Fontana City Council
September 9, 2025

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK
I. SCOPE OF WORK
• Contractor agrees to implement the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), Alcohol Policing Partnership program. This program is intended to work with law enforcement agencies to develop an effective, comprehensive and strategic approach to eliminate the crime and public nuisance problems associated with problem alcoholic beverage outlets.
• Contractor agrees to implement ABC’s Minor Decoy, Shoulder Tap Programs and conduct Informed Merchants Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime Tendencies (IMPACT) Inspections. These programs target both ABC licensed premises and individuals who furnish alcoholic beverages to the underage operators. The project is targeted to reduce underage drinking and the resultant DUI driving injuries and fatalities, and/or property damages, reduce youth access to alcoholic beverages through the education of licensee(s), enforcement intervention and the impressions of omnipresence of law enforcement. In addition, Contractor agrees to the following goals:

1. The operation period of the grant is July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026.

2. Contractor agrees to raise public awareness that selling, serving and/or furnishing alcoholic beverages to individuals under twenty-one years old is a criminal violation that will be prosecuted by local city and district attorneys.

3. Minor Decoy operations are designed to educate and deter licensed locations from selling/furnishing alcohol to minors. Contractor agrees to conduct Minor Decoy Operations at both “On-Sale” and “Off-Sale” licensed establishments within the operation period of the grant.

4. Shoulder Tap operations are used to detect and deter adult furnishers outside of a licensed business. Contractor agrees to conduct Shoulder Tap Operations at “Off-Sale” licensed locations to apprehend adults that are unaffiliated with the licensed businesses and who are purchasing alcohol for minors outside of the stores within the operation period of the grant.

5. Informed Merchants Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime Tendencies (IMPACT) primary goal is to educate licensee’s on alcohol related laws to help reduce alcohol-related crime in and around licensed premises. Contractor agrees to conduct visits and inspections of licensed premises identifying areas of non-compliance at “On-Sale” and “Off-Sale” licensed locations within the operation period of the grant.

II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

1. Conduct at least eight (8) Minor Decoy operations.

2. Conduct at least six (6) Shoulder tap operations, including the Statewide Shoulder tap operation.

3. Conduct at least ten (10) IMPACT operations.
342
Agreement Number: 25-APP14
City of Fontana through the Fontana Police Department

4. Conduct at least two (2) Task Force operations.

5. Conduct at least four (4) Undercover operations.

6. Conduct at least three (3) Roll Call to include TRACE trainings.

7. Advertise at least four (4) LEAD trainings.

8. Provide press/social media releases on grant enforcement activities.

A. To announce the start of the program;
B. At the conclusion of each Minor Decoy Operation has been held (to announce the number of licensed premises who sold to the minor decoy) C. At the conclusion of each Shoulder Tap Operation has been held (to announce the number of adults arrested for purchasing alcoholic beverages for the decoy).

9. Contractor will fax (916) 419-2599 or email each press release to the Department’s Public Information Officer ([email protected]) as soon as it is released.

10. Contractor agrees in all press releases, in addition to any credits the agency wishes to give, will include the following statement: “This project is part of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control’s Alcohol Policing Partnership.”
Contractor agrees to complete and submit monthly reports, on a format designed and provided by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control due no later than 15th of the following month.

III. PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES
The project representatives during the term of this agreement will be:

Fontana Police Department
Heather Howard, Community Outreach Coord.
17005 Upland Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
(909) 356-7107
[email protected]
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Aaron Perry, Supervising Agent in Charge
3927 Lennane Drive, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 419-5169
[email protected]
Direct all fiscal inquiries to:

Fontana Police Department
Leona Kwan, Senior Admin Analyst
17005 Upland Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
(909) 356-7169
[email protected]
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Kristine Okino, Grant Coordinator
3927 Lennane Drive, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95834
[email protected]
343
Agreement Number: 25-APP14
City of Fontana through the Fontana Police Department

EXHIBIT B

BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS
I. INVOICING AND PAYMENT
• For services satisfactorily rendered and upon receipt and approval of the invoice, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control agrees to pay a monthly payment of approved reimbursable costs per the Budget Detail of personnel overtime and benefits (actual cost) and/or allowable costs. • Invoices shall clearly reference this contract number (25-APP14) and must not exceed the contract total authorized amount of $27,080.00. Invoices are to be submitted by the 15th of every month, on the prescribed form designed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Submit to: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Attn: Kristine Okino, Grant Coordinator
3927 Lennane Drive
Sacramento, California 95834
• Payment shall be made in arrears within 30 days from the receipt of an undisputed invoice. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit advance payments as authorized by Item 2100-101-3036, Budget Act, Statues of 2025.
• Contractor understands in order to be eligible for reimbursement; cost must be incurred on or after the effective date of the project, July 1, 2025 and on or before the project termination date, June 30, 2026. • Revisions to the “Scope of Work” and the “Budget Detail” may be requested by a change request letter submitted by the Contractor. If approved, the revised Grant Scope of Work and/or Budget Detail supersedes and replaces the previous grant and will initiate an amendment. No revisions can exceed allotted amount as shown on the Budget Detail. The total amount of the grant must remain unchanged. • Contractor agrees to refund to the State any amounts claimed for reimbursement and paid to Contractor which are later disallowed by the State after audit or inspection of records maintained by the Contractor.
• Only the costs displayed in the Budget Detail are authorized for reimbursement by the State to Contractor under this agreement. Any other costs incurred by Contractor in the performance of this agreement are the sole responsibility of Contractor.
• Title shall be reserved to the State for any State-furnished or State-financed property authorized by the State which is not fully consumed in the performance of this agreement. Contractor is responsible for the care, maintenance, repair, and protection of any such property. Inventory records shall be maintained by Contractor and submitted to the State upon request. All such property shall be returned to the State upon the expiration of this grant unless the State otherwise directs. • Prior approval by the State in writing is required for the location, costs, dates, agenda, instructors, instructional materials, and attendees at any reimbursable training seminar, workshop or conference, and over any reimbursable publicity or educational materials to be made available for distribution.

Contractor is required to acknowledge the support of the State whenever publicizing the work under this grant in any media.
344
Agreement Number: 25-APP14
City of Fontana through the Fontana Police Department

II. BUDGET DETAIL

COST CATEGORY TOTAL COST
A. Personnel Services
Overtime
Officer ($84.65/hourly) $13,855.00
Corporal ($96.51/hourly) $8,493.00
Benefits – 1.45% $312.00
TOTAL Personnel $22,660.00
B. Operating Expenses (receipts required)
Decoy Meals $420.00
Buy Money $1,000.00
TOTAL Operating $1,420.00
C. Equipment (receipts required, must be purchased by 12/31) n/a $0.00
TOTAL Equipment $0.00
D. Travel Costs
Registration, lodging, per diem $3,000.00
TOTAL Travel $3,000.00
GRANT TOTAL $27,080.00
345
Agreement Number: 25-APP14
City of Fontana through the Fontana Police Department

III. BUDGET CONTINGENCY CLAUSE
• It is mutually agreed that if the Budget Act of the current year and/or any subsequent years covered under this Agreement does not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this Agreement shall be of no further force and effect. In this event, the State shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to Contractor or to furnish any other considerations under this Agreement and Contractor shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this Agreement.

• If funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by the Budget Act for purposes of this program, the State shall have the option to either cancel this Agreement with no liability occurring to the State, or offer an agreement amendment to Contractor to reflect the reduced amount.

IV. PROMPT PAYMENT CLAUSE
• Payment will be made in accordance with, and within the time specified in, Government Code Chapter

4.5, commencing with Section 927.
346
General Terms and Conditions (GTC 02/2025)

EXHIBIT C

1. APPROVAL: This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both parties and approved by the Department of General Services, if required. Contractor may not commence performance until such approval has been obtained.

2. AMENDMENT: No amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the parties and approved as required. No oral understanding or Agreement not incorporated in the Agreement is binding on any of the parties.

3. ASSIGNMENT: This Agreement is not assignable by the Contractor, either in whole or in part, without the consent of the State in the form of a formal written amendment.

4. AUDIT: Contractor agrees that the awarding department, the Department of General Services, the Bureau of State Audits, or their designated representative shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after final payment, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated. Contractor agrees to allow the auditor(s) access to such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. Further, Contractor agrees to include a similar right of the State to audit records and interview staff in any subcontract related to performance of this Agreement. (Gov. Code §8546.7, Pub. Contract Code §10115 et seq., CCR Title 2, Section 1896).

5. INDEMNIFICATION: Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the State, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by Contractor in the performance of this Agreement.

6. DISPUTES: Contractor shall continue with the responsibilities under this Agreement during any dispute.

7. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE: The State may terminate this Agreement and be relieved of any payments should the Contractor fail to perform the requirements of this Agreement at the time and in the manner herein provided. In the event of such termination the State may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by the State. All costs to the State shall be deducted from any sum due the Contractor under this Agreement and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the Contractor upon demand.
347

8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Contractor, and the agents and employees of Contractor, in the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of the State.

9. RECYCLING CERTIFICATION: The Contractor shall certify in writing under penalty of perjury, the minimum, if not exact, percentage of post-consumer material as defined in the Public Contract Code Section 12200, in products, materials, goods, or supplies offered or sold to the State regardless of whether the product meets the requirements of Public Contract Code Section 12209. With respect to printer or duplication cartridges that comply with the requirements of Section 12156(e), the certification required by this subdivision shall specify that the cartridges so comply (Pub. Contract Code §12205).

10. NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE: During the performance of this Agreement, Contractor and its subcontractors shall not deny the contract’s benefits to any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. Contractor shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination. Contractor and subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §12900 et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11000 et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Gov. Code §§11135-11139.5), and the regulations or standards adopted by the awarding state agency to implement such article. Contractor shall permit access by representatives of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the awarding state agency upon reasonable notice at any time during the normal business hours, but in no case less than 24 hours’ notice, to such of its books, records, accounts, and all other sources of information and its facilities as said Department or Agency shall require to ascertain compliance with this clause.

Contractor and its subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11105.) Contractor shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under the Agreement.

11. CERTIFICATION CLAUSES: The CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION CLAUSES contained in the document CCC 04/2017 are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement by this reference as if attached hereto.

12. TIMELINESS: Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 348

13. COMPENSATION: The consideration to be paid Contractor, as provided herein, shall be in compensation for all of Contractor's expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel, per diem, and taxes, unless otherwise expressly so provided.

14. GOVERNING LAW: This contract is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

15. ANTITRUST CLAIMS: The Contractor by signing this agreement hereby certifies that if these services or goods are obtained by means of a competitive bid, the Contractor shall comply with the requirements of the Government Codes Sections set out below.
a. The Government Code Chapter on Antitrust claims contains the following definitions:
1) "Public purchase" means a purchase by means of competitive bids of goods, services, or materials by the State or any of its political subdivisions or public agencies on whose behalf the Attorney General may bring an action pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16750 of the Business and Professions Code.
2) "Public purchasing body" means the State or the subdivision or agency making a public purchase. Government Code Section 4550. b. In submitting a bid to a public purchasing body, the bidder offers and agrees that if the bid is accepted, it will assign to the purchasing body all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, materials, or services by the bidder for sale to the purchasing body pursuant to the bid. Such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing body tenders final payment to the bidder.

Government Code Section 4552.
c. If an awarding body or public purchasing body receives, either through judgment or settlement, a monetary recovery for a cause of action assigned under this chapter, the assignor shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for actual legal costs incurred and may, upon demand, recover from the public body any portion of the recovery, including treble damages, attributable to overcharges that were paid by the assignor but were not paid by the public body as part of the bid price, less the expenses incurred in obtaining that portion of the recovery. Government Code Section 4553.
d. Upon demand in writing by the assignor, the assignee shall, within one year from such demand, reassign the cause of action assigned under this part if the assignor has been or may have been injured by the violation of law for which the cause of action arose and (a) the assignee has not been injured thereby, or (b) the assignee declines to file a court action for the cause of action. See Government Code Section 4554. 349

16. CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE ACT: For any Agreement in excess of $100,000, the contractor acknowledges in accordance with Public Contract Code 7110, that:
a. The contractor recognizes the importance of child and family support obligations and shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support enforcement, including, but not limited to, disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment orders, as provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with section 5200) of Part 5 of Division 9 of the Family Code; and
b. The contractor, to the best of its knowledge is fully complying with the earnings assignment orders of all employees and is providing the names of all new employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the California Employment Development Department.

