 Small Business Loan/Grant Program to Assistance to Households Grant Program as part of the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Expenditure Plan.

4. Approve Program Creation and Name of Fontana Eats
COUNCIL GOALS:
· To support eligible Fontana Households who need food assistance as a result of a negative economic impact due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

DISCUSSION:

On March 8, 2022, the City Council approved the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Expenditure Plan which included $3,000,000 for a Small Business Loan/Grant Program under the Federal use category of Public Health and Economic Response. On September 13, 2022, the Council approved the renaming of the project to Fontana Forward grant program (Program) with the program details to be presented at a later date. The proposed Program details are discussed below.

Due to economic uncertainty and food instability exacerbated by COVID-19, the City of Fontana is focused on providing grants to impacted households. Upon approval, the $3 million fund originally approved for small businesses will be reallocated towards this grant program, available to residents negatively impacted by COVID-19 for the creation of a food assistance program to provide direct benefit to eligible households. Therefore, renaming the grant program to Fontana Eats. The ARPA Final Rule describes the eligible households. Additionally, the ARPA Final Rule “Treasury encourages uses of funds that advance strong, equitable growth, including economic and racial equity. For the purposes of the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), equity is described in the Executive Order 13985 On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, as issued on January 20, 2021.” City of Fontana Page 1 of 3 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™121
File #: 21-1672 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: C. Category: Consent Calendar
PROGRAM:

The Fontana Eats grant program will award eligible households a minimum $100 pre-paid card that can be used only at local grocery stores and local restaurants. This limitation is monitored by the issued program cards; utilizing merchant category codes (MCC) specified by the card issuer.

To further engage the community, a monthly drawing of $500 will be distributed to those that collect restaurant and grocer stamps around the city and submit their completed game card at a designated City location. Proof of purchase is necessary to win.

Program monitoring will continue until the close of the program. Please note staff will re-evaluate program effectiveness after 180 days and a full staff report will be provided to City Council to determine reallocation of funds or extension of the program under ARPA guidelines.

Program Eligibility
· All participants must provide CA issued photo ID for persons over 18 and school enrollment documentation for children under 18.
· Qualify as either:
o An Impacted Household, per the Rules set forth by the U.S. Department of Treasury. A Household is consider Impacted by the pandemic if it meets one of the below criteria:
§ Low- or moderate-income household as defined by: (i) income at or below 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for the size of household based on the most recently published poverty guidelines or (ii) income at or below 65 percent of the area median income for the county and size of household based on the most recently published data;
§ Households that experienced unemployment;
§ Households that experienced increased food or housing insecurity; § Households that qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Childcare Subsidies through the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) Program or Medicaid. § Pre-paid card disbursement is based on Impacted household size:
1 - 2pp 3 - 4pp 5 - 6pp 7+pp
$100 $200 $300 $400
*Proof of household size will be required for verification. o A Disproportionately Impacted Household, per the Rules set forth by the U.S.

Department of Treasury. A Household is considered Disproportionately Impacted by the pandemic if it meets one of the following criteria:
§ Low-income households as defined by: (i) income at or below 185 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for the size of its household based on the most recently published poverty guidelines or (ii) income at or below 40 percent of the area median income for its county and size of household based on the most recently published data;
City of Fontana Page 2 of 3 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™122
File #: 21-1672 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: C. Category: Consent Calendar
§ Households that live in a Qualified Community Track;
§ Households that qualify for certain federal benefits:
· Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
· Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
· Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast (SBP) programs,
· Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidies,
· Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
· Head State and/or Early Head Start,
· Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC),
· Section 8 Vouchers,
· Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP),
· Pell Grants.
§ Households that receive services provided by Tribal governments. § Pre-paid card disbursement is based on Disproportionately Impacted household size:
1 - 2pp3 - 4pp5 - 6pp7+pp
$200 $400 $500 $600
*Proof of household size will be required for verification.

ARPA Eligibility:

Based upon the Program details as discussed above, is eligible under Assistance to Households.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A total of $3 Million Dollars of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding was budgeted in FY 2021/22, in Fund 302, Project 10500001-302-A-8028, Small Business Loan / Grant Program and upon approval reallocated to Assistance to Households. Funds were rolled over in FY 2022/23 for program implementation.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 3 of 3 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™123
124
1-2 ppl 3-4 ppl 5-6 ppl 7+ ppl
$100 $200 $300 $400
1-2 ppl 3-4 ppl 5-6 ppl 7+ ppl
$200 $400 $600 $800

DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSEHOLDS

BUDGETBREAKDOWN

IMPACTED HOUSEHOLDS
Potentialtoserveover6,000households
125
A
nImpactedHousehold,pertheRulessetforthby
theU.S. DepartmentofTreasury. AHousehold is
consider Impactedbythepandemic if itmeetsoneof
thebelowcriteria: Low- or moderate-income household
asdefinedby: (i) income at or below 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for the size of household based on the most recently published poverty guidelines o r
(ii) incomeatorbelow65percentoftheareamedian income for the county and size of household based on the most recently published data; Households that experienced unemployment; Households that experienced increased food or housing insecurity; Households that qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Childcare Subsidies through the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) Program or Medicaid. A DisproportionatelyImpactedHousehold,pertheRulessetforthby theU.S. DepartmentofTreasury. AHousehold isconsidered
Disproportionately Impactedbythepandemic if itmeetsoneofthe followingcriteria: Low-income households as defined by: (i) in comeatorbelow185
percentoftheFederal PovertyGuidelinesforthesizeof its
householdbasedonthemostrecentlypublishedpovertyguidelines or(ii) incomeatorbelow40percentoftheareamedian incomefor its county and size of household based on the most recently published data; Households that live in a Qualified Community Track; Householdsthatqualifyforcertainfederal benefits: Temporary AssistanceforNeedyFamilies(TANF),Supplemental Nutrition AssistanceProgram(SNAP),Free-andReduced-PriceLunch(NSLP) and/orSchool Breakfast(SBP)programs,MedicarePartDLow- Income Subsidies, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Head Stat e
and/orEarlyHeadStart,Special Supplemental NutritionProgramfor Women, Infants,andChildren(WIC),Section8Vouchers,Low-Income HomeEnergyAssistanceProgram(LIHEAP),Pell Grants. Households that receive services provided by Tribal governm ents

ELIGIBILITY

IMPACTEDHOUSEHOLDDISPROPORTIONATEHOUSEHOLD
126
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1714 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: D. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Engineering
SUBJECT:

Adopt Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the City of Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and direct staff to use the Plan to guide future project planning and grant funding opportunities COUNCIL GOALS:
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by maintaining and improving the city's existing infrastructure.
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by focusing on relief of traffic congestion.

DISCUSSION:

On August 11, 2020, the Council accepted the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) grant in the amount of $72,000 and adopted a Resolution for an agreement with Caltrans for reimbursement of the grant.

On November 10, 2020, the Council approved a traffic engineering services agreement with KOA Corporation for the preparation of LRSP. In July 2022, the Final LRSP was approved by staff.

The LRSP analyzes collision data, assesses infrastructure deficiencies through an inventory of roadway system elements, and identifies roadway safety solutions on a citywide basis. The LRSP was created by the State to help local agencies develop safety projects that can be submitted for funding by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). HSIP Cycle 11 and subsequent cycles will require an LRSP or equivalent plans such as a Vision Zero Plan or System Safety Analysis Report.

This report has been prepared per Caltrans LRSP guidelines and the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) version 1.6 dated June 2022. The general content of this LRSP report follows this outline:
· Crash data source and analysis techniques
· Crash data analysis results and highest occurring crash types City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™127
File #: 21-1714 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: D. Category: Consent Calendar
· High-risk corridor and intersection analysis and safety countermeasures · Cost estimates of recommended improvements
· Prioritization of projects based on cost-benefit ratio and effectiveness of safety improvement · Strategies for safety project implementation
· Traffic safety analysis based on Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) data The LRSP Identifies the highest occurring collision types and the roadway characteristics contributing to the collisions. It also identifies high-risk corridors and intersections, proposes safety countermeasures to address the safety issues, prioritizes safety improvement projects based on a benefit/cost ratio and other considerations. Once adopted, the Plan will act as a roadmap for future project planning and grant funding opportunities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no funds allocated for the recommendations in the Plan.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™128
City of Fontana

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
JULY 2022
Prepared for:

City of Fontana
Department of Public Works
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Prepared By:
2141 W Orangewood Ave
Orange, CA 92868
T: 714.573.0317 | F: 714.573.9584
www.koacorp.com
JC03103
129
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Prominent Collision Pattern .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Safety Measures ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 INTRODUCTION 3

2.1 Four E’s of Safety ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Purpose of the LRSP......................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 City of Fontana ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.4 LRSP Overview.................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.4.1 Data Collection 6

2.4.2 Safety Data Analysis 6

2.4.3 Identify Safety Measures 6

2.4.4 Develop Safety Projects and Cost Estimates 6

3.0 METHODOLOGY 7

3.1 Collision Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1 SWITRS 7

3.1.2 OTS 7

3.2 Stakeholder Outreach ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Fontana Police Department 7

3.2.2 Omnitrans 8

3.2.3 Fontana Unified School District 8

3.3 Identifying Locations for Engineering Countermeasures .................................................................................. 8

3.3.1 Ranking Function 9

3.3.2 Average Crash Frequency 9

3.3.3 Crash Rate 9

3.3.4 EPDO Scores 10

3.4 Proposing Engineering Countermeasures ............................................................................................................ 10

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS 11

4.1 Total Collisions and KSI Collisions ........................................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Collisions by Facility Type ........................................................................................................................................... 17

4.3 Fontana VS. San Bernardino County ....................................................................................................................... 20

4.4 Fontana VS. Cities of Similar Sizes ........................................................................................................................... 23

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS 25

5.1 Young and Old Road Users ........................................................................................................................................ 25 130
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE ii

5.2 Rear-end and Broadside Collisions ......................................................................................................................... 25

5.3 Pedestrians and Bicyclists ........................................................................................................................................... 26

5.4 Speeding ........................................................................................................................................................................... 26

5.5 Driving Under the Influence ....................................................................................................................................... 26

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES 27

6.1 Identified Project Locations ....................................................................................................................................... 28

6.1.1 Identified Roadway Segments 28

6.1.2 Identified Intersections 30

6.2 Roadway Segment Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 32

6.2.1 Foothill Boulevard 32

6.2.2 Valley Boulevard 34

6.2.3 Citrus Avenue 35

6.3 Intersection Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 37

6.4.1 Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard 37

6.4.2 Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue 39

6.4.3 Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue 42

6.4.4 Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue 45

6.4.5 Sierra Avenue and Orange Way 48

6.4.6 Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue 51

6.4.7 Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard 54

6.4.8 Cherry Avenue and Village Drive 57

6.4.9 Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue 61

6.4.10 S. Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue 63

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES 67

7.1 Young Drivers .................................................................................................................................................................. 67

7.1.1 Education 67

7.1.2 Enforcement 67

7.1.3 Funding Sources 68

7.2 Rear-ends and Speeding ............................................................................................................................................. 68

7.2.1 Education 68

7.2.2 Enforcement 69

7.2.3 Funding Sources 69

7.3 Pedestrians and Bicyclists ........................................................................................................................................... 69

7.3.1 Education 69

7.3.2 Enforcement 70

7.3.3 Funding Sources 70

7.4 Emergency Vehicles ...................................................................................................................................................... 70

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS 71

8.1 Project Scopes andBenefit Calculations ................................................................................................................ 71

8.2 Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................................................... 75 131
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE iii

8.3 Benefit/Cost Ratio .......................................................................................................................................................... 76

8.4 Project Prioritization ..................................................................................................................................................... 80

8.5 Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................................................. 81

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Fontana Citywide Collision Map (2016-2020) .................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2.2: Fontana Citywide Collision Heat Map (2016-2020) ....................................................................................... 5 Figure 4.1: Collisions by Year ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4.2: Bicyclist- and Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Day of the Week ....................................................... 12 Figure 4.3: Collisions by Type, Total Collisions vs. KSI Collisions ................................................................................. 12 Figure 4.4: Type of Collisions with KSI Percentage ............................................................................................................ 13 Figure 4.5: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF) ................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4.6: Primary Collision Factor vs. Top 4 Collision Types ...................................................................................... 14 Figure 4.7: At-fault Parties in DUI Collisions by Race, Sex, and Age ........................................................................... 15 Figure 4.8: Pedestrian and Bicyclist Collision Victims ....................................................................................................... 16 Figure 4.9: At-Fault Collision Parties by Age Group .......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6.1: Roadway Segment Map ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 6.2: Proposed Roadway Segments Countermeasures ........................................................................................ 30 Figure 6.3: Intersections with Proposed Safety Countermeasures .............................................................................. 31 Figure 6.4: Collision Statistics – Foothill Boulevard ........................................................................................................... 32 Figure 6.5: Collision Statistics – Valley Boulevard .............................................................................................................. 35 Figure 6.6: Collision Statistics – Citrus Avenue .................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 6.7: An Aerial View of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard ....................................... 37 Figure 6.8: Collision Statistics – Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard ............................................................................ 38 Figure 6.9: Recommended Improvements – Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard ................................................... 39 Figure 6.10: An Aerial View of the intersection of Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue ................................... 40 Figure 6.11: Collision Statistics – Arrow Boulevard & Locust Avenue ........................................................................ 41 Figure 6.12: Recommended Improvements – Arrow Boulevard & Locust Avenue ............................................... 42 Figure 6.13: An Aerial View of the intersection of Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue ...................................... 43 Figure 6.14: Collision Statistics – Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue ....................................................................... 44 Figure 6.15: Recommended Improvements – Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue .............................................. 45 Figure 6.16: An Aerial View of the intersection of Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue ........................................ 46 Figure 6.17: Collision Statistics – Jurupa Avenue & Sierra Avenue ............................................................................. 47 Figure 6.18: Recommended Improvements – Jurupa Avenue & Sierra Avenue .................................................... 48 Figure 6.19: An Aerial View of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Orange Way ............................................. 49 Figure 6.20: Collision Statistics – Sierra Avenue & Orange Way .................................................................................. 50 Figure 6.21: Recommended Improvements – Sierra Avenue & Orange Way ......................................................... 51 Figure 6.22: An Aerial View of the intersection of Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue ............................. 52 Figure 6.23: Collision Statistics – Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Boulevard ......................................................... 53 Figure 6.24: Recommended Improvements – Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Boulevard ................................ 54 Figure 6.25: An Aerial View of the intersection of Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard .................................... 55 Figure 6.26: Collision Statistics – Beech Avenue & Valley Boulevard ......................................................................... 56 132
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE iv
Figure 6.27: Recommended Improvements – Beech Avenue & Valley Boulevard ................................................ 57 Figure 6.28: An Aerial View of the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Village Drive ........................................... 58 Figure 6.29: Collision Statistics – Cherry Avenue & Village Drive ................................................................................ 59 Figure 6.30: Recommended Improvements – Cherry Avenue & Village Drive ....................................................... 60 Figure 6.31: An Aerial View of the intersection of Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue ................................... 61 Figure 6.32: Collision Statistics – Hemlock Avenue & Slover Avenue ........................................................................ 62 Figure 6.33: Recommended Improvements – Hemlock Avenue & Slover Avenue ............................................... 63 Figure 6.34: An Aerial View of the intersection of S Highland Ave & Knox Ave .................................................... 64 Figure 6.35: Collision Statistics – S Highland Ave & Knox Ave ..................................................................................... 65 Figure 6.36: Recommended Improvements – S Highland Ave & Knox Ave ............................................................ 66

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Collisions by Facility Type ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 4.2: Collision Types by Facility Type ............................................................................................................................ 18 Table 4.3: Street Lighting by Facility Type ............................................................................................................................ 18 Table 4.4: Primary Collision Factor by Facility Type .......................................................................................................... 19 Table 4.5: Rear-End Collisions by Facility Type ................................................................................................................... 20 Table 4.6: Broadside Collisions by Facility Type ................................................................................................................. 20 Table 4.7: Total Collision Comparison, Fontana vs. San Bernardino County ........................................................... 21 Table 4.8: KSI Collision Comparison, Fontana vs. San Bernardino County ............................................................... 21 Table 4.9: Collision Type Comparison, Fontana vs. San Bernardino County............................................................ 22 Table 4.10: PCF Comparison, Fontana vs. San Bernardino County .............................................................................. 23 Table 4.11: 2018 OTS Ranking, Fontana ................................................................................................................................ 24 Table 6.1: Safety Countermeasures Applied to Fontana LRSP ...................................................................................... 27 Table 7.1: Young Driver Program Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... 68 Table 7.2: Rear-end and Speeding Program Funding Sources ..................................................................................... 69 Table 7.3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding Sources ........................................................................................ 70 Table 8.1: Safety Project Scopes ............................................................................................................................................... 72 Table 8.2: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project (for HSIP eligible safety projects) ............................ 77 Table 8.3: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project ............................................................................................... 80 Table 8.4: Transportation Safety Funding Sources Summary ........................................................................................ 82

APPENDIX
Appendix A – Intersection and Roadway Segment Ranking
Appendix B – Segment Project Concept Plans
Appendix C – Safety Project Cost Estimation
Appendix D – Collision Reduction Benefits Table
Appendix E – Traffic Signal Warrants
133
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established a program for cities to prepare a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify safety needs and recommend projects to address these needs.

This document serves as the LRSP for the City of Fontana.

1.1 OVERVIEW
An LRSP analyzes collision data, assesses infrastructure deficiencies through an inventory of roadway system elements, and identifies roadway safety solutions on a citywide basis. The LRSP was created by the State to help local agencies develop safety projects that can be submitted for funding by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). HSIP Cycle 11, expected around April 2022, and subsequent cycles will require an LRSP or equivalent plans such as a Vision Zero Plan or System Safety Analysis Report.

This report has been prepared per Caltrans LRSP guidelines and the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) version 1.6 dated June 2022. The general content of this LRSP report follows this outline:
● Crash data source and analysis techniques
● Crash data analysis results and highest occurring crash types ● High-risk corridor and intersection analysis and safety countermeasures ● Cost estimates of recommended improvements
● Prioritization of projects based on cost-benefit ratio and effectiveness of safety improvement ● Strategies for safety project implementation
● Traffic safety analysis based on Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) data The LRSP fulfills the following purposes:
● Identify the highest occurring collision types and the roadway characteristics contributing to the collisions.
● Identify high-risk corridors and intersections.
● Propose safety countermeasures to address the safety issues. ● Prioritize safety improvement projects based on benefit/cost ratio and other considerations.

1.2 PROMINENT COLLISION PATTERN
Five years of collision records were utilized from January 2016 to December 2020, adhering to the maximum period permitted by the HSIP for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding.

The collisions were categorized by severity, collision type, Primary Collision Factor (PCF), involved parties, lighting conditions, and facility type (signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, and mid-block locations). A total of 14,586 crashes were recorded from 2016 to 2020. The following summarizes the collision patterns within the City:
● Most common collision types were rear-end, broadside, and sideswipe. 134
Executive Summary
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 2
● Bicycle- and pedestrian-related crashes accounted for approximately 3% of total collisions, but about 36% of fatal and severe injury collisions.
● Sideswipes due to improper turning is one of the prominent collision patterns.

1.3 SAFETY MEASURES
The following transportation safety emphasis areas were identified based on the collision data analysis:
● Young and Old Road Users
● Rear-end and Broadside Collisions
● Pedestrians and Bicyclists
● Unsafe Speeding
● Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence
The LRSP recommends engineering and non-engineering countermeasures which help to address the identified emphasis areas derived from the collision analysis. Concerns and recommended improvements were discussed with City staff including law enforcement, Omnitrans, and the Fontana Unified School District.

Some of the engineering countermeasures recommended for multiple locations in the City include:
● Installation of nearside signals at signalized intersections ● Installing a new traffic signal at non-signalized intersections with a collision history. ● Adding bike lanes to major roadway segments
Additionally, engineering analysis recommended other safety countermeasures to address high collision locations on a location by location basis. Funding for engineering countermeasures listed in the LRSP are available from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

In addition to the infrastructure improvements mentioned above, non-engineering safety measures address traffic safety concerns through education, encouragement, and enforcement. Several state and federal grant programs offer funds for non-engineering roadway safety projects, as shown below:
● Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program ● Active Transportation Program
● Sustainable Communities Grant Program
● Office of Traffic Safety Grants
135
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 3

2.0 INTRODUCTION
KOA Corporation (KOA) has been retained by the City of Fontana to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). Traditionally, agencies have selected safety projects based on historical crash records, focusing on sites with a concentration of recent severe collisions. By contrast, the LRSP shares a similar framework with the California Statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which focuses on engineering and non-engineering solutions to roadway safety issues. The LRSP identifies the most common collision categories across a roadway network to target projects that address the factors associated with those categories. By focusing on causal factors rather than collisions, the LRSP allows agencies to assess risks before a collision occurs. Systemic improvements target a broader geography than the traditional spot location improvements. The systemic project selection favors the broad implementation of cost-effective countermeasures.

2.1 FOUR E’S OF SAFETY
The LRSP not only focuses on engineering improvements to mitigate crashes. The LRSP also addresses the other safety improvements in other areas such as enforcement, education, and emergency services.

According to the SHSP 2020-2024, two-thirds of all crashes are the result of aggressive driving. Male drivers are more likely to be at fault in aggressive driving-related crashes regardless of age. Making roadways safer requires the Four E’s to be involved (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services). Working together with the Four E’s at the city level will help make city roads safer. Recently, Federal and State agencies have also considered Emerging Technologies and Equity as additional E’s to improve traffic safety. For instance, considering the use of emerging technologies such as “smart” traffic signal equipment can serve to connect vehicles and traffic control systems to enhance traffic safety.

2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LRSP
The LRSP systematically identifies and analyzes safety problems and recommends safety improvements.

Preparing the LRSP facilitates collaboration through the development of partnerships between Fontana and stakeholders, which inlcudes the city’s Police Department and the Fontana Unified School District.

The results of the LRSP are summarized with a prioritized list of improvements and actions. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing roadway safety needs in Fontana.

2.3 CITY OF FONTANA
Fontana is a city in San Bernardino County. According to the 2010 census, Fontana had a population of 196,069; the US Census estimated the 2019 population at 214,547.

Based on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, between January 2016 and December 2020 there were 14,586 collisions in Fontana, of which 229 collisions resulted in fatal and severe injuries. Figure 2.1 illustrates a map of the collisions citywide, and Figure 2.2 shows a heat map of these collisions.
136
Introduction
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 4
Figure 2.1: Fontana Citywide Collision Map (2016-2020)
137
Introduction
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 5
Figure 2.2: Fontana Citywide Collision Heat Map (2016-2020)

2.4 LRSP OVERVIEW
The following sections include a brief description of the tasks associated with the development of this LRSP, with a more detailed description of each task in subsequent sections of this document. 138
Introduction
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 6

2.4.1 Data Collection
A comprehensive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) project database was developed by utilizing the following data, which was provided by Fontana:
● Five-years (1/1/2016 to 12/31/2020) of collision data collected via the SWITRS collision database ● Traffic count information
● Base map with street centerlines

2.4.2 Safety Data Analysis
Following collection of data, the collision data was analyzed for Fontana. Collisions were compared to the safety emphasis areas as defined in the California SHSP. The safety data analysis is summarized in Section 4 of this document. The transportation emphasis areas are identified based on the collision data analysis and are discussed in Section 5 of this document.

2.4.3 Identify Safety Measures
In coordination with city staff, a list of engineering-related safety countermeasures and non-engineering safety measures were developed for use as recommendations in this LRSP. These countermeasures are discussed in Section 6 and Section 7 of this document.

2.4.4 Develop Safety Projects and Cost Estimates
Roadways and intersections were ranked based on the collision frequency. The top locations of interest were investigated to determine appropriate safety improvements. The improvements include new traffic signals, additional signal heads at existing signalized intersections, and new bicycle facilities. Planninglevel cost estimation are provided for each safety project. The list of safety projects are prioritized based on the following considerations:
● Benefit/Cost Ratio (for engineering solutions only)
● Funding availability for engineering and non-engineering programs ● Other factors recommended by city staff
The safety projects and cost estimates are discussed in Section 8 of this document. 139
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 7

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 COLLISION DATA SOURCES
KOA derived data on citywide collision trends between January 1st, 2016 and December 31st, 2020 from the California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS database. The California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings (OTS) contributed collision data for the year 2018 for Fontana and 58 cities in California with a similar population.

3.1.1 SWITRS
The California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS collects and processes data on collisions throughout the state of California. The online SWITRS application provides geographically- and temporally-targeted collision reports in an electronic format. KOA used SWITRS to evaluate data on collisions in the City of Fontana between 2016 and 2020, both in aggregate and classified by control type (signalized, non-signalized, and mid-block locations).

3.1.2 OTS
The OTS Rankings compare traffic safety statistics among cities in the state of California with similar populations. The statistics focus on the victims killed and injured in collisions. Cities can use these comparisons to see the areas in which they underperform. In the OTS Collision Ranking system, Fontana belongs to Group B, which contains 58 cities with a population between 100,001 and 250,000. At the time of completing the collision analysis, the OTS website only had data available up to the year 2018.

3.2 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
In addition to using analytical methods to identify locations for treatments and make recommendations, the LRSP also focuses on partnerships with the community to give input into this process and provide feedback on areas that the LRSP should focus on. Stakeholders were contacted after completing the collision analysis but before selecting emphasis areas or specific infrastructure improvements or programs. Stakeholders were asked to provide feedback about traffic safety issues they have observed through their work and possible approaches to resolving these issues. For the Fontana LRSP, feedback was provided by the Fontana Police Department, Omnitrans, and the Fontana Unified School District.

3.2.1 Fontana Police Department
A meeting with the Fontana Police Department was held on February 15, 2021. Items discussed include the following:
● Roadway segments with a history of speeding
● Intersections of concern and reasons for concern
● Street racing activity on local roadways
● Experience with newer traffic control devices such as Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
140
Methodology
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 8
● Enforcement strategies such as pedestrian crosswalk sting operations, speed trailers, and Driving Under the Influence (DUI) checkpoints
● Collision report policy
● Ideas for improving traffic safety
● Traffic safety awareness and educational campaigns
The police department noted that pedestrian issues were most prominent on Foothill Boulevard. The police department also noted the following specific enforcement activities and campaigns currently being conducted by the City:
● Primary Collision Factor (PCF) related enforcement
● Click It or Ticket
● Bicycle Safety Awareness
● Motorcycle Safety Awareness
● DUI Saturation
● Distracted Driving
● Social media educational campaign

3.2.2 Omnitrans
A meeting with Omnitrans was held on February 16, 2021. During the meeting, issues discussed included safety concerns with bus accessibility at particular stations, recent transit route upgrades, and areas needing safety enhancements.

3.2.3 Fontana Unified School District
A meeting with the Fontana Unified School District was held on February 16, 2021. Items discussed included the following:
● How students travel to school
● Crossing guard information
● Driving patterns related to school drop-off or pickup ● Areas with safety concerns and the need for safety enhancements Though the school district noted it did not have current programs to improve traffic safety, the expressed openness to adding an online program for parents or students.

3.3 IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS FOR ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES Crash data analysis for this LRSP was conducted using collision data from the SWITRS collision database.

The collision records include a variety of information about each collision, including the location, date, time of the day, crash type, crash severity, primary violation category, transportation mode of the involved parties, and movement of the involved parties prior to the collision. Per California state law, motor vehicle collisions must be reported when vehicle or property damage exceeds $1,000, or when any of the parties suffer an injury or fatality. Collisions with no injured parties or little property damage might not be reported and, therefore, are not included in the collision database. 141
Methodology
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 9
Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners, Version 1.6, April 2022 (LRSM) encourages a pro-active rather than reactive approach to safety issue identification. Traditionally, agencies using a reactive approach have located and implemented safety projects solely based on recent crashes, specific crash concentrations, or safety issues raised by stakeholders. A pro-active approach is preferred, according to the LRSM, because with traditional methods, “crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort.” A pro-active approach would identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network. For this document, the process for identifying candidate locations for safety improvements considers any one of the following three factors:
● An extensive crash history at high-collision frequency locations providing insight into which roadway characteristics are associated with certain types of crashes ● Professional engineering judgment regarding the availability of feasible engineering countermeasures to fix the safety issues
● Applicability of the engineering countermeasures at other locations with roadway characteristics associated with similar types of crashes regardless of their crash history The LRSM guidelines require analyzing at least three to five years of the most recent crash data. Five years-worth of collision data from January 2016 to December 2020 was reviewed for the Fontana LRSP.

Five years of crash data usage adheres to the maximum threshold permitted by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding.

3.3.1 Ranking Function
A candidate intersection or roadway segment for safety improvements does not necessarily need to demonstrate a history of high or severe collisions to be considered for further evaluation. However, locations with high numbers of collisions are often good starting points for safety analysis due to the rich information provided by the collision history. Three ranking methods were utilized to identify high collision frequency intersections and roadway segments: Average Crash Frequency, Crash Rate, and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. A brief description of each of the methods is provided in the following sections.

3.3.2 Average Crash Frequency
Average Crash Frequency is the most basic method for assessing collision incidence. The analysis tallies the numbers of collisions at each location in the roadway network, both in aggregate and by a category of interest (e.g. level of severity, collision type, and others). The analysis then ranks intersections or roadway segments based on the collisions’ frequency.

3.3.3 Crash Rate
The Crash Rate method goes a step beyond average crash frequency, normalizing facilities’ crash frequency by the amount of vehicle traffic or travel. This method divides the number of collisions (or collisions in a particular category) by the quantity of Million Entering Vehicles (for intersections) or 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (for roadway segments). While the Crash Rate method accounts for differences in facilities’ length and traffic volume, it may instead unduly favor low-volume and low142 Methodology
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 10
collision roadways where countermeasures produce the lowest net benefit for travelers.

