Fontana City Council
June 27, 2023

WHEREAS, Sections 32-3.1 and 32-6 of the Fontana Municipal Code requires Administrative Site Plan approval for all new wireless telecommunication facilities on existing towers and Chapter 32 of the Fontana Municipal Code includes procedures for processing, along with standards and requirements for these facilities. Furthermore, Section 30-22 of the Zoning and Development Code and Section 32-6 of the Fontana Municipal Code designates the Director of Community Development (or designee) as the approval authority for review of Administrative Site Plans for these types of facilities; and WHEREAS, on the
Director of Planning received public testimony and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties and after carefully considered all information pertaining to the project, including the staff report, findings, and all of the information, evidence, and testimony presented at its public hearing, the Director of Planning approved Administrative Site Plan No. No. 22-013; and
WHEREAS, Sections 30-22 and 30-26 of the Zoning and Development Code designate the Planning Commission as the appeal authority for Administrative Site Plans that are approved by the Director of Community Development; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2023, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing and received public testimony on and Appeal (APL) Nos. 22-003, -005, -007, - 009 and -011 for the appeal of the
Administrative Site Plan No. No. 22-013. After carefully considered all information pertaining to the project, including the staff report, findings, and all of the information, evidence, and testimony presented at its public hearing, the Planning Commission denied Appeal (APL) No. 22-003, -005, -007, -009 and -011 thereby upholding the of the Director -013 and
associated Conditions of Approval and added two additional Conditions of Approval, which have been at No. 22-013; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2023, Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, California, at a regular meeting adopted a resolution denying Appeal (APL) Nos. 22-003, -005, -007, -009 and -
approving Administrative Site Plan No. No. 22-013 with associated Conditions of Approval and added two additional Conditions of Approval Numbers 17 and 18 as depicted in Exhibit A of the Conditions of Approval; and
WHEREAS, all of the notices required by statute or the City Municipal Code have been given as required; and
WHEREAS, Administrative Site Plan No. (ASP) No. 22-013 is for the installation of new, small wireless telecommunications equipment on an existing SCE transmission tower is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the 1234
Resolution PC No. 2023-

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Section 3.22 of the 2019 City of Fontana Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Fontana wishes to protect and preserve the quality of the life throughout the City, through effective land use and planning; and WHEREAS, the owners of property within 660 feet of the proposed project site were notified via public hearing notices mailer prior to the Public Hearings; and notice of the public hearing was published in the local Fontana Herald newspaper on February 3, 2023 for Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013 and March 24, 2023 for Appeal (APL) Nos. 22-003, -005, -007, -009 and -011, posted at City Hall and at the project site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission carefully considered all information pertaining to the proposed project, including the staff report, findings, and all the information, evidence, and testimony presented at its public hearing on April 4, 2023; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission RESOLVES as follows:

SECTION NO 1.
the following findings for Administrative Site Plan No. (ASP) No. 22-013 in accordance with Section No. 32-7.2. for Findings for approval for tower and/or antenna for ASP applications from the Municipal Code:

Finding No. 1: The proposal meets or exceeds the criteria contained in this chapter and is consistent with the general plan and the applicable land use designations.

Findings of Fact: The project site is located north of Terra Vista Drive and east of Condor Avenue. The General Plan land use designation is Public Utility (P-UC) and is zoned Public Utility (P-UC). The proposed project is to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) tower by adding new wireless telecommunications equipment additional ancillary wireless equipment. Wireless
telecommunications facilities are an allowed use under the General Plan subject to approval by the Director of Planning therefore the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Development Code and Chapter 32 of the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC) as outlined in the Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Ordinance. The proposed new telecommunications project has been reviewed by Planning, Building and Safety, Engineering, and Fire Prevention Departments and will meet or exceed all requirements. The proposed project will be built/installed pursuant to all applicable state and federal laws/standards, building, 1235
Resolution PC No. 2023-

zoning, fire codes, and standards.

Finding No. 2: That the site for the intended use is adequate in size, shape, topography, accessibility, and other physical characteristics to accommodate the use and all the required provisions of this chapter.

Findings of Fact: The proposed project as identified and referenced in Finding No. 1, above for the installation of new wireless telecommunication equipment on an existing tower along with installation of associated equipment, is located within the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission corridor developed with towers along with an access road. The physical characteristics of the site which is utilized which is utilized as an SCE transmission corridor developed with towers and an access road is sufficient to accommodate the requested wireless telecommunication project. The project site is approximately 20 acres can accommodate the proposed wireless antennas/panels to be mounted on the existing SCE tower along with associated equipment that will be located within the approximately 200 square foot equipment shelter located on the ground.

Furthermore, the existing maintenance road on this site can accommodate for the vehicular access needed to maintain this proposed facility.

Finding No. 3: The proposal of the tower and/or antenna is in its design and appearance consistent with the development and design of the surrounding structures and neighborhood.

Findings of Fact: The proposal and appearance of the wireless telecommunication site as a result from this review will be compatible with other similarly uses in the area; in that, the wireless telecommunication antenna/panels will have metal to match the color of the existing SCE tower. Additionally, the ground mounted equipment will be screened project is
aesthetically pleasing and will be consist with the built environment.

Finding No. 4: That the proposed use will be organized, designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible with the character of the area as intended by the general plan.

Findings of Fact: The General Plan land use designation is Public Utility (P-UC) and is zoned Public Utility (P-UC). The proposed project is to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) tower to add new wireless telecommunications equipment at site utilized as a SCE transmission corridor developed with existing towers and maintenance road.

Wireless telecommunications facilities are an allowed use under the General Plan and Municipal Code subject to approval by the Director 1236
Resolution PC No. 2023-

of Planning. Also, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning and Development Code and Chapter 32 of the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC) as outlined in the Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas ordinance. The existing maintenance road on this site can accommodate for the vehicular access needed to maintain this proposed wireless
telecommunications facility.

Finding No. 5: That adequate streets and highways exist to carry the type and quantity of traffic anticipated to accommodate access for maintenance and/or service vehicles.

Findings of Fact: The proposed project is to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) tower to add new wireless telecommunications equipment at site utilized as a SCE transmission corridor developed with existing towers and maintenance road. This existing maintenance road will provide access for the proposed project is accessible from Terra Vista Drive is designated as a Collector Street by the Circulation Master Plan able to accommodate for proposed facility that is anticipated to be service approximately once or twice a month.

SECTION NO. 2
Commission hereby denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the Director of Planning approving Administrative Site Plan No. No. 22-013 and subject to the Conditions of approval which are attached hereto as to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. Furthermore, Planning Commission added two additional Conditions of Approval Numbers 17 and 18 as depicted in Exhibit A of the Conditions of Approval.

SECTION NO. 3. Resolution Regarding Custodian of Record: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.

This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code, Section No. 21081.6.

SECTION NO. 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, California, at a regular meeting held on this 18th day of April 2023.

City of Fontana ___________________________ Cathline Fort, Chairperson 1237
Resolution PC No. 2023-

ATTEST:

I, Ralph Thrasher, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of April 2023, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN: ___________________________ Ralph Thrasher, Secretary

1238
Resolution PC No. 2023-

CITY OF FONTANA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE: Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013 DATE: February 16, 2023 Master Case No. 22-054
LOCATION: North of Terra Vista Drive, east of Condor Avenue (APN: 0239-101-17) PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

1. All Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be incorporated into all applicable final construction plans and a copy of these conditions, signed by the property owner or legal representative, shall be placed on the first sheet of the final building plans prior to issuance of any building permits.

2. The rights and privileges granted by this project shall not become effective, nor shall the Applicant commence the use for which this project is granted, until both of the following have occurred:

A. All of the improvements, construction, alteration and other work set forth in this project have been completed and have been accepted by the City, as and
B. All other Conditions of Approval imposed by this project have been fulfilled.

3. Administrative Site Plan shall become null and void two (2) years from the date of approval, unless the appropriate permits have been obtained and construction, defined as permit obtainment, commencement of construction of the primary building on site, and successful completion of the first Building and Safety Department inspection, has commenced within this period.

4. Prior to the construction of any modifications, all structural and aesthetic changes to the project design must be requested and approved in writing by the Director of Planning or his/her designee.

5. This project will comply with all applicable provisions, regulations, and development standards of the City of Fontana Municipal Code.

6. To discourage graffiti, the applicant shall include anti-graffiti coating on the exterior of the enclosure.
1239
Resolution PC No. 2023-

7. The applicant/property owner shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any and all actual or alleged claims, actions or proceedings against the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void, annul or seek monetary damages arising out of any challenge to the proposed project or to any approvals of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning this project, including but not limited to actions challenging CEQA actions, permits, variances, plot plans, design plans, maps, licenses, and amendments. The City of Fontana shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City of Fontana shall cooperate in the defense.

In the event of any such third-party action or proceeding, the City shall have the right to retain its own separate legal counsel to defend the interests of the City. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for such legal fees and costs, defense of such action or proceeding. This indemnification shall also include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, the City and/or any parties bringing such forth.

The City of Fontana and the applicant acknowledge that the City would not have approved this project if the City were to be liable to applicant in damages under or with respect to all or any part of this application or this condition of approval. Accordingly, applicant shall not sue the City for damages or monetary relief for any matter arising shall be limited to declaratory/injunctive relief, mandate, and/or specific performance.

8. The applicant shall post a publicly visible sign on the project site with the telephone number and 24-hour point of contact for dust, noise, and construction complaints. The 24-hour point of contact shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and have authority to commit additional assets to control dust, or respond to construction complaints after hours, on weekends and on holidays. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays.

9. Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish &Game (CDFG) Code, removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat shall first conduct a pre-construction survey for active bird nests outside the avian nesting season. The nesting season generally extends from early February through August but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. The report shall be provided to the Planning Department.

10. Permittee shall undertake all reasonable efforts to avoid undue adverse impacts to adjacent properties and/or uses that may arise from the construction, operation, maintenance, modification and removal of the facility.
1240
Resolution PC No. 2023-

11. Inventory of existing sites. Each applicant for an antenna and/or tower shall provide to the Director of Planning an inventory of its existing towers, antennas or sites approved for towers or antennas, that are either within the jurisdiction of the city or within one mile of the border thereof, including specific information about the location, height, and design of each tower. The Director of Planning may share such information with other applicants applying for administrative approvals or conditional use permits under this chapter or other organizations seeking to locate antennas within the jurisdiction of the city, provided, however that the Director of Planning is not, by sharing such information, in any way representing the accuracy of the information or warranting that such sites are available or suitable.