17. UNENFORCEABLE PROVISION: In the event that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable or held to be unenforceable, then the parties agree that all other provisions of this Agreement have force and effect and shall not be affected thereby.

18. PRIORITY HIRING CONSIDERATIONS: If this Contract includes services in excess of $200,000, the Contractor shall give priority consideration in filling vacancies in positions funded by the Contract to qualified recipients of aid under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11200 in accordance with Pub. Contract Code §10353.

19. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND DVBE PARTICIPATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:
a. If for this Contract Contractor made a commitment to achieve small business participation, then Contractor must within 60 days of receiving final payment under this Contract (or within such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this Contract) report to the awarding department the actual percentage of small business participation that was achieved. (Govt. Code § 14841.)
b. If for this Contract Contractor made a commitment to achieve disabled veteran business enterprise (DVBE) participation, then Contractor must within 60 days of receiving final payment under this Contract (or within such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this Contract) certify in a report to the awarding department: (1) the total amount the prime Contractor received under the Contract; (2) the name and address of the DVBE(s) that participated in the performance of the Contract; (3) the amount each DVBE received from the prime Contractor; (4) that all payments under the Contract have been made to the DVBE; and (5) the actual percentage of DVBE participation that was achieved. A person or entity that knowingly provides false information shall be subject to a civil penalty for each violation. (Mil. & Vets. Code § 999.5(d); Govt. Code § 14841.)
350

20. LOSS LEADER: If this contract involves the furnishing of equipment, materials, or supplies then the following statement is incorporated: It is unlawful for any person engaged in business within this state to sell or use any article or product as a “loss leader” as defined in Section 17030 of the Business and Professions Code. (PCC 10344(e).)

21. GENERATIVE AI DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS:
a. The following terms are in addition to the defined terms and shall apply to the Contract:
1) “Generative AI (GenAI)” means an artificial intelligence system that can generate derived synthetic content, including text, images, video, and audio that emulates the structure and characteristics of the system's training data. (Gov. Code § 11549.64.)
b. Contractor shall immediately notify the State in writing if it: (1) intends to provide GenAI as a deliverable to the State; or (2), intends to utilize GenAI, including GenAI from third parties, to complete all or a portion of any deliverable that materially impacts: (i) functionality of a State system, (ii) risk to the State, or (iii) Contract performance. For avoidance of doubt, the term “materially impacts” shall have the meaning set forth in State Administrative Manual (SAM) § 4986.2 Definitions for GenAI.
c. Notification shall be provided to the State designee identified in this Contract.
d. At the direction of the State, Contractor shall discontinue the provision to the State of any previously unreported GenAI that results in a material impact to the functionality of the System, risk to the State, or Contract performance, as determined by the State.
e. If the use of previously undisclosed GenAI is approved by the State, then Contractor will update the Deliverable description, and the Parties will amend the Contract accordingly, which may include incorporating the GenAI Special Provisions into the Contract, at no additional cost to the State. f. The State, at its sole discretion, may consider Contractor’s failure to disclose or discontinue the provision or use of GenAI as described above, to constitute a material breach of Contract when such failure results in a material impact to the functionality of the System, risk to the State, or Contract performance. The State is entitled to seek any and all remedies available to it under law as a result of such breach, including but not limited to termination of the contract.
351
Agreement Number: 25-APP14
City of Fontana through the Fontana Police Department

EXHIBIT D

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Disputes: Any disputes concerning a question of fact arising under this contract which is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the Director, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, or designee, who shall reduce his decision in writing and mail or otherwise furnish a copy thereof to the Contractor. The decision of the Department shall be final and conclusive unless, within 30 days from the date of receipt of such copy, the Contractor mails or otherwise furnishes to the State a written appeal addressed to the Director of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The decision of the Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control or his duly authorized representative for the determination of such appeals shall be final and conclusive unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been fraudulent, capricious, arbitrary, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or not supported by substantial evidence. In connection with any appeal proceeding under this clause, the contractor shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of its appeal. Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, Contractor shall proceed diligently with the performance of the contract and in accordance with the decision of the State.

2. Cancellation/Termination: This agreement may be cancelled or terminated without cause by either party by giving thirty (30) calendar days advance written notice to the other party. Such notification shall state the effective date of termination or cancellation and include any final performance and/or payment/invoicing instructions/requirements. No penalty shall accrue to either party because of contract termination.

3. Contract Validity: This contract is valid and enforceable only if adequate funds are appropriated in Item 2100-101-3036, Budget Act of 2025, for the purposes of this program.

4. Contractor Certifications: By signing this agreement, Contractor certifies compliance with the provisions of CCC 04/2017, Standard Contractor Certification Clauses. This document may be viewed at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/Page-Content/Office-of-Legal-ServicesResources-List-Folder/Standard-Contract-Language

5. If the State determines that the grant project is not achieving its goals and objectives on schedule, funding may be reduced by the State to reflect this lower level of project activity and/or cancel the agreement.
352
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0466 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: U. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Engineering
SUBJECT:

Approve Amendment No. 9 to Professional Services Agreement with David Evans and Associates, Inc. for the San Sevaine Trail Phase 1, Segment 2 Project RECOMMENDATION:

Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 9 to a Professional Services Agreement with David Evans and Associates, Inc. for Engineering Services for the San Sevaine Trail Phase 1, Segment 2 Project (SQ-12-DE-17) in the amount of $379,336.38, for a total contract amount of $1,971,277.70.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by maintaining and improving the city's existing infrastructure.
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by focusing on relief of traffic congestion.

DISCUSSION:

The San Sevaine Trail Phase 1, Segment 2 Project is a multi-jurisdictional cooperative effort that will enhance the connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians between the Pacific Electric Trail and public facilities within the Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, such as Etiwanda High School, as well as other future infrastructure improvements. The trail will run parallel to the Etiwanda Creek, a flood control channel owned and operated by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD). The trail will utilize the existing County maintenance road along the west side of the channel and fills in gaps where a road did not currently exist. The multi-use path begins at the Pacific Electric Trail to the south in the City of Fontana and traverses north under the I-15 and SR210 freeways to Banyan Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The trail length is 1.25 miles, with

0.3 miles located in the City of Fontana and the remaining 0.95 miles in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.

On December 12, 2023, prior to the start of construction, the City Council approved Amendment No. 8 to the Professional Services Agreement with David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) for construction management support services related to the trail, in the amount of $670,119.00. The Professional Services Agreement for Design Services with DEA was approved with an amount of $921,822.32, bringing the total authorized contract amount to $1,591,941.32 prior to construction beginning. Construction commenced in May 2024 and continues with full completion by October City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™353
File #: 25-0466 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: U. Category: Consent Calendar
2025. During construction, there have been several unforeseen conditions requiring additional construction management support services from DEA, including additional geotechnical testing, observation, reports as required by Caltrans, redesign of walls within Caltrans Right-of-Way as a result of unmarked utilities, landscape redesign and additional signage to meet SBCFCD requirements, and additional Project Management support for the additional services requested.

With a requested additional amount of $379,336.38 to complete all required services during construction, the total authorized amount of construction management support services will be $1,049,455.38 and the total contract amount with DEA for both design and construction management support services will be $1,971.277.70.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact associated with the approval of this item is $379,336.38 for the full term of the Agreement and is included in the 2025-2026 budget in 37603345-635-D-8115 (Park Development Funds).

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™354
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Fontana
City Limit
Vicinity Map
355
1 RVPUB\AQUINTERO\717659.1 (BB&K: 2006)
AMENDMENT NO. 9

TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF FONTANA
AND

DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES
CONTRACT NO. SQ-12-DE-17

1. Parties and Date.

This AMENDMENT No. 9 to the Professional Services Agreement is made and entered into as of this 9th day of September, 2025, by and between the City of Fontana, (“City”) and David Evans and Associates, a Corporation with its principal place of business at 4141 East Inland Empire Blvd, Suite 250 Ontario, CA 91764 (hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

2. Recitals.

2.1 Consultant. The City and Consultant have entered into an agreement entitled Professional Services Agreement Contract Number SQ-12-DE-17 dated the 10th of January, 2017 (“Agreement”), for the purse of retaining the services of Consultant to provide Professional Engineering Design Services for the San Sevaine Trail Phase 1, Segment 2 Project.

2.2 Amendment Purpose. The City and Consultant desire to amend the Agreement to revise the scope of services, term and increase the not-to-exceed compensation amount. The parties have heretofore entered into that Amendment No. 8 dated December 12, 2023.

2.3 Amendment Authority. This Amendment No. 9 is authorized pursuant to Section

3.1.2 of the Agreement.

3. Terms.

3.1 Section 3.1.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to the City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional design consulting services necessary for the Project (“Services”).

The additional Services are more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.

3.2 Section 3.1.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
356
2 RVPUB\AQUINTERO\717659.1 (BB&K: 2006)

3.1.2 Term. This contract shall go into effect on September 9, 2025, contingent upon approval by the City of Fontana and Consultant shall commence work after notification to proceed by the City of Fontana’s Contract Administrator. The contract shall end on March 31, 2026 unless extended by contract amendment. The City shall have the unilateral option , at its sole discretion, to renew this Agreement annually for no more than two (2) additional one-year terms. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. Consultant is advised that any recommendation for contract award is not binding on the City of Fontana until fully executed and approved by the City of Fontana.

3.3 Section 3.3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

3.3.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Amendment No. 8 is authorized in the amount of Three Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand, Three-Hundred Thirty-six Dollars and Thirty-Eight Cents ($379,336.38). The total compensation shall not exceed One Million, Nine Hundred Seventyone Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy-seven dollars and Seventy cents ($1,971,277.70) without written approval of City’s Engineering Manager. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below; and if authorized, said Extra Work will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.

3.4 Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 9, all other provisions of this Agreement remain in full force and effect and shall govern the action so of the parties under this Amendment No. 9. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 9, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 9.

3.5 Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this AMENDMENT No. 9.

3.6 Severability. If any portion of this Amendment No. 9 is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
357
3 RVPUB\AQUINTERO\717659.1 (BB&K: 2006)

SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AMENDMENT NO. 9

TO THE CITY OF FONTANA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

CITY OF FONTANA
By:

Matthew C. Ballantyne
City Manager

DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES
By: ______________________________
Greg Davis
Vice President
Attest:

By:

Germaine Key, City Clerk
Attest:1
By:

Gabe Rodriguez
Transportation Market Leader
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
By:________________________________
Phillip Burum
Deputy City Manager
By: ______________________________
Gia Lam Kim
Director of Public Works/City Engineer

IN COMPLIANCE WITH PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

POLICIES/PROCEDURES
Jessica Brown
Chief Financial Officer
Sid Lambert
Purchasing Manager

1 Attestation of Consultant’s signature must be obtained when required by the by-laws, articles of incorporation or other laws, rules or regulations applicable to Consultant’s business entity. 358

EXHIBIT A
4 RVPUB\AQUINTERO\717659.1 (BB&K: 2006)
EXHIBIT “A”
- ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE -
359
17542 E. 17th Street, Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 714.665.4500 fax 714.665.4501 August 5, 2025
Kimberly Young
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Subject: San Sevaine Bicycle Trail
Additional Construction Engineering Support Services
Dear Ms. Young:

The San Sevaine bicycle trail is under construction and work outside of our previously identified construction services contract has been requested and performed. Per direction from the City’s construction manager, Robert Eisenbeisz, we have directed portions of our existing contract budget to these new requested items. This letter will outline the additional work requested and is presented in the order that our original construction engineering support letter used.

A. Construction Engineering Support Services
The City has requested meetings during construction with the design team which are held virtually.

The original contract included an estimate of 4 hours per month (56 hours total) however, the actual time is likely 8 hours per month (90 hours total) among several attendees, giving a difference of 34 hours.