3.3.4 EPDO Scores
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores assign weighting factors to crashes by severity relative to property damage only (PDO) collisions. The weight generally reflects an order of magnitude difference between the cost of fatal/severe injury crashes and non-severe injury collisions. The weights by crash severity come from the 2020 Local Roadway Safety Manual. ● Fatal and Severe Injury at signalized intersections – $1,590,000 ● Fatal and Severe Injury at non-signalized intersections – $2,530,000 ● Fatal and Severe Injury at mid-roadway locations – $2,190,000 ● Other Visible Injury – $142,300
● Compliant of Pain – $80,900
● PDO – $13,300
EPDO scores are useful for a benefit-to-cost analysis as collision costs can be translated into measurable benefits from installing improvements that reduce the collisions in question. However, EPDO scores may place undue weight on the injury outcomes of previous collisions rather than overall trends suggested by collision patterns regardless of injury outcome. Furthermore, a location’s EPDO score could be inflated by a fatal or severe collision caused by DUI.

3.4 PROPOSING ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
After ranking the intersections and roadway segments, the following steps were used to propose engineering countermeasures:
● Make citywide collision maps for dominant collision types such as rear-end collisions, broadside collisions, bicycle and pedestrian collisions, and collisions due to unsafe speed. Identify high-risk locations by collision type.
● Review crash details (party involved, movement before the crash, primary collision factor, violation code, time of the day, and others) at high-risk locations. Obtain detailed police reports from the City and reviewed for all the fatal and severe injury collisions. ● Manually create collision diagrams for high-risk locations. Review field conditions through physical site visits in the City. Assess the nature of prevalent crash types with respect to the intersection’s control type, geometrical features, and signal phasing/timing. ● Review current conditions and recent historical conditions via Google Map Street View, whenever necessary, to check whether any geometry, signal, or signage changes have been made in the past few years.
● Evaluate and screen countermeasures from the LRSM or Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/), a searchable database that can be easily queried to identify CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs).
● Identify intersections/roadway segments that do not have a demonstrated crash history but resemble other locations with documented crash history and risk factors. Once identified, these locations can be analyzed through the steps mentioned above. 143
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 11

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND

PATTERNS

4.1 TOTAL COLLISIONS AND KSI COLLISIONS
The collision trend analysis draws from the five years of data obtained from the SWITRS database. From 2016 to 2020, a total of 14,586 collisions occurred on Fontana’s roadways, excluding the Interstate 210 (I210), Interstate 15 (I-15), and Interstate 10 (I-10) Freeways. Of these, 229 resulted in fatal or severe injuries. Figure 4.1 highlights the annual number of collisions per year over the 5-year period for nonmotorized modes and killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions. Overall, total collision (ALL collisions) trends remained relatively consistent year over year from 2016 to 2019, but experience a significant dip from 3,146 collisions in 2019 to 2,101 collisions in 2020. Although collision totals decreased, the number KSI collisions increased from 52 to 53 from 2019 to 2020. In fact, since 2018, KSI collision totals have exceeded 50 on an annual basis. In 2016 and 2017, Fontana experienced 27 and 39 KSI collisions, respectively.

Over the 5-year period, bicyclist-involved collisions peaked in 2018 and have since experienced a significant decline in yearly totals. Similarly, pedestrian-involved collisions peaked in 2017 and have since experienced a steady decline in yearly totals. Pedestrian-involved collisions exceeded bicyclist-involved collisions in all years except 2016.

Figure 4.1: Collisions by Year
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.2 illustrates bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collision frequency by day of the week. While the total number of collisions varies little across different days, pedestrian and bicycle collisions show 144
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 12
noticeable day-to-day variation. Pedestrian-involved collisions were most prevalent during later weekdays (Wednesday-Friday). The number of daily bicyclist-involved collisions peak on Tuesday, but remained consistent on all other days.

Figure 4.2: Bicyclist- and Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Day of the Week Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.3 breaks down total collisions (left) and KSI collisions (right) by collision type. Rear-end and broadside collisions accounted for more than half of all collisions, holding the largest share of citywide collision types. Sideswipe collisions accounted for the third-largest share of total collisions. Broadside collisions accounted for one-third of all KSI collisions and Vehicle/Pedestrian collisions accounted for nearly a quarter of KSI collisions. Historically, Vehicle/Pedestrian collision types are the most likely to result in a severe injury or fatality. Hit object collisions accounted for the third-largest share of KSI collisions.

Figure 4.3: Collisions by Type, Total Collisions vs. KSI Collisions

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
145
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 13
Figure 4.4 more clearly illustrates the increased severity of vehicle-pedestrian collisions. Nearly a quarter of vehicle-pedestrian collisions were KSI collisions, despite the vehicle-pedestrian collision category comprising the sixth-smallest share of total collisions in Fontana. By contrast, 1.7% of broadside collisions, 0.3% of rear-end collisions, and 0.5% of sideswipe collisions resulted in a severe injury or fatality.

Figure 4.4: Type of Collisions with KSI Percentage
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.5 summarizes the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) for all collisions and KSI collisions over the past five years. PCF is the leading cause of the collision based on the opinion of the officer who conducted the investigation.

Among all collisions, unsafe speed (32%), improper turning (21.5%), automobile right-of-way (15.7%), and signals and signs (9.9%) were the top four primary collision factors. For KSI collisions, the top four PCF categories were pedestrian violation (20%), unsafe speed (17.5%), driving or bicycling under the influence/DUI (14%), and signals and signs (14%). The inclusion of the pedestrian violation category reflects the prevalence of vehicle-pedestrian collisions among fatal or severe injury collisions. The pedestrian violation is often defined as a pedestrian violating the opposing party’s right-of-way.

146
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 14
Figure 4.5: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.6 illustrates how the most-frequently-occurring PCFs correlate with the most significant collision types. Automobile right-of-way violations followed by signals and signs are the primary causes of most broadside collisions. Unsafe travel speeds account for the large majority of rear-end collisions, and improper turning is the most common PCF for sideswipe collisions.

Figure 4.6: Primary Collision Factor vs. Top 4 Collision Types Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
147
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 15
Driving or bicycling under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI) is the fifth-most-frequent PCF violation category for collisions in Fontana. Since DUI collisions stem from driving behavior rather than roadway design factors, addressing these collisions requires an in-depth assessment of driver demographics.

Figure 4.7 breaks down DUI collisions by the age, race, and sex of the at-fault party. The chart shows that Hispanic males between the ages of 19 and 35 are most frequently found to be at fault.

Figure 4.7: At-fault Parties in DUI Collisions by Race, Sex, and Age Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.8 classifies the pedestrian- and bicyclist-related collisions in Fontana by age group, party sex, and race. The chart shows that Hispanic males 18 years and under are most frequently found to be involved in pedestrian- or bicyclist-related collisions.

148
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 16
Figure 4.8: Pedestrian and Bicyclist Collision Victims
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Finally, Figure 4.9 classifies the at-fault collision parties in Fontana by age group. The chart shows a quite clear-cut pattern: the younger the age group (above age 18), the higher the share of at-fault drivers and vice-versa. Drivers over the age of forty-six were responsible for fewer collisions (26% of collisions) than drivers between the ages of 19 and 25 (27% of collisions).

Figure 4.9: At-Fault Collision Parties by Age Group
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
149
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 17

4.2 COLLISIONS BY FACILITY TYPE
Collision patterns by facility type (intersections vs. mid-block locations) were analyzed by using SWITRS data from 2016 to 2020. This analysis was used to determine the effect of access control and intersection geometry on collision frequency. The analysis classifies collisions by facility type as follows:
● Collisions that occurred within 250 feet of signalized intersections are considered signalized intersection collisions;
● Collisions that occurred within 150 feet of non-signalized intersections are considered non-signalized intersection collisions; and
● Collisions that occur more than 250 feet away from any signalized intersection and more than 150 feet away from any non-signalized intersection are classified as mid-block collisions.

Table 4.1 shows the total number of collisions associated with each type of facility. 42% of all collisions occurred at signalized intersections, 33% occurred at non-signalized intersections, and 25% occurred at mid-block locations. Both pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved collisions followed a similar pattern. Of all pedestrian-involved collisions, 38% occurred at signalized intersections, 33% occurred at non-signalized intersections, and 29% occurred at mid-block locations. Of all bicyclist-involved collisions, 44% occurred at signalized intersections, 36% occurred at non-signalized intersections, and 19% occurred at mid-block locations.

Table 4.1: Collisions by Facility Type
Collision
Grouping
Signalized
Intersection
Non-Signalized
Intersection
Midblock
Locations Grand Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Total
Number of
Collisions
6,148 42% 4,780 33% 3,658 25% 14,586 100%
Bicycle
Collisions 98 44% 80 36% 43 19% 221 100%
Pedestrian
Collisions
102 38% 87 33% 76 29% 265 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.2 shows how the collision type varies by location. Rear-end collisions comprise the largest share of collisions at signalized intersections and mid-block locations (41% and 30%, respectively). At nonsignalized intersections, broadside collisions (40%) are most prevalent, while rear-end and sideswipe collisions comprise the second- and third-largest categories (21% and 17%, respectively). Sideswipe collisions also amounted to the second-largest share of collisions at mid-block locations (25%), and thirdlargest share of collisions at signalized intersections (18%).

150
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 18
Table 4.2: Collision Types by Facility Type
Collision Type
Signalized
Intersections
Non-Signalized
Intersections Midblock Grand Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Broadside 1,655 27% 1,931 40% 779 21% 4,365 30%
Head-On 227 4% 244 5% 183 5% 654 4%
Hit Object 422 7% 598 13% 527 14% 1,547 11%
Not Stated 62 1% 41 1% 18 0% 121 1%
Other 36 1% 42 1% 38 1% 116 1%
Overturned 26 0% 21 10% 36 1% 83 1%
Rear End 2,526 41% 1,009 21% 1,087 30% 4,622 32%
Sideswipe 1,099 18% 813 17% 925 25% 2,837 19%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 95 2% 81 2% 65 2% 241 2%
Total 1,108 100% 4,780 100% 3,658 100% 14,586 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.3 shows the relationship between street lighting conditions and facility type. At all location types, most collisions occurred in daylight (with the proportion ranging from 64.9% at non-signalized intersections to 69.8% percent at signalized intersections). Most collisions that occurred in the dark were in the presence of functioning street lights. Only 3% of all collisions occurred in the dark where no street lights exist, a figure ranging from 0.5% at signalized intersections to 2.8% at mid-block locations.

Table 4.3: Street Lighting by Facility Type
Collision Type
Signalized
Intersections
Non-Signalized
Intersections Midblock Grand Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Daylight 4,293 69.8% 3,103 64.9% 2,384 65.2% 9,780 67.1% Dark - Street
Lights 1,636 26.6% 1,387 29.0% 1,043 28.5% 4,066 27.9%
Dark - No Street
Lights 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 1 0.0% 9 0.1%
Not Stated 14 0.2% 17 0.4% 16 0.4% 47 0.3%
Dusk - Dawn 169 2.7% 175 3.7% 113 3.1% 457 3.1%
Dark - Street
Lights Not
Functioning
1 0.1% 0 0.0% 2 0.4% 3 0.1%
Total 6,148 100% 4,780 100% 3,658 100% 14,586 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.4 tabulates the PCFs by facility type. At signalized intersections, unsafe speed, improper turning, and signals and signs comprised the three largest PCF categories. At non-signalized intersections and mid-block locations, unsafe speed, automobile right-of-way, and improper turning comprised the three largest PCF categories.
151
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 19
Table 4.4: Primary Collision Factor by Facility Type
Collision Type
Signalized
Intersections
Non-Signalized
Intersections Midblock Grand Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Unsafe Speed 2,449 39.8% 1,117 23.4% 1,122 30.7% 4,688 32.1% Improper Turning 1,084 17.6% 997 20.9% 1,051 28.7% 3,132 21.5% Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence
of Alcohol or Drug
307 5.0% 294 6.2% 273 7.5% 874 6.0%
Other Than Driver
(or Pedestrian) 59 1.0% 39 0.8% 49 1.3% 147 1.0%
Other Improper
Driving 4 0.1% 8 0.2% 3 0.1% 15 0.1%
Automobile Right of
Way 668 10.9% 1,129 23.6% 486 13.3% 2,283 15.7%
Unsafe Starting or
Backing 168 2.7% 206 4.3% 193 5.3% 567 3.9%
Traffic Signals and
Signs 860 14.0% 556 11.6% 26 0.7% 1,442 9.9%
Unknown 165 2.7% 138 2.9% 95 2.6% 398 2.7%
Other Hazardous
Violation 36 0.6% 25 0.5% 16 0.4% 77 0.5%
Wrong Side of Road 60 1.0% 87 1.8% 87 2.4% 234 1.6%
Hazardous Parking 2 0.0% 9 0.2% 8 0.2% 19 0.1%
Pedestrian Violation 38 0.6% 30 0.6% 48 1.3% 116 0.8%
Other 17 0.3% 23 0.5% 24 0.7% 64 0.4%
Unsafe Lane
Change 157 2.6% 48 1.0% 96 2.6% 301 2.1%
Pedestrian Right of
Way 33 0.5% 24 0.5% 4 0.1% 61 0.4%
Improper Passing 32 0.5% 43 0.9% 62 1.7% 137 0.9%
Impeding Traffic 2 0.0% 1 0.0% 2 0.1% 5 0.0%
Other Equipment 1 0.0% 3 0.1% 6 0.2% 10 0.1%
Brakes 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 2 0.1% 4 0.0%
Following Too
Closely 5 0.1% 2 0.0% 5 0.1% 12 0.1%
Total 6,148 100% 4,780 100% 3,658 100% 14,586 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
As previously mentioned, rear-end collisions were the most-frequently-occurring collision type in Fontana. Unsafe speed violations were the pre-eminent Primary Collision Factor (PCF) in rear-end collisions. Table 4.5 breaks down rear-end collisions with an unsafe speed PCF by facility type.

Approximately 78% of rear-end collisions from 2016 to 2020 resulted from unsafe speed violations. The percentage of rear-end collisions caused by unsafe speed violations ranged from 69.9% at mid-block locations to 83.9% at signalized intersections.
152
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 20
Table 4.5: Rear-End Collisions by Facility Type
Facility Type Rear-end
Collisions
Rear-end
Collisions due to
Unsafe Speed
Percentage of Rearend Collisions due
to Unsafe Speed
Signalized Intersections 2,526 2,120 83.9%
Non-Signalized Intersections 1,009 710 70.4%
Mid-block Locations 1,087 760 69.9%
Total 4,622 3,590 77.7%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Broadside collisions were also a prevalent collision type. Automobile right-of-way violations were the pre-eminent Primary Collision Factor (PCF) in broadside collisions. Table 4.6 tabulates broadside collisions with an automobile right-of-way PCF by facility type. Approximately 42% of broadside collisions from 2016 to 2020 resulted from automobile right-of-way violations. Broadside collisions resulting from automobile right-of-way violations ranged from 30% at signalized intersections to 50% at non-signalized intersections.

Table 4.6: Broadside Collisions by Facility Type
Facility Type Broadside
Collisions
Broadside
Collisions due to
Automobile ROW
Percentage of
Broadside Collisions
due to Automobile
ROW
Signalized Intersections 1,655 500 30.2%
Non-Signalized Intersections 1,931 963 49.9%
Mid-block Locations 779 379 48.7%
Total 4,365 1,842 42.2%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020

4.3 FONTANA VS. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SWITRS data was extracted for the entire County of San Bernardino using the same 5-year period from 2016 to 2020, to compare the characteristics of injury and fatality collisions for the City of Fontana with those for all of San Bernardino County. As shown in Table 4.7, from mid-2016 to 2020, Fontana experienced 14,586 collisions. As the City had an estimated 214,557 residents in 2019, this amounted to 13,596 collisions per one million residents per year. A total of 142,563 collisions occurred in San Bernardino County during the same period, making for a rate of 13,079 collisions per one million residents per year. Thus, Fontana had a slightly higher collision rate than the county average.

153
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 21
Fontana had a significantly lower percentage of KSI collisions (1.7% vs. 3.5%). Both bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collision percentages were comparable to countywide percentages (1.8% and 1.5%, respectively).

Table 4.7: Total Collision Comparison, Fontana vs. San Bernardino County City of
Fontana
San Bernardino
County
Population (2019 estimates) 214,557 2,180,085
Total Collisions 14,586 142,563
Collision/1,000,000/Year 13,596 13,079
Fatal and Severe Collisions (KSI) 229 4,961
KSI % 1.7% 3.5%
Pedestrian Collisions 265 2,973
Pedestrian % 1.8% 2.1%
Bicycle Collisions 221 1,673
Bicycle % 1.5% 1.2%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.8 focuses on the KSI collisions in Fontana and San Bernardino County from 2016 to 2020.

Fontana had a significantly lower rate of KSI collisions per million residents per year than San Bernardino County (213 vs. 455). Among KSI collisions, Fontana had a slightly higher percentage of fatalities (32% vs. 28%) and a slightly lower percentage of severe injuries (68% vs. 72% for the County) than the County as a whole. In comparison to the County, pedestrian collisions comprised a much higher proportion of KSI collisions in Fontana (28% vs. 17% for the County). Bicyclist-involved collisions also comprised nearly double the proportion (5.2% vs. 3% for the County).

Table 4.8: KSI Collision Comparison, Fontana vs. San Bernardino County Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
City of
Fontana
San Bernardino
County
Population (2019 estimates) 214,557 2,180,085
Fatal and Severe Collisions (KSI) 229 4,961
KSI Collision/1,000,000/Year 213 455
Fatal 74 1,368
Fatal % 32.3% 27.6%
Severe Injury 155 3,593
Severe Injury % 67.7% 72.4%
Pedestrian 64 829
Pedestrian % 27.9% 16.7%
Bicyclist 12 147
Bicyclist % 5.2% 3.0%
154
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 22
Table 4.9 breaks down the SWITRS data by collision type for Fontana and San Bernardino County. In both Fontana and the County as a whole, rear-end collisions accounted for the largest proportion of collisions. Overall, collision type proportions for the City of Fontana are quite similar to that of the County. However, Fontana had a significantly higher proportion of broadside collisions (30% vs. 19% for the County).

Table 4.9: Collision Type Comparison, Fontana vs. San Bernardino County Type of Collision City of
Fontana
San
Bernardino
County
Broadside 30% 19%
Head-On 4% 5%
Hit Object 11% 17%
Other 1% 1%
Overturned 1% 3%
Rear End 32% 34%
Sideswipe 19% 18%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 2% 2%
Not Stated 1% 1%
Total % 100% 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.10 compares PCFs for the City and the County. As with collision type, the ranking of PCF categories in Fontana aligns with that for San Bernardino County. In both geographies, unsafe speed, automobile right-of-way, and improper turning comprise the top three PCF categories.

155
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 23
Table 4.10: PCF Comparison, Fontana vs. San Bernardino County Primary Collision Factor City of
Fontana
San
Bernardino
County
Unsafe Speed 32.3% 34.3%
Automobile ROW 15.7% 11.0%
Improper Turning 21.6% 19.5%
Following Too Closely 0.1% 0.8%
Traffic Signals & Signs 9.9% 6.2%
Driving or Bicycling Under the Inf. 6.0% 7.2%
Unsafe Lane Change 2.1% 7.5%
Wrong Side of Road 1.6% 2.0%
Unknown 2.7% 2.7%
Other Than Driver 1.0% 2.3%
Improper Passing 0.9% 1.0%
Pedestrian Violation 0.8% 1.0%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 3.9% 2.5%
Other Hazardous Violation 0.5% 0.7%
Other Improper Driving 0.1% 0.5%
Pedestrian ROW 0.4% 0.5%
Hazardous Parking 0.1% 0.1%
Other Equipment 0.1% 0.1%
Brakes 0.0% 0.0%
Lights 0.0% 0.0%
Not Stated 0.0% 0.0%
Pedestrian Under the Inf. 0.0% 0.0%
Impeding Traffic 0.1% 0.1%
Fell Asleep 0.0% 0.0%
Total % 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020

4.4 FONTANA VS. CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZES
In the State of California’s OTS Collision Ranking system, Fontana falls under Group B. This group consists of 59 cities in the state of California with a population between 100,001 and 250,000. Table 4.11 shows the City’s 2018 collisions ranking among the cities in Group B (1 being the highest or worst and 59 being the lowest or best). The City’s traffic safety performance raises concern in several areas:
● The City ranked 6th for killed or injured bicyclists under the age of 15 ● The City ranked 37th for injury and fatality collisions with alcohol involved ● The City ranked 40th for total collision fatalities and injuries ● The City ranked 28th for nighttime (the period between 9:00 pm and 2:59 am) injury and fatality collisions
156
Systemic Safety Analysis – Collision Trend and Patterns CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 24
● The City ranked 25th for injury and fatality collisions with a driver between the ages of 21 and 34 who had been drinking
● The City ranked 28th for composite collisions (which aggregated the had been drinking 21-34, had been drinking under 21, alcohol involved, hit and run, nighttime and speed collision categories) Table 4.11: 2018 OTS Ranking, Fontana
Type of Crash Victims Kill
and Injured
OTS
Ranking
Total Fatal and Injury 777 40/59
Alcohol Involved 82 37/59
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 4 24/59
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 32 25/59
Motorcycles 37 38/59
Pedestrians 50 48/59
Pedestrians < 15 7 38/59
Pedestrians 65+ 6 50/59
Bicyclists 34 45/59
Bicyclists < 15 9 6/59
Composite 438 28/59
Type of Crash Fatal and
Injury Crashes
OTS
Ranking
Speed Related 149 30/59
Nighttime (9:00pm-2:59am) 92 28/59
Hit and Run 79 30/59
Type of Arrests Victims Kill and
Injured
OTS
Ranking
DUI Arrests NA
Source: OTS, 2018
157
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 25

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
Transportation safety emphasis areas provide a strategic framework for developing and implementing the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The emphasis areas provide the City of Fontana the areas to focus on when developing projects and programs based on the LRSP. The implementation of the emphasis areas should directly relate to the goals, policies, and strategies of the LRSP.

Based on the collision data analysis conducted for the City of Fontana, the following transportation safety emphasis areas were identified:
● Young Road Users
● Rear-end and Broadside Collisions
● Pedestrians and Bicyclists
● Unsafe Speeding
● Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence
The following section explains how each area was selected based on the collision analysis.

5.1 YOUNG AND OLD ROAD USERS
Young drivers are more likely to be involved in a collision due to insufficient experience operating a motor vehicle when they are first licensed. Furthermore, young drivers tend to engage in risky driving behaviors, including speeding and distracted driving. The 5-year SWITRS data shows that drivers between the ages of 19 and 25 were responsible for more than a quarter of collisions in Fontana. Young Hispanic male drivers were the demographic most frequently deemed responsible for DUI collisions. The California OTS ranked Fontana 25th among 58 peer cities for accidents involving drivers between 21 and 34 years old who had been drinking.

Thus, the first Transportation Safety Emphasis Area targets young road users, encompassing programs that promote safe practices among young motorist, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

5.2 REAR-END AND BROADSIDE COLLISIONS
According to the SWITRS dataset, rear-ends are the most common type of collision in Fontana, accounting for nearly a third of total collisions during the 5-year period. Most rear-end collisions occur within intersections, with unsafe speed violations being the most PCFs. Thus, intersection improvements that reduce vehicle speeds may lessen the prevalence of rear-end collisions.

Broadside collisions also posed a heavy weight on collision types. They accounted for roughly 30% of all collisions and 33% of KSI collisions. Most broadside collisions occur within intersections, with automobile right-of-way and traffic signal and sign violations being the two most common PCFs. Thus, intersection improvements that reduce vehicle conflicts may lessen the prevalence of broadside collisions. 158
Transportation Safety Emphasis Areas
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 26

5.3 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
Pedestrians and bicyclists are among the most vulnerable roadway users. Pedestrian and bicyclist commuters in suburban communities are often too young or too old to drive or lack the means to purchase a car. Broad streets, narrow sidewalks, and limited crossing facilities make walking not only uncomfortable but unsafe. While pedestrian-involved collisions comprised only 1.8% of total collisions in Fontana, they accounted for 33% of KSI collisions. In the 2018 OTS Rankings, Fontana ranked 48th among peer cities for the number of killed or injured pedestrians.

Although bicyclist-involved collisions comprised only 5.7% of KSI collisions in Fontana, the proportion is much larger than that of the County. Additionally, the 2018 OTS Rankings ranked Fontana 6th among peer cities for the number of killed or injured bicyclists under the age of 15, suggesting that young bicyclists are highly vulnerable.

5.4 SPEEDING
Unsafe travel speeds was the leading PCF for collisions in Fontana. In aggregate, unsafe speed was the most-frequent PCF in Fontana over the 5-year period, accounting for 32.3% of total collisions and 18% of KSI collisions across the City. Although San Bernardino County experienced a slightly higher proportion of unsafe speed collisions, it weighed heavily in Fontana in comparison to other violations.

5.5 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
Driving under the Influence (DUI) is the fifth-largest PCF in Fontana, responsible for nearly 6% of all collisions over the 5-year period. Additionally, DUI collisions accounted for the third-largest PCF for KSI collisions (14%). The 2018 OTS Rankings gave Fontana standard ranks for several DUI-related statistics, including injury/fatality collisions involving alcohol (37th out of 59 cities), injury/fatality collisions with a 21-34-year-old driver who had been drinking (25th out of 59 cities) and driver younger than 21 who had been drinking (24th out of 59 cities).
159
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 27

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
The recommended Engineering Countermeasures (improvements to enhance transportation safety) address the emphasis areas on bicyclists, speeding/rear-end collisions and emergency medical services.

Five years of collision data from January 2016 to December 2020 were utilized to conduct a more indepth review of the collision data. Safety countermeasures for the identified candidate locations were selected based on the following collision patterns:
● Collision severity
● Lighting conditions
● Involved parties, especially bicyclists and pedestrians ● Type of collision
● Primary collision factor
● Movements of the involved parties preceding the occurrence of the collision Table 6.1 summarized the list of safety countermeasures included in the LRSM and applied to this project. The table summarizes each countermeasure’s applicable crash types, crash reduction factor (CRF), project life of the recommended improvement, maximum federal reimbursement percentage, and the opportunity for a systemic approach.

Table 6.1: Safety Countermeasures Applied to Fontana LRSP CM
No. Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
S02
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
All 15% 10 100% Very High
S03
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
All 15% 10 50% Very High
S21PB
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
P&B 60% 10 100% Very High
NS01 Add intersection lighting Night 40% 20 100% Medium NS03 Install signals All 30% 20 100% Low
NS18 Install left-turn lane (where no
left-turn lane exists) All 35% 20 90% Low
160
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 28
CM
No. Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R1 Add segment lighting Night 35% 20 100% Medium
R8 Install raised median All 25% 20 90% Medium
R15 Widen shoulder All 30% 20 90% Medium
R18 Flatten crest vertical curve All 25% 20 90% Low
R32PB Install bike lanes P&B 35% 20 90% High
R33PB Install separated bike lanes P&B 45% 20 90% High
R34PB Install sidewalk/pathway (to
avoid walking along roadway) P&B 80% 20 90% Medium
Source: Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.5 April 2020 The countermeasure numbers (far left column) in Table 6.1 represent the ID number for the types of improvements that are eligible for HSIP funding. Throughout this document, countermeasures eligible for HSIP funding will have the ID number, and those that are not eligible will not have an ID number.

6.1 IDENTIFIED PROJECT LOCATIONS

6.1.1 Identified Roadway Segments
According to the City’s Community Mobility and Circulation Element of the General Plan, all roadways within the City are classified into the following categories of high traffic roadways: Major Highways, Primary Highways, Secondary Highways, and Collectors. A total of 33 roadway segments were defined that include all categories in the City. The definition of the roadway segments was based primarily on major changes in roadway configurations and major changes in intersecting facilities such as freeways and rail tracks, major cross streets, roadway configuration, and land use. The roadway segment map is provided in Figure 6.1.

As shown in Figure 6.2, three roadway segments were selected for focused analysis, and development of roadway improvement recommendations:

161
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 29

1. Foothill Boulevard from West City Limits to Citrus Avenue

2. Valley Boulevard from Etiwanda Avenue to East City Limits

3. Citrus Avenue form Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue
Figure 6.1: Roadway Segment Map

162
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 30
Figure 6.2: Proposed Roadway Segments Countermeasures

6.1.2 Identified Intersections
All intersections located on City streets in the public right-of-way were included in the safety analysis, and were reviewed using industry standard crash frequency and “EPDO” methods. A total of 10 intersections were selected for potential countermeasure implementation. Figure 6.3 illustrates the locations of the proposed intersection countermeasures, as shown in the list below:
163
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 31

1. Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard (Signalized)

2. Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue (Signalized)

3. Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue (Signalized)

4. Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue (Signalized)

5. Sierra Avenue and Orange Way (Signalized)

6. Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue (Signalized)

7. Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard (Non-signalized – Two-way Stop)

8. Cherry Avenue and Village Drive (Non-signalized – All-way Stop)

9. Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue (Non-signalized – Two-way Stop)

10. Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue (Non-signalized – Two-way Stop) Figure 6.3: Intersections with Proposed Safety Countermeasures 164
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 32

6.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

6.2.1 Foothill Boulevard
This segment on Foothill Boulevard from the west boundary (East Avenue) to Citrus Avenue is approximately 3.5 miles long. The average daily traffic volume ranges from approximately 23,000 (Cherry Avenue to Citrus Avenue) to 25,300 (west boundary to Cherry Avenue) in 2014. The speed limit is 50 mph west of Hemlock Avenue and 45 mph east of Hemlock Avenue. The width of the segment varies from 50 feet to 100 feet. The segment includes a total of 11 signalized intersections. It provides three lanes in each direction with a landscaped median and bike lanes from the west boundary to Hemlock Avenue.

East of Hemlock Avenue, the corridor provides two travel lanes in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane and no bike lanes (the two-way left-turn lane drops after Sultana Avenue) until Almeria Avenue. East of Almeria Avenue until Citrus Avenue, the segment provides three lanes of travel in each direction and a landscaped median, but no bike lanes.

In total, 96 collisions occurred on this segment from January 2016 to December 2020, ranking 8th in total collisions and 2nd in EPDO score. Thirty-six collisions (38%) occurred at night. The top collision type was rear-end followed by sideswipe and then broadside collisions. Forty-one collisions (43%) were caused by unsafe speed and 20 collisions (21%) from improper turning. There were two fatalities and two severe injuries from pedestrians who were considered to be at fault for these collisions. Two other severe injury collisions resulted from improper turning. City staff noted that concerns about pedestrians were prominent on this segment. Figure 6.4 shows collision statistics for this roadway segment.