12. If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower, the antenna and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a neutral color that is identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure as to make the antenna and related equipment as visually obtrusive as possible.

13. Towers shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the lighting alternatives and design chosen must cause the least disturbance to the surrounding views.

14. State or federal requirements. All telecommunication facilities must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate towers and antennas. If such standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the telecommunication facility governed by the Fontana Municipal Code shall bring such equipment into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to bring telecommunications facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the telecommunications facility at the owners expense.

15. The construction contractor will use the following source controls at all times:

A. Use of noise-producing equipment will be limited to the interval from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the building inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section 18-63(7) of the Municipal Code.

B. For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest horsepower and the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use.

C. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately.

D. Have only necessary equipment onsite.
1241
Resolution PC No. 2023-

E. Use manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive backup alarms. When working adjacent to residential use(s), the construction contractor will also use the following path controls, except where not physically feasible, when necessary:

1. Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between the active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers.

2. Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources.

3. Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical from as many sensitive receivers as practical.

16. Historic Archaeological Resources
A. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.

B. Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

C. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. 1242
Resolution PC No. 2023-

17. The applicant shall submit an annual report to the City documenting ongoing compliance with federal regulations for telecommunications facilities. (added by Planning Commission on April 4, 2023)

18. The existing cleared area around the tower and access road utilized for maintenance of the wireless facility shall be maintained free of vegetation. (added by Planning Commission on April 4, 2023)
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:

19. A Planning Department final inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Industrial and Commercial Developments.

20. Applicant shall pay all applicable service fees pursuant to the City of Fontana Municipal Code.

END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1243
ATTACHMENT NO. 6

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SI DESEA INFORMACION EN ESPAÑOL REFERENTE A ESTA NOTIFICACION O PROYECTO, FAVOR DE COMUNICARSE AL (909) 350-6728.

In compliance with Section No. 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.

Section No. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof, the Agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability.

Should you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact City Clerk’s Department by calling (909) 350-7602. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA FOR THE FOLLOWING:

Master Case No. (MCN) 23-040 and Appeal (APL) No. 23-013 Master Case No. (MCN) 23-041 and Appeal (APL) No. 23-014 Review of appeals to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision on April 18, 2023, approving Master Case No. (MCN) 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower for the installation of new wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ancillary equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

Environmental
Determination:

The installation of new wireless telecommunications facility and ancillary equipment as described above associated with Master Case No. (MCN) 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 is exempted pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Section 3.22 of the 2019 City of Fontana Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act.
1244
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
Should you have any questions concerning this project, please contact George Velarde, Assistant Planner, at (909) 350-6569 or by e-mail at [email protected].

ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY APPEAR AND PRESENT ANY INFORMATION BY LETTER OR EMAIL WHICH MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. A COPY OF THE

APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION. PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNER LISTED ABOVE.

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 TO THE CITY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Location of
Property:

North of Terra Vista
Drive, east of
Condor Avenue
(APN: 0239-101-
17)
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2023
Place of
Hearing:

City Hall Council
Chambers 8353
Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Time of Hearing: 7:00 P.M.
1245
Aaron M. Shank
[email protected]
www.porterwright.com
Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur LLP
41 South High Street
Suites 2800-3200
Columbus, OH 43215
Direct: 614.227.2110
Fax: 614.227.2100
Main: 614.227.2000
www.porterwright.com

CHICAGO

CINCINNATI

CLEVELAND

COLUMBUS
DAYTON
NAPLES

PITTSBURGH
TAMPA

WASHINGTON, DC
June 15, 2023
Mayor Warren and City Council
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: AT&T’s Response to Appeal from Approval of
Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013
3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana, CA 92377
AT&T Site ID CSL00192
Dear Mayor Warren, Mayor Pro Tem Garcia, and Councilmembers Cothran, Roberts, and Sandoval:

I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T), to respectfully request the City Council uphold the Planning Director’s and Planning Commission’s approvals of AT&T’s application to collocate a wireless telecommunications facility (“Proposed Facility”) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower located in a public utility corridor in the City of Fontana. In addition to providing more robust and competitive wireless services, including significant improvements to 4G LTE service, the Proposed Facility will provide FirstNet services to support first responder communications.

This carefully sited and well-designed facility will minimize visual impacts and it is the best available and least intrusive means to close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap in this area. The appeal raises a host of general concerns and fears that are not supported by evidence. As discussed in greater detail below, the city’s approval of AT&T’s application also comports with federal law. Thus, AT&T requests the City Council deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T’s application for the Proposed Facility.

AT&T’s Proposed Facility
Consistent with Section 32-1 of the Fontana Municipal Code, which encourages minimizing the total number of towers in the city and “strongly encourages the joint use (collocation) of new and existing tower sites as a primary option,” AT&T seeks to collocate its Proposed Facility with a top height of 72 feet above ground on an existing 133- foot tall transmission tower within this public utility corridor. Also consistent with Section 32-1, the Proposed Facility is placed to minimize visual impacts and will enhance AT&T’s ability to provide vital wireless services “to the community quickly, effectively, and 1246
City of Fontana City Council
June 15, 2023

efficiently.” In addition, pursuant to Section 32-6(b)(3) of the Fontana Municipal Code, the Proposed Facility does not increase the height of the existing structure, will comply with applicable FCC and FAA regulations, and will comply with all applicable building codes. In particular, AT&T fully intends to comply with the conditions of approval requiring compliance with the city’s regulations (including building codes and noise regulations) and FCC and FAA regulations.

AT&T Needs the Proposed Facility to Provide and Improve Wireless Services AT&T’s radio frequency engineers have identified a significant gap in service coverage in this large area that is roughly bordered by Interstate 15 to the north, Coyote Canyon Road to the west, Escalon Drive to the south, and North Palmetto Avenue to the east. AT&T’s Radio Frequency Statement (Attachment A) explains that gap area includes hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods, parks, schools, busy roads, and other points of interest in the vicinity.

The Proposed Facility will improve critical wireless services to the area, which are desperately needed especially as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication devices. In fact, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention studies the extent of mobile phone use, and recently found that more than 81% of California adults, and more than 98% of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes.1
Additionally, customers rely on their mobile phones to do much more than just voice communication, including E911 service, video streaming, GPS, Internet access, and texting.

In fact, the Federal Communications Commission conservatively estimates that 74% of 911 calls are placed by people using wireless phones.2 In addition, the Proposed Facility is a part of AT&T’s commitment to supporting public safety through its partnership with FirstNet, the first-ever nationwide first-responder wireless network.

AT&T’s Analysis of Alternative Sites
AT&T has taken care to select a location to reduce impacts to the community while maintaining a clear line-of-sight for signals to provide adequate service coverage to the gap area.

AT&T thoroughly investigated alternative sites, evaluating numerous properties in the gap area, to make sure the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap. AT&T’s Alternative Sites Analysis (see Attachment B), includes two other existing towers and the only three other non-residential properties in the area. In all, AT&T examined five alternative properties and determined that each was either unavailable, unviable, or more intrusive than the Proposed Facility.

1 See Wireless Substitution: State-level Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2019, available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/Wireless_state_202108-508.pdf. 2 See, e.g., Thirteenth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (Dec. 31, 2021), at 12, available at https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/13th-annual-911-feereport-2021.pdf. 1247
City of Fontana City Council
June 15, 2023

Approval of AT&T’s Proposal Comports with Federal Law
The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332 (“Act”) provides rights to wireless service providers and establishes limitations upon state and local zoning authorities with respect to applications for permits to construct personal wireless service facilities. The United States Supreme Court has explained that the Act was enacted in part to prioritize and streamline deployment of wireless technologies on a national basis.3 Indeed, rapid deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities, like the Proposed Facility, is an important national issue, especially given the trend of Americans eliminating traditional landline telephone service in favor of wireless communications.

The Act defines the scope and parameters of the city’s overall review of AT&T’s Application. Under the Act, the city’s review of AT&T’s applications must be based on substantial evidence.4 The “substantial evidence” requirement means that a local government’s decision must be “authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence.”5 In other words, a local government must have specific reasons that are both consistent with the local regulations and supported by substantial evidence in the record to deny a permit. Local governments are specifically precluded from considering any alleged effects of radio frequency emissions in making decisions as to the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities “to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions.”6
The Act also prohibits a local government from denying an application for a wireless telecommunications facility where doing so would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”7 Courts have found an “effective prohibition” exists where a wireless provider demonstrates (1) a significant gap in wireless service coverage, and (2) that the proposed facility would provide the “least intrusive means,” in relation to the land use values embodied in local regulations, to provide the service coverage necessary to fill that gap.8 Under this test, when a wireless carrier satisfies both of these requirements, state and local standards that would otherwise be sufficient to permit denial of the facility are preempted and the

3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 115-16 (2005) (“Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), 110 Stat. 56, to promote competition and higher quality in American telecommunications services and to ‘encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.’ Ibid. One of the means by which it sought to accomplish these goals was reduction of the impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of facilities for wireless communications, such as antenna towers.”). 4 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).
5 Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S.Ct. 808 (2015). 6 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
7 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
8 See e.g., Metro PCS, Inc., 400 F.3d at 734-35; Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 2009).
1248
City of Fontana City Council
June 15, 2023

municipality must approve the wireless facility.9 When a wireless provider presents evidence of a significant gap and the absence of a less intrusive alternative, the burden shifts to the local government to prove that a less intrusive alternative exists. In order to meet this burden (and overcome the presumption in favor of federal preemption), the local government must show that another alternative is available that fills the significant gap in coverage, that it is technically feasible, and that it is “less intrusive” than the proposed facility.10 More recently, the FCC has confirmed its rulings that an effective prohibition occurs whenever the decision of a local government materially inhibits wireless services,11 and this material inhibition standard was again upheld by the Ninth Circuit.12 The FCC explained that the “effective prohibition analysis focuses on the service the provider wishes to provide, incorporating the capabilities and performance characteristics it wishes to employ, including facilities deployment to provide existing services more robustly, or at a better level of quality, all to offer a more robust and competitive wireless service for the benefit of the public.”13 Thus, a local government “could materially inhibit service in numerous ways – not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide existing service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services.”14 Here, AT&T has demonstrated its significant service coverage gap in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility. AT&T’s radio frequency propagation maps that AT&T has submitted in connection with this application, which are also exhibits to the Radio Frequency Statement (Attachment A) depict the service coverage gap that AT&T is experiencing here. These maps show that AT&T lacks adequate wireless service in this significant area. The proposed service coverage from the Proposed Facility is depicted in the coverage maps. As you can see, placing the Proposed Facility in this location will close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap in this area.