Project management hours were estimated at 2 hours per month (total 28 hours) however, the actual time is likely 2 hours per week (120 hours total), giving a difference of 92 hours. The original estimate of 2 hours per month was exceeded due to the number of unknown issues that arose and the time involved to manage their resolution.

Additionally, the City recently requested the design team be present at as many weekly field construction meetings as possible during the wall construction and reduce to monthly thereafter.

The original budget identified 4 onsite field visits for a total of 32 hours, however, the actual time to date is 72 hours with an additional 8 hours anticipated for future meetings for a total of 80 hours, giving a difference of 48 hours. On-site field meetings were not originally anticipated.

The total additional estimated is 174 hours for meetings and project management beyond what was originally estimated. Cost $39,520
360
17542 E. 17th Street, Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 714.665.4500 fax 714.665.4501 B. Civil, Landscape, Lighting and Traffic – Shop Drawing Submittal Review & Bid Support There has been no extra work related to this item.

C. Civil, Landscape, Lighting and Traffic – RFI Review and Response Some RFIs have been submitted by the contractor resulting in effort to coordinate and determine the appropriate responses. Those described below are those that were not anticipated or took additional steps for resolution beyond what was originally considered in our budget.

RFI 4 – Victoria signal pole and survey – There were misunderstandings/miscommunication from the contractor regarding interpretation of staking for the signal pole location. The team spent additional time triple-checking the staking to prove ultimately that it had been correctly staked from the beginning. Time was spent coordinating between the contractor, surveyor, and City. Cost $957 RFI 8 – A light pole foundation was redesigned due to conflicting under-surface boulder. Cost $4,974
RFI 12 – New Victoria RV frontage was developed during the project bidding. The contractor requested clarification of new design adapted to frontage improvements. Cost $696 RFI 18 - Storm Drain along walls R7A and R6A – The contractor discovered an existing storm drain that was in the location to cross the walls R7A and R6A. It was determined the storm drain was in a significantly different horizontal location than the record as-built indicated. Pile #1 on Retaining Wall R7A was eliminated, and a portion of the wall was redesigned to avoid encroachment on the storm drain below. Additionally, Pile #3 on Retaining Wall R6A was shifted 1.5 feet to accommodate the revised pipe location. These modifications were made to ensure proper clearance and prevent interference with existing underground utilities. Cost $5,655 RFI 19 - Storm Drain along wall R7B (diaphragm wall) – The contractor found a Caltrans 24” storm pipe that ran under the proposed wall/trail, discharging through the channel liner. This pipe was not shown in project base mapping and no vertical profile record as-built could be located. It was determined the top of pipe would be more than a foot above proposed trail surface. The Contractor built Wall R6B starting at the south end up to about 5.5 feet south of the pipe crossing and work on Wall R7B did not start until after it was confirmed that relocated pipe would not go under or penetrate the wall. Numerous potential solutions were identified and vetted. Since as-builts and previous drainage reports were not available, our work also included hydrologic/hydraulic analysis.

Cost $7,483
Items not identified as RFIs included:

Mitigation Design for Protected Habitat at North End of Project – Revisions were made to lighting and fencing plan. Coordination was performed for plan review. Cost $3,018 361
17542 E. 17th Street, Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 714.665.4500 fax 714.665.4501 D. Structural Retaining Wall – Shop Drawing Submittal Review There has been no extra work related to this item.

E. Structural Retaining Wall – RFI Review and Response
RFI 17 – Sanitary sewer location at SR 210 – The contractor found an existing encased sanitary sewer line parallel to the trail that would potentially conflict with proposed walls as it was under the bottom of the wall. While it was a known line, the actual alignment differed from the record asbuilts. Field survey indicated the sewer had a significant bow such that the steel casing was found to be at a higher elevation, which required us to redesign portions of the wall by moving the bottom of the wall and second row of ground anchors and shotcrete up by one foot. Analysis of the survey data by the civil and structural designers identified the conflicts, and revised wall plans were developed. This required coordination with the contractor, resident engineer, surveyors, and design team. Cost $7,988
CMU wall near Station 17 - During the construction of the CMU wall, the wall subcontractor initially submitted footing elevations that did not align with the actual site topography. To address this discrepancy, an additional survey was conducted to accurately capture the topography and confirm the location of an adjacent County-owned drainage riser. To ensure proper drainage functionality, multiple design alternatives were evaluated, including various wall types, grading modifications, fencing options, and adjustments to the wall and trail alignment. After thorough analysis, it was determined the best course of action was to change the original wall type from Type 6A to Type 6B and to change the alignment to avoid the conflict between the footing and the existing riser pipe. Additionally, a standard Greenbook detail, typically accepted without additional calculations, was unexpectedly rejected by the City's building department, requiring further engineering review and adjustments to validate a standard detail. The additional work, including surveying, design evaluations, coordination efforts, structural calculations, and required compliance adjustments resulted in extra costs. The original design conflicted with an existing storm drain riser, requiring a change from Type A to Type B. Cost $10,048 Storm Drain along wall R1A – Our team designed the first part of this wall to change it from soldier pile to a gravity retaining wall to avoid further damaging the utility below. Additionally, a concrete culvert was damaged during the installation of the first pile. We developed a remediation to the damaged culvert. Cost $2,500
F. Structural Retaining Wall – Field Services/Inspection Caltrans required source inspections to be performed. We brought ZT Consulting onto the team to perform this work. The work included preparation of the SIQMP, QA sampling and verification testing for high strength bar/strands and bearing plates for the ground anchors, CWI source inspection for steel assembly for the ground anchors, and coating inspection by NACE2 for the cleaning and painting of piles for the soldier piles. The estimate for this work was $62,896.56.

Subsequently, ZT Consulting was requested to perform CWI inspection for stud welding and 362
17542 E. 17th Street, Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 714.665.4500 fax 714.665.4501 coating inspection by NACE2 for field painting for the soldier piles. This estimate was $15,398.97, giving a total of $78,295.53 for the source inspection task.

G. Additional As-Built / Record Drawing
No out-of-scope work is expected for this task.

H. Geotechnical Field Services and Laboratory Testing
The majority of work by Converse has been within Caltrans right-of-way however, they have and continue to provide necessary services outside of the Caltrans right-of-way. Their original budget was $71,820. Through July 4, 2025, field services, laboratory testing and office support costs have exceeded the original contract amount by $258,804 (total cost being $330,624). Additionally, Converse has estimated the cost to continue their services through construction completion will be $35,260. The total additional cost for geotechnical related services is therefore estimated at $294,064. Details of Converse’s tasks are included in their letter attached.

I. Construction Survey
No out-of-scope work is expected for this task.

J. Interpretive Signage (New Task)
Per a letter from DEA to the City dated September 18, 2024, this task included the addition of interpretive signs related to the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. The estimated cost of this additional work was identified as $17,605.

SUMMARY
The table below summarizes the anticipated costs of the above-described work.

Summary of Extra Work Cost
Task Est Value of
Extra Work
A. Construction Engineering Support Services $ 39.520.00 C. Civil, Landscape, Lighting and Traffic – RFI Review and Response $ 22,783.00 E. Structural Retaining Wall – RFI Review and Response $ 20,536.00 F. Structural Retaining Wall – Field Services / Inspection $ 78,296.00 H. Geotechnical Field Services and Laboratory Testing $ 250,198.00 J. Interpretive Signage $ 3,000.00
TOTAL $ 550,304.00
Some of the above-described work has been invoiced to the City using the original budget. Given the project is nearing construction completion, much of the above-described extra work was 363
17542 E. 17th Street, Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 714.665.4500 fax 714.665.4501 invoiced using the original contracted budget. We have estimated the cost to complete the remaining work from today’s date forward as shown in the table below.

Summary of Cost to Complete
Task Est. Cost to
Complete
A Construction Engineering Support $8.000.00
B Civil, Landscape, Traffic Shop Drawing & Submittal
Review
$2,000.00
C Civil, Landscape, Traffic RFI Review & Response $2,000.00 D Structural Retaining Wall Shope Drawing & Submittal
Review
$0.00
E Structural Retaining Wall RFI Review and Response $2,000.00 F Structural Retaining Wall Field Services/Inspection $8,245.00 G As-Built Record Drawings $39,480.00
H Geotechnical Field Services and Laboratory Testing $35,260.00 I Construction Survey $15,000.00
J Interpretive Signage $3,000.00
TOTAL $114,985.00
Based on the above cost to complete, we have revised the first table (summary of extra work cost) to be as follows:

Amendment Request by Task
Task Revised
Amendment
Request
A Construction Engineering Support $8.000.00
B Civil, Landscape, Traffic Shop Drawing & Submittal
Review
$2,000.00
C Civil, Landscape, Traffic RFI Review & Response $2,000.00 D Structural Retaining Wall Shope Drawing & Submittal
Review
$0.00
E Structural Retaining Wall RFI Review and Response $2,000.00 F Structural Retaining Wall Field Services/Inspection $100,005.63 G As-Built Record Drawings $12,132.75
H Geotechnical Field Services and Laboratory Testing $250,198.00 I Construction Survey $0.00
J Interpretive Signage $3,000.00
REQUESTED AMENDMENT AMOUNT $379,336.38
With a total cost to date of $934,470.38, of which $657,721.90 has been invoiced, and a projected cost to complete of $114,985.00, the total contract amount is projected to be $1,049,455.38. The original contract authorized amount for construction management services was $670,119.00. The requested addendum is $379,336.38.
364
17542 E. 17th Street, Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 714.665.4500 fax 714.665.4501 We look forward to continuing to assist the City of Fontana toward the successful construction completion of the project. If you have any questions on the above, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Marie Marston, P.E.

Project Manager
Attachments:

ZTC Estimate Tables
Converse Extra Request Letter
DEA Letter for Interpretive Signing
365
Source Inspection Estiatme for San Sevaine ZTC ID: 24-S455 Item No. Item Description Sub. Items Inspection Type Inspection Hours Approx. Testing Budget Testing Components Prob. Source Location ** Estimated Travel Hours Approx. Travel Budget Engineering Hours Engineering Function Approx. Cost per Item High Strength Bar/Strands
QA Sampling & Verification Testing 32 $ 600 High Strength Bar/Strands California or Colorado 32 $ 2,400 8 Submittal Review - Fabrication support $ 14,228.41 Bearing Plates QA Sampling & Verification Testing 8 $ 500 Casted Coupon California or Colorado 8 $ 1,600 8 Submittal Review - Fabrication support $ 6,270.55 Steel Assembly CWI Source inspection 24 $ - N/A California 0 $ 600 8 Submittal Review - Fabrication support $ 5,946.86 Soldier Piles:

Varying lengths: 2'-11" to
44'-0"
I-15 Retaining Walls:

R1A: QTY:15
R1C: QTY: 18
SR-2210 Retaining Walls:

R6A: QTY: 8
R7A: QTY: 4
R8: QTY: 16
Clean and Paint Piles Coating Inspection by
NACE 2 80 $ - - Caifornia 0 $ 600.00 16
PQWP review, pre-paint meeting,
inspection coordination, report
review
$ 15,998.97
12 N/A 0 $ - N/A N/A 0 $ - 30
Submitting SIQMP to Caltrans and responding to comments + 2 Addendums
$ 6,817.25
N/A 0 $ - N/A N/A 0 $ - 24 Misc. SMR work for average of 2 hour per month $ 5,453.80 N/A 0 $ - N/A N/A 0 $ - 24
Preparing monthly SIQMP report for duration of the project average 2 hours per month $ 5,453.80
N/A 0 $ - N/A N/A 0 $ - 12 Caltrans Quarterly IQA audits - 4 hours for duration of each audit $ 2,726.90 144 40 130
$ 21,173.58 $ 1,100 $ 5,881.55 $ 5,200 $ 29,541.42
227.24 $/hr147.04 $/hr
*
**
Source Inspection Scope *
Material source location will be set by the Prime Contractor and their subs.Caltrans METS quarterly IQA audit and response to audit ZTC Hourly Rate Engineering Average Regular hourly rate Source Inspection Average Regularly hourly rateTotal Hours These cost estimates are not intended to be lump sums or guaranteed costs.