Figure 6.4: Collision Statistics – Foothill Boulevard
165
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 33
During field review, project staff noted that while ample lighting is provided on the segment from the City’s west border to Hemlock Avenue, existing lighting is much more sparse east of Hemlock Avenue, and is usually only provided at intersections. The following safety countermeasure could be considered in this corridor under existing conditions:
● R01 – Add segment lighting to utility poles or on temporary poles from Hemlock Ave to Almeria Avenue.

There are a variety of other improvements that could be completed on the portion of the segment from Hemlock Ave to Almeria Ave to improve safety on the corridor. However, in order to implement these changes, the available right of way would need to be increased. Currently, right of way is limited as the roadway passes under the Pacific Electric trail. Due to the tunneling of the underpass and restrictive walls, the roadway currently lacks a shoulder, median barrier, bike facilities, and pedestrian facilities. In order to add these facilities while retaining the benefits of the existing Pacific Electric trail, the bridge would need to be demolished and replaced with a longer elevated bridge that would pass over the roadway without the need for an underpass. The following improvements would improve safety once these other bridge project changes have been completed:
● R08 – Add raised median from Hemlock to Almeria Avenue ● R15 – Widen shoulder from Hemlock to Almeria Avenue
● R18 – Improve sight distance by raising street and eliminating need for vertical curve east of Sultana Avenue
● R33PB – Install separated bike lanes with two-foot buffer between Hemlock Avenue and Almeria Avenue
● R34PB – Construct sidewalk on both sides of the street from Hemlock Avenue to Almeria Avenue, except on south side of the street in the vicinity of Sultana Avenue where there is existing sidewalk The plans for the collected set of safety projects alongside the bridge reconstruction is included in Appendix B.

166
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 34

6.2.2 Valley Boulevard
This segment on Valley Boulevard from Etiwanda Avenue to the City’s east boundary (Alder Avenue) is approximately 6 miles long. The daily traffic volume ranges from approximately 18,400 (near Etiwanda Avenue) to 30,000 (near Alder Avenue) in 2015. The speed limit is 50 mph from Etiwanda Avenue to Calabash Avenue. From Calabash Avenue to Palmetto Avenue, the speed limit is 45 mph. The speed limit drops to 40 mph for the final short segment from Palmetto Avenue to Alder Avenue. The width of the segment varies from 50 feet to 110 feet. The segment includes a total of 11 signalized intersections. East of Etiwanda Avenue to Commerce Drive, the roadway provides three travel lanes in each direction with a center landscaped median. From Commerce Drive to Calabash Avenue, the roadway provides the same configuration but drops from three to two travel lanes in the eastbound direction. From Calabash Avenue to Juniper Avenue, the roadway provides two travel lanes in each direction, usually with a center two-way left-turn lane. From Juniper Avenue to Sierra Avenue, there are three travel lanes in the eastbound direction and two in the westbound direction, with a center landscaped median. From Sierra Avenue to Health Care Parkway, there are three travel lanes in each direction with a center landscaped median.

From Health Care Parkway to Palmetto Avenue, there are two lanes of travel in the eastbound direction and three in the westbound direction, with a center two-way left-turn lane. From Palmetto Avenue to Alder Avenue, the roadway provides two travel lanes in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane.

In total, 192 collisions occurred on this segment from January 2016 to December 2020, ranking 1st in both total collisions and EPDO scores. Forty collisions (21%) occurred at night. The most frequent collision type was rear end, followed by broadside and then sideswipe. Sixty-one (32%) collisions occurred due to improper turning, while 51 (27%) collisions occurred due to unsafe speed. Of the two fatality collisions, one fatality was from a rear-end collision of a motorist crashing into a parked vehicle caused by unsafe speed, while the other fatality involved an intoxicated driver crashing into an object. There were five severe injuries on this segment. These included two collisions with motorists caused by unsafe speed (one a broadside, one a rear end), a driver hitting an object when turning improperly, a head-on collision caused by travel on the wrong side of the road, and a severe injury of a pedestrian where the pedestrian was listed at fault. Figure 6.5 shows collision statistics for this roadway segment.

Note: Portions of this corridor are within the County of San Bernardino’s jurisdiction. Therefore, coordination between the City of Fontana and the County is encouraged to make the appropriate safety improvements along the entire corridor for regional consistency and operations.

167
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 35
Figure 6.5: Collision Statistics – Valley Boulevard
The following safety countermeasures could be considered in this corridor:
● R32PB – Add bike lanes from Banana Avenue to Alder Avenue.

The concept plans for this project are located in Appendix B.

6.2.3 Citrus Avenue
This segment on Citrus Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue is approximately 3.5 miles long.

The daily traffic volume ranges from approximately 14,000 (near Jurupa Avenue) in 2014 to 28,100 (near Merrill Avenue) in2016. The speed limit is 35 mph from Arrow Boulevard to Randall Avenue. From Randall Avenue to Valley Boulevard, the speed limit is 40 mph. From Valley Boulevard to Slover Avenue, the speed limit is 45 mph. From Slover Avenue to Jurupa Avenue, the speed limit returns to 40 mph. The width of the segment is typically around 65 feet but widens to 110 feet when passing over the I-10 freeway. The segment includes a total of 11 signalized intersections. From Arrow Boulevard to Fontana Avenue, the segment provides two lanes of travel in each direction with either a landscaped median or two-way left-turn lane. South of Fontana Avenue to Valley Boulevard, there are two lanes of travel in each 168
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 36
direction, but no center median or two-way left-turn lane. From Valley Boulevard to Slover Avenue, over the freeway, there are three northbound travel lanes, two southbound travel lanes, bike lanes, and a landscaped median. From Slover Avenue to Santa Ana Avenue, Citrus Avenue provides two northbound travel lanes, one southbound travel lane, and a two-way left-turn lane. South of Santa Ana Avenue to Jurupa Avenue, there are two northbound travel lanes and one southbound travel lane, but no two-way left-turn lane.

A total of 131 collisions occurred on this segment from January 2016 to December 2020, ranking 3rd in total collisions and 6th by EPDO score. Forty-three (33%) of the collisions occurred at night. Rear-end was the most common collision type followed by sideswipe and then broadside collision types. Sixty-six collisions (50%) occurred due to unsafe speed. There was one fatality, south of Citrus Avenue and Rosemary Avenue, of a pedestrian after a collision with a vehicle, though the pedestrian was listed as the fault of the collision. The one severe collision on this segment was a head-on between two motor vehicles caused by improper turning. It occurred north of Citrus Avenue and Valley Boulevard. Figure 6.6 shows collision statistics for this roadway segment.

Figure 6.6: Collision Statistics – Citrus Avenue

169
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 37
The following safety countermeasure could be considered on this corridor: is shown in Appendix B.

● R32PB – Install bike lanes from Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue The concept plans for this project are located in Appendix B.

6.3 INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.4.1 Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard
As shown in Figure 6.7, all legs of Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard provide three lanes in each direction with a left-turn lane at the signalized intersection except for the westbound movement on Valley Boulevard, which provides two lanes with a left-turn lane. There are right-turn pockets on the northbound and westbound approaches. There are no bike lanes and on-street parking is not allowed on either direction. Sierra Avenue has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph) and Valley Boulevard has a speed limit of 45 mph. ADA ramps and standard crosswalks exist on all legs of the intersection.

Commercial zoning exists along the intersection with a gas station at the southeast, northwest and northeast corners and a drive-thru restaurant at the southwest corner.

Figure 6.7: An Aerial View of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard Source: Google (2021)
A total of 257 collisions occurred at the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard between January 2016 and December 2020. The intersection ranks 1st by total collision frequency and 1st by the 170
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 38
EPDO score method. Collision types consisted of hit-object (9), rear-end (114), broadside (49), and sideswipe (70). The most common primary collision factors are unsafe speed (106), improper turning (62) and unsafe lane change (20). A total of 188 collisions occurred during daylight conditions and 65 collisions occurred at this intersection under the dark – with street lights condition. In total nine collisions were involved with a pedestrian and seven collisions with a bicyclist. Figure 6.8 shows collision statistics for this intersection.

Figure 6.8: Collision Statistics – Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard The following safety countermeasures could be considered at this intersection and are shown in Figure

6.9. ● S21PB – Add a leading pedestrian interval to all approaches. Prioritize implementation at east crosswalk.
● S02 – Add nearside signal at all approaches.
● S03 – Optimize signal timing to incorporate LPIs and maximize flow.

171
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 39
Figure 6.9: Recommended Improvements – Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard

6.4.2 Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue
As shown in Figure 6.10, all legs of Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue provide one lane in each direction with a left-turn lane at the signalized intersection. There are right-turn pockets on the southbound and eastbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches on Arrow Boulevard provide a bike lane in each direction, and on-street parking is not allowed except on northbound Locust Avenue north of the intersection. Arrow Boulevard has a speed limit of 35 mph and Locust Avenue has a speed limit of 40 mph. ADA ramps and standard crosswalks exist on all legs of the intersection.

Commercial zoning exists both north and south of the intersection with residential existing on the southwest corner.

172
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 40
Figure 6.10: An Aerial View of the intersection of Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue Source: Google (2021)
A total of 32 collisions occurred at the intersection of Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue from January 2016 and December 2020. The intersection ranks 69th by total collision frequency and 3rd by the EPDO method. The top collision types consisted of broadside (13), sideswipe (5), and rear end and vehicle/pedestrian (1). The most common primary collision factors are unsafe speed (14), automobile right of way (5), and improper turning (4). A total of 24 collisions occurred during daylight conditions and seven collisions occurred at this intersection under the dark – with street lights condition. In total one collision was involved with a pedestrian and one collision with a bicyclist. Figure 6.11 shows collision statistics for this intersection.
173
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 41
Figure 6.11: Collision Statistics – Arrow Boulevard & Locust Avenue The following safety countermeasures could be considered in this intersection and are shown in Figure

6.12. ● R32PB – Add bike lanes on Locust Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Pacific Electric trail ● Correct signing and striping on eastbound approach to intersection (right-turn lane should be marked)
● Install right-turn lane in westbound direction.

174
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 42
Figure 6.12: Recommended Improvements – Arrow Boulevard & Locust Avenue

6.4.3 Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue
As shown in Figure 6.13, Baseline Avenue provides three lanes in each direction with a left-turn lane at the signalized intersection. Mango Avenue provides one lane in each direction with a left-turn lane at the intersection. There is a single right-turn pocket on the northbound approach of Mango Avenue. There are no bike lanes and on-street parking is only allowed on Mango Avenue. Baseline Avenue has a speed limit of 45 mph and Mango Avenue has a speed limit of 40 mph. ADA ramps and standard crosswalks exist on all legs of the intersection. Residential uses exists on all corners of the intersection. The northwest corner is currently a vacant lot.

175
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 43
Figure 6.13: An Aerial View of the intersection of Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue Source: Google (2021)
A total of 36 collisions occurred at the intersection of Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue from January 2016 and December 2020. The intersection ranks 55th by total collision frequency and 7th by the EPDO score. The top collision types consisted of broadside (14), rear end (7), and sideswipe (6). The most common primary collision factors are unsafe speed (10), traffic signals and signs (10), and improper turning (7). A total of 22 collisions occurred during daylight conditions and 12 collisions occurred at this intersection under the dark – with street lights condition. In total one collision was involved with a pedestrian and one collision with a bicyclist. Figure 6.14 shows collision statistics for this intersection.

176
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 44
Figure 6.14: Collision Statistics – Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue The following safety countermeasures could be considered in this intersection and is shown in Figure

6.15. ● S02 – Add nearside signal on east approach and west approach. Remove any trees on west approach which may block nearside signal.

177
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 45
Figure 6.15: Recommended Improvements – Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue

6.4.4 Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue
As shown in Figure 6.16, Sierra Avenue has either two or three through lanes in each direction. All directions have dual left turn lanes and single right turn lanes. There are no bike lanes and on-street parking is not allowed. Sierra Avenue has a speed limit of 50 mph and Jurupa Avenue has a speed limit of 45 mph. ADA ramps and standard crosswalks exist on all legs of the intersection. Residential uses exists along the northwest, southeast, and southwest corners of the intersection. Commercial uses, where a shopping center currently exists, is on the northeast corner.

178
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 46
Figure 6.16: An Aerial View of the intersection of Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue Source: Google (2021)
A total of 68 collisions occurred at the intersection of Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue from January 2016 and December 2020. The intersection ranks 16th by total collision frequency and 18th by the EPDO score. The top collision types consisted of rear end (34), sideswipe (12), and broadside (9). The most common primary collision factors are unsafe speed (39), improper turning (13), and traffic signals and signs (7). A total of 45 collisions occurred during daylight conditions and 21 collisions occurred at this intersection under the dark – with street lights condition. In total one collision was involved with a pedestrian and zero collisions occurred with a bicyclist. Figure 6.17 shows collision statistics for this intersection.

179
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 47
Figure 6.17: Collision Statistics – Jurupa Avenue & Sierra Avenue The following safety countermeasures could be considered in this intersection and are shown in Figure

6.18. ● S03 – Extend red clearance time for northbound and southbound directions. Review signal timing and optimize for efficient operation.

180
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 48
Figure 6.18: Recommended Improvements – Jurupa Avenue & Sierra Avenue

6.4.5 Sierra Avenue and Orange Way
As shown in Figure 6.19, Sierra Avenue provides two lanes in each direction with a left-turn lane at the signalized intersection. Orange Way provides one lane in the westbound direction and two lanes in the eastbound direction. Both eastbound and westbound approaches have left-turn lanes. Both northbound and westbound approaches have right-turn pockets. There are bike lanes on Orange Way, west of Sierra Avenue, and on-street parking is allowed on Sierra Avenue, north of Orange Way, on the north side of Orange Way west of Sierra Avenue, and on Orange Way east of Sierra Avenue. Sierra Avenue has a speed limit of 30 mph and Orange Way has a speed limit of 35 mph. ADA ramps and decorative (pavers) marked crosswalks exist on all legs of the intersection. Commercial uses exists on the northeast corner.

On the southwest corner sits a park and a transit hub. Residential uses in the form of apartments occupy the remaining northwest and southeast corners.

181
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 49
Figure 6.19: An Aerial View of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Orange Way Source: Google (2021)
A total of 24 collisions occurred at the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Orange Way from January 2016 and December 2020. The intersection ranks 95th by total collision frequency and 48th by the EPDO score.

The top collision types consisted of rear end (16), sideswipe (5), and broadside (2). The most common primary collision factors are unsafe speed (15) and improper turning (6). A total of 19 collisions occurred during daylight conditions and five collisions occurred at this intersection under the dark – with street lights condition. In total one collision was involved with a pedestrian and one collision with a bicyclist.

Figure 6.20 shows collision statistics for this intersection.

182
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 50
Figure 6.20: Collision Statistics – Sierra Avenue & Orange Way The following safety countermeasures could be considered in this intersection and are shown in Figure

6.21. ● S02 – Add nearside signal heads on all approaches. ● S03 – Signal cycle is unusually long. There are non-standard responses during Metrolink crossings south of the intersection, such as cancelling pedestrian activation that is safe to occur despite the train crossing. Comprehensively review signal timing.
● R32PB – Add bike lane in both directions on Orange Way east of Sierra Avenue (bike lane currently terminates on the west side of Sierra Avenue).
● Add limit lines on each approach.

183
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 51
Figure 6.21: Recommended Improvements – Sierra Avenue & Orange Way

6.4.6 Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue
As shown in Figure 6.22, the east and west legs of Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue provide two lanes in each direction with a left-turn lane at the intersection, while the north and south legs provide just one through lane in each direction. There are no striped right-turn pockets at the intersection. There are no bike lanes and on-street parking is allowed on all sides of the intersection. Arrow Boulevard has a speed limit of 35 mph and Oleander Avenue has a speed limit of 40 mph. There are ADA ramps on all corners and standard crosswalks except for the east leg. Apartment complexes are the primary land use surrounding this intersection, with some strip mall retail on the northeast and southeast corner.

184
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 52
Figure 6.22: An Aerial View of the intersection of Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue Source: Google (2021)
A total of 29 collisions occurred at the intersection of Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue from January 2016 and December 2020. The intersection ranks 74th by total collision frequency and 35th by the EPDO score. The top collision types consisted of broadside (12), rear end (9), and sideswipe (8). The most common primary collision factors are unsafe speed (8), improper turning (7), and traffic signals and signs (4). A total of 23 collisions occurred during daylight conditions and five collisions occurred at this intersection under the dark – with street lights condition. There were two collisions involving pedestrians and two collisions involving bicyclists. Figure 6.23 shows collision statistics for this intersection.

185
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 53
Figure 6.23: Collision Statistics – Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Boulevard The following safety countermeasure that could be considered in this intersection are shown in Figure

6.24. ● S02 – Install nearside signal on all approaches.

186
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 54
Figure 6.24: Recommended Improvements – Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Boulevard

6.4.7 Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard
As shown in Figure 6.25, Beech Avenue provides one lane in each direction with no left-turn lanes. Valley Boulevard provides two lanes in each direction with a left-turn lane. The intersection is two-way stopcontrolled in the northbound and southbound approaches. There is a striped right-turn pocket on the southbound approach of Beech Avenue. There are no bike lanes and on-street parking is allowed north of the intersection on Beech Avenue and west of the intersection on Valley Boulevard. Beech Avenue has a speed limit of 40 mph and Valley Boulevard has a speed limit of 45 mph. ADA ramps only exist on the northwest corner and there are no standard crosswalks at the intersection. A mix of commercial and light industrial uses are located at the four corners of the intersection.

187
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 55
Figure 6.25: An Aerial View of the intersection of Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard Source: Google (2021)
A total of 29 collisions occurred at the intersection of Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard from January 2016 and December 2020. The intersection ranks 8th by total collision frequency and 1st by the EPDO score. The top collision types consisted of broadside (22) and sideswipe (3). The most common primary collision factors are automobile right of way (19), improper turning (2), traffic signals and signs (2), and unsafe speed (2). A total of 20 collisions occurred during daylight conditions and seven collisions occurred at this intersection under the dark – with street lights condition. In total one collision involved a pedestrian and one collision with a bicyclist at the intersection. Figure 6.26 shows collision statistics for this intersection.

188
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 56
Figure 6.26: Collision Statistics – Beech Avenue & Valley Boulevard The following safety countermeasures could be considered in this intersection and are shown in Figure

6.27. ● NS03 – Install traffic signal (warrant provided in Appendix E)

189
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 57
Figure 6.27: Recommended Improvements – Beech Avenue & Valley Boulevard

6.4.8 Cherry Avenue and Village Drive
As shown in Figure 6.28, Cherry Avenue provides two lanes in each direction with a left-turn lane and Village Drive provides one lane in each direction with a left-turn lane. The intersection is four-way stopcontrolled. Village Drive westbound movement terminates at the Oakcrest Apartments, west end of the intersection. There are right-turn pockets on the northbound approaches of Cherry Avenue and the southbound approach of Village Drive. There are no bike lanes and on-street parking is not allowed on either direction. Cherry Avenue has a speed limit of 35 mph and Village Drive has a speed limit of 35 mph. Crosswalks are present on the south and east legs of the intersection. Residential uses exists on southwest, northwest, and northeast corners of the intersection. A shopping center exists at the southeast corner.

190
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 58
Figure 6.28: An Aerial View of the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Village Drive Source: Google (2021)
A total of 17 collisions occurred at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Village Drive from January 2016 and December 2020. The intersection ranks 38th by total collision frequency and 3rd by the EPDO score.

The top collision types consisted of broadside (11), rear end (2), and sideswipe (2). The most common primary collision factors are traffic signals and signs (6), automobile right of way (4), and improper turning (3). A total of 11 collisions occurred during daylight conditions and six collisions occurred at this intersection under the dark – with street lights condition. In total one collision was involved with a pedestrian and zero collisions with a bicyclist. Figure 6.29 shows collision statistics for this intersection.

191
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 59
Figure 6.29: Collision Statistics – Cherry Avenue & Village Drive A roundabout and a new traffic signal were both considered as safety improvements at this location. Due to intersection geometrics, it was determined that a roundabout would not be appropriate for the intersection. A signal warrant was conducted for the location. Counts were collected on January 25, 2022.

The intersection passed Warrant 7 for a new traffic signal when following interim guidance released by the FHWA in 2017. The warrant can be found in Appendix E. The following safety countermeasure could be considered at this intersection and is shown in Figure 6.30. ● NS03 – Install signal

192
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 60
Figure 6.30: Recommended Improvements – Cherry Avenue & Village Drive 193
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 61

6.4.9 Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue
As shown in Figure 6.31, Hemlock Avenue provides a single lane in each direction with no left-turn lanes.

Slover Avenue provides two lanes in each direction with a left-turn lane. The intersection is two-way stopcontrolled with the control on northbound and southbound approaches. There are no right-turn pockets at the intersection. There are no bike lanes and on-street parking is allowed on Hemlock Avenue. Slover Avenue has a speed limit of 45 mph and Hemlock Avenue has a speed limit of 35 mph. ADA ramps exist on all corners of the intersection except on the southwest corner. There are no marked crosswalks at the intersection. Residential uses exists the northeast corner. A village market is located on the northwest corner. On the southeast corner is a large parking lot for auto auctions. The southwest corner is a vacant industrial lot.

Figure 6.31: An Aerial View of the intersection of Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue Source: Google (2021)
A total of 26 collisions occurred at the intersection of Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue from January 2016 and December 2020. The intersection ranks 12th by total collision frequency and 10th by the EPDO score. The top collision types consist of broadsides (15) and sideswipes (5). The most common primary collision factors are automobile right of way (15) and unsafe speeds (4). A total of 19 collisions occurred during daylight conditions and five collisions occurred at this intersection under the dark – with street lights condition. There are no collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists. Figure 6.32 shows collision statistics for this intersection.

194
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 62
Figure 6.32: Collision Statistics – Hemlock Avenue & Slover Avenue The following safety countermeasure could be considered in this intersection and is shown in Figure

6.33. ● NS03 – Install traffic signal (warrant located in Appendix E)

195
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 63
Figure 6.33: Recommended Improvements – Hemlock Avenue & Slover Avenue

6.4.10 S. Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue
As shown in Figure 6.34, all legs of S. Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue provide a single lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane in the center (with no left-turn arrow markings). The intersection is two-way stop-controlled with the control on the northbound and southbound approaches. There are no marked right turn lanes at this intersection. There are bike lanes on both sides of the street beginning west of the intersection, but not approaching the intersection on any leg. On-street parking is not permitted. S. Highland Ave has a speed limit of 45 mph and Knox Avenue has a speed limit of 35 mph.

There are no marked crosswalks or ADA ramps at the intersection. The intersection is primarily surrounded by vacant land, with low-density residential uses nearby.

196
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 64
Figure 6.34: An Aerial View of the intersection of S Highland Ave & Knox Ave Source: Google (2021)
A total of 18 collisions occurred at the intersection of S. Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue from January 2016 and December 2020. The intersection ranks 34th by total collision frequency and 8th by the EPDO score. The most common collision types include broadsides (5), hit object (3), and overturned (2). The most common primary collision factors are automobile right of way (9) and unsafe speed (4). A total of 15 collisions occurred during daylight conditions and three collisions occurred at this intersection under the dark – with street lights condition. In total one collision was involved with a pedestrian and no collisions occurred with a bicyclist. Figure 6.35 shows collision statistics for this intersection.

197
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 65
Figure 6.35: Collision Statistics – S Highland Ave & Knox Ave The following safety countermeasure could be considered in this intersection and is shown in Figure

6.36. ● NS18 – Convert existing two-way left-turn lane on the east and west legs of the intersection to dedicated left-turn lanes with appropriate striping and tapers.

198
Engineering Countermeasures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 66
Figure 6.36: Recommended Improvements – S Highland Ave & Knox Ave 199
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 67

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
This section presents the non-infrastructure solutions to Fontana roadway safety needs. The programs will promote safe behavior in each plan’s identified transportation safety emphasis areas through education, law enforcement, and encouragement.

7.1 YOUNG DRIVERS
The collision analysis revealed that drivers under the age of 25 were at fault for more than a quarter of the collisions in Fontana. Younger drivers' relative lack of experience and judgment1 makes them more
likely to engage in risky behaviors, such as speeding or distracted driving. In Fontana, nearly 98 percent of households own at least one vehicle, and motorists are more inclined to acquire licenses at an earlier age as the City has few alternatives for travel. Therefore, educating young drivers on the importance of safe driving practices is a key pillar of the city's LRSP.

Youth drunk driving is a problem worth examining on its own. The collision data indicated that drivers under 25 were associated with 35 percent of DUI collisions in Fontana. Drivers younger than 21, the minimum legal drinking age in California, were associated with 7 percent of DUI collisions. The City may consider implementing programs warning youth about the dangers of drinking and driving.

The following safety (non-engineering) programs or program elements can be considered to address young drivers' safety risks.

7.1.1 Education
● Incentivize teens to attend the Start Smart Program2
at the local Fontana California Highway Patrol
(CHP) office.
● Expand the Healthy Fontana initiative to include information and programs related to making smart choices with drinking and driving.
● The Fontana Unified School District can consider incorporating Every 15 Minutes3 into the curriculum.

The Every 15 Minutes program is a two-day program focusing on high school juniors and seniors.

The program challenges them to think about drinking, driving, personal safety, the responsibility of making decisions, and the impact their decisions have on their family, friends, and community. The Every 15 Minutes program is funded through the California Office of Traffic Safety, and the California Highway Patrol provides mini-grants to schools to implement the Every 15 Minutes program.

7.1.2 Enforcement
● Monitor local liquor stores and bars suspected of selling alcohol to minors. ● Set up police checkpoints at night to enforce DUI and California's Graduated Licensing Law. The Graduated Licensing Law prohibits children under age 18 from driving with someone under the age of 21 between 11 pm and 5 am without an adult (25 years or older) supervising. ● Provide training to sheriffs for finding DUIs and other driving behaviors. 1 Johnson, “Why Is 18 the Age of Adulthood If the Brain Can Take 30 Years to Mature?” https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/adult-brain 2 Start Smart Program, https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/programs/youth-programs/start-smart-driving-smart-to-stay-safe 3 https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/programs/youth-programs/every-15-minutes 200
Non-Engineering Safety Measures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 68

7.1.3 Funding Sources
Table 7.1 presents potential funding sources for programs addressing safety challenges faced by young drivers.

Table 7.1: Young Driver Program Funding Sources

DESCRIPTION

RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY

FUNDING
SOURCE

EDUCATION
Incentivize attendance of the Start Smart Program.

San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Department, California Highway
Patrol, Fontana Unified School
District
OTS Grants
Expand Healthy Fontana’s offerings to address drinking and driving.

San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Department, Fontana Unified
School District
OTS Grants
Establish and stage an Interactive Simulation program for high school students – Every 15 Minutes. The Interactive Simulation program aims to challenge high school juniors and seniors about drinking, driving, and mature decisionmaking.

Fontana Unified School District OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Monitor local liquor stores and bars suspected of selling alcohol to minors. City of Fontana, San Bernardino
County Sheriff's Department OTS Grants
Set up police checkpoints at night to enforce California's Graduated Licensing Law.

San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Department OTS Grants

7.2 REAR-ENDS AND SPEEDING
Speeding contributes significantly to crash frequency and severity. For instance, a car hitting a pedestrian is eight times more likely to kill that pedestrian when moving at 40 miles per hour than when moving at 20 miles per hour. In the local context, speeding is the most common primary collision factor and the most frequent cause of rear-end crashes. Driving at unsafe speeds caused 77 percent of total rear-end crashes that occurred in Fontana.

The following safety (non-engineering) programs or program elements can be considered to address rear ends and speeding-related crashes.

7.2.1 Education
● Create a social media campaign to help drivers become more aware of how their speed impacts the risk of death for vulnerable road users.
201
Non-Engineering Safety Measures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 69

7.2.2 Enforcement
● Install radar speed feedback signs at periodic intervals along arterials with reported speeding. These technologies display passing drivers’ travel speed below a sign with the posted speed limit, thus showing whether drivers are traveling over the speed limit4,5. ● Deploy police officers equipped with radar or LIDAR technology at strategic locations to ticket speeding drivers.

7.2.3 Funding Sources
Table 7.2 presents potential funding sources for the programs addressing Rear-ends and Speeding.

Table 7.2: Rear-end and Speeding Program Funding Sources

DESCRIPTION

RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY

FUNDING
SOURCE

EDUCATION
Create a social media campaign. City of Fontana OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Install Active Speed Monitors or Speed
Trailers at periodic intervals along arterials
with reported speeding.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department
OTS Grants, Advanced
Transportation and
Congestion Management
Technologies Deployment
Program
Deploy police officers equipped with radar or
LIDAR technology at strategic locations to
ticket speeding drivers.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department OTS Grants

7.3 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
Collisions with pedestrians and bicycles are responsible for 33 percent of deaths related to collisions in Fontana. While the severity of some crashes can be reduced through changing roadway design or by better educating motorists about their behavior, measures to improve the safety awareness of pedestrians and bicyclists can also help.

The following safety (non-engineering) programs or program elements can be considered to address pedestrian and bicycle crashes:

7.3.1 Education
● Support adult bicycle rider skills classes, such as those offered by the League of American Bicyclists. ● Offer student pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety education in schools. Lessons related to walking can include the danger of walking with distractions, while bicycle lessons can include helmet and bicycle fit, hand signals, and riding safely with traffic. 4 SRTS Guide: Active Speed Monitors. (2015, July). http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/enforcement/active_speed_monitor.cfm 5 SRTS Guide: Speed Trailers. (2015, July). http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/enforcement/speed_trailer.cfm 202
Non-Engineering Safety Measures
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 70
● Promote a billboard or social media campaign to “walk and bike smart” and ride in the same direction as traffic.

7.3.2 Enforcement
● Offer diversion classes for bicycle riders who have been cited for traffic violations. These classes would help bicyclists learn about rights and responsibilities. ● Offer free bicycle helmets or lights and schools or community centers.