AT&T has also demonstrated that no less intrusive locations are available and feasible to close the gap (see Attachment B). The Proposed Facility is not only the best available and least intrusive means to do so, it is the only way for AT&T bring critical wireless services to the area, including FirstNet services. The Planning Director’s approval, and the Planning Commission’s approval on appeal, thus comport with federal law, and the Council should likewise approve AT&T’s application and deny the appeal.

9 See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). 10 Id., 572 F.3d at 998-999.
11 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018) (“Infrastructure Order”) at ¶ 35; see also, In the Matter of California Payphone Association Petition for Preemption, Etc., Opinion and Order, FCC 97-251, 12 FCC Rcd 14191 (July 17, 1997).
12 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2020). 13 Infrastructure Order at n. 95.
14 Id. at ¶ 37.
1249
City of Fontana City Council
June 15, 2023

Response to Appellant’s Criticisms
The appeal raises several issues that are based on speculation and misplaced fears. Even though the Planning Director and Planning Commission roundly rejected these issues, the appellant raises the very same issues on this second-level appeal. But, as described above, even if the Council could identify a code-based reason to disfavor AT&T’s Proposed Facility, the city is preempted by the Act from taking action that would prohibit or have the effective of prohibiting AT&T from providing and improving wireless services. Nevertheless, AT&T offers the following responses to the issues raised in the appeal:

Health Effects and Risks. The appeal focuses on concerns about the health effects of radio frequency emissions. Indeed, this issue predominated the public comments during the February 16, 2023 Planning Director’s hearing and those presented during the April 18, 2023 Planning Commission hearing. But the Act expressly precludes the city from regulating effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent the Proposed Facility complies with the FCC’s applicable regulations. Here, it is beyond dispute that the Proposed Facility will operate well below applicable FCC limits. An RF engineering analysis for the Proposed was provided by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers (Attachment C). The report confirms that the Proposed Facility will operate well within (and actually far below) all applicable FCC exposure limits. Given the compliance with the FCC standards, AT&T’s application cannot be rejected based on concerns about radio frequency emissions.

Property Values and Aesthetics. The appellant claims that property values in the area will be adversely affected by installation of the Proposed Facility. She also contends the Proposed Facility is a blight and says it will ruin her view. But there is no substantial evidence to support this contention. First, AT&T’s application cannot be rejected whether health concerns are raised explicitly or indirectly through some proxy such as property values. A federal district court in California has held that in light of the federal preemption over radio frequency emissions, “concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions.”15 Citing the Act and its legislative history, the Court explained:

Given this legislative history, the court concludes that concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions.

Thus, direct or indirect concerns over the health effects of RF emissions may not serve as substantial evidence to support the denial of an application.16

15 AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (quoting H.R. Conference Report No. 104-458, 201 (1996)). 16 Id.
1250
City of Fontana City Council
June 15, 2023

Thus, these types of complaints cannot be a proxy for preempted concerns about radio frequency emissions. Because the appeal’s property values claim is premised on concerns over radio frequency emissions, the Council cannot consider it.

Additionally, this claim that property values would decrease by collocation of the Proposed Facility on existing infrastructure (as preferred by the City Code), cannot form the basis of denial because it lacks substantial evidence. The appeal’s aesthetic complaint also lacks substantial evidence, especially since the antennas will be mounted onto the existing structure.

The antennas will be hardly noticeable and will not adversely affect any view that is not already impacted by the existing transmission tower. Courts within the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere have long agreed that “generalized expressions of concern regarding aesthetics or the effect on property values” fail to meet the substantial evidence threshold.17 Rather than any study of market rates, the appellant relies on a 2014 article in Realtor Magazine, which merely summarizes an online survey circulated by email and social media in both the U.S. and abroad. The survey was premised on health concerns and unsurprisingly found that most survey respondents were concerned about health effects of radio frequency emissions.

The primary source for the Realtor Magazine and other publications citing this survey is a short summary on the website for ElectromagneticHealth.org, which is focused on alleging health effects from radiofrequency emissions. The appeal also points to an archived HUD webpage concerning engineered fall distances of transmission towers and cell towers as related to homes located within the utility easement for the tower. This is not relevant to appellant’s claim that the Proposed Facility would somehow cause a decrease in property values hundreds of feet away.

In stark contrast to those surveys, a pair of California realtor associations conducted a datadriven property valuation study of home values.18 Based on market data for more than 1,600 singlefamily home sale in California, the study found no impact on values based on proximity to wireless telecommunications facilities. Because the Council must make its decision based on substantial evidence, not based on conjecture and fear, you should not rely on speculation that property values might decrease following installation of the Proposed Facility.

Insurance Issues. Appellant raises her “fear” that homeowners may not be able to obtain insurance. She offers no evidence of a relationship between collocating a telecommunications facility on an existing utility tower and insurability of nearby homes. Instead, the appeal explicitly ties this issue to concerns about health effects of RF emissions. Again, the city is preempted from considering this proxy for health concerns because AT&T’s Proposed Facility

17 California RSA No. 4 v. Madera County, 332 F.Supp.2d 1291, 1308-09 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490 (2nd Cir. 1999); Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 181 F.3d 403, 409 (3d Cir.1999); Telespectrum v. Public Service Com'n. of Kentucky, 227 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2000); Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir. 2002)). 18 See Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network, Wireless Communications Initiative Study: Wireless Facilities Impact on Property Values (Nov. 2012) (study analyzed property values for over 1,600 single-family homes over a 9-month period, and concluded “It is quite clear from the data that the distance from a wireless facility has no apparent impact on the value or sale price of a home”).
1251
City of Fontana City Council
June 15, 2023

will comply with applicable FCC rules. Moreover, as to appellant’s concern about AT&T’s coverages, AT&T fully intends to comply with the city’s insurance requirements.

Fire, Wind, and Seismic Issues. Appellant raises a host of concerns about risks of fires and wind and even raises a concern about equipment collapse. The appeal separately raises seismic concerns. The Proposed Facility has been designed and engineered to comply with all applicable safety codes in order to best address and prevent these types of issues. The substantial evidence shows that AT&T has appropriately taken all necessary steps to ensure safety, with particular emphasis on fire and structural safety.

Safety issues are important to any construction and AT&T carefully adheres to applicable building codes, fire codes, electrical codes, etc. Further, the Proposed Facility will be subject to approval conditions that require compliance with all these regulations. Condition of Approval 5, for example, requires the project to “comply with all applicable provisions, regulations, and development standards of the City of Fontana Municipal Code.” In addition, AT&T’s site plans for the Proposed Facility that are part of its application include a sheet labeled “FD-1” and titled “Fire Department Notes and Battery Information.” As you can see on the site plans, Sheet FD-1 incorporates the Fire Department notes as to fire safety.

AT&T also submitted a comprehensive report of structural calculations, signed and sealed by a California registered professional engineer. The report concludes that the Proposed Facility mounted onto the existing transmission tower will adequately resist gravity and lateral loads in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code. The report also shows compliance with wind loads and seismic loads based on local characteristics. And the report shows all load combination results (maximum axial plus bending stress ratios and maximum shear ratios) will pass all applicable structural assessments.

Noise. Without any specific reference to noise from the Proposed Facility, the appeal identifies noise as a possible concern and simply asks whether the project will introduce a noise nuisance to the area. But AT&T’s Proposed Facility is subject to an approval condition to comply with the city’s regulations, which includes its noise ordinance. In addition, AT&T has recently determined that it will be unable to install the proposed generator for the project because Southern California Edison no longer allows generators beneath their transmission towers.

Other Concerns. The appellant points to a ‘parade of horribles’ that she says could happen all because AT&T places a typical wireless facility on existing utility infrastructure. The appeal seeks to stoke fears from supposed increasing criminal activity, cyber fraud, and suicides. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But the appeal fails to offer any evidence – let alone substantial (or extraordinary) evidence – to support these far-fetched notions.

The appeal suggests the Proposed Facility will be a beacon for criminals, citing a website of a group who focuses primarily on health effects of RF emissions. Citing the same single source, the appeal also makes sensational assertions that the Proposed Facility will result in worker deaths and even suicides. For all these claims, the appeal cites this one webpage that simply collects various internet stories. This is not evidence of anything specific to the Proposed 1252
City of Fontana City Council
June 15, 2023

22743689v1
Facility. To the contrary, the Proposed Facility is designed to deter criminal activity. AT&T’s equipment area at the base of the existing tower will be surrounded by a 10-foot high, split-faced stone enclosure with an anti-graffiti coating. As AT&T’s project team previously advised, its equipment will be monitored by a security system and the tower owner – Southern California Edison – also monitors its towers with security.

Notably absent from the appeal is any indication that the substantially similar facility just 1,500 feet away has attracted criminals, facilitated cyberattacks, or resulted in suicides. Scare tactics aside, the appeal does not point to any actual evidence that could be used as a basis to deny the application. The Planning Director and Planning Commission got it right, and AT&T asks the City Council to deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T’s application.

Conclusion
AT&T is working diligently to upgrade its network to provide and improve wireless services in this area. AT&T has shown that federal law strongly supports (indeed, requires) approval, and there has been no substantial evidence proffered on which the county could deny AT&T’s application. AT&T urges the City Council to deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T’s application.