Total Cost Based on regular rate $ 62,896.56 Total Cost Ground Anchors
Various Heights: 10.2' to

13.1'
I-15 Retaining Walls:

R1B: QTY: 37
SR-210 Retaining Walls:

R7: QTY: 53
Caltrans Monthly SIQMP Summary ReportSIQMP Preperation and Approval, Revisions, and Addendums SIQMP Engineering Works For Months Duration
Typical SMR work such as response ding to QAF-3101 and issuing 28/608 forms during the course of project, Resolving NCRs, attend construction meeting, etc.

SIQMP Estimate 1 8/26/2024
366
Source Inspection Estiatme for San Sevaine ZTC ID: 24-S455 Item No. Item Description Sub. Items Inspection Type Inspection Hours Approx. Testing Budget Testing Components Prob. Source Location ** Estimated Travel Hours Approx. Travel Budget Engineering Hours Engineering Function Approx. Cost per Item Stud Welding CWI Inspection 40 $ - - Jobsite 0 $ - 8 Pre-weld meeting, inspection coordination, report review $ 7,699.48 Field Painting Coating Inspection by
NACE 2 40 $ - - Jobsite 0 $ - 8
PQWP review, pre-paint meeting,
inspection coordination, report
review
$ 7,699.48
12 N/A 0 $ - N/A N/A 0 $ - 0
Submitting SIQMP to Caltrans and responding to comments + 2 Addendums
$ -
N/A 0 $ - N/A N/A 0 $ - 0 Misc. SMR work for average of 2 hour per month $ - N/A 0 $ - N/A N/A 0 $ - 0 Preparing monthly SIQMP report for duration of the project average 2 hours per month $ -
N/A 0 $ - N/A N/A 0 $ - 0 Caltrans Quarterly IQA audits - 4 hours for duration of each audit $ - 80 0 16
$ 11,763.10 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,635.87
227.24 $/hr147.04 $/hr
*
**
SIQMP Preperation and Approval, Revisions, and Addendums SIQMP Engineering Works For
Soldier Piles
Months Duration
Typical SMR work such as response ding to QAF-3101 and issuing 28/608 forms during the course of project, Resolving NCRs, attend construction meeting, etc.

Source Inspection Scope *
Material source location will be set by the Prime Contractor and their subs.Caltrans METS quarterly IQA audit and response to audit ZTC Hourly Rate Engineering Average Regular hourly rate Source Inspection Average Regularly hourly rateTotal Hours These cost estimates are not intended to be lump sums or guaranteed costs.

Total Cost Based on regular rate $ 15,398.97 Total Cost Caltrans Monthly SIQMP Summary Report
SIQMP Estimate 1 12/9/2024
367
Converse Consultants
Geotechnical Engineering, Environmental & Groundwater Science, Inspection & Testing Services 2021 Rancho Drive, Suite 1, Redlands CA 92373
Telephone: (909) 796-0544 ♦ Facsimile: (909) 796-7675 ♦ www.converseconsultants.com Revised July 8, 2025
Mr. Alejandro Virgen, EIT
Bridge & Structure
David Evans and Associates (DEA)
2100 South River Parkway
Portland, OR 97201
Subject: REVISED CHANGE ORDER REQUEST TO CONTINUE PROVIDING

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES DURING

CONSTRUCTION
San Sevaine Bike Trail, Phase 1- Pacific Electric (PE) Trail to Banyan Street Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA Converse Project No. 16-81-232-00 (30)
Dear Mr. Virgen:

This revised change order supersedes our last change order submitted on May 22, 2025.

As part of DEA’s team Converse Consultants (Converse) has been providing geotechnical and material testing services during the construction of the San Sevaine Bike Trail, Phase 1 from Pacific Electric Trail to Banyan Street.

Based on our revised proposal dated November 20, 2023, Converse was issued a contract by DEA on June 6, 2024, in the amount of $71,820.00. The original scope primarily included on-call geotechnical inspections for the retaining walls located within the Caltrans right-ofway (see scope of work below). Subsequently, on or around September of 2024, the jurisdiction’s representative requested an expansion of the scope to include material testing and geotechnical inspections for the entire project, both within and outside of the Caltrans right-of-way. Additionally, it was requested that Converse provide full-time on-site support for the duration of construction. These expanded responsibilities are reflected in the scope of work hours versus the allocated budget, as shown below.

The cost summary and breakdown from our revised November 20, 2023 proposal is presented below.

Cost Summary
Item Cost
Field Services Costs $52,800.00
Laboratory Testing Costs $4,380.00
Office Support Costs $14,640.00
TOTAL $71,820.00
368
Revised Change Order Request to Continue Providing Geotechnical & Material Testing Services During Construction San Sevaine Bike Trail, Phase 1- Pacific Electric (PE) Trail to Banyan Street Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA November 22, 2024
Revised April 2, 2025
Revised April 11, 2025
Revised April 22, 2025
Revised May 22, 2025
Revised July 8, 2025

Converse Consultants
M:\JOBFILE\2010-2019\2016\81\16-81-232 DEA, San Savine Bike & Pedestrian Trail\Proposal\16-81-232_r-4CO(30)DEA-)trail The breakdown of our scope and cost showing the proposed and actual hours and cost up to July 4, 2025, is presented in the table below.

Field Services Costs
Service Type Proposed
Units (Hrs.)
Proposed
Cost
Expended
(Hrs.)
Expended
Cost Difference
Observe installation of
drilled shaft and
ground anchors
100 $15,000.00 369 $55,350.00 $40,350.00
Observe construction
of diaphragm wall 100 $15,000.00 20 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 Observe pull test of
ground anchors 32 $4,800.00 0 $0.00 $4,800.00
Observe fill placement
and take in-place
density test
76 $11,400.00 664.5 $99,675.00 $88,275.00
Aggregate base and
asphalt concrete 4 $600.00 4 $600.00 $0.00
Test quality of fresh
concrete & make
cylinders
40 $6,000.00 418 $62,700.00 $56,700.00
Observe Placement of
Rebar 0 $0.00 46 $6,900.00 $6,900.00
Sample Pick-Up 0 $0.00 146.6 $7,330.00 $7,330.00
Shoring/Lagging
Inspection 0 $0.00 150 $22,500.00 $22,500.00
Field Services Cost Total $52,800.00 - $258,055.00 $205,255.00 Laboratory Testing Costs
Type of Tests
Proposed
No. of
Tests
Proposed
Cost
Actual
No. of
Tests
Actual
Cost Difference
Modified proctor for optimum
moisture and density (soil
sample)
8 $1,520.00 1 $190.00 $1,330.00
Modified proctor for optimum
moisture and density (aggregate
base sample)
2 $400.00 1 $200.00 $200.00
Compressive Strength Tests of
Concrete Cylinder 40 $1,800.00 324 $14,580.00 $12,780.00 Hveem test of asphalt concrete 3 $660.00 0 $0.00 $660.00 Laboratory Testing Cost Total $4,380.00 - $14,970.00 $10,590.00

369
Revised Change Order Request to Continue Providing Geotechnical & Material Testing Services During Construction San Sevaine Bike Trail, Phase 1- Pacific Electric (PE) Trail to Banyan Street Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA November 22, 2024
Revised April 2, 2025
Revised April 11, 2025
Revised April 22, 2025
Revised May 22, 2025
Revised July 8, 2025

Converse Consultants
M:\JOBFILE\2010-2019\2016\81\16-81-232 DEA, San Savine Bike & Pedestrian Trail\Proposal\16-81-232_r-4CO(30)DEA-)trail Office Support Costs
Type of Activity
Proposed
Units (Hrs. &
Lump Sum)
Proposed
Cost
Expended No.
of Units (Hrs. &
Lump Sum)
Expended
Cost Difference
Office support 40 Hrs. $3,000.00 232.9 $17,467.50 $14,467.50 Staff Professional
(Includes Field
Anchor Testing)
0 Hrs. $0.00 94.5 $13,230.00 $13,230.00
Project Manager 32 Hrs. $5,440.00 8.8 $1,496.00 $3,944.00 Project
Professional 0 Hrs. $0.00 77.5 $12,400.00 $12,400.00
Principal
Professional 20 Hrs. $4,200.00 60.5 $12,705.00 $8,505.00 Project
Consultant 0 Hrs. $0.00 3 $300.00 $300.00
Density test
results report
preparation (if
needed)
1 Lump Sum $2,000.00 0 $0.00 $2,000.00
Office Support Cost Total $14,640.00 - $57,598.50 $42,958.50 Total Overage Summary as of July 4, 2025
Services Costs
Field Services Cost Overage $205,255.00
Laboratory Testing Cost Overage $10,590.00
Office Support Cost Overage $42,958.50
Total Cost Overage $258,803.50

SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE ESTIMATE TO PROJECT COMPLETION
Per Mr. Robert Eisenbeisz’s e-mail dated July 1, 2025, the following services will be required before project completion:
 Wall R6 (Footing Pour, Rebar/Wall Pour
 Retaining Curb/Wall at R1C By-Pass
 LDCC Backfill at Wall R6
 Finish Grading/Compaction
 PCC Gutter at Top of Walls
 Slope Paving at SR 210
 AC Paving on Trail
 Slurry Seal on Trail
370
Revised Change Order Request to Continue Providing Geotechnical & Material Testing Services During Construction San Sevaine Bike Trail, Phase 1- Pacific Electric (PE) Trail to Banyan Street Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA November 22, 2024
Revised April 2, 2025
Revised April 11, 2025
Revised April 22, 2025
Revised May 22, 2025
Revised July 8, 2025

Converse Consultants
M:\JOBFILE\2010-2019\2016\81\16-81-232 DEA, San Savine Bike & Pedestrian Trail\Proposal\16-81-232_r-4CO(30)DEA-)trail Our estimated cost to provide services until project completion is presented in the tables below.

Field Services Costs (Project Completion)
Service Type Unit Total
Units Unit Rate Cost
Observe and/or test Soils, Concrete, Rebar and
Asphalt Hr. 160 $150.00 $24,000.00
Sample Pick-Up Hr. 16 $50.00 $800.00
Field Services Cost Total (Project Completion) $24,800.00 Laboratory Testing Costs (Project Completion)
Type of Tests Number
of Tests
Cost Per
Test Total Cost
Modified proctor for optimum moisture and density (soil sample) 2 $190.00 $380.00
Compressive Strength Tests of Concrete Cylinder 80 $45.00 $3,600.00 Hveem test of asphalt concrete 2 $220.00 $440.00
Laboratory Testing Cost Total (Project Completion) 4,420.00 Office Support Costs (Project Completion)
Type of Activity Unit Total
Units Unit Rate Total Cost
Office support Hr. 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Project Professional Hr. 10 $160.00 $1,600.00
Principal Professional Hr. 4 $210.00 $2,100.00
Project Close-Out Report (if needed) Lump
Sum 1 $2,000.00 $840.00
Office Support Cost Total (Project Completion) $6,040.00 Cost Summary (Project Completion)
Services Cost
Field Services Costs $24,800.00
Laboratory Testing Costs $4,420.00
Office Support Costs $6,040.00
TOTAL (Project Completion) $35,260.00
371
Revised Change Order Request to Continue Providing Geotechnical & Material Testing Services During Construction San Sevaine Bike Trail, Phase 1- Pacific Electric (PE) Trail to Banyan Street Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA November 22, 2024
Revised April 2, 2025
Revised April 11, 2025
Revised April 22, 2025
Revised May 22, 2025
Revised July 8, 2025

Converse Consultants
M:\JOBFILE\2010-2019\2016\81\16-81-232 DEA, San Savine Bike & Pedestrian Trail\Proposal\16-81-232_r-4CO(30)DEA-)trail

TOTAL CHANGE ORDER REQUEST
Item Amount
Overage Amount Up to July 4, 2025 $258,803.50
Costs to Provide Services to Project Completion $35,260.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER REQUEST COST $294,063.50

ASSUMPTIONS
In general, our fees are based on the following conditions and assumptions described below.  The hours assigned to each task in the above tables are estimates. It may vary depending on the contractor’s schedule and sequencing of activities.  Our services will be performed on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with the unit rates presented in the above table.
 When full-time observation by a Converse representative is not required, the testing services described above will be performed on a test-results-only basis at the request of your authorized representative, who will be responsible for coordinating our services with the construction schedule. No comments regarding compaction procedures or observations will be made for test-results-only services.  For on-call services, the test locations will be prepared and ready for testing by Converse field personnel upon their arrival at the site.
 Work will be conducted during an 8-hour day at the site. Overtime will be charged at 1.5 times the regular hourly rate.
 All requests for field service should be received by this office not less than one working day (24 hours) prior to the time the services are to be performed.  There will be a 2-hour minimum charge in case of work cancellation after our field personnel have been dispatched.
 There may be a 2-hour minimum charge if services are cancelled within 6 hours of the scheduled call out time.
 There will be a 4-hour minimum call out time for inspections lasting less than 4 hours.