7.3.3 Funding Sources
Table 7.3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding Sources

DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY

FUNDING
SOURCE

EDUCATION
Support adult bicycle rider skills classes. City of Fontana, League of American Bicyclists OTS Grants
Offer student pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety education. Fontana Unified School District OTS Grants Promote a billboard or social media campaign. City of Fontana OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Offer diversion classes for bicycle riders. City of Fontana, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department OTS Grants
Offer free bike helmets or lights. City of Fontana OTS Grants

7.4 EMERGENCY VEHICLES
A total of 50 collisions were related to an emergency vehicle in Fontana from 2016 to 2020. The City has contracted with the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District to provide all fire and emergency medical service needs.

Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) systems may not be provided at all major intersections in the City.

Signal preemption allows emergency vehicles to interrupt a normal signal cycle in order to proceed through the intersection more quickly and under safer conditions. An EVP system may assist emergency vehicles traveling through traffic prone areas when responding to an emergency call. Implementation of the EVP system citywide may improve the emergency response team’s response time. 203
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 71

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
This section provides the project scope, collision reduction benefits calculation, cost estimation, and Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratio analysis. This section also discusses and summarizes the project prioritization for the HSIP application.

8.1 PROJECT SCOPES ANDBENEFIT CALCULATIONS
The development of project scopes involves identifying one or more specific countermeasures at potential locations for safety improvements. Expected benefits are derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) to the expected crashes. This involves:
● Identifying the current number of crashes without treatment ● Applying CRFs by type and severity
● Applying a benefit value by crash severity
● Calculating the annual collision reduction benefits and multiplying by the project life in years Caltrans has established some key requirements and procedures for its calls-for-projects to allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis. These include:
● Only a maximum of three individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project. ● For a countermeasure to be utilized in the B/C ratio calculations, it must represent a minimum of 15 percent of the project’s total construction cost. This is intended to ensure that minor and insignificant project elements are not misrepresented to the agency's major safety effort.

An engineer determining the benefits of newly installed infrastructure first determines the number of collisions with the potential to be prevented by the improvement. The engineer then applies the CRF, which gives the rough percentage of crashes that would be prevented. The next step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is multiplying the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the “cost” of crashes. The expected “benefit” value for a project is the expected “reduction in costs” value from reducing future crashes. The source for the costs by collision severity level was taken from Appendix D of the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual:
● Fatal and Severe Injury Combined (KA)- Signalized Intersection - $1,590,000 ● Fatal and Severe Injury Combined (KA)- Non-Signalized Intersection - $2,530,000 ● Fatal and Severe Injury Combined (KA)- Roadway - $2,190,000 ● Evident - $142,300
● Possible Injury- Complaint of Pain (C) - $80,900
● Property Damage Only (O) - $13,300
The final step in calculating the total safety project benefits is to divide the benefits by the number of years the collision data was collected (five years for this project) and multiply this value by the project life 204
Safety Projects
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 72
in years.

The safety project scopes are listed in Table 8.1, including the applicable countermeasure category for each improvement and benefits calculated according to the method above.

Table 8.1: Safety Project Scopes
Project 1: Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard
Project 2: Arrow Boulevard & Locust Avenue
Project 3: Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
S02 Upgrade signal
hardware
Add nearside signal at all
approaches. All 15% 10 259
S03 Modify traffic
signal timing
Optimize signal timing to
incorporate LPIs and maximize
flow.

All 15% 10 259
S21PB
Install leading
pedestrian
indicator (LPI0)
Add a leading pedestrian
interval to all approaches.

Prioritize implementation at
east crosswalk.

P&B 60% 10 18
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
R32PB Install bike lanes
Add bike lanes on Locust
Avenue from Arrow Boulevard
to Pacific Electric trail.

P&B
(bike) 35% 20 2
CUSTOM
Correct signing and striping on
eastbound approach to
intersection (right-turn lane
should be marked).

CUSTOM Install right-turn lane in
westbound direction.

CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
S02 Upgrade signal
hardware
Add nearside signal on east
approach and west approach.

Remove any trees on west
approach which may block
nearside signal.

All
(EB & WB) 15% 10 19
205
Safety Projects
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 73
Project 4: Jurupa Avenue & Sierra Avenue
Project 5: Sierra Avenue & Orange Way
Project 6: Arrow Boulevard & Oleander Avenue
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
S03 Modify traffic
signal timing
Extend red clearance time for
northbound and southbound
directions. Review signal
timing and optimize for
efficient operation.

All
(NB & SB) 15% 10 54
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
S02 Upgrade signal
hardware
Add nearside signal heads on
all approaches. All 15% 10 25
S03 Modify traffic
signal timing
Signal cycle is unusually long.

There are non-standard
responses during Metrolink
crossings south of the
intersection, such as
cancelling pedestrian
activation that is safe to
occur despite the train
crossing. Comprehensively
review signal timing.

All 15% 10 25
R32PB Install bike lanes
Add bike lane in both
directions on Orange Way
east of Sierra Avenue (bike
lane currently terminates on
the west side of Sierra
Avenue).

P&B (bike) 35% 20 1
CUSTOM Add limit lines at each
approach.

CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
S02 Upgrade signal
hardware
Install nearside signal on all
approaches. All 15% 10 30
206
Safety Projects
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 74
Project 7: Beech Avenue & Valley Boulevard
Project 8: Cherry Avenue & Village Drive
Project 9: Hemlock Avenue & Slover Avenue
Project 10: Highland Avenue & Knox Avenue
Project 11: Foothill Boulevard from West Boundary to Citrus Avenue CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
NS03 Install signal Conduct warrant to install
signal. All 30% 20 31
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
NS03 Install signal Install signal at this location. All 30% 20 44 CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
NS03 Install signal Install signal at this location. All 30% 20 44 CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
NS18 Install left-turn
lane
Install dedicated left-turn lane
in the EB and WB direction.

All
(EB & WB) 35% 20 14
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
R15 Widen shoulder
Widen shoulder from Hemlock
to Almeria Avenue. Complete
after replacing Pacific Electric
bridge, elevating roadway, and
demolishing tunnel.

All 30% 20 R15
R18 Flatten crest
vertical curve
Improve sight distance by
raising street and eliminating
need for vertical curve
(complete after finishing new
All 25% 20 R18
207
Safety Projects
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 75
Project 12: Valley Boulevard from Eitwanda Avenue to East Boundary Project 13: Citrus Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue

8.2 COST ESTIMATE
Planning-level cost estimates were developed for each countermeasure. Cost estimates were prepared based on recent bid tabulations and estimates of current construction costs consisting of unit-based cost estimates and contingencies. The costs include construction costs and include engineering and administrative costs. A contingency is added to the construction cost of each project depending on the complexity of the scope. The engineering and administration cost is assumed to be 25 percent of the total construction cost, including the contingency. The cost estimates are included in Appendix C.

CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Pacific Electric railway bridge
and demolishing tunnel).

R33PB Install separated
bike lanes
Install separated bike lanes
with 2' buffer between
Hemlock Avenue and Almeria
Avenue.

P&B (bike) 45% 20 R33PB
R34PB Install sidewalk
Construct sidewalk where
missing from Hemlock Avenue
to Almeria Avenue.

P&B 80% 20 R34PB
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
R32PB Install bike lanes
Add bike lanes from Banana
Avenue to Alder Avenue. Keep
parking if there is sufficient
width to install with parking, if
not, remove parking lane and
restrict vehicles from parking
and add bike lane. Use bike
lane as opportunity to
establish an edge line in
corridors where roadway width
is over 80 feet.

P&B (bike) 35% 20 4
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
R32PB Install bike lanes Install bike lanes from Arrow to Valley P&B (bike) 35% 20 1
208
Safety Projects
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 76

8.3 BENEFIT/COST RATIO
A Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) is the ratio of a project's benefits relative to its costs, and both are expressed in monetary terms. The BCR is calculated by taking a project’s overall benefit and dividing it by the overall project cost. Projects with a higher BCR mean greater benefits relative to costs, while a lower BCR means fewer benefits than costs.

Based on Caltrans’s need for a fair, data-driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call-forprojects, the benefit and cost calculations were completed using the same process shown in the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. The B/C ratios were used to identify the projects with high cost-effectiveness that may have a greater chance of receiving federal funding in Caltrans call-forprojects. Table 8.2 summarizes the B/C ratio proposed safety projects. The benefit/cost ratio is calculated according to the HSIP Analyzer from the HSIP grant application. The detail of the safety project summary table is provided in Appendix D.
209

SAFERY PROJECTS
CITY OF FONTANA | LRSP PAGE 77
Table 8.2: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project (for HSIP eligible safety projects) ID Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
1 Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard
S02 Upgrade signal
hardware
$2,847,030 $10,336 275.45 100% $10,336 $0
S03 Modify traffic
signal timing
$2,847,030 $7,847 362.82 50% $3,924 $3,924
S21PB Install leading
pedestrian
indicator (LPI)
$5,373,840 $7,847 684.83 100% $7,847 $0
TOTAL $11,067,900 $24,628 449.40 $20,705 $3,924
2 Arrow Boulevard & Locust Avenue R32PB Install bike lanes $2,226,000 $28,309 78.63 90% $25,478 $2,831 TOTAL $2,226,000 $28,309 78.63 $25,478 $2,831
3 Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue S02 Upgrade signal hardware $1,367,730 $19,427 70.40 100% $19,427 $0 TOTAL $1,367,730 $17,868 76.55 $17,868 $0
4 Jurupa Avenue & Sierra Avenue S03 Modify traffic signal timing $997,800 $7,847 127.16 50% $3,924 $3,924 TOTAL $997,800 $7,847 127.16 $3,924 $3,924
5 Sierra Avenue & Orange Way
S02 Upgrade signal hardware $727,290 $7,519 96.73 100% $7,519 $0 S03 Modify traffic signal timing $727,290 $7,847 92.68 50% $3,924 $3,924 210
Safety Projects
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL RROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 78
ID Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
R32PB Install bike lanes $199,220 $37,230 5.35 90% $33,507 $3,723 TOTAL $1,653,800 $52,360 31.59 $44,737 $7,623
6 Arrow Boulevard & Oleander Ave S02 Upgrade signal hardware $808,080 $7,519 107.47 100% $7,519 $0 TOTAL $808,080 $7,519 107.47 $7,519 $0
7 Beech Avenue & Valley Boulevard NS03 Install Signal $7,063,320 $382,756 18.45 100% $382,756 $0 TOTAL $11,347,160 $390,131 125.33 $390,131 $0
8 Cherry Ave & Village Drive NS03 Install signal $6,864,360 $459,876 14.93 100% $459,876 $0 TOTAL
9 Hemlock Ave & Slover Ave NS03 Install signal $5,483,520 $412,545 13.29 100% $412,545 $0 TOTAL $5,483,520 $366,617 14.96 $366,617 $0
10 Highland Ave & Knox Ave NS18 Install left-turn lane $4,221,280 $10,873 388.24 90% $9,786 $1,087 TOTAL $4,221,280 $10,873 388.24 $9,786 $1,087
11 Foothill Blvd from West Boundary to Citrus Ave
R1 Add lighting $7,105,140 $5,961 1191.94 100% $5,961 $0 R8 Install raised median $8,216,200
$21,950,000 1.51 90% $19,755,000 $2,195,000
R15 Widen shoulder $9,859,440
211
Safety Projects
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL RROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 79
ID Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
R18 Flatten crest vertical curve $8,216,200
R33PB Install separated bike lanes $401,760
R34PB Install sidewalk $14,730,240
TOTAL $48,528,980 $21,955,961 2.21 $19,760,961 $2,195,000 12 Valley Blvd from Etiwanda
Ave to East Boundary R32PB Install bike lanes $530,320 $394,834 1.34 90% $355,351 $39,483 TOTAL $530,320 $394,834 1.34 $355,351 $39,483
13 Citrus Ave from Arrow
Blvd to Jurupa Ave R32PB Install bike lanes $18,620 $313,169 0.06 90% $281,852 $31,317 TOTAL $18,620 $313,169 0.06 $281,852 $31,317
The project with the highest B/C ratio is project #1, to upgrade signal hardware, modify traffic signal timing, and install leading pedestrian indicator at the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard. The project with the lowest B/C ratio if project #13, to install bike lanes on Citrus Avenue, from Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue. The calculated BCR for each project summarizes the cost-effectiveness of the 13 proposed safety projects, without considering how the project would be funded. 212
Safety Projects
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 80

8.4 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
A prioritized list of safety projects for the HSIP application was identified. The B/C ratios may be used as a guide to identifying the projects with high cost-effectiveness that have the greatest chance of receiving federal funding in Caltrans call-for-projects.

BCR is not the only guide to prioritize and implement a countermeasure. The safety project list will be used as a reference on which safety project to implement first. The implementation timeline will be dependent on the City’s goals and funding eligibility. The City may choose to move forward with any of these safety projects in any order, depending on funding availability. If the applications are approved for funding, these projects should not be applied for future HSIP cycles. If the safety projects are not funded by the HSIP Cycle 11, then those projects could be considered for reapplying for funding in future cycles.

Because HSIP grants are competitive, it is typically appropriate to apply only for projects with an estimated BCR considered high. According to the HSIP grant application guidelines, a safety project needs to be at least $100,000 and a minimum of 3.5 BCR to submit an HSIP Cycle 10 application. It is anticipated that similar minimum dollar value and BCR requirements will apply to future HSIP application cycles.

Taking the HSIP application into consideration, Table 8.3 summarizes the BCR analysis for the safety project. The safety projects are categorized by countermeasure ID and are prioritized by BCR. The City may use the list from Table 8.3 to determine which will be implemented based on the City’s goals and funding availability.

Table 8.3: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project Location CM # Countermeasure Names Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimate BCR
Foothill Blvd from West
Boundary to Citrus Ave R1 Add lighting $7,105,140 $5,961 1191.94 Sierra Ave & Valley Blvd S21PB Install leading pedestrian indicator (LPI0) $5,373,840 $7,847 684.83
Highland Ave & Knox Ave NS18 Install left-turn lane $4,221,280 $10,873 388.24 Sierra Ave & Valley Blvd S03 Modify traffic signal timing $2,847,030 $7,847 362.82 Sierra Ave & Valley Blvd S02 Upgrade signal hardware $2,847,030 $10,336 275.45 Jurupa Avenue & Sierra
Avenue S03 Modify traffic signal timing $997,800 $7,847 127.16 Arrow Boulevard &
Oleander Ave S02 Upgrade signal hardware $808,080 $7,519 107.47 Sierra Ave & Orange Way S02 Upgrade signal hardware $727,290 $7,519 96.73 Sierra Ave & Orange Way S03 Modify traffic signal timing $727,290 $7,847 92.68 Arrow Boulevard & Locust
Avenue R32PB Install bike lanes $2,226,000 $28,309 78.63 Baseline Avenue & Mango
Avenue S02 Upgrade signal hardware $1,367,730 $19,427 70.40 213
Safety Projects
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 81
Location CM # Countermeasure Names Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimate BCR
Beech Avenue & Valley
Boulevard NS03 Install Signal $7,063,320 $382,756 18.45 Cherry Ave & Village Drive NS03 Install signal $6,864,360 $459,876 14.93 Hemlock Ave & Slover Ave NS03 Install signal $5,483,520 $412,545 13.29 Sierra Ave & Orange Way R32PB Install bike lanes $199,220 $37,320 5.35 Foothill Blvd from West
Boundary to Citrus
Avenue
R8 Install raised median $8,216,200 $21,950,000 1.51
Valley Blvd from Etiwanda
Avenue to East Boundary R32PB Install bike lanes $530,320 $394,834 1.34 Citrus Avenue from Arrow
Blvd to Jurupa Ave R32PB Install bike lanes $18,620 $313,169 0.06 The average BCR of HSIP 10 selected projects is 24.3 (the BCR cutoff was 12.0). The City can either select the eligible individual projects or group projects as a systemic improvement, as shown in Table 8.3, for the HSIP funding application. The City may also determine which project to be prioritized based on available funding sources, public support, and other factors.

8.5 FUNDING SOURCES
Several state and federal grant programs offer to fund engineering and non-engineering roadway safety projects. The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP) encourages bicycle and pedestrian use in the state by funding programs that increase bike or pedestrian mode share or improve bicycle or pedestrian safety. Caltrans also administers the Sustainable Communities Grant Program, which awards grants to municipal projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support multi-modal transportation. The Sustainable Communities Program prioritizes projects that solicit stakeholder and community engagement and support state policies like the 2040 California Transportation Plan. The California Office of Traffic Safety awards grants for projects addressing any one or more of ten priority areas, including Driving Under the Influence, Distracted Driving, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Police Enforcement, Safety Data Collection, and Marketing/Publicity Campaigns.

At the federal level, the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program funds technology to promote safety and efficiency in the transportation system.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds roadway improvements on any public roadway.

Table 8.4 provides a list of eligible programs and the funding sources for related to transportation safety.

214
Safety Projects
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 82
Table 8.4: Transportation Safety Funding Sources Summary Agency Source Eligible Programs Areas Addressed
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Any work on public roads, bikeways and
pedestrian paths/trails. For the most part,
only engineering projects are eligible but
the FAST act permits funding for data
collection by law enforcement1, 2.

Data Collection
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Advanced
Transportation and
Congestion
Management
Technologies
Deployment
Program
Funds advanced transportation and
congestion management technologies to
improve safety, efficiency and performance.

Examples of funded project types include
advanced traveler information systems and
data collection and analysis efforts3
.

Digital Enforcement;
Technology Partnerships
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Active
Transportation
Program (ATP)
Local government projects that improve the
safety or increase the mode share of
bicycling and walking. Additional program
objectives include reducing emissions and
enhancing public health4.

Bicycle and Pedestrian
Education and
Enforcement
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Sustainable
Communities Grant
Program
The program awards "Competitive Grants"
to local governments. These grants
prioritize projects that reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, support multi-modal
transportation, involve stakeholder/
community engagement and support
related plans like the California
Transportation Plan and California
Complete Streets Framework5 .

Active Transportation
Speed and Education
California Office
of Traffic Safety
Office of Traffic
Safety (OTS) Grants
Programs should address one of ten priority
areas (six relevant ones listed to the right).

Grant recipients should expect to wait up to
90 days before being reimbursed/funded,
and should be able to provide traffic safety
data to justify funded programs6
.

Driving under the
Influence of
Drugs/Alcohol (DUI),
Distracted Driving,
Ped/Bike Safety, Police
Enforcement, Roadway
Safety and Data
Collection, and Social
Media/Marketing
Sources:

1. Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidelines, April 2016

2. Highway safety improvement program, Pub. L. No. 148, 23 US Code (2015). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/148.

3. Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment. February 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/advtranscongmgmtfs.cfm.

4. 2021 Active Transportation Program Guidelines. March 25, 2020. Resolution G-20-31.

5. California Department of Transportation. Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program. December 2019.

6. California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Manual for Federal Fiscal Year 2020. December 2019. 215
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
APPENDIX A – INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY SEGMENT

RANKING

216
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
APPENDIX B – SEGMENT PROJECT CONCEPT PLANS
217
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
APPENDIX C – SAFETY PROJECT COST ESTIMATION
218
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
APPENDIX D – COLLISION REDUCTION BENEFITS TABLE
219
CITY OF FONTANA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
APPENDIX E – TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
220
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 1 Prepared for the City of Fontana
FONTANA LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP):

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
Date: 9/7/2022
To: Jeffrey Kim, Engineering Manager – City of Fontana
From: Frank Barrera, Senior Planner – KOA Corporation
Subject: City of Fontana LRSP – Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Various stakeholder outreach and engagement efforts were conducted during the development of the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). This memorandum summarizes the stakeholder outreach and engagement efforts.

Stakeholder Outreach and engagement
In addition to using analytical methods to identify locations for treatments and make recommendations, the LRSP also focuses on partnerships with the community to give input into this process and provide feedback on areas that the LRSP should focus on. Stakeholders were contacted after completing the collision analysis but before selecting emphasis areas to identify specific infrastructure improvements and programs. Stakeholders were asked to provide feedback about traffic safety issues they have observed through their work and possible approaches to resolving these issues. For the Fontana LRSP, feedback was provided by the Fontana Police Department, Omnitrans, and the Fontana Unified School District.

Fontana Police Department
A meeting with the Fontana Police Department was held on February 15, 2021. Items discussed include the following:
● Roadway segments with a history of speeding
● Intersections of concern and reasons for concern
● Street racing activity on local roadways
● Experience with newer traffic control devices such as a Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
● Enforcement strategies such as pedestrian crosswalk sting operations, speed trailers, and Driving Under the Influence (DUI) checkpoints
● Collision report policy
● Ideas for improving traffic safety
● Traffic safety awareness and educational campaigns
The police department noted that pedestrian issues were most prominent on Foothill Boulevard. The police department also noted the following specific enforcement activities and campaigns currently being conducted by the City:
● Primary Collision Factor (PCF) related enforcement
221
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 2 Prepared for the City of Fontana
● Click It or Ticket
● Bicycle Safety Awareness
● Motorcycle Safety Awareness
● DUI Saturation
● Distracted Driving
● Social media educational campaign
Omnitrans
A meeting with Omnitrans was held on February 16, 2021. During the meeting, issues discussed included safety concerns with bus accessibility at particular stations, recent transit route upgrades, and areas needing safety enhancements.

Fontana Unified School District
A meeting with the Fontana Unified School District was held on February 16, 2021. Items discussed included the following:
● How students travel to school
● Crossing guard information
● Driving patterns related to school drop-off or pickup ● Areas with safety concerns and the need for safety enhancements Though the school district noted it did not have current programs to improve traffic safety, they expressed openness to adding an online program for parents or students.

Stakeholder Survey
To ensure that the recently adopted traffic safety guidelines (developed in the 2022 LRSP) involved the Fontana community, a survey was created to engage local stakeholders on their opinion of traffic safety in Fontana. The survey was posted online, via Typeform. A total of 13 survey responses were recorded from individuals representing local organizations such as SBCTA, San Bernardino County Fire Department, Fontana Chamber of Commerce, and Omnitrans. Several non-governmental organizations, with ties to the Fontana community, were also included in the survey. Of the 13 survey respondents, 12 indicated that they work in Fontana. Two respondents indicated that they both work and live in Fontana.

The survey included nine questions, asking respondents to provide their name, organization information, and connection to Fontana, as well as their opinion of roadway safety on local Fontana streets, both as a driver and a pedestrian or bicyclist. Overall, over 50% of all survey respondents viewed walking and/or biking in Fontana as “less safe” or “not safe at all.” Survey respondents viewed driving more favorably (in terms of safety), with 10 respondents viewing driving in Fontana as “moderately safe” and three respondents selecting “very safe.”
222
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 3 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Survey respondents were also asked which Fontana intersections and/or roadway corridors they considered to be the least safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Respondents could select any intersection or corridor.

Seven (7) different corridors and five (5) different intersections were selected, with Sierra Avenue receiving the largest number of selections (three (3)) for “most dangerous” citywide corridor. It should be noted that the Foothill Boulevard and Citrus Avenue corridors, which were identified by survey respondents as unsafe corridors, were recommended for pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements in the 2022 LRSP. See the table below for a full list of corridor and intersection selections.

Table 1 – Survey Results on Study Locations
Corridor # of
responses
Intersection # of
responses
Sierra Avenue 3 Highland Avenue and Juniper Avenue 1
Foothill Boulevard 2 Cherry Avenue and Slover Avenue 1
Slover Avenue 2 Valley Boulevard and Almond Avenue 1
Citrus Avenue 1 Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue 1 Cherry Avenue 1 Beech Avenue and Arrow Boulevard* 1
Arrow Boulevard 1
Ivy Avenue 1
*Beech Avenue & Arrow Boulevard intersection is outside of City of Fontana jurisdiction LRSP Intersections
To supplement the outreach undertaken during the LRSP, survey respondents were polled as to which LRSP project intersections and corridors they viewed as “most dangerous” for pedestrians and bicyclists, and therefore locations most in need of active transportation safety improvements. Respondents were asked to select up to three intersections (of 10 total).
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
No response
Not safe at all
Less safe
Moderately safe
Very safe
Perceived Safety (Driving vs Walking or Biking)
How safe do you find it to *walk or bike* on local streets in Fontana? How safe do you find it to *drive* on local streets in Fontana? 223
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 4 Prepared for the City of Fontana
From those selections, respondents were then asked to select (from a list of five categories) up to two reasons for the unsafe pedestrian/bicyclist conditions on their selected intersection(s) and corridor(s).

Category choices included: high traffic volumes, poor or missing sidewalks, lack of crosswalks, high vehicle speeds, and lack of shade/trees.

Survey respondents identified Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard and Arrow Boulevard & Oleander Avenue as the most dangerous intersections (of the 10 intersections recommended for improvements in LRSP) for pedestrians and bicyclists. Again, note that survey respondents could select up to three intersections. Full survey results are included below.

Table 2 – Survey Respondents on Intersections in the LRSP Intersections (in LRSP) # of
responses
Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard 6
Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue 6
Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue 4
Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue 4
Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard 3
Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue 2
Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue 1
Sierra Avenue and Orange Way 1
Cherry Avenue and Village Drive 1
Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue 0
Of the 10 intersections proposed for road safety improvements in the 2022 LRSP, survey respondents chose high vehicle speeds and high traffic volumes as the top safety issue impacting pedestrians and bicyclists at LRSP project intersections. Again, note that survey respondents could select up to two safety issues. See full results are shown below, including a breakdown of respondents’ top safety issues by selected intersection:

Table 3 – Survey Respondents on Top Safety Issues for Pedestrians/Bicyclists at Intersections Top Safety Issue for
Pedestrians/Bicyclists (at
intersections)
# of responses
High vehicle speeds 11
High traffic volumes 8
Poor or missing sidewalks 4
Lack of crosswalks 1
Lack of shade/trees 0
224
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 5 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 4 – Survey Respondents on Intersections in the LRSP Regarding Safety Concerns Intersections (in LRSP)
# of
responses
*
Intersections (in LRSP)
# of
responses
*
Intersections (in LRSP)
# of
responses
*
Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard 6
Beech Avenue & Valley Boulevard 3 Cherry Avenue & Village Drive 1 High vehicle speeds 5 High vehicle speeds 2 High vehicle speeds 1 High traffic volumes 5 High traffic volumes 1 High traffic volumes 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Arrow Boulevard & Oleander Avenue 6 Highland Avenue & Knox Avenue 2 Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue 0 High vehicle speeds 4 High vehicle speeds 0 High vehicle speeds 0 High traffic volumes 4 High traffic volumes 1 High traffic volumes 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 2 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Arrow Boulevard & Locust Avenue 4 Jurupa Avenue & Sierra Avenue 1 * Note that each respondent can select up to 2
categories for each selected intersection. Total
number of categories (italicized in table) can be
different than total number of responses at
intersection.

High vehicle speeds 4 High vehicle speeds 1 High traffic volumes 2 High traffic volumes 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Hemlock Avenue & Slover Avenue 4 Sierra Avenue & Orange Way 1 High vehicle speeds 3 High vehicle speeds 1 High traffic volumes 2 High traffic volumes 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 225
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 6 Prepared for the City of Fontana
High vehicle speeds and high traffic volumes were selected as the top safety concerns for almost all LRSP project intersections. This stakeholder concern for vehicle speeding directly aligns with the City of Fontana’s commitment to mitigating unsafe speeding on local streets, adopted as a major safety focus area in the City’s 2022 LRSP.

LRSP Corridors
Survey respondents were also asked to identify which LRSP project corridor(s) they viewed as “most dangerous” for pedestrians and bicyclists. Of the three corridors proposed for improvements in the LRSP, seven survey respondents identified the Valley Boulevard corridor as most dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists, which was the highest vote total of any LRSP corridor project. Survey respondents could select all three corridors if they viewed each corridor as dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Table 5 – Survey Respondents on Corridors in the LRSP
Corridors (in LRSP) # of
responses
Valley Boulevard (citywide) 7
Foothill Boulevard (west city limits to Citrus Avenue) 5 Citrus Avenue (Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue) 4
Similar to the LRSP intersection survey, survey respondents were then asked to select the top safety issue(s) impacting pedestrians and bicyclists at their chosen corridor(s). Respondents could select up to two safety issues. The selection results were similar to that of the LRSP intersections. Of the five safety issues, respondents selected high vehicle speeds as the top safety issue (for pedestrians and bicyclists) on Fontana LRSP project corridors. High traffic volumes and poor or missing sidewalks tied for the secondhighest selection total.

See full results below, including a breakdown of respondents’ top safety issues by selected intersection:

Table 6 – Survey Respondents on Top Safety Issues for Pedestrians and Bicyclists along Corridors Top Safety Issue for
Pedestrians/Bicyclists (corridors) # of responses
High vehicle speeds 10
High traffic volumes 7
Poor or missing sidewalks 7
Lack of shade/trees 1
Lack of crosswalks 0

226
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 7 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 7 – Survey Respondents on Corridors in the LRSP Regarding Safety Concerns Corridors (in LRSP) # of
responses*
Valley Boulevard (citywide) 7
High vehicle speeds 5
High traffic volumes 5
Poor or missing sidewalks 2
Lack of crosswalks 0
Lack of shade/trees 1
Foothill Boulevard (west city limits to Citrus Avenue) 5 High vehicle speeds 4
High traffic volumes 2
Poor or missing sidewalks 4
Lack of crosswalks 0
Lack of shade/trees 0
Citrus Avenue (Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue) 4
High vehicle speeds 2
High traffic volumes 4
Poor or missing sidewalks 2
Lack of crosswalks 0
Lack of shade/trees 0
* Note that each respondent can select up to 2 categories for each selected corridor. Total number of categories (italicized in table) can be different than total number of responses along a corridor.

High vehicle speeds was tied for the top safety issue for the Valley Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard LRSP project corridors. In response to this stakeholder concern for unsafe speeding, the LRSP recommended several traffic calming countermeasures on Valley Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard, such as constructing a raised median and widening the shoulders on Foothill Boulevard, as well as introducing a separated bike lane on both Valley Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard. The LRSP also proposed constructing sidewalks on Foothill Boulevard (where sidewalks were missing between Hemlock Avenue and Almeria Avenue). Four (4) of the five (5) survey respondents who selected Foothill Boulevard as a dangerous corridor then identified “poor or missing sidewalks” as a top safety issue impacting pedestrians on that corridor.