Sincerely,
Aaron M. Shank
Attachment A: Radio Frequency Statement
Attachment B: Alternative Sites Analysis
Attachment C: RF Engineering Analysis by Hammett & Edison, Inc. cc: George Velarde, Assistant Planner ([email protected]) Rina Leung, Senior Planner ([email protected])
Patty Nevins, Planning Director ([email protected])
Germaine Key, City Clerk ([email protected])
1253

ATTACHMENT A

1254
AT&T Mobility Radio Frequency Statement
3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana, CA 92377
AT&T has experienced an unprecedented increase in mobile data use on its network since the release of the iPhone in 2007. AT&T estimates that since introduction of the iPhone in 2007, mobile data usage has increased 470,000% on its network. AT&T forecasts its customers’ growing demand for mobile data services to continue. The increased volume of data travels to and from customers’ wireless devices and AT&T’s wireless infrastructure over limited airwaves — radio frequency spectrum that AT&T licenses from the Federal Communications Commission.

Spectrum is a finite resource and there are a limited number of airwaves capable and available for commercial use. Wireless carriers license those airwaves from the FCC. To ensure that service quality, AT&T must knit together its spectrum assets to address customers’ existing usage and forecasted demand for wireless services, and it must use its limited spectrum in an efficient manner.

AT&T uses high-band (i.e., 6 GHz and higher), mid-band (i.e., C-band, 2300 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 1900 MHz) and low-band (i.e., 850 MHz and 700 MHz) spectrum to provide wireless service. Each spectrum band has different propagation characteristics and signal quality may vary due to noise or interference based on network characteristics at a given location. To address this dynamic environment, AT&T deploys multiple layers of its licensed spectrum and strives to bring its facilities closer to the customer. The proposed wireless communications facility at 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana (the “Property”) is needed to close coverage gap in LTE service in an area roughly bordered by Interstate 15 to the north, Coyote Canyon Road to the west, Escalon Drive to the south, and North Palmetto Avenue to the east. This gap area includes hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods, parks, schools, busy roads, and other points of interest in the vicinity.

The service coverage gap is caused by inadequate infrastructure in the area. AT&T currently has existing sites in the broader geographical area surrounding the Property but, as Exhibit 1 illustrates, these existing sites do not provide sufficient 4G LTE service in the gap area.

To meet its coverage objectives, AT&T needs to construct a new wireless communications facility. Wireless telecommunications is a line-of-sight technology, and AT&T’s antennas need 1255
2 to be high enough propagate an effective signal throughout the gap area. To meet its coverage objectives for this gap area, AT&T proposes a new wireless telecommunications facility collocated on an existing electric utility transmission tower. Denial of this proposed facility would materially inhibit AT&T’s ability to provide and improve wireless services in this portion of the city.

The facility at the Property will help close the gap in coverage and help address rapidly increasing data usage driven by smart phone and tablet usage. This site is part of an effort to fully deploy 4G LTE technology in the area. Specifically, the proposed facility will close this service coverage gap and provide reliable 4G LTE service for AT&T customers in the affected area. LTE technology also offers lower latency, or the processing time it takes to move data through a network, such as how long it takes to start downloading a webpage or file once you’ve sent the request. Lower latency helps to improve the quality of personal wireless services.

What’s more, LTE uses spectrum more efficiently than other technologies, creating more space to carry data traffic and services and to deliver a better overall network experience.

It is important to understand that service problems can and do occur for customers even in locations where the coverage maps on AT&T’s “Coverage Viewer” website appear to indicate that coverage is available. As the legend to the Coverage Viewer maps indicates, these maps display approximate coverage. Actual coverage in an area may differ from the website map graphics, and it may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, network changes, foliage, buildings, construction, high-usage periods, customer equipment, and other factors.

It is also important to note that the signal losses, slow data rates, and other service problems can and do occur for customers even at times when certain other customers in the same vicinity may not experience any problems on AT&T’s network. These problems can and do occur even when certain customers’ wireless phones indicate coverage bars of signal strength on the handset. The bars of signal strength that individual customers can see on their wireless phones are an imprecise and slow-to-update estimate of service quality. In other words, a customer’s wireless phone can show coverage bars of signal strength, but that customer will still, at times, be unable to initiate voice calls, complete calls, or download data reliably and without service interruptions due to service quality issues.
1256
3 To determine where equipment needs to be located for the provisioning of reliable service in any area, AT&T’s radio frequency engineers rely on far more complex tools and data sources than just signal strength from individual phones. AT&T uses industry standard propagation tools to identify the areas in its network where signal strength is too weak to provide reliable service quality. This information is developed from many sources including terrain and clutter databases, which simulate the environment, and propagation models that simulate signal propagation in the presence of terrain and clutter variation. AT&T designs and builds its wireless network to ensure customers receive reliable in-building service quality. This level of service is critical as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication devices. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 81% of California adults, and more than 98% of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes. And California households rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, video streaming, GPS, web access, text, etc.). In fact, the FCC conservatively estimates that 74% of 911 calls are placed by people using wireless phones.

The proposed facility at the Property is also a part of AT&T’s commitment to supporting public safety through its partnership with FirstNet, the federal First Responder Network Authority. Conceived by the 9/11 Commission Report as necessary for first responder communications, Congress created the federal First Responder Network Authority, which selected AT&T to build and manage FirstNet, the first-ever nationwide first-responder wireless network. The proposed facility will provide new service on Band 14, which is the nationwide high-quality spectrum set aside by the U.S. government for public safety. Deployment of FirstNet in the subject area will improve public safety by putting advanced wireless technologies into the hands of public safety agencies and first responders.

Exhibit 1 to this Statement is a map of the existing 4G LTE service coverage (without the proposed installation at the Property) in the area at issue. It includes 4G LTE service coverage provided by other existing AT&T sites. The green shaded areas of the map depict acceptable inbuilding coverage. In-building coverage means customers are able to place or receive a call on the ground floor of a building. The yellow shaded areas depict areas within a signal strength range that provide acceptable in-vehicle service coverage. In these areas, an AT&T customer should be able to successfully place or receive a call within a vehicle. The pink and white shading depicts areas within a signal strength range in which a customer might have difficulty 1257
4 receiving a consistently acceptable level of service. The quality of service experienced by any individual customer can differ greatly depending on whether that customer is indoors, outdoors, stationary, or in transit. Any area in the yellow, pink, or white category is considered inadequate service coverage and constitutes a service coverage gap.

Exhibit 2 is a map that predicts 4G LTE service coverage based on signal strength in the vicinity of the Property if the proposed facility is constructed as proposed in the application. As shown by this map, constructing the proposed facility at the Property closes this significant service coverage gap.

My conclusions are based on my knowledge of the Property and with AT&T’s wireless network, as well as my review of AT&T’s records with respect to the Property and its wireless telecommunications facilities in the surrounding area. have a Bachelor’s Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering from the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Regional Engineering College, Jalandhar, Punjab, India, and have worked as an engineering expert in the wireless communications industry for over 25 years.
__________________________________
Sandeep Mangat
AT&T Mobility Services LLC
Network, Planning & Engineering
RAN Design & RF Engineering
March 2023
1258
Existing 4G LTE Coverage Before site CSL00192
1259
4G LTE Coverage with Site CSL00192 On Air
1260

ATTACHMENT B

1261
AT&T Wireless
Communication
Facility Proposal
• 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana
• AT&T Reference: CSL00192 1262
AT&T RF Engineers’
Search Ring Objective
Area
1263
5 ‘Ables’
Zonable
Leasable
RF Engineer-able
Constructable
Regulatory-able
1264
2 Pillars of
Zoning
Significant gap
in coverage
Least visually
obtrusive
means
1265
Brief Zoning Information - Fontana
1266
Brief Zoning Information - Rialto
1267
Alternative Sites Map
1268
Alternative Site Analysis
A majority of this ring is comprised of medium density and single-family residences.
• Condor Park and Sierra Crest Park were not pursued, as there was not sufficient space to accommodate a new wireless tower at grade. • Kordyak Elementary School was not pursued as a candidate. As a policy, AT&T makes all efforts to refrain from proposing wireless sites at elementary schools.
 AT&T has an existing facility (CSL04905-macro site) on an SCE tower, 1,515 feet (0.3 mile) to the north of the subject SCE tower.  Locating on another existing SCE tower, 3,515 feet (0.7 mile) to the north of our proposed SCE tower (north of Riverside Avenue) is not a viable alternative as it is outside of the AT&T search ring, and too far away from the AT&T Engineer’s coverage objective area.
1269
Alternative Site Analysis
 Open space surrounds the area north of Riverside Avenue, and already has coverage provided by AT&T’s existing macro site (CSL04095).  The entire objective of the proposed facility is to provide strengthened signal and coverage (pedestrian, in-vehicle, and in-building) to residents, businesses and visitors to this area of the City.

After researching the entirety of the original search ring, it was determined there were no viable candidates. AT&T chose to locate on the same property as an existing, 133’ tall SCE transmission tower, as Fontana’s municipal code encourages locating wireless facilities on existing infrastructure. (Fontana Municipal Code: Chapter 32, Section 32-4) 1270
Site Photosimulations – Looking North from Terra Vista Drive 1271
View 2 – Looking South from Access Road
1272
View 3 – Looking West from Flame Tree Avenue
1273

© 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.

AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.

LTE Coverage Before site CSL00192
1274

© 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.

AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.

LTE Coverage After site CSL00192
1275

© 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.

AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.

LTE Coverage Standalone Site CSL00192
1276

ATTACHMENT C
1277
AT&T Mobility • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CSL00192) 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue • Fontana, California
AB1513
© Page 1 of 3 2023
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of AT&T Mobility, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. CSL00192) proposed to be located at 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue in Fontana, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields.

Executive Summary
AT&T proposes to install directional panel antennas on the tall SCE lattice tower sited near 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue in Fontana. The proposed operation will comply with the FCC guidelines limiting public exposure to RF energy.

Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. A summary of the FCC’s exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive limit for exposures of unlimited duration at several wireless service bands are as follows:

Transmit “Uncontrolled” Occupational Limit
Wireless Service Band Frequency Public Limit (5 times Public) Microwave (point-to-point) 1–80GHz 1.0 mW/cm2 5.0 mW/cm2 Millimeter-wave 24–47 1.0 5.0
Part 15 (WiFi & other unlicensed) 2–6 1.0 5.0
C-Band 3,700 MHz 1.0 5.0
DoD-Band 3,450 1.0 5.0
WCS (Wireless Communication) 2,305 1.0 5.0
AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2,110 1.0 5.0
PCS (Personal Communication) 1,930 1.0 5.0
Cellular 869 0.58 2.9
FNET (Public Safety Priority) 758 0.50 2.5
Band 17 734 0.49 2.45
Band 29 717 0.48 2.4
600 MHz 617 0.41 2.05
[most restrictive frequency range] 30–300 0.20 1.0
Power line frequencies (60 Hz) are well below the applicable range of these standards, and there is considered to be no compounding effect from simultaneous exposure to power line and radio frequency fields.
1278
AT&T Mobility • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CSL00192) 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue • Fontana, California
AB1513
© Page 2 of 3 2023
General Facility Requirements
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called “radios”) that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. A small antenna for reception of GPS signals is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-ofsight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. This means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas.

Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation,” dated August 1997. Figure 2 describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna’s radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the “near-field” effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the “inverse square law”). This methodology is an industry standard for evaluating RF exposure conditions and has been demonstrated through numerous field tests to be a conservative prediction of exposure levels.

Site and Facility Description
Based upon information provided by AT&T, including zoning drawings by Eukon, dated January 18, 2023, it is proposed to install twelve directional panel antennas – three each CommScope Model NNH4- 65B-R6, Quintel Model QD6612-7, Ericsson Model AIR6419, and Ericsson Model AIR6449 – on the 133-foot SCE lattice tower sited about 300 feet to the northwest of the single-family residence located at 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue in Fontana. The CommScope and Quintel antennas would employ up to 14° downtilt and would be mounted at an effective height of about 69 feet above ground. The Ericsson antennas would employ up to 19° downtilt and would be stacked at effective heights of about 67 and 70½ feet above ground. The twelve antennas would be oriented in identical groups of four toward 100°T, 200°T, and 290°T. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 146,320 watts, representing simultaneous operation 80,000 watts for C-Band, 48,900 watts for 3.45 GHz service, at 3,590 watts for WCS, 3,830 watts for AWS, 3,670 watts for PCS, 1,940 watts for cellular, and 4,390 watts for 700 MHz service. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations at the site or nearby.
1279
AT&T Mobility • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CSL00192) 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue • Fontana, California
AB1513
© Page 3 of 3 2023
Study Results
For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level due to the proposed AT&T operation is calculated to be 0.14 mW/cm2, which is 18% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby building* is 22% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several “worst-case” assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels from the proposed operation.

No Recommended Mitigation Measures
Due to their mounting locations and height, the AT&T antennas would not be accessible to unauthorized persons, and so no measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that SCE already takes adequate precautions to ensure that there is no unauthorized access to its tower and that all personnel receive appropriate training to prevent exposures in excess of the occupational limit.

Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned’s professional opinion that operation of the base station proposed by AT&T Mobility near 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue in Fontana, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations.

Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2023. This work has been carried out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.

William F. Hammett, P.E.
707/996-5200
March 20, 2023
* Including the residences located at least 110 feet away, based on photographs from Google Maps. 1280
FCC Guidelines
Figure 1
1000
100
10 1

0.1 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105
Occupational Exposure
Public Exposure
PCS
Cell
FM
Power
Density
(mW/cm2
)
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (“NCRP”).

Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE C95.1-, “Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to &MFDUSJD

.BHOFUJD

BOE Electromagnetic Fields, 
)[ to 300 GHz,” includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health.

As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:

Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Applicable
Range
(MHz)
Electric
Field Strength
(V/m)
Magnetic
Field Strength
(A/m)
Equivalent Far-Field
Power Density
(mW/cm2
)

0.3 – 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100

1.34 – 3.0 614 823.8/ f 1.63 2.19/ f 100 180/ f 2

3.0 – 30 1842/ f 823.8/ f 4.89/ f 2.19/ f 900/ f 2 180/ f 2 30 – 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
300 – 1,500 3.54 f 1.59 f f /106 f /238 f/300 f/1500
1,500 – 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
Frequency (MHz)
+LJKHU OHYHOV DUH DOORZHG IRU VKRUW SHULRGV RI WLPH VXFK WKDW WRWDO H[SRVXUH OHYHOV DYHUDJHG RYHU VL[ RU WKLUW\ PLQXWHV IRU RFFXSDWLRQDO RU SXEOLF VHWWLQJV UHVSHFWLYHO\ GR QRW H[FHHG WKH OLPLWV DQG KLJKHU OHYHOV DOVR DUH DOORZHG IRU H[SRVXUHV WR VPDOO DUHDV VXFK WKDW WKH VSDWLDOO\ DYHUDJHG OHYHOV GR QRW H[FHHG WKH OLPLWV +DPPHWW  (GLVRQ KDV LQFRUSRUDWHG FRQVHUYDWLYH FDOFXODWLRQ IRUPXODV LQ WKH )&& 2IILFH RI (QJLQHHULQJ DQG 7HFKQRORJ\ %XOOHWLQ 1R 
$XJXVW 


 IRUSURMHFWLQJ ILHOG OHYHOV LQ D FRPSXWHU SURJUDP FDSDEOH RI FDOFXODWLQJ DW WKRXVDQGV RI ORFDWLRQV RQ DQ DUELWUDU\ JULG WKH WRWDO H[SHFWHG SRZHU GHQVLW\ IURP DQ\ QXPEHU RI LQGLYLGXDO UDGLR IUHTXHQF\ VRXUFHV  7KH SURJUDP DOORZV IRU WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI XQHYHQ WHUUDLQ LQ WKH YLFLQLW\ DV ZHOO DV DQ\QXPEHU RI QHDUE\ EXLOGLQJVRI YDU\LQJ KHLJKWVWRREWDLQPRUHDFFXUDWHSURMHFWLRQV
©3
1281
RFE.CALCTM Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines Calculation Methodology
Figure 2 ©2023
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h

0.1 x 16 x n x P
x h2

0.1×16 ×η × Pnet
π × h2
net
BW
180 0.1 x Pnet x
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×x DD x ×hh

2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2
x ERP
4 x x D2
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h S =
q BW
Hammett & Edison has incorporated the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (“OET-65”) formulas (see Figure 1) in a computer program that calculates, at millions of locations on a grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio frequency sources. The program uses the specific antenna patterns from the manufacturers and allows for the inclusion of uneven terrain in the vicinity, as well as any number of nearby buildings of varying heights, to obtain accurate projections of RF exposure levels. The program can account for spatial-averaging when antenna patterns are sufficiently narrow, and timeaveraging is typically considered when operation is in single-frequency bands, which require time-sharing between the base station and the subscriber devices.

OET-65 provides this formula for calculating power density in the far-field from an individual RF source:
power density in mW/cm2
where ERP = total Effective Radiated Power (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = three-dimensional relative field factor toward point of calculation, and D = distance from antenna effective height to point of calculation, in meters.

The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to reflections, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). This factor is typically used for all sources unless specific information from FCC filings by the manufacturer indicate that a different reflection coefficient would apply. The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density.

Because antennas are not true “point sources,” their signal patterns may not be fully formed at close distances and so exposure levels may be lower than otherwise calculated by the formula above. OET-65 recommends the cylindrical model formula below to account for this “near-field effect”:
power density in mW/cm2 S =
where Pnet = net power input to antenna, in watts,
= half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees,
D = distance from antenna effective height to point of calculation, in meters, and h = aperture height of antenna, in meters.

The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density.

OET-65 confirms that the “crossover” point between the near- and far-field regions is best determined by finding where the calculations coincide from the two different formulas, and the program uses both formulas to calculate power density.
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h

0.1 x 16 x n x P
x h2

0.1×16 ×η × Pnet
π × h2
net
BW
180 0.1 x Pnet x
θ
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×x DD x ×hh

2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2
x ERP
4 x x D2
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h S =
q BW
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h

0.1 x 16 x n x P
x h2

0.1×16 ×η × Pnet
π × h2
net
BW
180 0.1 x Pnet x 0
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×x DD x ×hh

2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP
4 x x D2
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h S =
1282
AT&T Wireless
Communication
Facility Proposal
• 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana
• AT&T Reference: CSL00192 1283
AT&T RF Engineers’
Search Ring Objective
Area
1284
5 ‘Ables’
Zonable
Leasable
RF Engineer-able
Constructable
Regulatory-able
1285
2 Pillars of
Zoning
Significant gap
in coverage
Least visually
obtrusive
means
1286
Brief Zoning Information- FontanaZoning
Information - Information - Fontana
1287
Brief Zoning Information- Rialtoning
Information - Information - Fontana
1288
Alternative Sites Map
1289
Alternative Site Analysis
A majority of this ring is comprised of medium density and single-family residences.
• Condor Park and Sierra Crest Park were not pursued, as there was not sufficient space to accommodate a new wireless tower at grade. • Kordyak Elementary School was not pursued as a candidate. As a policy, AT&T makes all efforts to refrain from proposing wireless sites at elementary schools.
 AT&T has an existing facility (CSL04905-macro site) on an SCE tower, 1,515 feet (0.3 mile) to the north of the subject SCE tower.  Locating on another existing SCE tower, 3,515 feet (0.7 mile) to the north of our proposed SCE tower (north of Riverside Avenue) is not a viable alternative as it is outside of the AT&T search ring, and too far away from the AT&T Engineer’s coverage objective area.
1290
Alternative Site Analysis
 Open space surrounds the area north of Riverside Avenue, and already has coverage provided by AT&T’s existing macro site (CSL04095).  The entire objective of the proposed facility is to provide strengthened signal and coverage (pedestrian, in-vehicle, and in-building) to residents, businesses and visitors to this area of the City.

After researching the entirety of the original search ring, it was determined there were no viable candidates. AT&T chose to locate on the same property as an existing, 133’ tall SCE transmission tower, as Fontana’s municipal code encourages locating wireless facilities on existing infrastructure. (Fontana Municipal Code: Chapter 32, Section 32-4) 1291
Site Photosimulations – Looking North from Terra Vista Drive 1292
View 2 – Looking South from Access Road
1293
View 3 – Looking West from Flame Tree Avenue
1294

© 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.

AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.

LTE Coverage Before site CSL00192
1295

© 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.

AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.

LTE Coverage After site CSL00192
1296

© 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.

AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.

LTE Coverage Standalone Site CSL00192
1297
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-2210 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: C. Category: Public Hearing
FROM:

Finance
SUBJECT:

Quarterly Lien Action for Delinquent Sewer, Rubbish and Weed Abatement Accounts RECOMMENDATION:

1. Authorize staff to complete and record lien notices against real property for those sewer accounts sixty days or more delinquent as described in Certified Lien List and direct staff to forward recorded liens to the County for collection.

2. Authorize staff to complete and record liens against real property for those rubbish accounts more than ninety days delinquent as described in the Certified Lien List and direct staff to forward recorded liens to the County for collection.

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-052 of the City Council of the City of Fontana adopting the statement of unpaid expenses for weed abatement and imposing a lien against real property for payment thereof.
..End
COUNCIL GOALS:
· To operate in a businesslike manner by becoming more service oriented. · To practice sound fiscal management by developing long-term funding and debt management plans.
· To improve public safety by increasing operational efficiency, visibility, and availability.

DISCUSSION:

Public Hearings on proposed liens are scheduled quarterly to allow for timely collections and recording of indebtedness. The lien process protects revenues due to the City which would have otherwise been subject to loss through skipped accounts or property transfers.

The proposed lists (one each for sewer, rubbish and weed abatement) are on file with the City Clerk.

Each account has had notification by mail regarding the public hearing and intent to record the lien amount, as well as regular billing notification and legal advertisement as required by City Code.

Further, with respect to Weed Abatement, all property owners had the opportunity to protest weed abatement citations through an administrative hearing process.

The lists recommended for adoption contain the following:

Type of Account Number of Properties Current Lien Amount Receivables Protected to Date
Sewer 107 $29,192.36 $4,016,042.23
Rubbish* 828 $115,524.65 $9,001,529.92
Weed Abatement 56 $5114744 $399535235
City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1298
File #: 21-2210 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: C. Category: Public Hearing
Type of Account Number of Properties Current Lien Amount Receivables Protected to Date
Sewer 107 $29,192.36 $4,016,042.23
Rubbish* 828 $115,524.65 $9,001,529.92
Weed Abatement 56 $51,147.44 $3,995,352.35
*Collections are payable to Fontana Rubbish
An administrative fee will be included to offset the City's costs to record the lien, as well as the County fee associated with release of the lien to ensure that property titles are cleared once payment has been made. All properties with unpaid liens as of July 1st will be automatically placed on the property tax rolls for collection.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The approval of this item will result in liens in the approximate total amount of $195,864.45 to be recorded and placed on the County property tax roll for collection. This action will prevent increases in customer charges due to uncollectible accounts. The Sewer lien list receivable amount was included as revenue to the Sewer Operations Maintenance Fund in current and prior budget periods.

The recording of Rubbish liens will strengthen Fontana Rubbish's ability to collect, thereby increasing the amount generated by the 12% franchise fee they remit to the City.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1299

CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA WILL

HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE RECORDING OF REAL PROPERTY LIENS

AGAINST PROPERTIES SERVED BY THE CITY OF FONTANA RUBBISH COLLECTION

CONTRACTOR (BURRTEC WASTE) FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS MORE THAN NINETY DAYS

DELINQUENT, AND FURTHER, THE FORWARDING OF SAID LIENS TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE FOR ADDITION TO THE EXTENDED PROPERTY TAX ROLLS FOR COLLECTION. COPIES OF THE CERTIFIED LIEN LIST ARE AVAILABLE AT THE UTILITY BILLING DIVISION PUBLIC SERVICE COUNTER, 8353 SIERRA AVENUE, FONTANA, CALIFORNIA.

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.

DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 27, 2023
TIME OF HEARING: 7:00 P.M.

PLACE OF HEARING: CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
8353 SIERRA AVENUE
FONTANA, CA 92335

ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY APPEAR AT THE HEARING AND PRESENT ANY INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE

ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS MATTER, PLEASE CONTACT THE UTILITY BILLING CUSTOMER SERVICE STAFF AT (909) 350-7670.

PUBLISH: JUNE 9, 2023
JUNE 16, 2023

PROOF OF PUBLICATION REQUESTED
1300

CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA WILL

HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE RECORDING OF REAL PROPERTY LIENS

AGAINST PROPERTIES SERVED BY THE CITY OF FONTANA SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM FOR

THOSE ACCOUNTS SIXTY DAYS OR MORE DELINQUENT, AND FURTHER, THE FORWARDING OF SAID LIENS TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE FOR ADDITION TO THE EXTENDED PROPERTY TAX ROLLS FOR COLLECTION. COPIES OF THE CERTIFIED LIEN LIST ARE AVAILABLE AT THE UTILITY BILLING DIVISION PUBLIC SERVICE COUNTER, 8353 SIERRA AVENUE, FONTANA, CALIFORNIA.

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.

DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 27, 2023
TIME OF HEARING: 7:00 P.M.

PLACE OF HEARING: CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
8353 SIERRA AVENUE
FONTANA, CA 92335

ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY APPEAR AT THE HEARING AND PRESENT ANY INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE

ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS MATTER, PLEASE CONTACT THE UTILITY BILLING CUSTOMER SERVICE STAFF AT (909) 350-7670.

PUBLISH: JUNE 9, 2023
JUNE 16, 2023

PROOF OF PUBLICATION REQUESTED
1301

CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA WILL

HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE RECORDING OF REAL PROPERTY LIENS AGAINST PROPERTIES PROVIDED WEED ABATEMENT SERVICES THROUGH THE CITY’S

WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS THIRTY DAYS OR MORE

DELINQUENT AND FURTHER, THE FORWARDING OF SAID LIENS TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE FOR ADDITION TO THE EXTENDED PROPERTY TAX ROLLS FOR COLLECTION. COPIES OF THE CERTIFIED LIEN LIST ARE AVAILABLE AT THE CUSTOMER SERVICE DIVISION PUBLIC SERVICE COUNTER, 8353 SIERRA AVENUE, FONTANA, CALIFORNIA.

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.

DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 27, 2023
TIME OF HEARING: 7:00 P.M.

PLACE OF HEARING: CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
8353 SIERRA AVENUE
FONTANA, CA 92335

ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY APPEAR AT THE HEARING AND PRESENT ANY INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE

ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS MATTER, PLEASE CONTACT THE BUSINESS SERVICES CUSTOMER SERVICE STAFF AT (909) 350-7683.

PUBLISH: JUNE 9, 2023
JUNE 16, 2023

PROOF OF PUBLICATION REQUESTED
1302
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA

ADOPTING STATEMENT OF UNPAID EXPENSES FOR WEED

ABATEMENT AND IMPOSING A LIEN AGAINST PROPERTY FOR

PAYMENT THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City of Fontana (“City”) has conducted its weed abatement program pursuant to the Fontana City Code, Section 27-1 et. seq.; WHEREAS, at its meeting on June 27, 2023, the City Council discussed and considered all expenses and other costs of abatement which have remained unpaid to date, as specified in the Statement of Unpaid Expenses for Weed Abatement, on file with the City Clerk for public review and incorporated herein by reference (“Statement”); WHEREAS, the City Council has read or heard and considered all evidence and testimony presented to it with respect thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fontana as follows:

Section 1. Based on all evidence and testimony presented to the Council, the Statement is confirmed and adopted.

Section 2. All expenses and other costs noted on the Statement which remain unpaid to the City as of June 27, 2023, shall constitute a lien upon the real property against which the nuisance was abated, and shall be collected in any lawful means available to the City.

Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to file for recording a "Notice of Lien for Weed Abatement" with the Office of the Recorder for San Bernardino County after June 27, 2023 against those real properties listed on the Statement for any expenses and other costs noted on the Statement which remain unpaid to the City.

Section 4. The Auditor/Controller shall include the amount of the expenses on the bills for taxes levied against the real property against which the expenses have been imposed, and the same shall be collected in the same manner and together with the general taxes for the County of San Bernardino, and shall be subject to the same penalties, interest and collection.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June, 2023.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

Resolution No. 2023-
1303
-
_____________________________________
City Attorney
I, Germaine McClellan Key, City Clerk of the City of Fontana, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the actual resolution duly and regularly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting on the 27th day of June, 2023 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

1304
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-2296 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: A. Category: New Business
FROM:

Administrative Services
SUBJECT:

An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Fontana, California, amending sections 1-1, 1-2, 1-7, and 1-14 in Chapter 1 of the Fontana Municipal Code to make the sections more intuitive and to incorporate current best practices.

An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Fontana, California, amending section 20-27 of the Fontana Municipal Code to revise the process of modifying the specifications of an employment position such that it requires only City Manager approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Determine that staff recommendations to modify sections 1-1, 1-2, 1-7 and 1-14 in Chapter 1 of the Fontana Municipal Code are appropriate, make for a more intuitive municipal code, and incorporate current best practices of the City; and approve such modifications.

2. Read by title only and waive further reading of and introduce Ordinance No. 1918 an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Fontana, California, amending sections 1-1, 1-2, 1-7 and 1-14 in Chapter 1 of the Fontana Municipal Code to make the sections more intuitive and to incorporate current best practices.

3. Determine that the amendments for Chapter 20 of the Fontana Municipal Code will provide for a more efficient administration, and approve such amendments.

4. Read by title only and waive further reading of and introduce Ordinance No. 1919 an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Fontana, California, amending section 20-27 of the Fontana Municipal Code to revise the process of modifying the specifications for an employment position such that it requires only City Manager approval.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· To create a team by working together to provide stability and consistent policy direction. · To create a team by communicating Goals and Objectives to all sectors of the community.

DISCUSSION:

The recommended revisions to Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 of the Fontana Municipal Code (“FMC”) initiate the commencement of a series of revisions that make for a more clear and concise code that aligns with the City’s preferred and/or most current practices.