After 4-hours, time is charged as time on-site.
 The contractor and/or client will be responsible for excavating and backfilling all test locations.
 Our field representative will not direct, supervise or lay out the work of the contractor.  Our services will not include a review of the contractor's safety measures on or near the job site.
 If any additional inspection or laboratory testing is required, it will be performed in accordance with the attached Schedule of Fees.
 Converse field reports will be provided to your authorized representative in the field daily as the testing is completed. The field reports will summarize test results and time charged per day, and document work performed.
 Meetings and consultations not described above, which are requested by the client, are not included in the cost summary, but will be charged on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with the attached Schedule of Fees.
 Should additional services be required other than those presented herein, we will discuss the matter with you. If requested, we will prepare a detailed proposal and cost estimate 372
Revised Change Order Request to Continue Providing Geotechnical & Material Testing Services During Construction San Sevaine Bike Trail, Phase 1- Pacific Electric (PE) Trail to Banyan Street Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA November 22, 2024
Revised April 2, 2025
Revised April 11, 2025
Revised April 22, 2025
Revised May 22, 2025
Revised July 8, 2025

Converse Consultants
M:\JOBFILE\2010-2019\2016\81\16-81-232 DEA, San Savine Bike & Pedestrian Trail\Proposal\16-81-232_r-4CO(30)DEA-)trail for such services. Additional services will not be performed without prior written authorization.
 No services will be provided prior to our signature of an agreement with you. No additional work required will be provided without written authorization and a budget amendment from your authorized representative.

CLOSURE
Our services will be provided in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geological principles and practice in this area of Southern California. Unless we are informed otherwise, we will assume that these conditions are acceptable to you.

This proposal will expire 60 days from its issuance, if not accepted at that time. Our billing rates are reviewed at the beginning of each year and are subject to adjustment.

Please sign 2 copies of the Acceptance of Agreement and Authorization to Proceed at the end of this proposal. Retain one copy of this proposal for your files and return one signed copy to our office to formally authorize our services.

We understand that this is a Prevailing Wage project as determined by the local Labor Code.

Special billing instructions, including backup documentation requirements, should be mutually agreed upon and indicated in the authorization. Subsequent additions or changes should be likewise mutually agreed upon and submitted in writing with appropriate authorization.

Converse has the resources to meet your project schedule. We will ensure that personnel with appropriate background and experience are assigned to this project. We will also ensure that all deliverables are submitted on schedule.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this very important project. If you have any questions, or if we can provide any additional assistance, please call the undersigned at 909- 474-2847.

CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
Hashmi Quazi, PhD, PE, GE
Principal/Regional Manager
Dist.: 1/Addressee (e-mail)
Encl.: Schedule of Fees and General Conditions
HSQ/kvg/dne
373
Revised Change Order Request to Continue Providing Geotechnical & Material Testing Services During Construction San Sevaine Bike Trail, Phase 1- Pacific Electric (PE) Trail to Banyan Street Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA November 22, 2024
Revised April 2, 2025
Revised April 11, 2025
Revised April 22, 2025
Revised May 22, 2025
Revised July 8, 2025

Converse Consultants
M:\JOBFILE\2010-2019\2016\81\16-81-232 DEA, San Savine Bike & Pedestrian Trail\Proposal\16-81-232_r-4CO(30)DEA-)trail

REVISED CHANGE ORDER REQUEST TO CONTINUE PROVIDING GEOTECHNICAL

AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION
San Sevaine Bike Trail, Phase 1- Pacific Electric (PE) Trail to Banyan Street
Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA Converse Project No. 16-81-232-00 (30)
ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED3
Firm Name: (Client)1
By: (Print Name)
(Signature)
Title: Date:

Telephone No. ( ) Email:

P.O. No./Billing Instructions2:
1 Invoices to be sent to the Client, who shall be responsible for payment thereof, unless notified otherwise. The Client is represented by a person with authority to financially commit to the scope of work herein and acknowledges that the person signing has read and understands the enclosed General Conditions. 2 Billing requirements, including backup documentation, should be mutually agreed upon and indicated here. Subsequent additions or changes should likewise be mutually agreed upon and submitted in writing with appropriate authorization.
3 Converse has been informed by the Client that this is a prevailing wage project for geotechnical services as determined by local Labor Code Sections 1770-1780.
374
4141 E. Inland Empire Blvd., Suite 250, Ontario, CA 91764 T:( 909) 481-5750 F: (909) 481-5757 September 18, 2024
Robert Eisenbeisz
Kimberly Young, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Ave.

Fontana, CA 92335
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAN

SEVAINE TRAIL INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE
Dear Robert and Kimberly,
On behalf of David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA), we are pleased to provide you with a proposal for landscape architectural services for the development of interpretive signage (including text and graphics) to be placed near the future trailhead at Banyan Street. This information will be 'fabricationready' such that it can be provided to a sign manufacturer in order to fabricate the desired signage.

At this time, we anticipate preparing three total sign graphics at maximum dimensions of 24” x 18”. The first sign will include a colored plan view of the trailhead at Banyan Street (prepared as part of this scope) indicating the location of three unique interpretive signs with content that focuses on the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR). This first sign may include overview information about the SBKR such as its diet, reproduction and life span.

A second sign may include habitat information (Alluvial Floodplains, with an emphasis on Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub plant community and associated flora species) and the SBKR’s conservation status (endangered). A third sign may highlight population trends, threats and context to the project site. We anticipate that these signs may be located at either end of the mitigation area and perhaps one at a mid-way point. No more than three mockup signs will be prepared for review by the City. The following summarizes the steps needed:
• Prepare Draft Text of Signage Content
• Prepare Draft Mock Signage Layout with Text and Images (Two Revisions Maximum) • Prepare Final Signage Layout (One Revision Maximum)
• Provide Fabrication-Ready Artwork (High-Resolution Digital File Delivery) o Exact location of signs shall be per already-prepared civil plans (Delta 3 Set) for the project unless otherwise directed by the City. Sign manufacturer shall provide construction details for sign frame, installation, and attachment to the contractor for 375
September 18, 2024
City of Fontana
Interpretive Signage for the SBKR

4141 E. Inland Empire Blvd., Suite 250, Ontario, CA 91764 T:( 909) 481-5750 F: (909) 481-5757 fabrication and installation. (DEA recommends utilizing Fossil Graphics or approved equal).

The interpretive signs may contain some or all of the following elements: text, maps, photographs, drawings, and if available historical information or photographs related to the mitigation area. Please note that in most instances, we will need to purchase a license to use photographs or other graphics such that we have included those anticipated fees in our reimbursable expenses.

Revisions and/or meetings beyond those stated above are subject to additional fee.

DEA proposes a fee of $16,805 in addition to $600 in reimbursables (estimate only). Invoices will be due and payable within 30 days and will be sent monthly based upon the percentage of work completed. Government fees, mileage, delivery costs such as Federal Express charges and plotting / reproduction services, and costs for online stock photos are considered reimbursable fees and will be billed to you at cost plus 15%. Any service requested which does not fall within the scope of services listed, or any duplication of work due to changes desired by the City, will be performed on an “Extra Services” basis and negotiated accordingly. This proposed fee shall be valid for 90 days from the date of this letter.

DEA would be pleased to assist the City of Fontana on this project and thank you once again for your consideration of our qualifications. We can begin the work immediately following an approved change order and a notice to proceed. We look forward to discussing this proposal with you.

DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Kim S. Rhodes, L.A. 3867 Rachel Wells
Vice President Project Landscape Designer

376
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0467 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: V. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Engineering
SUBJECT:

Approve Measure I Five-Year Capital Project Needs Analysis for Fiscal Years 2026/2027 - 2030/2031 RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 2025-089, adopting the Fiscal Years 2026/2027 - 2030/2031 Measure I FiveYear Capital Project Needs Analysis (CPNA).

COUNCIL GOALS:
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by maintaining and improving the city's existing infrastructure.
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by focusing on relief of traffic congestion.
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by utilizing Measure-I Funds wisely.

DISCUSSION:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is responsible for administering the San Bernardino County Measure I Program in which projects receive funding through Local Pass-through Program or Major Streets Program. The City of Fontana receives and utilizes funds through the two (2) Measure I Programs for transportation-related projects.

The Capital Project Needs Analysis (CPNA) list identifies the projects that will be funded by the Major Streets program with a five-year projection. Annually, SBCTA requires local jurisdictions to complete an update of these five-year programs identifying the projects to be funded. Projects include major roadway improvements such as Foothill Boulevard Widening (Hemlock to Almeria Avenues), Citrus Avenue Modifications at SR-210, Etiwanda Avenue at Slover Avenue Intersection Widening, and Westgate Improvements at Cherry Avenue. The use of Major Streets Program funds in the Measure I Program requires funds from the local Development Impact Fee to match at a ratio of 32.1%.

The projects named in the CPNA list are identified independently from the Local Pass-Through Program List, referred to as the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) List that was approved by the City Council on July 22, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™377
File #: 25-0467 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: V. Category: Consent Calendar
Under the Measure I Program, there are two areas of funding for projects: the Local Pass-Through Program identified as Fund 246 and the Major Streets Program identified as Fund 245. The FiveYear Local Pass-Through Program was approved by the City Council on July 22, 2025.

The Measure I Major Streets Program is reimbursed by SBCTA as work is completed. The required

32.1% match by the City will ultimately be funded by Development Impact Fees. The budgets for the projects listed on the CPNA will be established as each individual project moves forward, providing full funding details.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™378
1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-089

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA

ADOPTING THE MEASURE I FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL PROJECT NEEDS
ANALYSIS FOR FISAL YEARS 2026/2027 - 2030/2031.