SURVEY QUESTIONS

1. The City of Fontana is currently submitting a grant application to the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) as part of their nationwide Safe Streets For All (SSA4A) initiative. SS4A aims to provide funding for roadway safety projects that would benefit populations with high socioeconomic, environmental, and/or health need. We appreciate your input on this potential project through answering a few questions on this short survey. 227
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 8 Prepared for the City of Fontana

2. First, what is your connection to Fontana?
a. I live here
i. Cross street or neighborhood?
b. I work here
i. Cross street or neighborhood?
c. I visit here
i. Cross street or neighborhood?
d. Other
i. Please state your relationship with the Fontana community.

3. How safe do you find it to drive on local streets in Fontana (not the I-10 or SR-210 freeways?) a. Very safe
b. Moderately safe
c. Less safe
d. Not safe at all

4. How safe do you find it to walk or bicycle on local streets in Fontana (not the I-10 or SR-210 freeways?)
a. Very safe
b. Moderately safe
c. Less safe
d. Not safe at all

5. What intersections and/or street corridors have you encountered that are less safe for pedestrians and bicyclists?
a. ….. Free response from survey taker

6. Of the following intersections, which do you believe are most dangerous for pedestrians or bicyclists (Select up to 3)? Show map
a. Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard
b. Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue
c. Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue
d. Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue
e. Sierra Avenue and Orange Way
f. Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue
g. Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard
h. Cherry Avenue and Village Drive
i. Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue
j. Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue

7. For the intersections you selected as most dangerous, what are the top two concerns for pedestrians? (select two)
a. High traffic volumes
b. Poor or missing sidewalks
c. Lack of crosswalks
d. High vehicle speeds
e. Lack of shade/trees
228
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 9 Prepared for the City of Fontana

8. Of the following corridors, which do you believe is most dangerous for pedestrians or bicyclists (Select up to three)?
a. Foothill Blvd
b. Citrus Avenue (Arrow Blvd to Jurupa Ave)
c. Valley Blvd

9. For the corridor you selected as most dangerous, what are the top two concerns for pedestrians? (select two)
a. High traffic volumes
b. Poor or missing sidewalks
c. Lack of crosswalks
d. High vehicle speeds
e. Lack of shade/trees

10. Any other safety concerns you would like to mention a. …. Free response from survey taker
USDOT discussion on criteria for Historically Disadvantaged Community (HDC) classification:

Consistent with OMB’s Interim Guidance, DOT has developed a definition for highly disadvantaged communities using existing, publicly available data sets and where source data did not exist (Tribal lands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) OMB’s Common Conditions definition. Population data is from the 2019 American Community Survey: 5-Year Data. The disadvantaged Census Tracts, as identified in this tool, exceeded the 50th percentile (75th for resilience) across at least four of the following six transportation disadvantaged indicators. Each of the six disadvantage indicators are assembled at the Census Tract level using data from the CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, EPA Smart Location Map, HUD Location Affordability Index, EPA EJ Screen, FEMA Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool and FEMA National Risk Index. Transportation Access disadvantage identifies communities and places that spend more, and longer, to get where they need to go. (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, EPA Smart Location Map, HUD Location Affordability Index) Health disadvantage identifies communities based on variables associated with adverse health outcomes, disability, as well as environmental exposures. (CDC Social Vulnerability Index) Environmental disadvantage identifies communities with disproportionate pollution burden and inferior environmental quality. (EPA EJ Screen) Economic disadvantage identifies areas and populations with high poverty, low wealth, lack of local jobs, low homeownership, low educational attainment, and high inequality. (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, FEMA Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool) Resilience disadvantage identifies communities vulnerable to hazards caused by climate change. (FEMA National Risk Index) Equity disadvantage identifies communities with a high percentile of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well." (CDC Social Vulnerability Index) For more information on DOT's Justice40 activities, or to download the DOT Disadvantage layer as a shapefile please visit https://www.transportation.gov/equity-Justice40. The DOT Disadvantage layer is available as a feature layer here
https://usdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de9979007ae24a25845e84e21d5a32d4 229
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 1 Prepared for the City of Fontana
FONTANA LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP):

EQUITY, POLICY AND ENGAGEMENT ANALYSIS
Date: 9/13/2022
To: Jeffrey Kim, Engineering Manager – City of Fontana
From: Frank Barrera, Senior Planner – KOA Corporation
Subject: City of Fontana LRSP – Equity, Policy, and Engagement Analysis for SS4A Action Plan Compliance
With the recent onset of the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, enacted by the U.S.

Department of Transportation (USDOT), up to $1 billion in roadway safety funding is available. Municipal governments, such as the City of Fontana, are eligible to apply for this SS4A funding. As part of the SS4A grant application, the City of Fontana is required to submit an SS4A Action Plan-compliant current Local Roadway Safety Plan, which the City completed in July 2022. This LRSP will become the foundation for traffic safety guidelines moving forward, and the City of Fontana is committed to routinely reviewing these safety guidelines, as outlined in the 2022 LRSP, every five years (or as funding allows). This traffic safety review will be conducted by the City’s Public Works and Engineering Departments and will include an updated assessment of collision data and traffic safety-related police citations, to identify current traffic safety trends and issues, and monitor the safety trends and changes. The progress of the Plan will be measured through the changes in the annual traffic collisions by reviewing changes in the number of total collisions but also the total number of type of collisions (fatal, severe injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only (PDO). The chief goal of the City’s traffic safety commitment is to reduce traffic-related injuries, particularly to pedestrians and bicyclists. This commitment is reflected in both the LRSP, and previous plans adopted by the City (which are discussed below). The City also must demonstrate that roadway safety improvement projects are focused in disadvantaged communities.

Fontana’s eligibility for an SS4A grant through an Action Plan-compliant LRSP, including projects included in the LRSP, are provided in this report.

EQUITY
Identifying community areas that are designated as disadvantaged communities is a core element of the SS4A compliant Action Plan grant application. There are several accepted methods for determining locations that can be considered disadvantaged communities.

HISTORICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY (HDC)
The USDOT developed its own metric for determining which Census tracts can be considered “historically disadvantaged.” This USDOT metric combines multiple datasets from agencies such as the CDC, US Census Bureau, and EPA to arrive at an aggregate score for individual Census tracts. This score is an aggregate of the following categories:

230
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 2 Prepared for the City of Fontana
1) transportation access
2) health
3) environmental (pollution)
4) economic
5) resilience (vulnerability to climate change)
6) equity (high concentration of individuals who speak English “less than well”) According to the USDOT, disadvantaged Census tracts have scores exceeding the 50th percentile (75th percentile for resilience) in at least four of these individual categories.

Using this USDOT metric, a vast majority of Fontana can be considered a historically disadvantaged community. Only three Census tracts in Fontana (of 39 Census tracts) do not meet the threshold for “historically disadvantaged community.” These three Census tracts consist of single-family residential areas concentrated in the northern part of the city (West End/Village of Heritage, Hunter’s Ridge, and parts of Summit Ridge housing developments).

Fontana rates particularly high in the equity and transportation categories. In equity, all 39 Fontana Census tracts rate above the 50th percentile nationwide, and 31 (of 39) Fontana Census tracts are scored higher than the 75th percentile in resilience. The 75th percentile is the disadvantaged threshold for the resilience category.

Over 87% of Fontana’s total area is considered a “historically disadvantaged community”, using the USDOT definition. In addition, over 91% of Fontana’s total population resides in a “historically disadvantaged community” Census tract, according to these USDOT metrics and 2019 ACS 5-Year estimate data.

Comparing these USDOT “historically disadvantaged community” Census tracts with Fontana LRSP projects, all ten Fontana LRSP intersection and three roadway corridor improvement project recommendations are located in a disadvantaged community.

231
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 3 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Figure 1 – USDOT Disadvantaged Communities, Fontana
232
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 4 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Figure 2 – LRSP Project Locations Map

233
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 5 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 1 – Study Locations and Disadvantaged Communities

AREA OF PERSISTENT POVERTY (APP)
The USDOT offers an additional definition for disadvantaged communities: Areas of Persistent Poverty.

This metric focuses solely on poverty rate, according to 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year estimate data, where any Census tract with a poverty rate of at least 20 percent is considered an “area of persistent poverty,” and therefore, a disadvantaged community.

The Area of Persistent Poverty is a more stringent measure for disadvantaged communities. In California,

51.7% of all Census tracts meet criteria for Historically Disadvantaged Community, whereas only 25% of Census tracts can be deemed an Area of Persistent Poverty, according to USDOT.

In Fontana, 16 Census tracts have poverty rates that meet the threshold for Area of Persistent Poverty, which is about 41% of all Census tracts in the city. The locations are generally around the downtown of Fontana – between I-10 and SR-210.

Concerning LRSP projects, six (6) of the ten (10) intersections chosen for improvements are located in an Area of Persistent Poverty. Also, each of the three corridors selected as an LRSP project intersect Census tracts deemed as an Area of Persistent Poverty.

ID Name Control Historically Disadvantaged
Community? (USDOT)
1 Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard Signalized Y
2 Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue Signalized Y
3 Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue Signalized Y
4 Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue Signalized Y
5 Sierra Avenue and Orange Way Signalized Y
6 Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue Signalized Y
7 Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard Unsignalized Y
8 Cherry Avenue and Village Drive Unsignalized Y
9 Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue Unsignalized Y
10 Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue Unsignalized Y
Citrus Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Ave
Valley Boulevard from West City Limits to East City
Limits

INTERSECTIONS

CORRIDORS
Name Historically Disadvantaged Community?
(USDOT)
Y
Y
Y
Foothill Boulevard from West City Limits to Citrus
Avenue
234
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 6 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Figure 3 – USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty, Fontana
235
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 7 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 1 – Study Locations and Areas of Persistent Poverty An area of persistent poverty can also be defined at the county level, for counties that have “consistently had greater than or equal to 20 percent of the population living in poverty during the last 30-year period,” according to decennial census data and the most recent Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (USDOT: https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/RAISE-Persistent-Poverty-Tool/tsyd-k6ij/).

San Bernardino County, which the City of Fontana is located, does not meet the criteria for APP.

In summation, all proposed project locations meet the criteria for USDOT’s “Historically Disadvantaged Community” definition. Also, six Fontana LRSP project intersections and each of the three Fontana LRSP project corridors are located in an “Area of Persistent Poverty,” which is a more stringent measure of a disadvantaged community.

POLICY
Reviewing current safety plans, guidelines, and standards, as well as potential revisions to those guidelines, is a critical part of the SS4A application. A detailed discussion of Fontana’s major safety-related plans (and their relation to the newly adopted traffic safety guidelines in the LRSP) is provided below.

General Plan Update (2018)
The City of Fontana adopted its General Plan in 2003, followed by an update to the General Plan which was approved in 2018. In this General Plan update, Fontana residents were provided a list of ten potential ID Name Control Area of Persistent Poverty
(USDOT)
1 Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard Signalized Y
2 Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue Signalized Y
3 Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue Signalized Y
4 Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue Signalized
5 Sierra Avenue and Orange Way Signalized Y
6 Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue Signalized Y
7 Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard Unsignalized Y
8 Cherry Avenue and Village Drive Unsignalized
9 Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue Unsignalized
10 Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue Unsignalized
Citrus Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Ave Y
Valley Boulevard from West City Limits to East City
Limits Y

INTERSECTIONS

CORRIDORS
Name Area of Persistent Poverty (USDOT)
Foothill Boulevard from West City Limits to Citrus
Avenue Y
236
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 8 Prepared for the City of Fontana
citywide priorities and were then surveyed on which priorities they consider a “high priority” or “medium priority.” Residents identified “attract businesses with jobs for Fontana residents” as the top priority,” followed by “improve the maintenance of city streets and infrastructure”, “make it easier and safer to walk to local destinations”, and “redevelop and revitalize Valley Blvd and Foothill Blvd.” Over 60% of surveyed Fontana residents selected pedestrian safety and accessibility as a “high priority.” Fontana’s recently adopted traffic safety guidelines (from 2022 LRSP) are committed to improving pedestrian safety citywide. Also, the LRSP selected both Foothill Boulevard and Valley Boulevard as corridor improvement projects, featuring new sidewalks, separated bike lanes, and wider shoulders. These projects align directly with the Fontana’s 2015 General Plan update, as both plans focus on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, especially on the Foothill Boulevard and Valley Boulevard corridors.

In addition, through more public participation, Fontana residents and stakeholders identified several transportation issues as major public health and mobility concerns in their community. These concerns included improving the sidewalk and bicycle lane networks as well as creating walkable districts. To address its community’s desire for improved pedestrian and bicyclist access, the City of Fontana adopted the following action items as part of the General Plan:
 Make multimodal transportation a high priority by promoting pedestrian access, bicycle use, and transit options within Fontana and to the surrounding communities  Maintain bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure at high levels to encourage use  Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, automobile safety and transit accessibility over vehicle level of service at intersections
237
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 9 Prepared for the City of Fontana
 Strongly encourage efforts to improve the safety of all roadway users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists
 Design intersections to minimize conflicts between motorized vehicles and the more vulnerable roadway users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists
 Consider pedestrians and bicyclists when designing road surfaces, curbs, crossings, signage, landscaping, signals, and sight lines.

The City of Fontana set these policy action items as both achievable in the short term and as ongoing objectives – core parts of the City’s vision for its future. As mentioned in the General Plan, the City of Fontana’s engineering department, planning division, and public works department are responsible for managing these policy action items.

Active Transportation Plan (2017)
In 2017, the City of Fontana adopted an Active Transportation Plan (ATP), which recommended 69.44 miles of new bikeway facilities. This included over eight miles of Class I (shared-use path) bikeways and over 37 miles of Class II (bike lane/buffered bike lane) bikeways. A complete breakdown of recommended bikeways (from the 2017 ATP) is provided below:

Fontana’s ATP proposed new bikeways along Valley Boulevard, from Banana Avenue to Alder Avenue, as well as along Foothill Boulevard, from Almeria Avenue to Citrus Avenue and Hemlock Avenue to Sultana Avenue. As these projects were not completed at time of 2022 LRSP adoption, the LRSP recommended new bikeways along both of these corridors: Valley Boulevard, from Banana Avenue to Alder Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard, between Hemlock Avenue and Almeria Avenue. In addition, both the ATP and LRSP proposed Class II bikeways along Citrus Avenue, a north-south corridor that provides access to several schools and features on-street parking across a majority of the corridor.

Both the ATP and LRSP identified the need for improving bicyclist safety and access along Valley Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard (east of Hemlock Avenue), and Citrus Avenue, which did not have bicycle lanes in 2017 nor were bicycle lanes installed at time of 2022 LRSP adoption. 238
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 10 Prepared for the City of Fontana
As shown in figure below, nearly all of the bikeway projects recommended in the LRSP were also recommended in the 2017 ATP (only a small bikeway proposed in LRSP for Locust Ave, near the Pacific Electric Trail, was not part of the ATP).

Figure 4 – Existing and Proposed Bikeways
239
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 11 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Note that the LRSP indicated that there is a right-of-way issue on Foothill Boulevard, east of Sultana Avenue, where Foothill Boulevard lacks shoulders due to the Pacific Electric Trail overpass. The Foothill Boulevard bikeway project received a “high priority” score, according to the ATP. The prioritization score aggregated seven individual criteria, including community support, safety (number of pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved collisions), and proximity to schools, retail, and recreation.

Figure 5 – 2017 Fontana Active Transportation Plan, Existing and Proposed Bikeways The 2017 ATP also included pedestrian improvements at intersections, as shown in figure below (Figure

5.2 in the ATP). The intersections outlined in Figure 5.2 were recommended for a variety of pedestrian 240
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 12 Prepared for the City of Fontana
safety improvements, such as high-visibility crosswalks, curb extensions, conflict pavement markings, and median refuge islands. Several of these pedestrian safety improvements were also included in the LRSP, particularly high-visibility crosswalks and curb extensions. The following intersections were recommended for pedestrian safety improvements in both the ATP and LRSP:
 Valley Boulevard and Sierra Avenue
 Cherry Avenue and Village Drive
Figure 6 – 2017 Fontana Active Transportation Plan, Pedestrian Priority Areas 241
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 13 Prepared for the City of Fontana

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
To ensure that the recently adopted traffic safety guidelines (developed in the 2022 LRSP) involved the Fontana community, a survey was created to engage local stakeholders on their opinion of traffic safety in Fontana. The survey was posted online, via Typeform. A total of 13 survey responses were recorded from individuals representing local organizations such as SBCTA, San Bernardino County Fire Department, Fontana Chamber of Commerce, and Omnitrans. Several non-governmental organizations, with ties to the Fontana community, such as major businesses which are major employment centers within the City, were also included in the survey. Of the 13 survey respondents, 12 indicated that they work in Fontana. Two respondents indicated that they both work and live in Fontana.

The survey included nine questions, asking respondents to provide their name, organization information, and connection to Fontana, as well as their opinion of roadway safety on local Fontana streets, both as a driver and a pedestrian or bicyclist. Overall, over 50% of all survey respondents viewed walking and/or biking in Fontana as “less safe” or “not safe at all.” Survey respondents viewed driving more favorably (in terms of safety), with 10 respondents viewing driving in Fontana as “moderately safe” and three respondents selecting “very safe.”
Survey respondents were also asked which Fontana intersections and/or roadway corridors they considered to be the least safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Respondents could select any intersection or corridor.

Seven (7) different corridors and five (5) different intersections were selected, with Sierra Avenue receiving the largest number of selections three (3) for “most dangerous” citywide corridor. It should be noted that the Foothill Boulevard and Citrus Avenue corridors, which were identified by survey respondents as unsafe corridors, were recommended for pedestrians and bicyclist safety improvements in the 2022 LRSP. See table below for full list of corridor and intersection selections:

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
No response
Not safe at all
Less safe
Moderately safe
Very safe
Perceived Safety (Driving vs Walking or Biking)
How safe do you find it to *walk or bike* on local streets in Fontana? How safe do you find it to *drive* on local streets in Fontana? 242
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 14 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 2 – Survey Results on Study Locations
Corridor # of
responses
Intersection # of
responses
Sierra Avenue 3 Highland Avenue & Juniper Avenue 1
Foothill Boulevard 2 Cherry Avenue & Slover Avenue 1
Slover Avenue 2 Valley Boulevard & Almond Avenue 1
Citrus Avenue 1 Foothill Boulevard & Sultana Avenue 1
Cherry Avenue 1 Beech Avenue & Arrow Boulevard* 1
Arrow Boulevard 1
Ivy Avenue 1
*Beech Avenue & Arrow Boulevard intersection is outside of City of Fontana jurisdiction LRSP Intersections
To supplement the outreach undertaken during the LRSP, survey respondents were polled as to which LRSP project intersections and corridors they viewed as “most dangerous” for pedestrians and bicyclists, and therefore locations most in need of active transportation safety improvements. Respondents were asked to select up to three intersections (of 10 total).

From those selections, respondents were then asked to select (from a list of five categories) up to two reasons for the unsafe pedestrian/bicyclist conditions on their selected intersection(s) and corridor(s).

Category choices included: high traffic volumes, poor or missing sidewalks, lack of crosswalks, high vehicle speeds, and lack of shade/trees.

Survey respondents identified Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard and Arrow Boulevard & Oleander Avenue as the most dangerous intersections (of the 10 intersections recommended for improvements in LRSP) for pedestrians and bicyclists. Again, note that survey respondents could select up to three intersections. Full survey results are included below:

Table 3 – Survey Respondents on Intersections in the LRSP Intersections (in LRSP) # of
responses
Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard 6
Arrow Boulevard & Oleander Avenue 6
Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue 4
Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue 4
Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard 3
Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue 2
Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue 1
Sierra Avenue and Orange Way 1
Cherry Avenue and Village Drive 1
Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue 0
243
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 15 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Of the 10 intersections proposed for road safety improvements in the 2022 LRSP, survey respondents chose high vehicle speeds and high traffic volumes as the top safety issue impacting pedestrians and bicyclists at LRSP project intersections. Again, note that survey respondents could select up to two safety issues. See full results below, including a breakdown of respondents’ top safety issues by selected intersection:

Table 4 – Survey Respondents on Top Safety Issues for Pedestrians/Bicyclists, Intersections Top Safety Issue for Pedestrians/Bicyclists
(at intersections) # of responses
High vehicle speeds 11
High traffic volumes 8
Poor or missing sidewalks 4
Lack of crosswalks 1
Lack of shade/trees 0
244
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 16 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 5 – Survey Respondents on Intersections in the LRSP Regarding Safety Concerns Intersections (in LRSP)
# of
responses
*
Intersections (in LRSP)
# of
responses
*
Intersections (in LRSP)
# of
responses
*
Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard 6
Beech Avenue & Valley Boulevard 3 Cherry Avenue & Village Drive 1 High vehicle speeds 5 High vehicle speeds 2 High vehicle speeds 1 High traffic volumes 5 High traffic volumes 1 High traffic volumes 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Arrow Boulevard & Oleander Avenue 6 Highland Avenue & Knox Avenue 2 Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue 0 High vehicle speeds 4 High vehicle speeds 0 High vehicle speeds 0 High traffic volumes 4 High traffic volumes 1 High traffic volumes 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 2 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Arrow Boulevard & Locust Avenue 4 Jurupa Avenue & Sierra Avenue 1 * Note that each respondent can select up to 2
categories for each selected intersection. Total
number of categories (italicized in table) can be
different than total number of responses at
intersection.

High vehicle speeds 4 High vehicle speeds 1 High traffic volumes 2 High traffic volumes 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Hemlock Avenue & Slover Avenue 4 Sierra Avenue & Orange Way 1 High vehicle speeds 3 High vehicle speeds 1 High traffic volumes 2 High traffic volumes 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 245
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 17 Prepared for the City of Fontana
High vehicle speeds and high traffic volumes were selected as the top safety concerns for almost all LRSP project intersections. This stakeholder concern for vehicle speeding directly aligns with the City of Fontana’s commitment to mitigating unsafe speeding on local streets, adopted as a major safety focus area in the City’s 2022 LRSP.

LRSP Corridors
Survey respondents were also asked to identify which LRSP project corridor(s) they viewed as “most dangerous” for pedestrians and bicyclists. Of the three corridors proposed for improvements in the LRSP, seven survey respondents identified the Valley Boulevard as most dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists, which was the highest vote total of any LRSP corridor project. Survey respondents could select all three corridors if they viewed each corridor as dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Table 6 – Survey Respondents on Corridors in the LRSP
Corridors (in LRSP) # of
responses
Valley Boulevard (citywide) 7
Foothill Boulevard (west city limits to Citrus Avenue) 5 Citrus Avenue (Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue) 4
Similar to the LRSP intersection survey, survey respondents were then asked to select the top safety issue(s) impacting pedestrians and bicyclists at their chosen corridor(s). Respondents could select up to two safety issues. The selection results were similar to that of the LRSP intersections. Of the five safety issues, respondents selected high vehicle speeds as the top safety issue (for pedestrians and bicyclists) on Fontana LRSP project corridors. High traffic volumes and poor or missing sidewalks tied for the secondhighest selection total.

See full results below, including a breakdown of respondents’ top safety issues by selected intersection:

Table 7 – Survey Respondents on Top Safety Issues for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, Corridors Top Safety Issue for Pedestrians/Bicyclists (corridors) # of responses
High vehicle speeds 10
High traffic volumes 7
Poor or missing sidewalks 7
Lack of shade/trees 1
Lack of crosswalks 0

246
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 18 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 8 – Survey Respondents on Corridors in the LRSP Regarding Safety Concerns Corridors (in LRSP) # of
responses*
Valley Boulevard (citywide) 7
High vehicle speeds 5
High traffic volumes 5
Poor or missing sidewalks 2
Lack of crosswalks 0
Lack of shade/trees 1
Foothill Boulevard (west city limits to Citrus Avenue) 5 High vehicle speeds 4
High traffic volumes 2
Poor or missing sidewalks 4
Lack of crosswalks 0
Lack of shade/trees 0
Citrus Avenue (Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue) 4
High vehicle speeds 2
High traffic volumes 4
Poor or missing sidewalks 2
Lack of crosswalks 0
Lack of shade/trees 0
High vehicle speeds was tied for the top safety issue for the Valley Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard LRSP project corridors. In response to this stakeholder concern for unsafe speeding, the LRSP recommended several traffic calming countermeasures on Valley Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard, such as constructing a raised median and widening the shoulders on Foothill Boulevard, as well as introducing a separated bike lane on both Valley Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard. The LRSP also proposed constructing sidewalks on Foothill Boulevard (where sidewalks were missing between Hemlock Avenue and Almeria Avenue). Four (4) of the five (5) survey respondents who selected Foothill Boulevard as a dangerous corridor then identified “poor or missing sidewalks” as a top safety issue impacting pedestrians on that corridor.

EXAMPLE SURVEY

1. The City of Fontana is currently submitting a grant application to the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) as part of their nationwide Safe Streets for All (SSA4A) initiative. SS4A aims to provide funding for roadway safety projects that would benefit populations with high socioeconomic, environmental, and/or health need. We appreciate your input on this potential project through answering a few questions on this short survey.

2. First, what is your connection to Fontana?
a. I live here
i. Cross street or neighborhood?
247
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 19 Prepared for the City of Fontana
b. I work here
i. Cross street or neighborhood?
c. I visit here
i. Cross street or neighborhood?
d. Other
i. Please state your relationship with the Fontana community.

3. How safe do you find it to drive on local streets in Fontana (not the I-10 or SR-210 freeways?) a. Very safe
b. Moderately safe
c. Less safe
d. Not safe at all

4. How safe do you find it to walk or bicycle on local streets in Fontana (not the I-10 or SR-210 freeways?)
a. Very safe
b. Moderately safe
c. Less safe
d. Not safe at all

5. What intersections and/or street corridors have you encountered that are less safe for pedestrians and bicyclists?
a. ….. Free response from survey taker

6. Of the following intersections, which do you believe are most dangerous for pedestrians or bicyclists (Select up to 3)? Show map
a. Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard
b. Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue
c. Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue
d. Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue
e. Sierra Avenue and Orange Way
f. Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue
g. Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard
h. Cherry Avenue and Village Drive
i. Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue
j. Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue

7. For the intersections you selected as most dangerous, what are the top two concerns for pedestrians? (select two)
a. High traffic volumes
b. Poor or missing sidewalks
c. Lack of crosswalks
d. High vehicle speeds
e. Lack of shade/trees

8. Of the following corridors, which do you believe is most dangerous for pedestrians or bicyclists (Select up to three)?
a. Foothill Blvd
248
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 20 Prepared for the City of Fontana
b. Citrus Avenue (Arrow Blvd to Jurupa Ave)
c. Valley Blvd

9. For the corridor you selected as most dangerous, what are the top two concerns for pedestrians? (select two)
a. High traffic volumes
b. Poor or missing sidewalks
c. Lack of crosswalks
d. High vehicle speeds
e. Lack of shade/trees

10. Any other safety concerns you would like to mention a. …. Free response from survey taker
USDOT discussion on criteria for Historically Disadvantaged Community (HDC) classification:

Consistent with OMB’s Interim Guidance, DOT has developed a definition for highly disadvantaged communities using existing, publicly available data sets and where source data did not exist (Tribal lands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) OMB’s Common Conditions definition. Population data is from the 2019 American Community Survey: 5-Year Data. The disadvantaged Census Tracts, as identified in this tool, exceeded the 50th percentile (75th for resilience) across at least four of the following six transportation disadvantaged indicators. Each of the six disadvantage indicators are assembled at the Census Tract level using data from the CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, EPA Smart Location Map, HUD Location Affordability Index, EPA EJ Screen, FEMA Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool and FEMA National Risk Index. Transportation Access disadvantage identifies communities and places that spend more, and longer, to get where they need to go. (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, EPA Smart Location Map, HUD Location Affordability Index) Health disadvantage identifies communities based on variables associated with adverse health outcomes, disability, as well as environmental exposures. (CDC Social Vulnerability Index) Environmental disadvantage identifies communities with disproportionate pollution burden and inferior environmental quality. (EPA EJ Screen) Economic disadvantage identifies areas and populations with high poverty, low wealth, lack of local jobs, low homeownership, low educational attainment, and high inequality. (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, FEMA Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool) Resilience disadvantage identifies communities vulnerable to hazards caused by climate change. (FEMA National Risk Index) Equity disadvantage identifies communities with a high percentile of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well." (CDC Social Vulnerability Index) For more information on DOT's Justice40 activities, or to download the DOT Disadvantage layer as a shapefile please visit https://www.transportation.gov/equity-Justice40. The DOT Disadvantage layer is available as a feature layer here
https://usdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de9979007ae24a25845e84e21d5a32d4 249
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1765 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: E. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Engineering
SUBJECT:

Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Geotechnical Engineering and Materials Testing Services for the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement in a not to exceed amount of $165,854.00 with Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants, Inc. for Geotechnical Engineering and Materials Testing Services for the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I, Request for Proposals SQ-06-DE-23.

2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute any future amendments to the Professional Services Agreement.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by maintaining and improving the city's existing infrastructure.
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.

DISCUSSION:

The City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I is a proposed project to be constructed in place of the existing Fire Administration Building located at 17001 Upland Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335 (Reference Exhibit “A” Vicinity Map), and shall consist of demolishing the existing one-story building, and constructing a two-story municipal building with first tier parking structure and second tier office spaces. Each tier will have a footprint of approximately 30,000 square feet with vehicle entrance and exit located on Upland Ave. just east of Wheeler Ave. The City anticipates 65 parking spaces to be within the parking structure portion of the building. The intent of the building is to serve as office space for city staff as well as both public and employee parking for the civic campus.

Staff solicited a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ/P) for Geotechnical Engineering and Materials Testing Services by notifying firms through the city’s online bid system. Thirty-nine (39) prospective bidders downloaded the RFQ/P documents. On September 9, 2022, proposals were received from eleven (11) firms interested in providing geotechnical engineering and materials testing services for the project. Statements of Qualifications were evaluated and ranked in accordance with City policies and procedures.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™250
File #: 21-1765 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: E. Category: Consent Calendar
FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds are available in FY 2022/23, in Fire Capital Projects Fund #610, specifically the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I, Project No. 50007001.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation
City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™251
N
0 1 inch = 600 feet
600 1200

CITY HALL RENOVATION PROJECT

PROJECT LOCATION
252
Firms Rank
Ninyo & Moore
Fontana, CA
1 MTGL, Inc.