Ordinance ____, refines Chapter 1 by rewording the section to make it easier to understand and City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1305
File #: 21-2296 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: A. Category: New Business
Ordinance ____, refines Chapter 1 by rewording the section to make it easier to understand and enforce. Additionally, the modifications to section 1-2 omit certain department and title descriptions to be more appropriately reintroduced under other sections of the FMC.

Ordinance___, amends section 20-27 to incorporate the definition for Personnel Officer, previously provided under section 1-2, and confers the function of modifying employment provision specifications to the City Manager to provide for a more labor-saving hiring process and efficient administration.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None
MOTION:

Adopt Ordinance No.______.

Adopt Ordinance No.______.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1306
ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 1-1,
1-2, 1-7, AND 1-14 IN CHAPTER 1 OF THE FONTANA

MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE THE SECTIONS MORE

INTUITIVE AND TO INCORPORATE CURRENT BEST
PRACTICES.

WHEREAS, the City of Fontana, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City Council (“Council”) finds and declares that this Ordinance constitutes a valid exercise of police power in accordance with Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, is consistent with the General Plan, and furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City of Fontana; and WHEREAS, after a review of the Fontana Municipal Code (“FMC”), the City has identified several provisions that are in need of amendment and refinement; and WHEREAS, in order to make the FMC clearer, easier to use and understand, and to incorporate current best practices, Council finds that it is necessary to amend certain provisions of the FMC; and
WHEREAS, City staff has carefully reviewed every existing provision of Chapter 1 of the FMC and has made recommendations for amendments and updates thereto; and WHEREAS, the City held a noticed public hearing on June 13, 2023, at which time all interested persons had the opportunity to appear and be heard on the matter of adopting this instant Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Council desires to revise Chapter 1 of the FMC to make it clearer, easier to use and understand, and to incorporate current best practices.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Fontana as follows:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of recitals. The recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Amendment of Municipal Code. Chapter 1 “General Provisions.” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 1-1. How Code Designated and Cited.

The ordinances of the City of Fontana as revised, amended, codified and compiled in book form are hereby adopted as and shall constitute as the “Fontana Municipal Code," or may also be referred to herein as the “Code of the City of Fontana” and may be so cited. 1307
Sec. 1-2. Definitions and rules of construction.

For the purposes of this Code, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this Code are defined as follows:
(A) City. The words "the City" or "this City" shall be construed as if followed by the words "of Fontana."
(B) Code. The words "the Code" or "this Code" shall mean the Fontana Municipal Code. (C) Computation of time. The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded.
(D) Council. Whenever the words "Council" or "City Council" are used, they shall be construed to mean the city council of the City of Fontana. (E) County. The words "the county" or "this county" shall mean the County of San Bernardino, California.
(F) Day. A day is the period of time between any midnight and the midnight following. (G) Daytime; nighttime. The word "daytime" means the period of time between sunrise and sunset. The word "nighttime" means the period of time between sunset and sunrise. (H) Gender. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter genders. (I) In the city. The words "in the city" shall mean and include all territory over which the city now has or shall hereafter acquire the jurisdiction for the exercise of its police powers or other regulatory powers.
(J) Joint authority. All words giving a joint authority to three or more persons or officers shall be construed as giving such authority to a majority of such persons or officers. (K) Month. The word "month" shall mean a calendar month. (L) Number. The singular number includes the plural, and the plural the singular. (M) Oath. The word "oath" includes affirmation.
(N) Officers, departments, etc. Officers, departments, boards, commissions and employees referred to in this Code shall mean officers, departments, boards, commissions and employees of the City of Fontana, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. (O) Official time. Whenever certain hours are named they shall mean Pacific Standard Time or Daylight Saving Time, as may be in current use in the city and state. (P) Or; and. "Or" may be read "and," and "and" may be read "or," if the sense requires it. 1308
(Q) Person. The word "person" includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation or company.
(R) Preceding; following. The words "preceding" and "following" mean next before and next after, respectively.
(S) Process. The word "process" includes a writ or summons issued in the course of judicial proceedings of either a civil or criminal nature.
(T) Property. The word "property" shall include real and personal property. (U) Shall; may. The word "shall" is mandatory, and the word "may" is permissive. (V) Signature or subscription by mark. "Signature" or "subscription" includes a mark when the signer or subscriber cannot write, such signer's or subscriber's name being written near the mark by a witness who writes his own name near the signer's or subscriber's name; but a signature or subscription by mark can be acknowledged or can serve as a signature or subscription to a sworn statement only when two witnesses so sign their own names thereto. (W) State. The words "the state" or "this state" shall mean the State of California. (X) Tense. The present tense includes past and future tenses, and the future tense includes the present tense.
(Y) Week. The word "week" means seven consecutive days. (Z) Writing. The word "writing" includes any form of recorded message capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means. Whenever any notice, report, statement or record is required or authorized by this Code, it shall be made in writing in the English language, unless expressly provided otherwise.
(AA) Year. The word "year" shall mean a calendar year, except where otherwise provide Sec. 1-7. General penalty; continuing violations.

It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements or provisions of this Code heretofore or hereafter enacted or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code. Every act prohibited or declared unlawful, and every failure to perform an act made mandatory, shall be a misdemeanor or an infraction, at the discretion of the City Attorney or the District Attorney. Any person continuing or committing a violation of any provision of this Code declaring any act or omission to be unlawful is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day which any violation is committed. (a) Misdemeanor penalty. Every violation of a provision of this Code which is specifically designated as a misdemeanor shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
1309
(b) Infraction penalty. Every violation of this Code prosecuted as an infraction shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $500.00.
(c) Civil penalty. Every violation of a provision of this Code which is specifically designated to carry a civil penalty, in addition to a criminal penalty, shall be punishable by a civil fine not exceeding $1,000.00, unless otherwise specifically provided and authorized by state law. Nothing set forth herein shall limit the ability of the city to seek and obtain other remedies permitted by law.

As used in this section, the term "year" means any consecutive 12-month period.

As used in this section, the term "offense" includes any violation of the Code which is cited or charged and which does not result in:
(1) An acquittal.
(2) A finding of "not guilty."
(3) A dismissal of charges by the city or the court.

State law reference(s)—Authority of city to impose fines not exceeding $1,000.00 and imprisonment for terms not exceeding six months or both for misdemeanor violations of ordinances, Government Code section 36901; provisions declaring violations of ordinances to be a misdemeanor unless declared an infraction, Government Code section 36900; authority of city to impose graduated fines of $100.00, $200.00 and $500.00 with each successive violation designated as an infraction, Government Code section 36900.” SECTION 3. Environmental review. This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 1538 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. The City Council further finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), that this Ordinance is nonetheless exempt for 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 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. Council, therefore, directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 4: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Ordinance. Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. The Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption.
1310
SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall attest to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and cause a summary of the same to be published as required by law.

SECTION 7. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance is based are located at the City Clerk’s office located at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. The custodian or records is the City Clerk.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of __________, 2023. ________________________________
Acquanetta Warren, Mayor
City of Fontana
________________________________
Germaine McClellan Key
City Clerk
Read and Approved as to form:

Best, Best & Krieger, LLP.
__________________________________
Ruben Duran, City Attorney
1311
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 20-27

OF THE FONTANA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE

PROCESS OF MODIFYING THE SPECIFICATIONS OF AN

EMPLOYMENT POSITION SUCH THAT IT REQUIRES

ONLY CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the City of Fontana, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 45001 grants a legislative body of a city the authority to establish a personnel system, merit system or civil service system for the selection, employment, classification, advancement, suspension, discharge, and retirement of appointive officers and employees; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 45004 provides the legislative body of a city with the authority to appoint a personnel officer, to which it may delegate powers and duties related to its personnel system; and
WHEREAS, the City Council (“Council”) finds and declares that this Ordinance constitutes a valid exercise of police power in accordance with Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, is consistent with the General Plan, and furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City of Fontana; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 1954 Council adopted Ordinance No. 58 creating the position of Personnel Officer, and delegating such duties that aid in establishing and maintaining the City’s personnel system, merit system, and civil service system; and WHEREAS, the City hereby wishes to amend Chapter 20, Section 27 of the Fontana Municipal Code (“FMC”) to revise the process of modifying the specifications of an employment position such that it does not require Council direction and approval; and WHEREAS, the City hereby wishes to amend Chapter 20, Section 27 of the FMC to revise the process of modifying the specifications of an employment position such that it only requires City Manager direction and approval; and
WHEREAS, the City held a noticed public hearing on June 13, 2023, at which time all interested persons had the opportunity to appear and be heard on the matter of adopting this instant Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Council desires to revise the process of modifying the specifications of an employment position to provide a more efficient administration.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Fontana as follows:
1312
2 SECTION 1. Incorporation of recitals. The recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Amendment of the Municipal Code. “Personnel Officer.” Section 20-27 of the FMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“There is hereby created the position of Personnel Officer. The term, Personnel Officer, as used in this Code, shall mean the Human Resources Director or such other person as may be designated to perform the duties in accordance with this chapter. The duties of the Personnel Officer may be combined with those of any other office or position. If such duties are not combined with those of any other office or position, the Personnel Officer shall have had training or experience in personnel administration. The Personnel Officer shall:
(1) Administer all the provisions of this article and of the personnel rules not specifically reserved to the Council.
(2) Prepare and recommend revisions and amendments to the personnel rules. The City Attorney shall approve the legality of such revisions and amendments prior to their submission to the Council.
(3) Under the direction and approval of Council, prepare a position classification plan and revisions of the plan. The plan, and any revisions thereof, shall become effective upon approval of the Council.
(4) Under the direction of the City Manager, prepare class specifications and revisions thereof. The class specifications, and revisions thereof, shall become effective upon approval of the City Manager.
(5) Under the direction of Council, prepare a plan of compensation, and revisions thereof, covering all classification titles in the competitive service. The plan, and any revisions thereof, shall become effective upon approval by Council.
(6) Publish or post notices of tests for positions in the competitive service, receive applications therefor, conduct and grade tests, and forward to the appointing power a list of all persons eligible for appointment to the appropriate position in the competitive service.” SECTION 3. Environmental review. This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 1538 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. The City Council further finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), that this Ordinance is nonetheless exempt for 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 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. Council, therefore, directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.
1313
3 SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. The Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption.