WHEREAS, San Bernardino County voters approved passage of Measure I in November 2004, authorizing the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority to impose a one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino; and WHEREAS, revenue from the tax can only be used for transportation improvement and traffic management programs authorized in the Expenditure Plans set forth in Ordinance No. 04-01 of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Strategic Plan requires each local jurisdiction applying for revenue from the Local Street Program to annually adopt and update a Five-Year Capital Project Needs Analysis.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fontana, that the Measure I Five-Year Capital Project Needs Analysis for Fiscal Years 2026/2027 through 2030/2031, attached to this resolution as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9
th day of September, 2025.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
____________________________________
City Attorney
I, Germaine Key, City Clerk of the City of Fontana, and Ex-Officio Clerk of the City Council, 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 9 th day of
September, 2025, by the following vote to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
379
Resolution No. 2025-089
2 of 2
City Clerk of the City of Fontana
Mayor of the City of Fontana
ATTEST:

City Clerk
380
Nexus Project Cost 14,377,000$
Dev. Loan? No5-Year Advance? NoPublic Share: 67.9%Dev. Share: 32.10% Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FUTURE PA&EDTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&ETotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROWTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONSTTotal Cost: $746,393.87Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 506,136.85 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 240,257.02 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
*Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of Fontana
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
Widen Sierra Ave. from Foothill Blvd to Baseline Ave. (37603281)Current Total Project Cost Estimate:$21,343,063.00Total Measure I Request:$506,136.85 (Summation of Measure I)
Comments:
381
2 Nexus Project Cost 16,522,000$
Dev. Loan? No5-Year Advance? NoPublic Share: 67.9%Dev. Share: 32.10% Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FUTURE PA&EDTotal Cost: $413,614.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 280,844.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 132,770.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&ETotal Cost: $3,430,000.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 2,328,970.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 1,101,030.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROWTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONSTTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Comments:
*Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Total Measure I Request:$2,609,814.00
(Summation of Measure I)
$4,230,000.00
Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of Fontana
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
Widen Foothill Blvd from Hemlock to Almeria. (37603333)Current Total Project Cost Estimate:
382
2 Nexus Project Cost 9,643,000$
Dev. Loan? No5-Year Advance? NoPublic Share: 67.9%Dev. Share: 32.10% Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FUTURE PA&EDTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&ETotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROWTotal Cost: $452,195.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 307,040.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 145,155.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONSTTotal Cost: $10,888,071.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 5,256,598.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 2,485,077.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
OTHER $ 3,146,396.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Comments:
*Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Total Measure I Request:$5,563,638.00
(Summation of Measure I)
$13,147,629.00
Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of Fontana
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
Widen Slover Ave. from Etiwanda Ave to 800' e/o Etiwanda from 2 to 4 lanes (37603350)Current Total Project Cost Estimate:
383
2 Nexus Project Cost 1,195,000$
Dev. Loan? No5-Year Advance? NoPublic Share: 67.9%Dev. Share: 32.10% Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FUTURE PA&EDTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&ETotal Cost: $249,705.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 169,550.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 80,155.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROWTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONSTTotal Cost: $370,295.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 251,430.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 118,865.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Comments:
*Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Total Measure I Request:$420,980.00
(Summation of Measure I)
$620,000.00
Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of Fontana
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
Citrus Ave. widening at SR - 210 (37600039)Current Total Project Cost Estimate:
384
2 Nexus Project Cost 5,625,000$
Dev. Loan? No5-Year Advance? NoPublic Share: 67.9%Dev. Share: 32.10% Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FUTURE PA&EDTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&ETotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROWTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONSTTotal Cost: $1,918,800.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 1,302,865.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 615,935.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Comments:Total Project Cost is for both Cherry Ave (Baseline Ave to So. Highland Ave) and Walnut Ave (i15 to San Servaine). *Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Total Measure I Request:$1,302,865.00
(Summation of Measure I)
$3,900,000.00
Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of Fontana
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
Westgate (37600042). Widen Cherry Ave (Baseline Ave to So. Highland Ave 4 to 6 lanes).Current Total Project Cost Estimate:
385
2 Nexus Project Cost 5,806,000$
Dev. Loan? No5-Year Advance? NoPublic Share: 67.9%Dev. Share: 32.10% Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FUTURE PA&EDTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&ETotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROWTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONSTTotal Cost: $1,981,200.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 1,345,235.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 635,965.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Comments:Total Project Cost is for both Cherry Ave (Baseline Ave to So. Highland Ave) and Walnut Ave (i15 to San Servaine). *Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Total Measure I Request:$1,345,235.00
(Summation of Measure I)
$3,900,000.00
Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of Fontana
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
Westgate (37600042). Widen Walnut Ave (I-15 to San Sevaine 2 to 4 lanes).Current Total Project Cost Estimate:
386
2 Nexus Project Cost 12,857,000$
Dev. Loan? No5-Year Advance? NoPublic Share: 67.9%Dev. Share: 32.10% Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FUTURE PA&EDTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&ETotal Cost: $100,000.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 67,900.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 32,100.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROWTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONSTTotal Cost: $770,000.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 522,830.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 247,170.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Comments:
*Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Total Measure I Request:$590,730.00
(Summation of Measure I)
$870,000.00
Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of Fontana
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
Intersection Widening at Santa Ana Ave. / Juniper Ave. Santa Ave. and Juniper Ave. TS (37600054)Current Total Project Cost Estimate:
387
2 Nexus Project Cost 11,601,000$
Dev. Loan? No5-Year Advance? NoPublic Share: 67.9%Dev. Share: 32.10% Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FUTURE PA&EDTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&ETotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROWTotal Cost: $0.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONSTTotal Cost: $21,608,344.00Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 230,860.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 109,140.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
DEV FEE $ 1,900,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
OTHER $ 11,729,715.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - OTHER $ 7,340,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - MI LOCAL ST $ 298,629.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Comments:This project is being funded by multiple funding sources. Fund 622- Storm Drain Fund has allocated $11,736,715 and Fund 302 - ARPA has allocated $7,340,000 forths project. *Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Total Measure I Request:$230,860.00
(Summation of Measure I)
$21,608,343.00
Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of Fontana
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
Widen Foothill Blvd from Citrus Ave. to Maple Ave. from 4 to 6 lanes. Cypress Storm Drain (37603361)Current Total Project Cost Estimate:
388
2 City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0472 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: W. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Public Works
SUBJECT:

Approve Contract Change Order #2 for the Demolition of Existing Concrete Pad, Installation of New Concrete Pad and Walkway at North Tamarind Park Project (SB-116-PW-23).

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Order #2 with Western State Builders, Inc. in the amount of $147,153.37 for the Demolition of Existing Concrete Pad, Installation of New Concrete Pad and Walkway at North Tamarind Park Project (SB-116-PW-23).

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by maintaining and improving the city's existing infrastructure.
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.

DISCUSSION:

On June 13, 2023, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Western State Builders, Inc. in the amount of $249,229.00 for the purchase and installation of three (3) Metal Picnic Shelters and authorized a 10% contingency in the amount of $24,923.00. One (1) picnic shelter was to be installed at Miller Park and the other two (2) picnic shelters would be installed North Tamarind Park.

In November 2023, Change Order No. 1 was executed to delete the purchase and installation of the picnic shelter at Miller Park to minimize areas of potential homeless gathering. This Change Order resulted in a net contract decrease of $84,884.00.

Change Order #2 in the amount of $147,153.37 adds the demolition and removal of the existing picnic gazebo at North Tamarind Park, which was not part of the original project scope of work when the bid was issued. Additionally, this change order covers the installation of new concrete pads and walkways, and the demolition and replacement of deteriorated concrete walkways to ensure compliance with ADA standards and path of travel requirements. These additional contract additions were deemed necessary after the contract was awarded to ensure the overall success of the project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total contract amount, after incorporating the approved Contract Change Orders, is $311,498.37.

The original 10% contingency remains $24,923.00. Following this adjustment, the fiscal impact related to the approval of this change order is $62,269.37, which is available in FY25/26 in project strings 37200005-302-O-8313 and 37200005-302-P-8313.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™389
File #: 25-0472 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: W. Category: Consent Calendar
MOTION:

Approve Staff Recommendation
City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™390
Project: Change Proposal No: 002 R1
Bid No:

Contractor: Western State Builders
2141 Orange Ave. Date: 7/24/2025
Escondido, CA 92029
To: Due Date:

Attachments:

Net Amount of This Proposed Change (Add) DEDUCT (NO CHANGE) * $147,153.37 Net Change in Working Days Due to the Proposed Change (ADD) DEDUCT (NO CHANGE) 13 *Attach Detailed Cost Breakdown
Contractor:

By: Date 7/24/2025
Architect's Review Owner's Review
 Recommend Acceptance  Accept
 Do Not Recommend Acceptance  Do Not Accept
 No Recommendation - Price Marginal
 Other:

By: By:

Date: Date:

Combination of Cor 2: Demolition and removal of 1 shade structure and footings $19,680.37 And COR 3: Installation of Concrete 3200SF $127,473.00
Total combine amount $147,153.37
Change Order Proposal Request
(TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR)
(NOT A CHANGE ORDER)
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:

North Tamarind Park
391
Project: North Tamarind Park
Date: 7/24/2025
Contractor: Western State Builders
Date Rate Hours Ext. Costs
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Unit $/Unit Qty Ext. Costs
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0% $0.00
$0.00
Costs
$19,680.37
$127,473.00
$147,153.37
0% $0.00
$147,153.37
$147,153.37
Bond Cost 0.0% $0.00
$147,153.37
Change Order Proposal Request - Cost Breakdown
Labor (General Contractor Self-Performed) - attach labor rate sheets Material & Equipment (General Contractor Self-Performed) - attach invoices Subcontractor/Supplier Cost Summary - attach supporting proposals/invoices Labor Subtotal
Material & Equipment Subtotal
Subtotal Contractor (Self-Performed) Costs:

Overhead/Profit on Direct Costs:

Request for Change Order Total Cost:

Sub / Supplier Subtotal
Subcontractor / Supplier Costs:

General Contractor Total Costs & Total Subcontractor/Supplier Costs Item Description
COR concrete and flatwork Installation 1
General Contractor Total Costs:

General Contractor O/P on Sub/Supplier Costs:

Trade Description
Unit
1 CORs
COR 2 Demolition
392
393
394
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0476 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: X. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Engineering
SUBJECT:

Final Acceptance of the Downtown Parking Structure Project (SQ-24-DE-23-01) RECOMMENDATION:

Accept as complete the work performed by Bomel Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of the Downtown Parking Structure Project (SQ-24-DE-23-01).

COUNCIL GOALS:
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by focusing on relief of traffic congestion.
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by creating and promoting community through people, parks, and programs.

DISCUSSION:

On June 13, 2023, City Council awarded the Design-Build Contract for the Downtown Parking Structure Project to Bomel Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $11,909,993.00, which included $900,000.00 in City-Owned Contingency. On September 10, 2024, City Council approved the increase in City-Owned Contingency in the amount of $800,000.00, increasing the total contract amount to $12,709,993.00 and the City-Owned Contingency to $1,700,000.00. The project was constructed within the existing parking lot of the City’s Human Resources Department Building located at 8491 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335, and consists of a 4.5-tier parking structure with 323 parking stalls. The intent of the structure is to serve as both public and employee parking for the Civic Campus, as well as the planned Downtown area which is to be revitalized.

Bomel Construction Company, Inc. substantially completed the construction of the project, and the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on June 5, 2025. The final contract amount is $12,309,796.00, using $1,499,803.00 of the $1,700,000.00 City-Owned Contingency. All work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City of Fontana.

FISCAL IMPACT:

As part of the action to accept the construction of the Downtown Parking Structure Project (#37600035) as complete, the City will take over the operation and maintenance of this public infrastructure. Appropriate funding for the maintenance work is included in the FY 2025-26 revised budget under the Public Works Department, Support Services Division.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/3/2025
powered by Legistar™395
File #: 25-0476 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: X. Category: Consent Calendar
MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/3/2025
powered by Legistar™396
N
0 1 inch = 600 feet
600 1200

PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT

PROJECT LOCATION
397
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0477 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: Y. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Engineering
SUBJECT:

Final Acceptance of the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I (Fire Annex; SQ-25-DE-23-01) RECOMMENDATION:

Accept as complete the work performed by PENTA Building Group, LLC for the construction of the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I (Fire Annex; SQ-25-DE-23-01).

COUNCIL GOALS:
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.
· To invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by creating and promoting community through people, parks, and programs.

DISCUSSION:

On October 10, 2023, City Council awarded the Design-Build Contract for the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I (Fire Annex) to PENTA Building Group, LLC in the amount of $25,000,000.00, which included $858,357.00 in City-Owned Contingency. On January 28, 2025, City Council approved the increase in City-Owned contingency in the amount of $1,500,000.00, increasing the total contract amount to $26,500,000.00 and the City-Owned Contingency to $2,358,357.00.

The project is located at 17001 Upland Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. The project consists of the demolition of the existing one-story Fire Administration Building and constructing a two-story municipal building with a parking structure on the first floor and office spaces on the second floor.

Each floor has a footprint of approximately 30,000 square feet. The intent of the building is to serve as office space for City staff, as well as both public and employee parking for the Civic Campus.

PENTA Building Company, LLC substantially completed the construction of the project, and the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on July 31, 2025. The final contract amount is $26,499,849.02, using $2,358,296.02 of the $2,358,357.00 in City-Owned Contingency. All work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City of Fontana.