Riverside, CA
2 Earth Systems Pacific
Burmuda Dunes, CA
3 Hilltop Geotechnical, Inc.

San Bernardino, CA
3 RMA Group
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
5 Koury Engineering and Testing, Inc.

Chino, CA
6 Hushmand Associates, Inc.

Irvine, CA
7 Fenagh Engineering and Testing
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
8 Universal Engineering Group
Irvine, CA
9 GeoTek, Inc.

Corona, CA
10 American Engineering Laboratories, Inc.

La Habra, CA
11 Geotechnical - City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I SQ-06-DE-23
Ranking
253
1 16498.00150\32126437.1

CITY OF FONTANA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
SQ-06-DE-23
This Agreement is made and entered into as of October 25, 2022 by and between the City of Fontana, a public agency organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California 92335 (“City”), and Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants, a Corporation with its principal place of business at 5710 Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional services for the following project:

City Hall Renovation Project – Phase I (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”).

B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.

C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit “B.” b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of $165,854.00. This amount is to cover all printing and related costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for printing expenses. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.

3. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall 254
2 16498.00150\32126437.1
be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

5. Term
The term of this Agreement shall be from October 25, 2022 to October 25, 2025 unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Project. Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner within the term of this Agreement and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”). The Notice to Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.

7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements. b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.
255
3 16498.00150\32126437.1

8. Standard of Care
Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.

9. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

10. Independent Contractor
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. (iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement (8) Property Damage
256
4 16498.00150\32126437.1
(9) Independent Contractors Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status. (iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
257
5 16498.00150\32126437.1
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per accident or disease Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.
g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to 258
6 16498.00150\32126437.1
non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.
i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
259
7 16498.00150\32126437.1
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.

Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
b. If Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional” services (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant’s liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects 260
8 16498.00150\32126437.1
(“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1. c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.

14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

15. Reserved.

16. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. 261
9 16498.00150\32126437.1
17 Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant.
18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.

19. Organization
Consultant shall assign Michael Putt, PG, CEG as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

20. Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described above.

21. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY:

City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Attn: Christopher Smethurst, Department of
Engineering
CONSULTANT:

Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and
Environmental Sciences Consultants, Inc.
7888 Cherry Avenue, Unit I
Fontana, California 92336
Attn: Michael Putt
262
10 16498.00150\32126437.1
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

22. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

24. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each Party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

25. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the remaining provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

26. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each Party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

27. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either Party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

28. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.
263
11 16498.00150\32126437.1

30. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
264
12 16498.00150\32126437.1

CITY OF FONTANA

SIGNATURE PAGE
TRACKING NO. XX-XX-XX-XX

CITY OF FONTANA
By:

City Manager
VENDOR NAME.

By:

Michael Putt
Principal Geologist
Attest:

By:

City Clerk’s Office
By:

Kurt Yoshi
Principal Engineer
By:

Deputy City Manager
Approved as to form:

Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
By: _____________________________
Public Works Director/City Engineer

IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
By: ______________________________
Human Resources & Risk Management Director

IN COMPLIANCE WITH PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION POLICIES/PROCEDURES ___________________________________
Chief Financial Officer

Purchasing Office
265
13 16498.00150\32126437.1

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
266
September 9, 2022
Proposal No. P04-03777
Qualifications to Provide
Geotechnical Services for
City Hall Renovation Project -
Phase I
City of Fontana (SQ-06-DE-23)

CITY OF FONTANA

PURCHASING OFFICE
8353 SIERRA AVENUE
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92335
267
7888 Cherry Avenue, Unit I | Fontana, California 92336 | p. 909.758.5960 | www.ninyoandmoore.com September 9, 2022
Proposal No. P04-03777
Mr. Sid Lambert
City of Fontana
Purchasing Office
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Subject: Qualifications to Provide Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I
City of Fontana (SQ-06-DE-23)
Dear Mr. Lambert:

Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants (Ninyo & Moore), a California corporation, is pleased to submit our qualifications and proposal to provide the City of Fontana (City) with geotechnical and materials testing services for the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I. We have prepared this proposal based on the City’s Request for Qualifications and Proposal SQ-06-DE-23. We fully understand the type of services the City requires, and are ready to meet your needs by making available a dedicated team of professionals who have the requisite experience and resources to successfully complete the project.

Ninyo & Moore has provided similar geotechnical services for projects throughout California and has successfully completed numerous projects for the City since 1995. Having successfully worked on previous contracts with the City, we are very familiar with the City’s administrative procedures as well as the technical requirements necessary for this contract, and are confident that the City will find Ninyo & Moore a responsible proposer.

Some of the advantages offered by Ninyo & Moore to the benefit of the City include:
• RELEVANT EXPERIENCE – A proven track record of successfully providing similar geotechnical services in and around the City since 1995. • AVAILABLE RESOURCES – As one of the largest geotechnical and environmental consulting firms in southern California, Ninyo & Moore employs more than 550 professionals, including in-house professional staff to perform all the geotechnical services for this contract. Our inhouse professional and equipment resources enables Ninyo & Moore to deliver efficient services to our clients.
• CERTIFIED LABORATORIES AND EQUIPMENT – Our laboratories have been certified/accredited by various agencies including Caltrans, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory (CCRL), the Division of the State Architect (DSA), the City of Los Angeles, and many other public agencies.
• PROXIMITY – Our geotechnical services will be coordinated from our local Fontana office and certified soils and materials laboratory, located at 7888 Cherry Avenue, Unit I, in Fontana, California. The proximity of our office and laboratory will enable us to provide quick response to requested services and will essentially eliminate delays due to travel time and traffic for our personnel.
268
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 3 Ninyo & Moore is committed to ensuring client satisfaction and meeting the needs of every client on each project. We are excited to continue to provide comprehensive geotechnical services to the City and further build upon our strong relationships with the City staff. We are fully prepared to make every possible commitment needed for successful and timely completion of the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I.

We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our capabilities with you personally. Ninyo & Moore appreciates the City’s favorable consideration of our proposal.

Respectfully submitted,

NINYO & MOORE
Kurt S. Yoshii, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
MLP/AR/emv
Distribution: 1 (via Planet Bids upload)
City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal 269
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 i Table of Contents

1. Identification of the Firm 1

2. Contact Person 1

3. Subconsultants 1

4. Work Plan 2

5. Organizational Chart 5

6. Schedule of Deadlines 6

7. Staffing Plan 6

8. Proposed Team 7

9. Key Personnel 8

10. Staff Resumes 8

11. Project Manager 9

12. References 10
Appendix A
Resumes of Key Personnel
City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal 270
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 1 Technical Proposal

1. Identification of the Firm
Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences
Consultants
7888 Cherry Avenue, Unit I
Fontana, California 92336
909.758.5960
www.ninyoandmoore.com

2. Contact Person
Michael Putt, PG, CEG
Principal Geologist/Project Manager
7888 Cherry Avenue, Unit I
Fontana, California 92336
p. 909.758.5960 ext. 12321
e. [email protected]

3. Subconsultants
Ninyo & Moore has personnel and equipment resources to provide the professional geotechnical services including laboratory and engineering analysis required for this contract in-house, without the need of subconsultants.

Ninyo & Moore has provided geotechnical services
for the City of Fontana since 1995. Our qualifications
demonstrate our expertise and experience providing
the requested scope of services by our teams
engineers, geologists, and field technicians.

Ninyo & Moore offers the following benefits:
√ Qualified Registered Engineers and Geologists
√ Qualified Inspectors and Field Technicians
√ Responsive Team
√ Credentialed Local Laboratory

OUR EXPERIENCE

OFFERS BOTH

DIVERSITY & DEPTH
60,000 +
projects in California
1,200 +
projects in the County of San Bernardino
85 +
projects for the City of Fontana
271
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 2 City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal

4. Work Plan
Based on our review of the Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ/P), the City Hall Renovation Project – Phase I consists of demolishing the existing Fire Administration Building located at 17001 Upland Avenue in Fontana and constructing a new twostory municipal building. The new building will include a first tier parking structure that will accommodate approximately 65 parking spaces and office spaces will be constructed on the second tier. Each level of the new building will have an approximate footprint of 33,000 square feet. We anticipate that additional improvements associated with the project will include new utilities and new pavements adjacent to the new building.

In preparation of this proposal, we have reviewed regional geologic and seismic data for the site vicinity which indicate that the site is underlain by Holocene-age sand and gravel young alluvial fan deposits. The depth to groundwater in the site vicinity is on the order of 500 feet. Due to the relatively deep groundwater, the site is not located within a County of San Bernardino liquefaction hazard zone. No active faults are known to cross the site and the site is not located within a mapped earthquake fault zone.

Based on our understanding of the project and the information presented above, we have prepared the following scope of services. Our geotechnical consulting and materials testing services will be performed in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code, Greenbook Specifications for public works construction, and current standards of practice. Our technical approach for the Phase I geotechnical design services for the project will include a thorough review of background materials, a subsurface exploration program consisting of four soil borings, laboratory testing of soil samples, geotechnical engineering analysis of the data collected, and preparation of a geotechnical evaluation report. In accordance with the RFQ/P, our services for Phase II of the project includes geotechnical and materials testing services as part of our role as the geotechnical engineer of record for the project.

Subsurface
Exploration
Phase I – Geotechnical and Soils Investigation
Our geotechnical design services will include the following:

Task 1 – Field Exploration Planning
• Project coordination, scheduling of field work, and consultation with the project team to provide geotechnical input. • Review of readily available geologic and topographic maps, published literature, stereoscopic aerial photographs, previous geotechnical reports prepared for the site, and in-house information. • Acquisition of a San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services well permit for drilling borings deeper than 20 feet. • Prepare a site-specific health and safety plan to support our field exploration activities. • A field reconnaissance to evaluate the surface conditions on-site and to mark the proposed boring locations for clearance with Underground Service Alert. We will provide geophysical utility locating services to clear the proposed boring locations during our reconnaissance and boring markout.

Hollow-Stem Auger Soil Sampling
272
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 3 City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERS

GEOLOGISTS
FIELD

TECHNICIANS

INSPECTORS
Task 2 – Field Exploration
• Subsurface exploration consisting of the drilling, logging and sampling of four hollow-stem auger borings using truck-mounted drilling equipment. We anticipate that one boring will be drilled to depths of approximately 80 feet and three borings will be drilled to depths of approximately 25 feet. The borings will be drilled to the indicated depths, or refusal, whichever is shallower. The borings will be logged by an engineer or geologist from our firm, and bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples will be collected at selected intervals for laboratory testing. In accordance with San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services requirements, the borings will be backfilled with grout. Following completion of drilling, borings performed in paved areas will be patched with rapid-set concrete dyed black or asphalt cold patch.
◦ Excess soil cuttings from the drilling will be placed in 55-gallon drums and temporarily stored at a secure location on-site. Representative samples of the drummed soils will be collected and sent to a laboratory for analytical testing to characterize the soil for disposal purposes. Following characterization, the drummed soils will be transported to an off-site disposal facility by a licensed waste-hauler. It is anticipated that the soil will be classified as non-hazardous waste.

Task 3 – Laboratory Testing
• Geotechnical laboratory testing of selected soil samples, including tests to evaluate in-situ moisture and density, sieve analyses, Atterberg limits, shear strength, consolidation, R-Value, and soil corrosivity, as appropriate.

Task 4 – Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
• Compilation and geotechnical analysis of field and laboratory data, including analyses to evaluate and provide recommendations pertaining to the following:
◦ Suitability of the site for the proposed construction from a geotechnical standpoint. ◦ Description of the geology and soils anticipated at the site. ◦ Evaluation of the site seismicity and geologic hazards that may impact the project improvements. 2019 California Building Code (CBC) seismic design coefficients will be presented. Seismic hazards to be evaluated will include the potential for fault rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement potential. The Site Class will be identified in accordance with the 2019 CBC. ◦ Evaluation of the depth to groundwater as encountered in our borings and our review of regional data.
◦ Excavation characteristics of the on-site materials, including anticipated difficult excavation, caving potential, and oversize material handling.
◦ Excavation stability and appropriate shoring systems. Excavations will be evaluated with respect to existing improvements and underground utilities. Shoring design criteria will include allowable lateral earth pressures, allowable passive pressures, and allowable settlement ◦ Fill material and compaction requirements, including suitability of the on-site soils for use as structural fill, bedding material, and trench backfill. ◦ Geotechnical engineering design parameters for the proposed building foundations and retaining walls (if proposed), including allowable bearing capacity values, lateral earth pressures, and estimated total and differential settlement. Foundation recommendations will be provided for footing foundation, mat foundations, and/or pile foundations, as appropriate. ◦ Geotechnical constructability issues and protection of existing facilities. ◦ Structural pavement design for asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete, if new parking is proposed.
◦ Evaluation of the corrosion potential of on-site soils. 273
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 4 City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal Structural Steel
Our inspection and materials testing and sampling will include the following:
• Project coordination, management and technical support including review of the project plans and specifications, and liner related submittals, work scheduling and distribution of test data. • Attendance at pre-construction meetings and as-requested field meetings. • Field Senior Project Engineer/Geologist services for observation of remedial excavation bottoms and to provide supplemental written recommendations as needed.
• Field Technician services for observation, sampling and testing during earthwork including during building pad preparation, trench backfill, structure backfill, subgrade, aggregate base and during AC paving operations. Field density tests will be performed to check the Contractors compaction efforts.
• Field Specialty Inspector services during structural concrete and masonry construction including checking reinforcement steel installation, spacing, size, grade, location, clearances and anchorage. Inspection during concrete placement and consolidation will also be performed.
• Field Specialty Inspector services during structural steel construction onsite including inspection during welding and bolting and non-destructive examination of welds in accordance with the project specifications. • Field ACI Concrete Technician services to provide observation, sampling and testing during structural concrete and grout placement including checking mix design, elapsed time, temperature, slump and casting a set of cylinders for each batch. • Laboratory testing including compressive strength testing of concrete, grout, mortar, and masonry prisms, conformance testing of rebar and high strength bolts, and AC maximum density and stability on representative samples obtained in the field.
• Preparation of daily reports and test data sheets to document the items inspected.

Masonry Inspection Remedial
Excavation
Task 5 – Report Preparation
• Preparation of a Draft Geotechnical Evaluation report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the design and construction of the proposed improvements. Our report will be signed by a registered geotechnical engineer and certified engineering geologist.
• Following receipt of review comments from the City’s Bridging Plan Architect, we will prepare a Final Geotechnical Evaluation Report that incorporates revisions based on comments received. We will respond to one round of review comments.

Task 6 – Technical Consultation and Meetings
• During our geotechnical design services, we will attend up to three virtual meetings with the City. We will also respond to emails and telephone calls, as needed.

Phase II – Geotechnical Engineer of Record – Materials Sampling And Testing 274
City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 5

5. Organizational Chart

PROJECT MANAGER
Michael Putt, PG, CEG

PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE
Kurt S. Yoshii, PE, GE
Dave Meras

LABORATORY MANAGER FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGER
James Dalgity
Daniel Chu, PhD, PE, GE

TECHNICAL ADVISOR
Key Personnel
We have carefully selected our project team to ensure that the City receives the dedicated, skilled staff with the required local experience, licenses, and communication skills that are necessary for the successful completion of this project. Because of the resources available at Ninyo & Moore, both in manpower and equipment, as well as the fact that geotechnical, materials, soils inspection and testing services is our area of expertise, we will be able to staff the anticipated projects without the use of subconsultants. Resumes are included in the Appendix and describe the individual qualifications of our key personnel.

ENGINEERING STAFF
Soumitra Guha, PhD, PE, GE
Rajindra Handapangoda, PE, GE
Spencer Marcinek, PE, GE
Franklin Ruiz, PE
Julianne Padgett, PE
Ronald Hallum, PG, CEG
Jennifer Schmidt, PG, CEG
Scott Johnson, PG, CEG
Greg Corson, PG, CEG
Matthew Harrell, PG, CEG
Madan Chirumalla, PE, GE
Bach Tien, PG
Emily Homan, PG

LABORATORY STAFF
Hector Heredia
Joseph Aguirre
Jaime Martinez
John Adams
Nathan Bailey
Roy Flores
Edwin Villagana
Sopharin Heang
Elleni Velasquez
Steven Eck
Randy Engel
Daniel Equia
Eugene Frazier
Enamul Haque
Seth Hansen
Jacob Huffman
Vance Hunter
Matthew Jacobs
Joe Levario
Lincoln Linn
David Meras
Steven Moudy
Kevin Perez
Tim Porter
Matthew Puraty
George Schubert
Jose Soto
Kevin Tolin
Ryan Villasenor
Paul Medina
Steve Almond

MATERIAL TESTERS AND INSPECTORS
275
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 6 City of Fontana | S | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal

6. Schedule of Deadlines

7. Staffing Plan
Ninyo & Moore has established effective management control systems, have integrated them for efficient project administration, and have trained staff to respond quickly and efficiently to project situations as they arise in order to meet project deadlines.

Having completed geotechnical services on many complex projects within strict time constraints, Ninyo & Moore has developed flexible management systems which allow project managers to draw on experienced technical and administrative personnel throughout the company. Additionally, field staff including technicians and inspectors, are made available from branch offices to meet increased staffing needs. Although not anticipated, if the project requires additional staff, we can utilize our staff from our Irvine or San Diego offices to accommodate peak construction periods. Contract needs are met by assigning appropriate resources (experienced personnel and equipment) as needed to meet specific project requirements. Ninyo & Moore’s project manager is available throughout the duration of all project assignments. Twenty-four-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week, pointof-contact telephone/cell phone numbers are provided to the designated project manager/representative(s). Client requests are addressed immediately and emergency response to the project requiring it is provided throughout the duration of the project. If required, we can accelerate project scheduling without compromising quality by adding additional professional staff and working extended hours and weekends.

Due to the size of Ninyo & Moore, we do not intend to utilize subconsultants for this contract. Therefore, 100% of the work performed on this contract will be provided by our firm, a California corporation with over 36 years of expertise and experience with local laws, ordinances, regulations, policies, requirements, and permitting. Ninyo & Moore is proposing the key personnel on the following page for this project.

Ninyo & Moore recognizes that a major element of project success is the degree to which schedules and budgets are met.

Our Project Manager will be responsible for the overall schedule, quality control, budget control, staff assignments, and client coordination.

Ninyo & Moore is prepared to begin our services upon receipt of your authorization to proceed and will begin acquiring necessary permits for our geotechnical subsurface exploration within one week. We anticipate that our field work will begin approximately two weeks after the receipt of permits and will take approximately 2 days to complete. We anticipate that laboratory testing will be completed approximately two weeks after the field work and our draft report will be issued approximately two weeks after the laboratory testing is completed. Our final geotechnical evaluation report will be completed within approximately one week after we receive the final comments on our draft report.

For the construction related services, these services are typically coordinated on an as-needed, daily basis with the City’s pointof-contact or their authorized representative in the field. 276
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 7 City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal

8. Proposed Team
We have carefully selected our project team to ensure that the City receives the dedicated, skilled staff with the required local experience, licenses, and communication skills that are necessary for the successful completion of the City project.

Mr. Kurt Yoshii, PE, GE, ENV SP will serve as the Principal-inCharge for this contract. Mr. Yoshii graduated from the University of California at Berkeley with a degree in Civil Engineering. He has over 31 years of experience and for the past 27 years, Mr. Yoshii has been employed at Ninyo & Moore where he has personally performed various aspects of geotechnical engineering, including geotechnical investigation reports for various public works projects. He has personally managed the first on-call contracts Ninyo & Moore was awarded by the City of Fontana and is very familiar with both the administrative and technical requirements of the City. With this experience, he will be responsible for ensuring that Ninyo & Moore’s team’s performance meets or exceeds the City’s expectations.
31+ Years
Geotechnical
Engineering
Experience
Mr. Michael Putt, PG, CEG will serve as our Project Manager for this contract. Mr. Putt graduated from California State University Fullerton with a Bachelor’s Degree in Geology. Mr. Putt has over 26 years of experience in providing engineering geology consultation, third-party geotechnical review services, as well as project management experience for on-call materials testing and inspection services contracts in Southern California. He has extensive experience on a variety of project types, including roads, highways, bridges, jack and bore tunneled undercrossings, hillside and flat-land mass grading projects, pump stations, pipelines, water and wastewater treatment plants, large- and small-scale stormwater infiltration projects and forensic investigations. He conducts geologic and geotechnical field evaluations, including detailed logging of large- and small-diameter borings and trenches, and geologic evaluation/mapping.
26+ Years
Engineering
Geology
Experience
Dr. Daniel Chu, PE, GE will serve as our Geotechnical
Engineering Technical Advisor. Dr. Chu earned his Ph.D. in geotechnical engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles, and is a licensed Civil and Geotechnical Engineer with over 40 years’ experience. He has provided geotechnical engineering and third-party review services for many city and county agencies.

Dr. Chu is responsible for the quality of engineering, training of staff, and engineering analysis. He has expertise in soil mechanics, dynamic soil behavior, seismic hazard risk assessment, static and dynamic earth loading, liquefaction, design of deep and shallow foundations, shoring systems, slope stability, erosion control, and pavement design. Dr. Chu provides technical oversight during our geotechnical evaluations, exploration/sampling protocol, analysis of laboratory test results, direction of engineering tasks, review of calculations, and report preparation.
40+ Years
Geotechnical
Engineering
Experience
Dr. Dave Meras will serve as our Field Operations Manager.

Mr. Meras will coordinate the day-to-day activities of our field and laboratory staff for this contract. He oversees and assists the lead technicians with scheduling additional personnel and equipment as it becomes necessary. He oversees field testing of concrete and asphalt concrete, inspection of asphalt and concrete batch plants, geotechnical laboratory testing, quality control for all laboratory procedures, including fulfilling requirements for ASTM, AASHTO, CALTRANS, ACI, and UBC Standards. He has
effectively coordinated field operations for Ninyo & Moore on many large public works projects including the cities of Fontana, Moreno Valley, Corona, Ontario, and South Pasadena, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, and Inland Empire Utilities Agency.
26+ Years
Construction/
Materials Testing
and Inspection
Experience
Principal-in-Charge Project Manager
Technical Advisor Field Operations Manager
277
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 8 City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal

9. Key Personnel

10. Staff Resumes
As requested, staff resumes are being included in the Appendix and describe the individual qualifications of our key personnel.

Team
Member Classification Registrations/Certifications
Years
Experience/
Years with
N&M
Kurt S. Yoshii,
PE, GE
Principal-in-Charge Registered Geotechnical Engineer,
GE 2508 (CA)
Registered Civil Engineer, CE 54759
(CA)
Professional Engineer PE 14274 (NV)
Professional Engineer PE
3791862202 (UT)
Professional Engineer PE 48007 (CO)
40-Hour OSHA HAZWOPER Certification with
Annual Updates (CFR 1910.120)
31/27
Michael Putt, PG,
CEG
Project Manager Professional Geologist, PG 7581 (CA)
Certified Engineering Geologist, CEG
2341 (CA)
Applied Rock Slope Engineering
Short Course
Registered Civil Engineer, CE 50994
(CA)
Radiation Nuclear Gauge
26/14
Daniel Chu, PHD,
PE, GE
Technical Advisor Registered Civil Engineer, CA, PE
37991 (CA)
Registered Geotechnical Engineer,
CA, GE 2096 (CA)
40/30
Dave Meras Field Operations
Manager
AWS Welding Inspector
ICC Fireproofing Special Inspector
ICC Soils Special Inspector
ICC Structural Steel & Bolting Inspector ICC Structural Welding Inspector Radiation (Nuclear Gauge) User
Safety ACI Field Testing Technician
Grade I
Caltrans TL-0111
26/16
Key team members and their classifications are listed below. Ninyo & Moore understands key personnel identified in the original technical/cost proposal shall not change (be different than) in the City’s executed contract.

Experience
Over 36 years of
providing geotechnical,
environmental, and
materials testing and
special inspection services
from 16 locations across
the Western U.S.

Quality
We strive to continually
improve the caliber,
efficiency and cost
effectiveness of our
services and to meet or
exceed the standards of
our industry.

Commitment
Our primary goal is the
complete and total
satisfaction of our clients!
278
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 9 City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal

11. Project Manager
As Project Manager, Mr. Michael Putt will be the direct contact for the City and the individual authorized to negotiate the contract on behalf of Ninyo & Moore. Mr. Putt and staff will respond to City requests by return phone call/email/fax; within a day and typically much quicker. Mr. Putt understands the City requirements and will disseminate the requirements and scope of work to the project team. He will be answerable to the City on all contracted services. In-house communication has been streamlined with our local and wide-area computer networks to facilitate sharing of electronic files and documents such as reports, engineering analysis using geotechnical software, CAD, Microsoft project schedules, and personnel schedules and meeting coordination using Microsoft Outlook. Additionally, the project team assembles regularly to discuss project progress, issues, findings, and results.

Mr. Putt will track project progress, schedule and budget, and can report on a weekly basis to the City representative. The weekly reports can be emailed (or by other means upon request). Mr. Putt will also coordinate geotechnical related questions from other City consultants, such as the Civil Engineer, Structural Engineer, Architect, Corrosion Engineer, Environmental Engineer, and surveyors. The City will be copied and updated on all communication with other project consultants. Ninyo & Moore staff is available to attend City meetings involving other project consultants.

In his role of Project Manager, Mr. Putt will:

 Act as the liaison with the City’s Project Manager and Inspector.

 Staff the project with qualified, experienced personnel who are familiar with the main elements of each assignment and have an understanding of the technology required to attain the project goals.

 Assure that key personnel are available as planned.

 Organize, direct and oversee project tasks and provide QA/QC oversight.

 Establish and enforce work element milestones.

 Establish and periodically review and monitor budgets, and implement cost control procedures.

 Prepare cost and performance reports, and manage funds for labor and materials procurement, as necessary.

 Assure compliance with regulatory agency protocol.

 Assure that work is completed within the required time-frame and approved cost.

Monitoring & Controlling
Initiating
Planning
Executing
Reporting
& Closeout

PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
279
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 10 City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal

12. References
Company/Agency Name City of Los Angeles
Reference Name & Title Mr. Patrick Schmidt
Address 1149 S. Broadway, Suite 120
Los Angeles, California 90015
Phone Number(s) (213) 847-0535
Email Address [email protected]
Work Performed Ninyo & Moore has been retained to provide on-call geotechnical and environmental services during the various new construction and reconstruction type projects located throughout Los Angeles, California.

As requested, below are three references and their pertinent contact information.

Company/Agency Name University of California, Irvine
Reference Name & Title Mr. Eddie Nunez
Address 101 Academy, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92697
Phone Number(s) (949) 923-5437
Email Address [email protected]
Work Performed Ninyo & Moore was retained to provide geotechnical, materials testing, and deputy inspection services for the construction of the University of California Irvine (UCI) Middle Earth Housing Expansion Project in Irvine, California.

Company/Agency Name City of Yorba Linda
Reference Name & Title Mr. Rick Yee
Address 4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Yorba Linda, California 92886
Phone Number(s) (714) 961-7171
Email Address [email protected]
Work Performed Ninyo & Moore provided geotechnical and materials testing and deputy inspection services during construction of the Yorba Linda Public Library & Arts Center. The project consisted of construction of a of a new 2-story, 45,000 square feet (SF) public library building and a new single-story 14,000 SF community arts center building, as well as a new parking lot and various site improvements. The new buildings structurally consist concrete spread footings, grade beams and slab on grade, structural steel framing including moment frames, metal stud walls, masonry walls, concrete over metal deck, and steel stairs.
280
Appendix A
Resumes of Key Personnel
City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal 281
Kurt S. Yoshii, PE, GE Principal Engineer | Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants

EDUCATION
MBA, 1998, University of California Davis
M.S., Geotechnical Engineering, 1989,
University of California Berkeley
B.S., Civil Engineering, 1987, University of
California Berkeley

REGISTRATIONS/

CERTIFICATIONS
PE 49665 (California)
GE 2509 (California)
Nuclear Gauge Operator Certification

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
Kurt S. Yoshii, PE, GE
Principal-in-Charge
As a Principal Engineer for Ninyo & Moore, Mr. Saiki coordinates and conducts geotechnical evaluations for residential, commercial, and public facilities, including highways, railroads, airports, pipelines, public and private buildings, and bridges; performs slope stability analyses, flexible and rigid pavement design, and underground pipeline design; prepares and reviews geotechnical reports; and provides geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for shallow and deep foundations, retaining structures, in-situ ground remediation and earthwork; reviews laboratory results, project plans and specifications; provides supervision and technical support to stafflevel engineers and geologists; performs project administration and management; and provides forensic evaluation of distressed pavement, residential and commercial structures.

EXPERIENCE
City of Fontana, On-Call Testing and Inspection Services, Fontana, California:

Principal Engineer retained to provide construction and inspection services for various projects for the City of Fontana including sewer construction, channel improvements, roadway rehabilitation and construction, new building construction, surface drainage evaluations, and third party geotechnical reviews.

City of Yorba Linda, Library and Arts Center Project, Yorba Linda, California:

Principl Engineer retained to provide geotechnical and materials testing and deputy inspection services during construction of the Yorba Linda Public Library & Arts Center project located in Yorba Linda, California. The project consisted of construction of a of a new 2-story, 45,000 square feet (SF) public library building and a new single-story 14,000 SF community arts center building, as well as a new parking lot and various site improvements. The new buildings structurally consist concrete spread footings, grade beams and slab on grade, structural steel framing including moment frames, metal stud walls, masonry walls, concrete over metal deck, and steel stairs. Other structural improvements included a masonry trash enclosure, reinforced masonry and concrete retaining walls, and steel framed trellis. Other site improvements include a parking lot, new utilities, a bio-detention system, light poles and concrete pavement.

Ninyo & Moore’s project management staff maintained a positive working relationship with the project construction management and City of Yorba Linda engineering staff.

UCI Middle Earth Housing Expansion Project, Irvine, California: Served as Principal Engineer to provide geotechnical, materials testing, and deputy inspection services for the construction of the University of California Irvine (UCI) Middle Earth Housing Expansion Project in Irvine, California. This design/build project included construction of two seven-level dormitory towers (North and South Towers) established at ground level with one basement level planned near the eastern portion of the building footprint. Level 1 will be utilized as a dining area and loading dock, and the basement will be used for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing utilities.