SECTION 6: Publication. The City Clerk shall attest to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and cause a summary of the same to be published as required by law.

SECTION 7. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance is based are located at the City Clerk’s office located at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. The custodian or records is the City Clerk.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of __________, 2023. ________________________________
Acquanetta Warren, Mayor
City of Fontana
________________________________
Germaine McClellan Key
City Clerk
Read and Approved as to form:

Best, Best & Krieger, LLP.
__________________________________
Ruben Duran, City Attorney
1314
- CODE
Chapter 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
Fontana, California, Code of Ordinances
(Supp. No. 54)

Chapter 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1-1. How Code designated and cited.

The ordinances of the City of Fontana as revised, amended, codified and compiled in book form are hereby adopted as and shall constitute as "The Fontana Municipal Code," and may be so cited. (Code 1968, § 1-1)
Sec. 1-2. Definitions and rules of construction.

For the purposes of this Code, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this Code are defined as follows:
(A) City. The words "the City" or "this City" shall be construed as if followed by the words "of Fontana." (B) Code. The words "the Code" or "this Code" shall mean the Code of the City of Fontana, California. (C) Computation of time. The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded. (D) Council. Whenever the words "council" or "city council" are used, they shall be construed to mean the city council of the City of Fontana.
(E) County. The words "the county" or "this county" shall mean the County of San Bernardino, California. (F) Day. A day is the period of time between any midnight and the midnight following. (G) Daytime; nighttime. The word "daytime" means the period of time between sunrise and sunset. The word "nighttime" means the period of time between sunset and sunrise. (H) Gender. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter genders. (I) In the city. The words "in the city" shall mean and include all territory over which the city now has or shall hereafter acquire the jurisdiction for the exercise of its police powers or other regulatory powers. (J) Joint authority. All words giving a joint authority to three or more persons or officers shall be construed as giving such authority to a majority of such persons or officers. (K) Month. The word "month" shall mean a calendar month. (L) Number. The singular number includes the plural, and the plural the singular. (M) Oath. The word "oath" includes affirmation.
(N) Officers, departments, etc. Officers, departments, boards, commissions and employees referred to in this Code shall mean officers, departments, boards, commissions and employees of the City of Fontana, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(O) Official time. Whenever certain hours are named they shall mean Pacific Standard Time or Daylight Saving Time, as may be in current use in the city and state. (P) Or; and. "Or" may be read "and," and "and" may be read "or," if the sense requires it. 1315
(Supp. No. 54)

(Q) Person. The word "person" includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation or company.
(R) Preceding; following. The words "preceding" and "following" mean next before and next after, respectively.
(S) Process. The word "process" includes a writ or summons issued in the course of judicial proceedings of either a civil or criminal nature.
(T) Property. The word "property" shall include real and personal property. (U) Shall; may. The word "shall" is mandatory, and the word "may" is permissive. (V) Signature or subscription by mark. "Signature" or "subscription" includes a mark when the signer or subscriber cannot write, such signer's or subscriber's name being written near the mark by a witness who writes his own name near the signer's or subscriber's name; but a signature or subscription by mark can be acknowledged or can serve as a signature or subscription to a sworn statement only when two witnesses so sign their own names thereto.
(W) State. The words "the state" or "this state" shall mean the State of California. (X) Tense. The present tense includes past and future tenses, and the future tense includes the present tense.
(Y) Week. The word "week" means seven consecutive days. (Z) Writing. The word "writing" includes any form of recorded message capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means. Whenever any notice, report, statement or record is required or authorized by this Code, it shall be made in writing in the English language, unless expressly provided otherwise. (AA) Year. The word "year" shall mean a calendar year, except where otherwise provided. (Code 1968, § 1-2)
Sec. 1-3. Provisions considered as continuations of existing ordinances.

The provisions appearing in this Code, so far as they are the same as those of ordinances existing at the time of the effective date of this Code, shall be considered as continuations thereof and not as new enactments. (Code 1968, § 1-3)
Sec. 1-4. Effect of repeal of ordinances.
(a) The repeal of an ordinance shall not revive any ordinances in force before or at the time the ordinance repealed took effect.
(b) The repeal of an ordinance shall not affect any punishment or penalty incurred before the repeal took effect, nor any suit, prosecution or proceeding pending at the time of the repeal for any offense committed under the ordinance repealed.
(Code 1968, § 1-4)
Sec. 1-5. Severability of parts of Code.

It is hereby declared to be intention of the City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this Code are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Code shall be 1316
(Supp. No. 54)

declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this Code.
(Code 1968, § 1-5)
Sec. 1-6. Catchlines of sections.

The catchlines of the several sections of this Code are intended as mere catchwords to indicate the contents of the section and shall not be deemed or taken to be titles of such sections nor as any part of the section nor, unless expressly so provided, shall they be so deemed when any of such sections, including the catchlines, are amended or reenacted.
(Code 1968, § 1-6)
Sec. 1-7. General penalty; continuing violations.

It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements or provisions of this Code heretofore or hereafter enacted or the provisions of any Code adopted by reference by this Code. Every act prohibited or declared unlawful, and every failure to perform an act made mandatory, shall be a misdemeanor or an infraction, at the discretion of the city attorney or the district attorney. (a) Misdemeanor penalty. Every violation of a provision of this Code which is specifically designated as a misdemeanor shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (b) Infraction penalty. Every violation of this Code prosecuted as an infraction shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $500.00.
(c) Civil penalty. Every violation of a provision of this Code which is specifically designated to carry a civil penalty, in addition to a criminal penalty, shall be punishable by a civil fine not exceeding $1,000.00, unless otherwise specifically provided and authorized by state law. Nothing set forth herein shall limit the ability of the city to seek and obtain other remedies permitted by law.

As used in this section, the term "year" means any consecutive 12-month period.

As used in this section, the term "offense" includes any violation of the Code which is cited or charged and which does not result in:
(1) An acquittal.
(2) A finding of "not guilty."
(3) A dismissal of charges by the city or the court.
(Code 1968, § 1-7; Ord. No. 1002, § 1, 1-22-91; Ord. No. 1097, § 1, 11-11-93; Ord. No. 1149, § 1, 3-6-95) State law reference(s)—Authority of city to impose fines not exceeding $1,000.00 and imprisonment for terms not exceeding six months or both for misdemeanor violations of ordinances, Government Code § 36901; provisions declaring violations of ordinances to be a misdemeanor unless declared an infraction, Government Code § 36900; authority of city to impose graduated fines of $100.00, $200.00 and $500.00 with each successive violation designated as an infraction, Government Code § 36900. 1317
(Supp. No. 54)

Sec. 1-8. Arrest and citation for violation.

If any person is arrested for a violation of any provision of this Code or other ordinance of the city and such person is not immediately taken before a magistrate as prescribed in the state Penal Code, the arresting officer shall prepare in duplicate a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of such person, the offense charged, and the time and place when and where such person shall appear in court. (Code 1968, § 1-8)
Sec. 1-9. Violation of promise to appear—Generally.

Any person willfully violating his written promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he was originally arrested. (Code 1968, § 1-9)
Sec. 1-10. Same—Warrant for arrest.

When a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail as provided in Penal Code § 853.6(e)(3), the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for his arrest within 20 days after his failure to appear as promised, or, if such person promises to appear before an officer authorized to accept bail other than a magistrate and fails to do so on or before the date upon which he promised to appear, then, within 20 days after the delivery of such written promise to appear by the officer to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense, the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for his arrest.
(Code 1968, § 1-10)
Sec. 1-11. Ordinances saved from repeal.

The repeal provided for in the ordinance adopting this Code shall not affect any of the following:
(1) Any offense or act committed or done or any penalty or forfeiture incurred or any contract or right established or accruing before the effective date of this Code. (2) Any ordinance promising or guaranteeing the payment of money for the city, or authorizing the issuance of any bonds of the city or any evidence of the city's indebtedness. (3) Any contract or obligation assumed by the city.
(4) Any right or franchise granted by the city.
(5) Any ordinance dedicating, naming, establishing, locating, relocating, opening, paving, widening, vacating, etc., any street or public way in the city.
(6) Any ordinance relating to specific improvements or assessments therefor. (7) Any ordinance establishing or prescribing grades for streets. (8) Any appropriation ordinance or ordinance providing for the levy of taxes of for an annual budget. (9) Any ordinance establishing the compensation of city officers or employees, not inconsistent with this Code.
1318
(Supp. No. 54)

(10) Any ordinance dedicating or accepting any plot or subdivision in the city. (11) Administrative ordinances not in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions of this Code. (12) Any ordinance relating to the boundaries of the city. (13) The traffic ordinances or resolutions of the city, not inconsistent with this Code. (14) Any prosecution, suit or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered on or before the effective date of this Code.
(15) Any ordinance zoning or rezoning property or granting specific use permits or amending the zoning map.
(16) Any ordinance establishing specific plans for development.

The repeal provided for in the adopting ordinance shall not be construed to revive any ordinance or part thereof that has been repealed by a subsequent ordinance which is repealed by the ordinance adopting this Code. (Code 1968, § 1-11)
Sec. 1-12. Time limit for judicial review of administrative decisions.

The city hereby adopts Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, which defines the time period in which judicial review may be requested for certain final administrative decisions and orders under Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6(f), the city clerk shall provide notice to any party to a final decision indicating that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6.
(Ord. No. 1049, § 1, 3-17-92)
Sec. 1-13. Recovery of attorneys' fees.

Recovery authorized. Any violation of this Municipal Code is hereby determined to constitute a public nuisance. The prevailing party in any judicial action and/or administrative proceeding to abate a nuisance and/or to enforce any provision of this Municipal Code may elect to recover the incurred attorneys' fees. In no judicial action or administrative proceeding shall an award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party exceed the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the city in the judicial action or administrative proceeding. (Ord. No. 1591, § 2, 2-10-09)
Sec. x-xx. Separate offense.

Every person continuing or committing a violation of any provisions of an ordinance declaring any act or omission to be unlawful is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day which any violation of any provision of such ordinance is committed.
1319
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-2003 Agenda Date: 5/9/2023
Agenda #: A. Category: Elected Officials
Communications/Reports
City of Fontana Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/1/2023
powered by Legistar™1320