FISCAL IMPACT:

As part of the action to accept the construction of the City Hall Renovation Project - Phase I (Fire Annex) (#37600011) as complete, the City will take over the operation and maintenance of this public infrastructure. Appropriate funding for the maintenance work is included in the FY 2025-26 revised budget under the Public Works Department, Support Services Division.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/3/2025
powered by Legistar™398
File #: 25-0477 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: Y. Category: Consent Calendar
MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/3/2025
powered by Legistar™399
N
0 1 inch = 600 feet
600 1200

CITY HALL RENOVATION PROJECT - PHASE I

PROJECT LOCATION
CITY HALL RENOVATION PROJECT - PHASE I 400
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0478 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: Z. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Police Department
SUBJECT:

Approve the Single/Sole Source equipment and installation of replacement engine for the Fontana Police Department Airship AS350B2 (N641EG)
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve and authorize the City Manager or his assigned designee to approve the purchase and installation of a replacement engine for the City’s police helicopter utilizing Purchasing Policy and Procedure Manual 3.1.5 Non-Competitive Proposal - Single/Sole Source.

Approve purchase in the amount of $872,827.50 from Federal Asset Seizure (Fund 223).

COUNCIL GOALS:
⦁ Improve public safety by increasing operational efficiency, visibility and availability. ⦁ Improve public safety by maximizing fire and emergency medical service resources. 1 Concentrate on Inter-governmental relations by working cooperatively with neighboring jurisdictions.

DISCUSSION:

The Police Department’s helicopter is a critical public safety resource used for aerial patrol, suspect apprehension, search-and-rescue, and disaster response. The current engine has reached the end of its manufacturer-recommended service life and is due for replacement to maintain FAA compliance and operational safety standards.

FAA and SAFRAN often allow for extensions to engines based on service records and conditions of current engines. As of late, FAA has been denying all extensions due to Module 4 of the 5-module engine system of the Air Bus AS350B2 helicopter. Despite this current trend, under advisement and the recommendation of SAFRAN, the extension was applied for several months ago. Recently the FAA unfortunately denied the extension. The current remaining time on the helicopter only allows for 1 flight per week, placing a higher use on the remaining aircraft in the fleet. Within 4 months, the AS350B2 engine will be timed out and no longer air worthy under the current conditions.

There is an option to replace Module 4. This will cost approximately $109,742.50. Upon completion the aircraft would need to be resubmitted to FAA for an extension of the engine. Two of the four remaining modules have a service life of 5 months to one year (absent the extension). It is again the opinion of SAFRAN that the extension may be denied. This would require additional costs in the near future, including duplicate costs for removal of old modules and reinstallation of the new modules at City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™401
File #: 25-0478 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: Z. Category: Consent Calendar
an estimated cost of $610,000, bringing the cost of the (3) modules to $719,742.50.

It is under good advisement from Helisafe, SAFRAN, and the FPD Air Support personnel that complete replacement of all modules is the most efficient way to guarantee safe and full compliance with the FAA in a timely manner. This will also reduce the potential for future cost with the engine and excessive maintenance cost for redundant removal and installation replacing the modules over time.

The total cost of one-time replacement of all modules that will all time out within the next two years is $872,827.50.

Timely engine replacement will minimize downtime, prevent costly emergency repairs, and extend the overall service life of all aircraft in the fleet.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact associated with the approval of this item is $872,828 and is not included in the FY25/26 Operating Budget. Funding will be requested during the FY25/26 First Quarter Report from Fund 223 (Federal Asset Seizure) to budget # 22340233.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™402
403

CITY OF FONTANA

NON-COMPETITIVE SOURCE SELECTION JUSTIFICATION
Contract/Req. No.: Amendment No.: Requestor: Date:

Pre-Tax Amount: $ Tax: $ Freight: $ Total Amount: $
Vendor Name:

FUNDING SOURCE AND AUTHORIZATION (check as applicable)
City Resources Gov’t Grant Other
Certifications: Debarment4 Anti-Lobby5
Certificate(s)
Attached
Not
Applicable
Fund: Org Account:

Equipment Screening6: Yes Not Applicable Title Vests: - Purchase Description:

1. Source Selection - Competition is impracticable (Check appropriate box):

UNAVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. No competitive advantage would be gained from competitive pricing, such as when equipment, goods, materials, supplies, personal property, or services are unique and are only available from one source. (Explain below. Include all contacts made to verify the sole source or single source situation.) COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT. This product or service required is being purchased under a cooperative purchasing agreement. (Explain below).

SAME PRICE PURCHASED BY ANOTHER PUBLIC AGENCY. The product or service required was awarded a bid by another public agency that has purchasing procedures substantially similar to those that the city would have been required to use, and the vendor offers the same price(s) to the city that it offered to the other agency.

EMERGENCY. This product or service required is due to an emergency, determined by the City Manager, which could not have been anticipated and critical need precludes any form of competition. (Purchases more than $100,000 must be presented at the next regular City Council Meeting for ratification by the City Council. Please attach supporting documentation and approval from City Manager).

OTHER REASON(S). (Explain below).

Detail information to support above justification(s):
4 Applies to purchases under a Federal Grant equal to or more than $25,000 5 Applies to purchases under a Federal Grant equal to or more than $100,000 6 Applies to equipment purchases under a Federal Grant equal to or more than $10,000 404
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0480 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: AA. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

City Manager's Office
SUBJECT:

Award bids for the Fontana Experience Network (FXN Studio) for Design, Build and Installation.

RECOMMENDATION:

Award bid and authorize City Manager to execute an agreement with Devlin Design Group for Stage Studio Design and Installation in the amount of $399,903.84 and authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $39,990.38 (Bid No. CM-25-168-SP).

Award and authorize City Manager to execute agreement with TV Pro Gear for Systems Design, Integration, and Installation in the amount of $468,860.00 and authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $46,886 (Bid No. CM-25-168-SP).

COUNCIL GOALS:
⦁ Increase citizen involvement by promoting healthy lifestyle opportunities to residents of all ages.
⦁ Increase citizen involvement by providing the community with information on development projects.
1 Practice sound fiscal management by living within our means while investing in the future.

DISCUSSION:

Fontana Experience Network (FXN), formerly known as KFON, is the official public channel operated by the City of Fontana, delivering civic programming and live government meetings to residents via cable and online platforms. As part of the City’s broader modernizations efforts, FXN is expanding its studio and video production capabilities.

The studio will support live and recorded government programming, including public meetings, interviews, community updates, and special programming. Additionally, the project will include the design and installation of a control room, video editing suite, voice-over room, podcast set up, lifestyle talk show set up, and a green screen setup for high quality production value across a variety of formats. The control room will serve as the central hub for managing audio and video feeds.

On May 7, 2025, City of Fontana released the RFP for design, build and installation for the studio (CM-25-168-SP).

Four (4) firms submitted bids, namely, Devlin Design Group, LLC, TV Pro Gear, FX Design Group, City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™405
File #: 25-0480 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: AA. Category: Consent Calendar
and Arc Systems. The proposals ranged from $271,950 to $468,860.

The proposals received in response to RFP CM-25-168-SP were evaluated and scored against established criteria, including experience with similar government and broadcast studio installations, technical approach and quality of equipment, pricing and overall value to the city, implementation timeline and readiness, and references and support plan.

Following a comprehensive review of all four submittals, staff determined that separating the scope of work between two firms would provide the city with the highest overall value and ensure the successful delivery of the project.

Devlin Design Group, LLC achieved the highest scoring proposal in the category of Scenic Design and Installation services, demonstrating exceptional strength in government and broadcast set design, innovative scenic concepts, and user-friendly layouts that maximize flexibility for multiple program formats. TV Pro Gear achieved the highest scoring proposal in the category of Systems Design, Integration, and Installation services, offering the strongest technical proposal with proven turnkey solutions, deep knowledge of broadcast technology, and a well-defined implementation plan that minimizes downtime and risk.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total estimated cost of the Fontana Experience Network Studio project is $955,641. Of this amount, $250,000 has been allocated from account number 10510401. The remaining balance of $705,641 will be requested from the PEG Channel Fund Balance as part of the First Quarter Budget Review.

MOTION:

Staff recommends approval.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™406
Firm Score Rank
Devlin Design Group 3.73 1.00
Denver, Colorado
TV Pro 3.60 2.00
Burbank, California
FX Design Group 2.70 3.00
Orlando, Florida
ARC 1.55 4.00
Burbank, California
CM-25-168-SP
Bid Summary
FXN Design, Build and Installation Services
407
408
FXN Studio
City of Fontana, California
Initial Design Concepts / Best Option v01
409

FXN STUDIO DESIGN
Wide Overall Design Concept
© 2025 DDG, Inc.

Best Tier Version
410
© 2025 DDG, Inc.

FXN STUDIO DESIGN
Lifestyle Talk Show Setup – Initial Wide Overall Design Concept Best Tier Version 411

FXN STUDIO DESIGN
Podcast Setup – Initial Wide Overall Design Concept
© 2025 DDG, Inc.

Best Tier Version
412

FXN STUDIO DESIGN
Main Monitor Stand Up Presentation Area – Initial Wide Overall Design Concept © 2025 DDG, Inc.

Best Tier Version
413

FXN STUDIO DESIGN
Right Monitor Stand Up Presentation Area – Initial Wide Overall Design Concept © 2025 DDG, Inc.

Best Tier Version
414

FXN STUDIO DESIGN
Left Monitor Stand Up Presentation Area – Initial Wide Overall Design Concept © 2025 DDG, Inc.

Best Tier Version
415

FXN STUDIO DESIGN
Left Monitor Stand Up Presentation Area – Initial Wide Overall Design Concept © 2025 DDG, Inc.

Best Tier Version
416

FXN STUDIO DESIGN
Wide Overall Design Concept
© 2025 DDG, Inc.

Best Tier Version
417
5: 2: 1: Green Room Sound Booth Sound Booth Lifestyle Talk Show Setup Podcast Setup Green Screen Setup Control Booth These documents cannot be used, reproduced or copied in any manner without written consent of DDG. Please contact DDG prior to use to obtain written verification - Unauthorized use will be persued under Federal Copyright Law.

These documents contain Copyrighted proprietary and confidential information belonging to Devlin Design Group, Inc. (DDG). These documents cannot be used, reproduced or copied in any manner without written consent of DDG. DDG has licensed the images contained herein for display or use by licensed parties only and prohibits any other use, copying, reproduction, distribution, use or performance in public, in whole or part. Federal copyright law provides severe civil penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, exhibition or use of copyrighted design materials. 4: 3: Date:05/27/2025 of 1 Drawn: KD Copyright 2025 Devlin Design Group, LLC. Scale: DEVLIN DESIGN GROUP 1 Sheet Project: FXN

CITY OF FONATANA FXN STUDIO SET LOCATION PLAN
DEVLIN DESIGN GROUP, LLC.
100 Easy Street, Unit #815, Carefree, AZ 85377
These documents cannot be used, reproduced or copied in any manner without written consent of DDG. Please contact DDG prior to use to obtain written verification - Unauthorized use will be persued under Federal Copyright Law.

Tele: 970-349-5836 Fax: 866-770-6382 WebSite: www.ddgtv.com These documents cannot be used, reproduced or copied in any manner without written consent of DDG. DDG has licensed the images contained herein for display or use by Licensed parties only and prohibits any other use, copying, reproduction, distribution, use or performance in public, in whole or part. These documents cannot be used, reproduced or copied in any manner without written consent of DDG. DDG has licensed the images contained herein for display or use by Licensed parties only and prohibits any other use, copying, reproduction, distribution, use or performance in public, in whole or part. DRAWING SYMBOL QTY PART NUMBER BRIGHTLINE EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE Brightline SeriesONE L1.3X-VW-H, Horizontal with Intensifier, CS/MF 3 7 Brightline Pup/2 VW Fresnel with barn door and CC, SC LIFESTYLE SET WITH STANDUP - GOOD Brightline SeriesONE L1.3X-VW-V, Vertical with Intensifier, CS/MF 1 TIER - GOOD
418
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0482 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: AB. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Police Department
SUBJECT:

Award the Purchase of GARMOR X5 APC UMG Armored Vehicle RECOMMENDATION:

1. Award bid to GArmor Hmmwv Land, Air & Sea of Las Vegas, NV for the purchase of a new X5 armored vehicle in the amount of $516,561.41 and registration and license fees.

2. Approve an appropriation in the amount of $516,562 from Federal Asset Seizure (Fund 223).

COUNCIL GOALS:
⦁ Operate in a businesslike manner by creating a memorable customer experience with every interaction.
⦁ Operate in a businesslike manner by improving services through the effective use of technology.