Additional site improvements included outdoor volleyball and basketball athletic courts, outdoor seating, and vegetation, including trees and landscaped grass area, and hardscape, including asphalt and concrete pavements. Earthwork for the project included overexcavation and recompaction to replace the existing undocumented fill materials beneath the building footprints and to provide compacted soils beneath shallow spread footings and concrete flatwork.

City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal 282
Name, Credentials, Title | Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants Kurt S. Yoshii, PE, GE
Principal-in-Charge
City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal City of Los Angeles, On-Call Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Services: Principal Engineer for the on-call geotechnical and environmental services contract with the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, Geotechnical Division.

Our services include geotechnical design, environmental hazardous materials evaluation, and geotechnical construction support services.

Fire Station No. 78, Fontana, California: Served as Principal Engineer for geotechnical consulting services relative to the design of a proposed fire station to be located on a vacant site along Citrus Avenue, about 1,000 feet north of Baseline Road, in the city of Fontana, California. Our services included a review of geologic and historical background information; subsurface exploration consisting of drilling, sampling, and logging of three exploratory borings; and laboratory testing to evaluate the characteristics of the on-site soils.

Community Development Administration Building & Parking Structure, Fontana, California: Principal Engineer retained for the construction of the new Community Development Administration Building (CDAB) and Parking Structure in Fontana, California.

Ninyo & Moore previously performed the preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the CDAB. Services included coordination and review of our previous work, including background data and available plans and details regarding the proposed construction; site reconnaissance to observe and document surficial conditions and to mark the proposed boring locations for utility clearance; subsurface evaluation; laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings; compilation and geotechnical analysis of the field and laboratory data; and preparation of a report to present our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations pertaining to the design and construction of the proposed building and parking structure foundations.

UPS Main Sort Building Expansion, Ontario, CA: Project Engineer retained to provide geotechnical consulting services for the design and during construction of the Main Sort Facility Expansion Project, located in Ontario, California. The expansion project included construction of an approximately 175,000 square foot addition to the existing approximately 487,000 square foot Main Sort Building. Field and laboratory data was analyzed in order to provide geotechnical recommendations and design parameters for the proposed expansion project. Mr. Yoshii provided recommendations for earthwork and grading operations, including recommendations for overexcavation, fill placement and compaction, building pad preparation, temporary excavation stability, utility construction, foundations, corrosivity, concrete type, surface drainage, and pavement design. The recommendations from our reports were incorporated in the plans for the building expansion and associated facilities construction.

Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) On-Call Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Testing Services, Riverside County, California: Principal-in-Charge for the on-call geotechnical, environmental, and materials testing and inspection services contract with RCTC to support various design and construction projects including geotechnical design services for construction of new Metrolink railroad stations, bridge foundations, highway interchange improvements, parking lot and roadway paving recommendations. His responsibilities included contract management and daily coordination of field technicians, special deputy inspectors, and laboratory testing services, and submittal of the field and laboratory reports, as well as overall management of the soils and materials testing and inspection contract.

County of San Bernardino/Real Estate Services Department/On-Call Professional Services / Geotechnical Consulting / Materials Testing and Inspection Services: Principal-in-Charge providing as-needed geotechnical and materials testing and inspection services for the County of San Bernardino Real Estate Services Department. Services included on-call support of a variety of construction projects throughout the County of San Bernardino including the Forensic 2Y65 Crime Lab, the Fontana Crisis Stabilization Unit Facility 7N25, the Morongo Crisis Residential Treatment Facility 7N20, County Government Center Phase 1B site beautification 10.10.0017, and several other projects. Services included geotechnical design, geotechnical observation, materials testing and inspection services for new construction, modernizations, parking lots, shade structures, and site work.

Ninyo & Moore’s scope during construction consisted of soils, concrete, masonry, welding, and pull/torque testing. Our laboratory services included proctor density tests, sand equivalent, r-value, compression testing of concrete, grout, and mortar, and moisture vapor emissions testing.
283
Michael Putt, PG, CEG, Principal Geologist | Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants

EDUCATION
B.S., Geology, 1997, California State
University, Fullerton
Applied Rock Slope Engineering Short
Course, 2006, Association of Engineering
Geologists, California

REGISTRATIONS/

CERTIFICATIONS
PG 7581 (California)
CEG 2341 (California)
Radiological Safety and Gauge Use
Certification, 1997

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
South Coast Geological Society
Michael Putt, PG, CEG
Project Manager
Mr. Putt is a Principal Geologist with Ninyo & Moore and has extensive experience in providing engineering geology consultation in Southern California. Mr. Putt has extensive experience on a variety of project types, including highways, bridges, bore and jack tunneled undercrossings, hillside and flat-land mass grading projects for residential, commercial, and industrial developments, pipelines, and forensic investigations. Mr. Putt performs project administration and management, prepares and reviews geologic and geotechnical reports and provides third party review services for geotechnical reports. He conducts geologic and geotechnical field evaluations, including detailed logging of large- and small-diameter borings and trenches, and geologic evaluation/mapping. Projects have included fault hazard evaluations, landslide studies, slope stability analysis, seismic refraction studies, geologic reconnaissance studies, forensic evaluations, and construction and inspection services.

EXPERIENCE
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 50 Bed Mental Health Crisis Facility, Chino, California: Principal Geologist provided geotechnical consulting services for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 50 Bed Mental Health Crisis Facility project located at the California Institute for Men in Chino, California. The project involved the design and construction of a new twostory, 47,550 square-foot building, paved walkways, and paved parking lots. The new Mental Health Crisis building will accommodate housing, administration, treatment, and custody services that will be needed to support 50 inmates/patients. Services included attendance at a project kickoff teleconference meeting, preparation and submittal of a project work plan and schedule, project coordination, background review, acquisition of security clearances for project personnel, a site reconnaissance meeting and markout of boring locations, subsurface evaluation, laboratory testing of collected soil samples, compilation and analysis of the collected data, and preparation of a geotechnical evaluation report.

University of California Irvine, Business Unit 2 Building, Irvine, California:

Principal Geologist retained for a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the University of California, Irvine, School of Business, Unit 2 Building project located in Irvine, California. The project involved construction of a new five-level building, with the first level being partially below grade. Services included review of available geologic maps, published literature, aerial imagery, and in-house information; review of seismic data, including fault hazard maps, seismic hazards maps, and other readily available data regarding geologic and seismic hazards within the project area; performance of a geotechnical site reconnaissance to observe the general surface conditions on site, and coordinate with Underground Service Alert for underground utility clearance; performance of a subsurface exploration; performance of laboratory testing; and preparation of a geotechnical data report presenting a summary of geologic hazards, our boring logs, and laboratory test data.

City of Corona On-Call Professional Services, Corona, California: Principal Geologist provided on-call geotechnical engineering consulting services for various projects in the City of Corona. Services included geotechnical observation and materials testing services for various construction projects including pavement rehabilitation and sewer main improvement projects. Specific projects included Corona 6th Street Pavement Rehabilitation, Via Blario Sewer project. Services included City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal 284
Michael Putt, PG, CEG, Principal Geologist | Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants Michael Putt, PG, CEG
Project Manager
City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal geotechnical observation, sampling, testing, and documentation during subgrade preparation, concrete bus pad construction, aggregate base and asphalt concrete placement, performance of batch plant inspections, laboratory testing including testing of concrete compressive strength, distribution of test data, and preparation of a final compaction report.

City of Jurupa Valley, Third Party Reviews: Served as Project Manager for the two third-party geotechnical reviews for residential and commercial development project. The geotechnical review of Environmental Impact Reports are based on the current California Environmental Quality Act guidelines for Geology and Soils. The review of design-level reports are based on the guidelines presented in the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), the County of Riverside Technical Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, and the current standards of practice.

Camp Kilpatrick Replacement Project, Malibu, California: Principal Geologist retained during construction of the Camp Kilpatrick Replacement project located in Malibu, California. The design/build project consisted of construction of a new youth camp that included construction of four new cottages totaling approximately 26,700 square feet, an approximately 7,950-square-foot Support Center building, an approximately 4,000-square-foot maintenance/warehouse building, and an approximately 3,700-square-foot gymnasium/chapel building. The new structures and a new 108-space parking lot were to be constructed within the area of the demolished buildings and the center open space area between the buildings. Geotechnical services included evaluating the soil and geologic conditions of the site in order to develop geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project, as well as percolation testing to evaluate the subsurface suitability of the site for stormwater infiltration.

La Pata Avenue Gap Closure Project, Orange County, California: Serving as Project Manager providing geotechnical consulting services during construction of the La Pata Avenue Gap Closure Project in Orange County, California, as part of the Hill Int. construction management team for the County of Orange. The project involves the widening of 1.8 miles of La Pata Avenue in San Juan Capistrano and extending the roadway 2 miles to Avenida La Pata in San Clemente which will provide an essential link in the local roadway network. Mr. Putt responsibilities as project manager and certified engineering geologist of record include project coordination and scheduling, oversight of field technicians, geologists, and engineers, attendance at project team meetings, and preparation of project correspondence, reports, invoices and budget management. 285
Daniel Chu, PhD, PE, GE, Chief Geotechnical Engineer | Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants

EDUCATION
Ph.D., Geotechnical Engineering, 2006,
University of California, Los Angeles
M.S., Geotechnical Engineering, 1981,
Utah State University
B.S., Civil Engineering, 1978, National
Central University, Chungli, Taiwan

REGISTRATIONS/

CERTIFICATIONS
RCE 37991 ( California)
GE 2096 (California

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
California Geotechnical Engineers
Association
Daniel Chu, PhD, PE, GE
Technical Advisor - Geotechnical Engineering
As Chief Geotechnical Engineer for Ninyo & Moore, Dr. Chu is responsible for the quality of engineering, technical approach, training of staff, and engineering assignments for the Irvine office. Dr. Chu has extensive experience providing geotechnical engineering for reservoirs, water treatment plants, pump stations, pipelines, tunnels, bridge structures, highways, and commercial developments. Dr. Chu has expertise in soil mechanics, dynamic soil behavior, seismic hazard risk assessment, static and dynamic earth loading, liquefaction, design of deep and shallow foundations, shoring systems, slope stability, erosion control, and pavement design. Dr. Chu has direct project involvement including evaluation of exploration/sampling protocol, analysis of laboratory test results, direction of engineering tasks, review of calculations, and report preparation.

EXPERIENCE
Community Development Administration Building & Parking Structure, Fontana, California: Technical Advisor and Chief Geotechnical Engineer retained for the construction of the new Community Development Administration Building (CDAB) and Parking Structure in Fontana, California. Ninyo & Moore previously performed the preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the CDAB. Services included coordination and review of our previous work, including background data and available plans and details regarding the proposed construction; site reconnaissance to observe and document surficial conditions and to mark the proposed boring locations for utility clearance; subsurface evaluation; laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings; compilation and geotechnical analysis of the field and laboratory data; and preparation of a report to present our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations pertaining to the design and construction of the proposed building and parking structure foundations.

Fire Station Number 22, Irvine, California: Served as Technical Reviewer during geotechnical services for the proposed Orange County Temporary Fire Station No.

22. Services included review of geologic and other background documentation; performance of a subsurface evaluation; and laboratory testing. The subsurface and laboratory data were compiled and presented in a written report with recommendations.

Silverado Canyon Fire Station, Orange County, California: Served as Technical Reviewer providing geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed construction of the Silverado Canyon Fire Station. Service include review of geologic background materials, site reconnaissance to map the surficial geologic conditions, and the excavation of four exploratory borings to collect soil samples for laboratory testing. Recommendations relative to earthwork, foundation design, and pavement design were presented.

Rancho Santiago Community College District, New Classroom Buildings, Centennial Education Center, : Served as Technical Advisor for the geotechnical evaluation for the new classrooms at the Centennial Education Center in Santa Ana, California. The project involved construction of a two-story permanent classroom building and three modular classrooms. The two-story classroom included a footprint of approximately 10,500 square feet and was constructed as a concrete masonry unit (CMU) structure with slab-on-grade floors. The proposed modular buildings were City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal 286
single-story structures with a total of approximately 2,900 square feet replaced three existing modular buildings. Subsurface evaluation consisted of drilling, logging, and sampling of four small-diameter borings. Remedial grading recommendations included removal and recompaction of the upper approximately 10 feet of soil below the finish grade. Recommendations for the subject project included building pad preparation, temporary excavation and shoring, seismic design considerations, shallow foundations and slab-on-grade, utility bedding and trench backfill, pavement design and corrosion potential of the soils.

Westrux International Facility, Santa Fe Springs, California: Served as Project Engineer providing engineering analyses and report review for the proposed commercial building addition and parking lot at the Westrux International Facility. Services included review of pertinent information; review of background documents, geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs; discussion of the project with the design team; performance of a subsurface evaluation; laboratory testing; data compilation and geotechnical analyses including settlement, bearing capacity, corrosion potential, liquefaction, and preliminary pavement design.

Omnitrans East Valley Maintenance Facility, San Bernardino, California: Served as Project Engineer providing engineering analyses and report review for the proposed bus maintenance building. Services included review of background documentation, geologic maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs; performance of a site reconnaissance; performance of a subsurface evaluation consisting of nine small-diameter borings; laboratory testing; data compilation and geotechnical analyses including settlement, bearing capacity, corrosion potential, liquefaction, and preliminary pavement design.

Culver Studios Building J and Parking Structure, Culver City, California: Technical Advisor and Chief Geotechnical Engineer for a multi-phased expansion of the The Culver Studios television and movie production lot located in Culver City, California. The Comprehensive Plan involved subsurface exploration and geotechnical design for a new proposed four-story parking structure, new four-story office buildings, and a new maintenance building totaling more than 400,000 square feet (SF). Previous services included geotechnical exploration and design for previous planned expansions of the facility involving new office buildings, and new above grade and underground parking structures on the lot totaling more than 500,000 SF. Services included subsurface exploration, installation of a 100-foot-deep monitoring well, geologic observation and testing, and recommendations for foundation design for footing, mat and pile options, seismic design criteria, dewatering, temporary excavations, shoring systems and lateral earth pressures.

Daniel Chu, PhD, PE, GE
Technical Advisor - Geotechnical Engineering
City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal Daniel Chu, PhD, PE, GE, Chief Geotechnical Engineer | Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants 287 David A. Meras, Special Inspector | Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants

REGISTRATIONS/

CERTIFICATIONS
ACI Field Testing Technician Grade I,
No. 00992784
AWS Welding Inspector, No. 16081091
ICC Fireproofing Special Inspector
ICC Soils Special Inspector, No.
8168055-EC
ICC Structural Steel & Bolting Inspector,
No. 8168055-S1
ICC Structural Welding Inspector, No.
8168055-S2
Radiation (Nuclear Gauge) User Safety
Caltrans TL-0111 (125.0, 216.0, 231.0,
504.0, 518.0, 523.1, 524.0, 533.0, 539.0,
540.0, 557.0)
USDOT, HAZMAT 49CFR 172, Subpart H
David A. Meras
Field Operations Manager
As a Special Inspector/Technician for Ninyo & Moore, Mr. Meras is responsible for performing quality control and quality assurance testing of soil, aggregate, asphalt, and concrete materials in accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, ACI, and CALTRANS standards. As a senior technician, Mr. Meras has extensive experience providing both field and laboratory testing of soils and construction materials and maintains his current soils and materials testing certifications from ACI and Caltrans, as well as his nuclear gauge certification. He provides geotechnical observation and testing services during earthwork operations, including mass grading operations, trench and wall backfill, and roadway and building pad subgrade preparation. Mr.

Meras also has extensive experience in the requirements and specifications in Greenbook for public works construction projects, as well as the requirements of Caltrans for testing frequencies, test methods, and record keeping as described in Caltrans Standard Specifications, Standard Special Provisions, and the Caltrans Construction Manual. He maintains a current Caltrans TL-0111 certification for both field and laboratory testing.

EXPERIENCE
City of Fontana, Fontana Library and Resource Technology Center, Fontana, California: Field Operations Manager retained to provide soils, materials testing, and inspection services for the construction of the Fontana Library and Resource Technology Center. Improvements consisted of constructing a new approximately 93,000 square foot, 2-story building, over a parking garage with a capacity of 187 spaces. Construction consisted of reinforced concrete spread footings, grade beams, slab on grade, cast-in-place concrete and CMU walls, structural steel framing with metal decking, and open web steel trusses.

UCI Middle Earth Housing Expansion Project, Irvine, California: Served as Field Operations Manager to provide deputy inspection services for the construction of the University of California Irvine (UCI) Middle Earth Housing Expansion Project in Irvine, California. This design/build project included construction of two seven-level dormitory towers (North and South Towers) established at ground level with one basement level planned near the eastern portion of the building footprint. Level 1 will be utilized as a dining area and loading dock, and the basement will be used for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing utilities. Additional site improvements included outdoor volleyball and basketball athletic courts, outdoor seating, and vegetation, including trees and landscaped grass area, and hardscape, including asphalt and concrete pavements. Earthwork for the project included overexcavation and recompaction to replace the existing undocumented fill materials beneath the building footprints and to provide compacted soils beneath shallow spread footings and concrete flatwork.

City of Los Angeles, On-Call Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Services: Special Inspector for the on-call geotechnical and environmental services contract with the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, Geotechnical Division.

Our services include geotechnical design, environmental hazardous materials evaluation, and geotechnical construction support services.

Yorba Linda Town Center Parking Structure, Yorba Linda, California: Field Operations Manager rovided deputy inspection and materials testing services during construction of the Yorba Linda Town Center – Parking Structure project located City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal 288
David A. Meras, Special Inspector | Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants in Yorba Linda, California. The project consisted of a new 4 level parking structure. Services included deputy inspections by International Code Council (ICC) certified inspectors and materials testing services by American Concrete Institute (ACI) certified materials testers. Deputy inspection during concrete and shotcrete construction included inspection during installation of reinforcing steel, PT tendons, formwork, anchors, and during concrete placement. Project management staff worked closely with the City field representatives to coordinate services.

Fullerton Unified School District, Sonoma High School Gymnasium, Fullerton California: – Mr. Meras provided structural steel welding and bolting inspection services. The structure generally consisted of concrete foundations, masonry walls and steel framing. He also provided inspections at the AWI structural steel fabrication plant located in Pico Rivera, California Arcadia Unified School District – District Maintenance Building, Arcadia, California – Provided structural steel welding and bolting inspection services. Structurally, the construction included steel frames, decking and seismic connections. Connections included high strength bolting.

Anaheim Ponderosa Park Community Center and Gymnasium, Anaheim, California – Provided structural steel welding and bolting inspection during steel construction at the site. Structurally, the construction generally included concrete foundations, masonry walls for the gymnasium and steel framing for the community center building.

Four Parking Structures, Metro Gold Line Authority, Arcadia, California: Served as Field Operations Manager during geotechnical consulting services for the design and construction of four parking structures for the Metropolitan Gold Line Authority as part of the overall Gold Line Foothill Extension. The project included the design and construction of four multi-level parking structures, retaining walls, electrical substations, at-grade parking facilities, site enhancements, flatwork, and wet and dry utilities.

County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Los Angeles, California: Field Operations Manager provided materials testing and inspection services on transportation projects, including construction of new Metrolink railroad stations, bridge foundations, highway interchange improvements, parking structures and roadway paving.

I-15 at Duncan Canyon Road Interchange, Fontana, California: Served as Materials Tester providing materials testing services during construction. The project consisted of modifying the existing interchange, realignment of Lytle Creek Road, and storm drain improvements. His services included oversight of field testing of soil, aggregates, concrete and asphalt concrete, inspection of asphalt and concrete batch plants, geotechnical laboratory testing, and quality control for all laboratory procedures, including fulfilling requirements for ASTM, AASHTO, CALTRANS, ACI.

Corona Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, Corona, California: Served as Materials Tester during construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension project in Corona, California. The project is located within the southwesterly limits of Corona and in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. Services included geologic mapping during the mass grading excavations as well as inspection and compaction testing during the earthwork operations. Materials testing and inspection services included conformance testing of the construction materials, Gamma-Gamma logging of CIDH caissons constructed using the wet placement method, profilograph (CT 526) and skid testing (ASTM1274/ CT 342) of the bridge deck, and conformance testing of the subgrade soils, base materials, asphalt and Portland cement concrete materials used on the project.

La Pata Avenue Gap Closure, Orange County, California: Senior Field Technician during construction materials testing services during construction of the La Pata Avenue Gap Closure and Camino Del Rio Extension Project in Orange County, California. Services included observation and compaction testing during 12 million cubic yards of mass grading that involved removal of landslides and construction of buttresses.

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, I-215 Segments 1 & 2, San Bernardino Associated Governments, San Bernardino, California: Served as Materials Tester providing compaction testing, extensive asphalt testing and batch plant inspection, and making concrete cylinders during construction of the I-215 Segments 1 & 2 project in San Bernardino, California.

The project consisted of widening and realignment of approximately 2.4 miles of the existing I-215. Services include construction observation and intermittent field and laboratory testing of the construction materials used in the proposed project. Testing was performed in accordance with CTM standards.

City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 1 Technical Proposal 289
14 16498.00150\32126437.1

EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Charges/Payments
Consultant will invoice City on a monthly cycle. Consultant will include with each invoice a detailed progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each task. Consultant will inform City regarding any out-of-scope work being performed by Consultant. This is a time-and-materials contract.
290
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 1 hour @ 188.00$ /hour 188.00 $ Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 2 hours @ 173.00$ /hour 346.00 $ Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 6 hours @ 150.00$ /hour 900.00 $ Subtotal $ 1,434.00
Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 1 hour @ 173.00$ /hour 173.00 $ Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 6 hours @ 150.00$ /hour 900.00 $ Permit Fees (San Bernardino County Environmental Health) Lump Sum $ 425.00 Subtotal $ 1,498.00
Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 4 hours @ 150.00$ /hour 600.00 $ Geophysical Utility Locating Lump Sum $ 1,250.00
Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 4 hours @ 15.00$ /hour $ 60.00 Subtotal $ 1,910.00
Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 18 hours @ 150.00$ /hour 2,700.00 $ HSA Truck Drill Rig (Subcontractor) - Prevailing Wage 16 hours @ 465.00$ /hour 7,440.00 $ Drill Rig Support Vehicle 2 days @ 575.00$ /day 1,150.00 $ Drill Rig Mobilization/Demobilization (Prevailing Wage) 2 hours @ 465.00$ /hour 930.00 $ Grout Backfill 155 feet @ 12.00$ /foot 1,860.00 $
Soil Drums 10 drums @ 95.00$ /drum 950.00 $
Drum Disposal 10 drums @ 195.00$ /drum 1,950.00 $
Analytical Testing for Soil Disposal 1 sample @ 300.00$ /sample 300.00 $ Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 18 hours @ 15.00$ /hour 270.00 $ Supplies Lump Sum $ 100.00
Subtotal $ 17,650.00
$ 3,650.00
Subtotal $ 3,650.00
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 6 hours @ 188.00$ /hour 1,128.00 $ Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 12 hours @ 173.00$ /hour 2,076.00 $ Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 16 hours @ 150.00$ /hour 2,400.00 $ Subtotal $ 5,604.00
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 4 hours @ 188.00$ /hour 752.00 $ Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 12 hours @ 173.00$ /hour 2,076.00 $ Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 8 hours @ 150.00$ /hour 1,200.00 $ Technical Illustrator/CAD Operator 6 hours @ 98.00$ /hour 588.00 $ Data Processor 6 hours @ 71.00$ /hour 426.00 $
Subtotal $ 5,042.00
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 2 hours @ 188.00$ /hour 376.00 $ Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 4 hours @ 173.00$ /hour 692.00 $ Technical Illustrator/CAD Operator 1 hour @ 98.00$ /hour $ 98.00 Data Processor 1 hour @ 71.00$ /hour $ 71.00
Subtotal $ 1,237.00
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 3 hours @ 188.00$ /hour 564.00 $ Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 3 hours @ 173.00$ /hour 519.00 $ Subtotal $ 1,083.00
TOTAL FEE $ 39,108.00
Draft Report Preparation (Task 5)
Response to Review Comments and Final Report Preparation (Task 5) Meeting Attendance (Task 6)
Table 1 - Breakdown of Fee
Project Coordination and Background Review (Task 1)
Subsurface Evaluation (Task 2)
(Assumes 1 boring up to approximately 80 feet deep and 3 borings up to approximately 25 feet deep) Data Compilation and Analysis (Task 4)
Laboratory Analyses (Task 3)
Tests to include moisture and dry density, sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, shear strength, consolidation, R-value, and corrosivity.

Permit Acquisition and Preparation of a Health and Safety Plan (Task 1) Site Reconnaissance and Markout for Utility Clearance (Task 1) Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 Cost-1 291 Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 16 hours @ 134.00$ /hour 2,144.00 $ Field Technician - Soils 200 hours @ 98.00$ /hour 19,600.00 $ Special Inspector, Concrete and Masonry 380 hours @ 104.00$ /hour 39,520.00 $ ACI Concrete Technician 100 hours @ 104.00$ /hour 10,400.00 $ Special Inspector - Welding and Bolting 120 hours @ 104.00$ /hour 12,480.00 $ Anchor Load Test Equipment (includes one Technician) 12 hours @ 190.00$ /hour 2,280.00 $ Nondestructive Testing Technician 20 hours @ 114.00$ /hour 2,280.00 $ Field Vehicle Usage 848 hours @ 15.00$ /hour 12,720.00 $ Subtotal 101,424.00 $
Proctor Density 6 tests @ 220.00$ /test 1,320.00 $
Sand Equivalent 3 tests @ 125.00$ /test 375.00 $
Sieve Analysis 6 tests @ 145.00$ /test 870.00 $
Hveem Stability and Unit Weight 1 test @ 225.00$ /test 225.00 $ Concrete Compression Test 100 tests @ 35.00$ /test 3,500.00 $ Reinforcing Steel Tensile or Bend 20 tests @ 75.00$ /test 1,500.00 $ Masonry Composite Prisms 3 tests @ 120.00$ /test 360.00 $ Grout and Mortar Compression Tests 30 tests @ 35.00$ /test 1,050.00 $ High Strength Bolt, Nut & Washer Conformance 3 tests @ 150.00$ /test 450.00 $ Subtotal $ 9,650.00
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 2 hours @ 188.00$ /hour 376.00 $ Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 60 hours @ 165.00$ /hour 9,900.00 $ Field Operations Manager 20 hours @ 119.00$ /hour 2,380.00 $ Subtotal $ 12,656.00
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 4 hours @ 188.00$ /hour 752.00 $ Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 12 hours @ 165.00$ /hour 1,980.00 $ Data Processor 4 hours @ 71.00$ /hour 284.00 $
Subtotal $ 3,016.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE $ 126,746.00
Table 2 – Breakdown of Estimated Fee for Inspection and Materials Testing Services Report Preparation
Field Services
Laboratory Testing
Project Coordination, Management and Technical Support
Ninyo & Moore | Geotechnical Services for City Hall Renovation Project-Phase I | 04-03777 | September 9, 2022 Cost-2 292 Cost-3 Ninyo & Moore CA12
Schedule of Fees
Hourly Charges for Personnel
Professional Staff
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist/Certified Industrial Hygienist.............................................. $ 188 Senior Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist ............................................................................................... $ 178 Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist................................................................................... $ 173 Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist............................................................................................... $ 165 Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist....................................................................................... $ 150 Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist................................................................................................... $ 134 GIS Analyst.............................................................................................................................................................. $ 123 Technical Illustrator/CAD Operator ......................................................................................................................... $ 98 Field Staff
Certified Asbestos/Lead Technician........................................................................................................................ $ 173 Field Operations Manager....................................................................................................................................... $ 119 Nondestructive Examination Technician (UT, MT, LP)........................................................................................... $ 114 Supervisory Technician ........................................................................................................................................... $ 104 Special Inspector (Concrete, Masonry, Structural Steel, Welding, and Fireproofing)............................................ $ 104 Senior Technician.................................................................................................................................................... $ 103 Technician................................................................................................................................................................ $ 98 Administrative Staff
Information Specialist .............................................................................................................................................. $ 83 Geotechnical/Environmental/Laboratory Assistant ................................................................................................. $ 81 Data Processor........................................................................................................................................................ $ 71 Other Charges
Concrete Coring Equipment (includes technician).............................................................................................. $ 190/hr Anchor Load Test Equipment (includes technician) ........................................................................................... $ 190/hr GPR Equipment................................................................................................................................................... $ 180/hr Inclinometer ......................................................................................................................................................... $ 100/hr Hand Auger Equipment....................................................................................................................................... $ 80/hr Rebar Locator (Pachometer)............................................................................................................................... $ 25/hr Vapor Emission Kit .............................................................................................................................................. $ 65/kit Nuclear Density Gauge ....................................................................................................................................... $ 12/hr X-Ray Fluorescence............................................................................................................................................ $ 70/hr PID/FID................................................................................................................................................................ $ 25/hr Air Sampling Pump.............................................................................................................................................. $ 10/hr Field Vehicle ........................................................................................................................................................ $ 15/hr Expert Witness Testimony................................................................................................................................... $ 450/hr Direct Expenses .................................................................................................................................... Cost plus 15 % Special equipment charges will be provided upon request.

Notes
For field and laboratory technicians and special inspectors, overtime rates at 1.5 times the regular rates will be charged for work performed in excess of 8 hours in one day Monday through Friday and all day on Saturday. Rates at twice the regular rates will be charged for all work in excess of 12 hours in one day, all day Sunday and on holidays.

Field technician and special inspection hours are charged at a 4-hour minimum, and 8-hour minimum for hours exceeding 4 hours.

Invoices are payable upon receipt. A service charge of 1.5 percent per month may be charged on accounts not paid within 30 days.

Our rates will be adjusted in conjunction with the increase in the Prevailing Wage Determination during the life of the project, as applicable.

The terms and conditions are included in Ninyo & Moore’s Work Authorization and Agreement form.

City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 2 Cost Proposal 293
Cost-4
Ninyo & Moore | 2019 Laboratory Testing
Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing

SOILS CONCRETE
Atterberg Limits, D 4318, CT 204..............................................................$ 170 Compression Tests, 6x12 Cylinder, C 39 ...................................................$ 35 California Bearing Ratio (CBR), D 1883....................................................$ 550 Concrete Mix Design Review, Job Spec.....................................................$ 300 Chloride and Sulfate Content, CT 417 & CT 422 .....................................$ 175 Concrete Mix Design, per Trial Batch, 6 cylinder, ACI...............................$ 850 Consolidation, D 2435, CT 219..................................................................$ 300 Concrete Cores, Compression (excludes sampling), C 42 .......................$ 120 Consolidation, Hydro-Collapse only, D 2435............................................$ 150 Drying Shrinkage, C 157..............................................................................$ 400 Consolidation – Time Rate, D 2435, CT 219............................................$ 200 Flexural Test, C 78 .......................................................................................$ 85 Direct Shear – Remolded, D 3080 ............................................................$ 350 Flexural Test, C 293 .....................................................................................$ 85 Direct Shear – Undisturbed, D 3080 .........................................................$ 300 Flexural Test, CT 523...................................................................................$ 95 Durability Index, CT 229.............................................................................$ 175 Gunite/Shotcrete, Panels, 3 cut cores per panel and test, ACI................$ 275 Expansion Index, D 4829, IBC 18-3..........................................................$ 190 Lightweight Concrete Fill, Compression, C 495 .........................................$ 80 Expansion Potential (Method A), D 4546..................................................$ 170 Petrographic Analysis, C 856 ......................................................................$ 2,000 Geofabric Tensile and Elongation Test, D 4632.......................................$ 200 Restrained Expansion of Shrinkage Compensation ..................................$ 450 Hydraulic Conductivity, D 5084..................................................................$ 350 Splitting Tensile Strength, C 496.................................................................$ 100 Hydrometer Analysis, D 422, CT 203........................................................$ 220 3x6 Grout, (CLSM), C 39 .............................................................................$ 55 Moisture, Ash, & Organic Matter of Peat/Organic Soils ...........................$ 120 2x2x2 Non-Shrink Grout, C 109 .................................................................$ 55 Moisture Only, D 2216, CT 226 .................................................................$ 35 Moisture and Density, D 2937 ...................................................................$ 45 ASPHALT Permeability, CH, D 2434, CT 220 ............................................................$ 300 Air Voids, T 269 ............................................................................................$ 85 pH and Resistivity, CT 643.........................................................................$ 175 Asphalt Mix Design, Caltrans (incl. Aggregate Quality).............................$ 4,500 Proctor Density D1557, D 698, CT 216, AASHTO T-180........................$ 220 Asphalt Mix Design Review, Job Spec .......................................................$ 180 Proctor Density with Rock Correction D 1557 ..........................................$ 340 Dust Proportioning, CT LP-4........................................................................$ 85 R-value, D 2844, CT 301 ...........................................................................$ 375 Extraction, % Asphalt, including Gradation, D 2172, CT 382....................$ 250 Sand Equivalent, D 2419, CT 217.............................................................$ 125 Extraction, % Asphalt without Gradation, D 2172, CT 382........................$ 150 Sieve Analysis, D 422, CT 202..................................................................$ 145 Film Stripping, CT 302..................................................................................$ 120 Sieve Analysis, 200 Wash, D 1140, CT 202.............................................$ 100 Hveem Stability and Unit Weight D 1560, T 246, CT 366 .........................$ 225 Specific Gravity, D 854...............................................................................$ 125 Marshall Stability, Flow and Unit Weight, T 245.........................................$ 240 Thermal Resistivity (ASTM 5334, IEEE 442)............................................$ 925 Maximum Theoretical Unit Weight, D 2041, CT 309..................................$ 150 Triaxial Shear, C.D, D 4767, T 297 ...........................................................$ 550 Moisture Content, CT 370............................................................................$ 95 Triaxial Shear, C.U., w/pore pressure, D 4767, T 2297 per pt ................$ 450 Moisture Susceptibility and Tensile Stress Ratio, T 238, CT 371 .............$ 1,000 Triaxial Shear, C.U., w/o pore pressure, D 4767, T 2297 per pt.......................$ 350 Slurry Wet Track Abrasion, D 3910.............................................................$ 150 Triaxial Shear, U.U., D 2850......................................................................$ 250 Superpave, Asphalt Mix Verification (incl. Aggregate Quality)..................$ 4,900 Unconfined Compression, D 2166, T 208.................................................$ 180 Superpave, Gyratory Unit Wt., T 312..........................................................$ 100 Superpave, Hamburg Wheel, 20,000 passes, T 324.................................$ 1,000 MASONRY Unit Weight sample or core, D 2726, CT 308.............................................$ 100 Brick Absorption, 24-hour submersion, 5-hr boiling, 7-day, C 67............$ 70 Voids in Mineral Aggregate, (VMA) CT LP-2..............................................$ 90 Brick Compression Test, C 67...................................................................$ 55 Voids filled with Asphalt, (VFA) CT LP-3 ....................................................$ 90 Brick Efflorescence, C 67...........................................................................$ 55 Wax Density, D 1188................................................................................... $ 140 Brick Modulus of Rupture, C 67.................................................................$ 50 Brick Moisture as received, C 67...............................................................$ 45 AGGREGATES Brick Saturation Coefficient, C 67..............................................................$ 60 Clay Lumps and Friable Particles, C 142 ...................................................$ 180 Concrete Block Compression Test, 8x8x16, C 140 .................................$ 70 Cleanness Value, CT 227............................................................................$ 180 Concrete Block Conformance Package, C 90..........................................$ 500 Crushed Particles, CT 205...........................................................................$ 175 Concrete Block Linear Shrinkage, C 426..................................................$ 200 Durability, Coarse or Fine, CT 229..............................................................$ 205 Concrete Block Unit Weight and Absorption, C 140 ................................$ 70 Fine Aggregate Angularity, ASTM C 1252, T 304, CT 234 .......................$ 180 Cores, Compression or Shear Bond, CA Code........................................$ 70 Flat and Elongated Particle, D 4791 ...........................................................$ 220 Masonry Grout, 3x3x6 prism compression, C 39 .....................................$ 45 Lightweight Particles, C 123 ........................................................................$ 180 Masonry Mortar, 2x4 cylinder compression, C 109..................................$ 35 Los Angeles Abrasion, C 131 or C 535.......................................................$ 200 Masonry Prism, half size, compression, C 1019 ......................................$ 120 Material Finer than No. 200 Sieve by Washing, C 117..............................$ 90 Masonry Prism, Full size, compression, C 1019 ......................................$ 200 Organic Impurities, C 40 ..............................................................................$ 90 Potential Alkali Reactivity, Mortar Bar Method, Coarse, C 1260...............$ 1,250 REINFORCING AND STRUCTURAL STEEL Potential Alkali Reactivity, Mortar Bar Method, Fine, C 1260....................$ 950 Chemical Analysis, A 36, A 615.................................................................$ 135 Potential Reactivity of Aggregate (Chemical Method), C 289 ...................$ 475 Fireproofing Density Test, UBC 7-6 ..........................................................$ 90 Sand Equivalent, T 176, CT 217 .................................................................$ 125 Hardness Test, Rockwell, A 370 ...............................................................$ 80 Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, T 27, C 136........................................$ 120 High Strength Bolt, Nut & Washer Conformance, Sieve Analysis, Fine Aggregate (including wash), T 27, C 136 ................$ 145 per assembly, A 325 .............................................................................$ 150 Sodium Sulfate Soundness, C 88 ...............................................................$ 450 Mechanically Spliced Reinforcing Tensile Test, ACI................................$ 175 Specific Gravity and Absorption, Coarse, C 127, CT 206 .........................$ 115 Pre-Stress Strand (7 wire), A 416..............................................................$ 170 Specific Gravity and Absorption, Fine, C 128, CT 207 ..............................$ 175 Reinforcing Tensile or Bend up to No. 11, A 615 & A 706......................$ 75 Structural Steel Tensile Test: Up to 200,000 lbs., A 370 .........................$ 90 ROOFING Welded Reinforcing Tensile Test: Up to No. 11 bars, ACI.......................$ 80 Roofing Tile Absorption, (set of 5), C 67.....................................................$ 250 Roofing Tile Strength Test, (set of 5), C 67 ................................................$ 250 Special preparation of standard test specimens will be charged at the technician’s hourly rate.

Ninyo & Moore is accredited to perform the AASHTO equivalent of many ASTM test procedures.

City of Fontana | SQ-06-DE-23 | Package No. 2 Cost Proposal 294
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1775 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: F. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Police Department
SUBJECT:
2023 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program Grant Award (STEP) PT23029 RECOMMENDATION:

1. Accept the State of California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) 2023 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Grant, number PT23029 in the amount of $327,000

2. Authorize the Chief of Police to sign the Standard Agreement and any Amendments between the Office of Traffic Safety and the Fontana Police Department

3. Approve the expenditure plan for the use of the funds to help offset the cost of personnel within the Police Department.

4. Approve to increase revenues and appropriation in the amount of $327,000 to fund #301 COUNCIL GOALS:
· Improve public safety by increasing operational efficiency, visibility and availability. · Improve public safety by utilizing other city programs to help reduce crime. · Improve public safety by implementing traffic safety programs.

DISCUSSION:

The Selective Traffic Enforcement Program “STEP” grant are funds made available through the State of California’s Office of Traffic Safety. All program preparation, training and implementation will be held during the period of October 1, 2022, and September 30, 2023. The program is designed to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in traffic collisions involving impairment and other primary collision factors. Other funded strategies may include public awareness, educational programs, and training for law enforcement.

The funded strategies include:
· Officers will complete Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) training · Officers will attend the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) 16-hour POST certified training
City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™295
File #: 21-1775 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: F. Category: Consent Calendar
· DUI/DL Checkpoints
· DUI Saturation Patrols will be conducted
· Distracted Driving Enforcement Operations targeting drivers using handheld cell phones and texting will be conducted
· Traffic Enforcement Operations, including but not limited to primary collision factor violations · Highly publicized Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operations will be held · Warrant Service Operations targeting multiple DUI offenders who violate probation terms or fail to appear in court
· Participate in the National Distracted Driving Awareness Month in April · Participate in the statewide Click It or Ticket mobilization period in May The police department will work to create media opportunities throughout the grant period to call attention to the innovative program strategies and outcomes.

Data gathering and analysis of the program will take place throughout the grant period to include quarterly performance reports, quarterly evaluation data forms, the final report, claim and executive summary.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact associated with the approval of this item includes an increase in revenues and expenditures each in the amount of $327,000 as a result of the grant award in project number 04032039-301-D (details below). The required budget adjustments are included in the First Quarter Budget Status Report as a companion item on the Council agenda.

Expenditure Plan = $327,000 (Reference Schedule B)
Personnel $320,121.00
Travel/Training Expense $2,248.00
Other Direct Costs (Supplies) $4,631.00
MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1777 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: G. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Engineering
SUBJECT:

Authorize the City Engineer to Execute all Right-of-way Certifications RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 2022-126, Authorizing the City Engineer to Execute all Right-of-way Certifications.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by maintaining and improving the city's existing infrastructure.
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by focusing on relief of traffic congestion.

DISCUSSION:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for administering various funding programs through their Local Assistance Division and has adopted procedures for grant funded projects including right-of-way certifications that may be required. Right-of-way certifications are required on all federally funded projects including those which do not require right-of-way acquisitions.

The Caltrans Right-of-way Manual states that a local agency may adopt a blanket resolution giving the responsible agency official authority to execute right-of-way certifications (“Certification”) for all Federal or State Funded programs administered by Caltrans. A certification constitutes a representation by the City that it has acquired or already owns all property necessary for project construction and is required prior to the allocation of funds or the advertisement of a project for bids.

By adopting a blanket resolution, the City Engineer will be able to sign the certifications thereby expediting submittals to Caltrans Local Assistance for grant funded projects.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This action has no fiscal impact on the City.

MOTION:

Approve Staff Recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™316
File #: 21-1777 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: G. Category: Consent Calendar
City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™317
1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO

EXECUTE ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATIONS FOR STATE AND

FEDERAL PROJECTS
WHEREAS, all federally funded projects are implemented by the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) Local Assistance Division; and WHEREAS, a Right-of-Way Certification is required for all projects utilizing federal or state funding through Caltrans Local Assistance even if no right-of-way acquisition is required for the project; and
WHEREAS, as a general requirement for funding eligibility and advertising for bids for projects, Caltrans will require the City to certify that all right-of-way necessary for the project has been acquired and/or is already owned by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.08.11.11 of Chapter 17 of the Caltrans Right-of-way Manual, a local public agency is required to adopt a resolution authorizing an agency official authority to execute Right-of-way certifications.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Fontana, California does hereby authorize the City Engineer to execute all Rightof-Way Certifications forms for federal and state funded projects. 318
2 of 2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October, 2022.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
____________________________________
City Attorney
I, Germaine McClellan Key, City Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of the City of Fontana, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is the actual Resolution duly and regularly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 25th day of October, 2022, by the following to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

City Clerk of the City of Fontana
Mayor of the City of Fontana
ATTEST:

City Clerk
319
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1739 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: H. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Engineering
SUBJECT:

Accept perimeter CFD Landscape improvements for Sierra Avenue & Segovia Lane for Tract No. 18944
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept perimeter CFD Landscaping improvements for Sierra Avenue & Segovia Lane for Tract No. 18944 and release the related Faithful Performance Bond COUNCIL GOALS:
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by maintaining and improving the city's existing infrastructure.
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.

DISCUSSION:

Arroyo Cap I, LLC was conditioned as part of MCN18-000094 to construct landscaping improvements along the perimeter of the established Community Facilities District (CFD) located along the frontage of Sierra Avenue between Segovia Lane and the north tract boundary also along Segovia Lane between Sierra Avenue and Condor Avenue for Tract 18944.

The CFD Landscaping has met all Conditions of Approval and the improvements were inspected by the Department of Engineering and the Department of Public Works. Hence, staff recommends accepting the perimeter CFD Landscape improvements for Tract No. 18944.

This action will also authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Bond, which was posted to guarantee performance of the Subdivision Agreement. It will also authorize the release of the Labor and Material Bond after six months and the Warranty Bond after twelve months, less the total of any claims received by this date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

As part of the action to accept as complete, once the CFD Landscaping is deemed complete, the City will take over operation and maintenance of the facilities and landscaping. The City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™320
File #: 21-1739 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: H. Category: Consent Calendar
annual cost is estimated at $113,665 and it is available in the fiscal year 2022/2023 budget.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™321
322
CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA TRACT MAP NO. 18944
323
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1778 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: I. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Public Works
SUBJECT:

Approve a Construction Contract Amendment for the Construction of the Valley Boulevard/Kaiser Sewer Project Bid No. SB-19-PW-22
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve and authorize the City Manager to increase the construction contract with GRBCON for the construction of the Valley Blvd/Kaiser Sewer Project (Bid No. SB-19-PW-22) in the amount of $160,317.15 for a total contract authorization of $937,737.75.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by maintaining and improving the city's existing infrastructure.
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.

DISCUSSION:

On December 14, 2021, City Council awarded a construction contract with GRBCON Inc. in the amount of $706,746.00 and authorized a contingency amount of $70,674.60 for a total contract authorization of $777,420.60 for the construction of the Valley Boulevard/Kaiser Sewer Project.

During the construction, the contractor encountered unforeseen field conditions as follows:
· Additional cost to move work from normal business hours to night work was necessary for safety and reduced impacts to the residents and businesses in this area. · An unanticipated gas line interfered with the placement of the proposed sewer main which required a redesign and field change to allow the new sewer main to be installed.

In order to complete the Project, it is recommended that City Council approve an amendment of the construction contract to issue contract change orders in the amount of $160,317.15 to cover the unforeseen items. The project is under construction and completion is expected by December 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If approved, this will increase appropriations in the Valley Blvd./ Kaiser Sewer Project 38104332-703- A-8331 in the amount of $160,317.15. Appropriate paperwork will be submitted to the Budget office with FY 2022-23 Mid-Year adjustments.

MOTION:

City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™324
File #: 21-1778 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: I. Category: Consent Calendar
Approve Staff’s Recommendation
City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™325
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1773 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: J. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Human Resources
SUBJECT:

Authorize the Transition of PARS Alternate Retirement Services to Bencor RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 2022-127, of the City Council of the City of Fontana, Authorizing the Transition of the City of Fontana PARS Alternate Retirement System Plan from Public Agency Retirement Services to Bencor.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Operate in a businesslike manner by creating a memorable customer experience with every interaction.
· Practice sound fiscal management by living within our means while investing in the future.

DISCUSSION:

The City holds a fiduciary responsibility to offer an Alternate Retirement System (ARS) of which is an alternative to Social Security plan for part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees. This complies with OBRA ’90 and Internal Revenue Code Section 3121(b)(7)(F) requirements, in which wages of an employee of a State or local government are generally subject to tax under FICA after July 1, 1991, unless the employee is a member of a retirement system maintained by the State or local government entity. To the extent this Alternate Retirement System plan reduces cost to the City due to lower total contributions rate (7.5% minimum versus 12.4% with Social Security).

The City maintains the City of Fontana ARS defined contribution plan to those eligible employees as defined. This Resolution authorizes the transition of the Alternate Retirement System Plan from Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) to Bencor authorizing the City Manager or their designee to make any necessary amendments to the ARS Plan to implement the provisions of this Resolution.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This transition will streamline processing and protect data integrity with an online portal maintenance for new enrollments and separations, therefore reducing City administrative costs. In addition to the cost savings to the City, participants will see a decreased administrative cost from Bencor as well protection against fund loss with a guaranteed interest rate on their contributions.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™326
File #: 21-1773 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: J. Category: Consent Calendar
City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™327
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

FONTANA, CA, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSITION OF THE CITY OF

FONTANA PARS ALTERNATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PLAN FROM

PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES TO BENCOR
WHEREAS, the City of Fontana (“the City”) currently participates in the City of Fontana PARS Alternate Retirement System Plan (the “PARS Plan”); and WHEREAS, Staff in conjunction with the City’s retirement plan consultant and investment fiduciary Shuster Advisory Group, LLC, (“Shuster”) conducted a fee, services and investment review of the PARS Plan, and subsequently issued a request for proposal through Shuster; and WHEREAS, based on the results received via the request for proposal, Staff selects Bencor as the new provider and wishes to terminate all services and contracts with Public Agency Retirement Services (“PARS”) as trust administrator and U.S. Bank as Trustee of the PARS Plan.

WHEREAS, the investment contract that will be used to hold the PTS-OBRA Plan satisfies the applicable requirement of tax laws to be treated as a qualified trust under section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code and accordingly, under those laws, the group annuity investment contract is treated as the trustee, and Bencor has accepted its appointment as custodian and recordkeeper of the successor plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby ratifies all actions taken by City Staff in relation to the removal of PARS and the replacement with Bencor.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby replaces the City of Fontana PARS Alternate Retirement System Plan with the City of Fontana PTS-OBRA Plan, effective December 15, 2022.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby directs the liquidation of assets held in the PARS Plan as soon as administratively practicable.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby directs the transfer of assets and participant data from the PARS Plan to Bencor on or around December 15, 2022.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby terminates the Agreement for Administrative Services with the Public Agency Retirement Services effective upon the transfer of assets and participant data to Bencor.

SECTION 6. Upon the complete transfer of assets, PARS is hereby removed as trust administrator and U.S. Bank is hereby removed as Trustee of the City of Fontana PARS Alternate Retirement System Plan.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of October 2022.
328
ATTEST: CITY OF FONTANA
Germaine McClellan Key Acquanetta Warner
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Ruben Duran,
City Attorney
329
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1770 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: K. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Police Department
SUBJECT:

Police Department Monthly Information Update
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Police Department monthly information update for September 2022.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Operate in a businesslike manner by creating a memorable customer experience with every interaction.
· Increase citizen involvement by informing the public about issues, program, and accomplishments.
· Concentrate on Inter-governmental relations by establishing partnerships and positive working relationships with other public agencies providing services to residents and local businesses.

DISCUSSION:

The September 2022 monthly information report has been completed. Once the report is accepted by the City Council it will be featured on the Department website.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™330
2022 CRIME STATISTICS ARE IN NIBRS
FORMAT
• As reported to the community in October of 2021, the Fontana Police Department transitioned from Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) format to the Department of Justice mandated National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS).
• There were significant reporting requirement changes, in terms of types of crimes and categories reported.
• As a result, year-to-year comparison reporting is not available due to the new format and crimes reported.
• As an example, Robbery was reported as a Crime Against Person in UCR format but transitioned to a Property Crime under NIBRS. • It is important to note nothing has changed in the manner your Fontana Police Department investigates crimes.
331

POLICE DEPARTMENT

MONTHLY REPORT
September 2022
332

NOTEWORTHY EVENTS
• The Animal Services Office hosted an animal vaccination clinic • Detectives identified and arrested a suspect accused of repeatedly exposing himself to female shoppers
• Female sworn officers were recognized on National Policewoman Day • Detectives from the Fontana Police Department's Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force discovered conducted multiple investigations and made several arrests of adults trafficking in Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) over the internet
• Narcotics detectives seized more than 50,000 fentanyl pills and 2,500 pound of methamphetamine • The Community Outreach and Public Engagement (COPE) unit hosted a Coffee With Cops event • Detectives investigated a fatal shooting and identified the suspect. The suspect was killed in a shootout with another police agency
• Officers volunteered to take local students shopping for back-to-school clothes • Detectives arrested two suspects in a murder that occurred in 2016 • Officers volunteered to participate in “Chillin N Grillin” annual event KA1
333
Slide 3
KA1 Kevin Anderson, 2/9/2021
334
335

CITYWIDE
• Priority 1 response time- 4:51 (Emergency calls like subject not breathing, shots fired, and other immediate risk to life/safety)
• Calls for service- 9,702
• Total Traffic Accidents- 232
• Non-Injury- 187, Injury - 45
• Total arrests- 620
• Hispanic- 401, White- 106, Black- 95, All others races- 18 • Total Group A Offenses- 790
• Crimes Against Persons- 174
• Crimes Against Property- 405
• Crimes Against Society- 211
336
• Crimes Against Person- 174 CITYWIDE • Homicide- 1
• Sex Offenses- 10
• Assault- 159
• Kidnapping- 4
• Other- 0
• Crimes Against Property- 405
• Robbery- 15
• Burglary- 31
• Larceny- 151
• Destruction of Property- 43
• Fraud- 34
• Possession of Stolen Property- 62
• Motor Vehicle Theft- 53
• Other Miscellaneous Property Crimes- 16
• Crimes Against Society- 211
• Drug and Paraphernalia Possession- 171
• Possession of Child Pornography- 7
• Possession of Weapons- 33
• Other Miscellaneous Crimes- 0
337

CRIMES BY BEAT
• Police Department Beat system is NOT
geographically the same as City Council
representation Districts
• Beat 1- All area north of 210 Freeway
• Beat 2- All area south of 210 Freeway and
north of Foothill
• Beat 3- All area south of Foothill and north
of 10 Freeway
• Beat 4- All area south of the 10 Freeway
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
338
BEAT 1

AREA COMMANDER IS LIEUTENANT CARLO GRANILLO
EMAIL- [email protected]
DESK- (909) 350-7716
• Total Group A Offenses- 64
• Crimes Against Persons- 11
• Crimes Against Property- 50
• Crimes Against Society- 3
339
BEAT 2

AREA COMMANDER IS LIEUTENANT ADAM CLABAUGH
EMAIL- [email protected]
DESK- (909) 854-8004
• Total Group A Offenses- 167
• Crimes Against Persons- 54
• Crimes Against Property- 77
• Crimes Against Society- 36
340
BEAT 3

AREA COMMANDER IS LIEUTENANT RUAL FILETO
EMAIL – [email protected]
DESK – (909) 854-8161
• Total Group A Offenses- 390
• Crimes Against Persons- 88
• Crimes Against Property- 180
• Crimes Against Society- 122
341
Beat 4

AREA COMMANDER IS LIEUTENANT DOUG IMHOF
EMAIL – [email protected]
DESK – (909) 350-7707
• Total Group A Offenses- 132
• Crimes Against Persons- 20
• Crimes Against Property- 92
• Crimes Against Society- 20
342

ADDITIONAL USEFUL INFORMATION
• For more information regarding specific geographical crime data, visit www.crimemapping.com and enter your zip code
• Police Department information line- (909) 350-7740
• Police Department Dispatch non-emergency line- (909) 350-7700 • Anonymous crime reporting (909) 356-TIPS to leave a recorded message
• Report Graffiti on City Property- (909) 350-GONE
• Office of the Chief- (909) 350-7702 or [email protected] 343
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1804 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: L. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Planning Department
SUBJECT:

Purchase and Sale Agreement for 16708 Spring Street - Downtown Fontana Property RECOMMENDATION:

1. Approve a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of a building and associated land located at 16708 Spring Street, east of Juniper in Downtown Fontana, more specifically described as APN #0191-161-02.

2. Approve the budget adjustment in Fund 602 Capital Improvement increasing land acquisition expenses in the amount of $990,000 to be added in the Mid-Year Budget Report

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute any documents necessary or appropriate to effectuate said approvals and/or agreement.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Promote economic development by concentrating on job creation. · Promote economic development by pursuing business attraction, retention, and expansion.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Fontana will be undertaking an expansive and comprehensive revitalization of Downtown Fontana. The specific geographic area to be targeted includes Upland Ave to the North, Orange Avenue to the South, Mango Ave to the East and Juniper Ave to the West. A primary component of this revitalization effort will require the acquisition, demolition, replanning, and redevelopment of several key properties within the area. To facilitate the implementation of this revitalization, the City will be acquiring various properties in Downtown Fontana. Notwithstanding the fact that any structures that exist on parcels being acquired will be demolished and therefore have no future value, parcels are being acquired at market rate based on values attributable to their current use.

The subject property recently became available for acquisition. The approximately 18,200 square foot parcel includes a building of approximately 2,900 square feet.

The city and the seller’s brokers have reached agreement on a Purchase Agreement with the following proposed deal-points:

City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™344
File #: 21-1804 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: L. Category: Consent Calendar
· The City of Fontana would acquire the property for the price of $950,000. · The City of Fontana and seller Michael Hoch will equally split any/all escrow and title fees as appropriate.
· The City will have sixty days to perform any due diligence on the subject property, including completion of an environmental assessment and title review. · Following the due-diligence period the city will have a fifteen-day financing period to complete all wire-transfers and documents necessary for the close of escrow.

Approval of the Purchase Agreement and acquisition of the subject property will assist with the assemblage of various properties located in Downtown Fontana. That assemblage will facilitate the City’s vision and plans to dramatically revitalize the Downtown Community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Monies are available for the purchase of these properties (total cost of approximately $990,000, including escrow costs and appropriate fees) - in Fund 602 - Capital Improvement. Appropriate paperwork will be submitted to the Budget Office with the Mid-Year Budget Status Report.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-1726 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: M. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Finance
SUBJECT:

Award Bid for Air Purifiers for City Buildings
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Award bid (SP-19-PW-23) and authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase Equipment Agreement for Portable Air Purifiers and Monitors to Alliance Building Solutions, Inc. of San Diego, California in the amount not to exceed $1,831,725.00.

2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute any future amendments to the Purchase Equipment Agreement (SP-19-PW-23).

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Improve public safety by increasing operational efficiency, visibility and availability. · Operate in a businesslike manner by improving services through the effective use of technology.
· Operate in a businesslike manner by correcting problems immediately. · Enhance the local environment for future generations and create a healthy economic and environmental future by committing to purchasing specific products and goods that are climate friendly.

DISCUSSION:

Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining twenty-eight (28) city buildings and was requested to provide a solution for indoor air quality and monitoring for both employees and visitors to city buildings. The solution had to address at the minimum to provide 650 medical-grade air purifiers, along with monitors and installation for city buildings for COVID-19 type viruses, indoor allergens, portable, low maintenance, filter less system, and at least 10-year useful life.

This system will provide the highest level of disinfection, no ongoing filter replacement, no servicing of the units, compact, and quiet operation. The units can be situated on a desktop, portable stand or wall mounted. The units process the contaminated indoor air by pulling it into the unit by an internal fan and the contaminates are rapidly and safely inactivated. The coils release a plasma based electric discharge hundreds of times a second, destroying pathogens from a DNA level by the coils.

Clean purified air is recycled back into the room.

Purchasing Office solicited proposals for portable air purifiers and monitors (SP-19-PW-23) by City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™363
File #: 21-1726 Agenda Date: 10/25/2022
Agenda #: M. Category: Consent Calendar
Purchasing Office solicited proposals for portable air purifiers and monitors (SP-19-PW-23) by notifying 211 bidders through the city’s online bid system. Forty-four prospective bidders downloaded the proposal, and nine (9) bids were received. The Purchasing Office reviewed the proposals to verify that the bidders met the requirements of the bid. Only two of the nine bidders submitted based on the city’s specification standards for the air purifiers and monitors. · Alliance Building Solutions, Inc.

San Diego, CA
· Technology International, Inc.

Lake Mary, FL
Technology International’s proposal did not provide a Work Plan, Schedule, and References as outline in section 4.3 Response To Proposal in the bid documents. Technology International is deemed unresponsive and did not meet the requirements of the bid. Alliance Building Solutions provided all the requirements and deemed as responsive and responsible as to the best solution to meet the city’s requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ARPA funds have been designated for this project. Funds are budgeted in Fiscal Year 2022-23 in 38300001-302-A-8320.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by Legistar™364
365
Submitted to:

RFP SP-19-PW-23

PORTABLE AIR PURIFIERS AND MONITORS

CITY OF FONTANA
8353 Sierra Ave,
Fontana, CA 92335
Attn: Mr. Sid Lambert, Purchasing Office
Email: [email protected]
Phone (909) 350-7678
Submitted by:

Alliance Building Solutions, Inc.
12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 345
San Diego, CA 92130
Brad Chapman, President
Email: [email protected]
P: (858) 900-5305 F: (858) 356-9651
366

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A: Introduction ..........................................................................2 B: Work Plan...........................................................................12 C: Schedule ............................................................................18 D: Reference...........................................................................22 E: Pricing Amount ..................................................................24 367
A: INTRODUCTION