DISCUSSION:

The Police Department’s Lenco Bearcat armored vehicle is a critical public safety resource that enhances the safety of both police officers and citizens. It is used in response to barricaded suspects, hostage situations, active assaulters, suicidal subjects, and armed suspects in a vehicle.

Patrol and SWAT officers commonly use the armored vehicle and must be able to rely on the vehicle to operate safely and effectively to bring dangerous situations to a safe resolve. Our current Lenco Bearcat is over 13 years old and is experiencing negative issues form heavy usage over a long period of time. The flooring in the rear of the bearcat is beginning to tear up, causing a tripping hazard. The ballistic windows are beginning to degrade. The engine has had multiple issues which have caused it to become unreliable over the past few years.

Fontana Police Department received three (3) proposal to replace the current vehicle based on the department’s criteria of technology, suspension, road capability, customizable, reliability, versatility, personnel safety, and delivery time.

Since the Fontana Police Department’s Lenco Bearcat was purchased, some advancements have been made in the production of armored vehicles. Several of these advancements and improvements can be found in the X5 APC UMG, an armored vehicle produced in Las Vegas, Nevada by GARMOR.

Some of these improvements and advancements include better ballistic protection, engine upgrades, maneuverability and off-road performance.

A newer, more reliable and effective armored vehicle will enhance officer and public safety in some of City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™419
File #: 25-0482 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: AB. Category: Consent Calendar
A newer, more reliable and effective armored vehicle will enhance officer and public safety in some of the most dangerous situations that police officers face.

Terradyne Armored Vehicles Inc. provided an armored vehicle quote of $248,800. However, this quote does not include upgrades and is on a smaller vehicle chassis. Expected upgrades would push the cost of the vehicle to over $420,000. Terradyne Armored Vehicles Inc. is based out of Ontario, Canada and a lead time of at least nine 9 months.

Lenco also provided a quote for an armored vehicle with a smaller vehicle chassis. This quote was $334,011 and does not include upgrades as well, that would put the cost at over $410,000. Lenco’s lead time is anywhere from 12 to 18 months.

Fontana Police Department is recommending awarding the bid from GARMOR that meets all the criteria of the department that includes all upgrades and GARMOR has a 30-day lead for the X5 APC vehicle.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Total fiscal impact associated with the approval of this item is $516,562 and it’s not included in the FY25/26 Operating Budget. Funds will be requested with the First Quarter Budget Report from the Federal Asset Seizure Fund #223 in the amount of $516,562 to be appropriated to Org # 22340373.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™420

GARMOR HMMWV LAND, AIR &
SEA
Business Number 305-849-5826
11700 West Charleston Blvd
170-406
Las Vegas NV. 89135
https://www.GArmor.us
[email protected]

INVOICE
INVOO140
DATE
05/13/2025
DUE
On Receipt
PO #
FPDSW2025-4

BALANCE DUE
USD $474,999.00

BILL TO
Edward Stewart, Sergeant & Mike Bernath, operations. Fontana police department Edward Stewart, Sergeant
Fontana Police Department
Fontana California
17005 Upland Ave Fontana CA. 92335
(909) 350-7725
[email protected]

DESCRIPTION RATE QTY DISCOUNT AMOUNT
GARMOR APC X5
Armored APC Swat vehicle see attached spec.
$549,999.00 1 -$75,000.00 $474,999.00
Payment Info

PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS
GArmor Hmmwv Land, Air & Sea
11700 W Charleston Blvd. 170-406
Las Vegas, NV 89135
305-849-5826
Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
11730 W Charleston Blvd
TOTAL $474,999.00
BALANCE DUE USD $474,999.00
421
Las Vegas, NV 89135
702-877-7720
Routing number 321270742
Account number 2435584699

BY CHECK
GArmor Hmmwv Land, Air & Sea
422
Are you in the market for a reliable, durable
vehicle that can handle any situation? Look
no further than GArmor Armored Humvee’s
& APC! Trusted by the military for their
ruggedness and versatility, GArmor
Humvees & APC’s are built to withstand the
toughest conditions and keep you safe on
the road. Our armored vehicles come
equipped with advanced armor plating and
other protective features to ensure your
safety in any situation. Whether you're
driving through rough terrain or facing
potential threats, GArmor has you covered.

In addition to their impressive protective
capabilities, GArmor vehicles are also stylish
and versatile. With a range of customization
options and advanced features, GArmor has
a lineup to fit your specific needs and
preferences.

Don't settle for less when it comes to your
safety and peace of mind. Invest in a
GArmor humvee or APC and experience the
ultimate combination of protection and
performance.
2025 GArmor APC X5
See attached
423
Item: Product # Qty
1 1
1 Diesel Engine, 6.7L Turbo BCDLEN 1
4-Door Configuration BC4DR 1
(1) 7" Vertical GunPort Upgrade BCGP7 8
360 Camera System BC360DEG 1
Rear A/C - Heating System: High Capacity Upgrade BCHACUP 1 Hydraulic Front Mounted Receiver with Ram Post and Plate BCHYDRAM 1 Draco Prep Package BCDRACOPREP 1
VSP Style Low Profile & Scene Lighting Pkg BCVSPL 1
Roof Mounted Remote Control Spot Light - LED BCSLLED 2
High Intensity Driving Lights in Front Bumper BCHIDL 1
Fender Intersection Lights BCFIL 1
Take Down Light w/ IR (Bumper Mounted) BCTDL-IR 1
AC-DC Power Inverter w/Auto Eject BCINV2000 1
Armored Oil Pan Guard BCAOPG 1
Intercom System; Inside to Outside BCINT 1
Weapons Mount BCWMT 6
Break and Rake BCBAR 1
Door Pivoting Ram Head BCDPRH 1
Police Cupola w/ Barn Doors BCPTUR 1
Police Cupola w/ Glass & Barn Doors BCPCUPOLA 1
1-Plasma Rope BCPLAS1 1
Ballistic Skip Round Shield BCBSRS 1
Front Skid Pan BCFSP 1
DEF Tank Guard; Diesel Engine Only BCDEFG 1
5 Pack Mag Kit BCMAGKIT 1
Light Weight Assault Litter BCLWAL 1
BearCat UV Ray Protective Cover BCUVPC 1
UV Protective Window Covers BCWC 1
Ford F550 Service Manuals BCFMNL 1
Ford Ignition Key 104649 1

22.5 Spare Tire, No Run-Flat BC225ST 1 $ 3,400.00 $ 3,400.00 Discount DISC $ (15,000.00) $ (15,000.00)
Subtotal {IS} $ 334,011.00 $ 334,011.00
$ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00
$ 995.00 $ 995.00
$ 595.00 $ 595.00
$ 975.00 $ 975.00
$ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
$ 2,428.00 $ 2,428.00
$ 2,820.00 $ 2,820.00
$ 1,713.00 $ 1,713.00
$ 1,536.00 $ 1,536.00
$ 24,500.00 $ 24,500.00
$ 33,585.00 $ 33,585.00
$ 1,006.00 $ 1,006.00
$ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00
$ 1,880.00 $ 1,880.00
G2 Pro Package G2PRO $ 84,701.00 $ 84,701.00
Standard Options:

Paint Color: Lusterless Black 18-342
LED Lights: Red & Blue
Unit Price Extension
Lenco BearCat BC55003 $ 264,310.00 $ 264,310.00

424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0485 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: AC. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Public Works
SUBJECT:

Final Acceptance for the Demolition of 8443 Nuevo Avenue Project (PW-25-64-CC).

RECOMMENDATION:

Accept as complete the work performed by Resource Environmental Inc. for the Demolition Project (PW-25-64-CC) of 8443 Nuevo Avenue and approve the final amount of $118,432.34.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Invest in the City’s infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, etc.) by providing for the development of new infrastructure.

DISCUSSION:

On December 19, 2024, the City awarded the demolition contract to Resource Environmental Inc. in the amount of $73,500.00 for the demolition of 8443 Nuevo Avenue. Project (PW-25-64-CC). There was one (1) contract change order for this project requiring Resource Environmental Inc. to utilize Burrtec Waste Industries for the removal and disposal of all construction and demolition waste totaling $44,932.34. Resource Environmental Inc. completed the project on April 21, 2025. All work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City for the final amount of $118,432.34. This project was necessary as part of the ongoing realization efforts for the downtown Fontana.

The retention money will be released to the contractor thirty-five (35) days after the filing of the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder’s Office if no claims are filed with the City within this period.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this item, the total cost of the demolition is $118,432.34 and the funds were budgeted in FY 2024/25 in the Professional Services Budget 60230000-8130
MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation
City of Fontana Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™432
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0503 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: AD. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Development Services
SUBJECT:

Purchase and Sale Agreement - Aldea Apartments
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Approve a Purchase & Sale Agreement for the purchase of buildings and associated land located at 15186 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana, CA 92335 specifically described as APN 0191-162-40 in the amount of $26,635,000 plus escrow costs and related acquisition fees.

2. Authorize the purchase of that certain Real Property with APN 1110-161-44-0000 (former APN 1110-161-09-0000) comprised of approximately 2.27 acres (“Property”) from Aldea Fontana Foothill, LLC, a California limited liability company.

3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into the Purchase and Sale Agreement and/or any other documents necessary or appropriate to facilitate said purchase on behalf of the City of Fontana.

COUNCIL GOALS:
⦁ Promote economic development by construction of high-quality multi-family housing which also serves to address the affordability needs of this community. ⦁ Promote affordable housing by acquisition, substantial rehabilitation, and professional management of selected multi-family properties as a vehicle to reduce crime and code enforcement activity and to address the affordability needs of this community.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Fontana has been actively addressing the growing demand for affordable and workforce housing. In recent years, we have observed a significant increase in housing needs driven by population growth, economic development, and changes in housing affordability. This demand underscores the necessity of expanding our housing portfolio to support diverse and inclusive community development.

The 78-unit multi-family development located at 15186 Foothill Boulevard represents a strategic opportunity to advance our housing goals. The development’s design and unit mix align with our objective to provide a range of housing options that cater to different income levels and family sizes.

In September 2024, the City Council approved a lease for the subject property, which included an option to acquire. The lease was subsequently executed, and the property is currently being utilized as an affordable housing community. The lease was intended as a placeholder, allowing the city the necessary time to locate acquisition funding. Funding has now been identified and staff is City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™433
File #: 25-0503 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: AD. Category: Consent Calendar
recommending moving immediately forward with the acquisition.

Details of the Purchase Agreement:

1. Purchase Price: The proposed purchase price is $26,635,000 (plus escrow costs), approximately $341,500 per unit.

2. Release of deposits: Concurrent with the execution of the lease, the city released a good faith option deposit in the amount of $500,000. That payment will be applied to the purchase price. In addition, upon execution of the purchase agreement and approval of the pro forma title policy, an additional $3,000,000 will be deposited into escrow and immediately released to the seller, all applicable to the purchase price.

3. Close of Escrow: The balance of the purchase price will be deposited into escrow prior to the anticipated closing, which is currently projected to occur on or before November 6, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact associated with the approval of this item is $26,635,000 plus estimated escrow costs and related acquisition fees of $65,000, for a total cost of acquisition of $26,700,000, and is not currently included in the 2025-26 budget. Additionally, in 2024-25 a non-refundable option payment of $500,000 was previously provided by the Housing Authority and the acquisition cost is being offset by the payment resulting in a net fiscal impact of $26,200,000.

Funding for the acquisition will be provided as follows and included in the 2025-26 First Quarter Budget Status Report:

Fund Account
Recommended
Amount Description
Affordable Housing (Fund 698) 69830299 8420 636,610 Budgeted 69830299 8420 363,390 New Request
Low/Mod Income Housing (Fund 297) 29730299 8420 1,900,008 Budgeted 29730299 8420 99,992 New Request
Capital Reinvestment (Fund 601) 60137699 8330 15,500,000 Parking Structure Measure T (Fund 604) 60437699 8330 7,700,000 Pavemnet Rehab Total 26,200,000
Of the necessary $26.2 million, $2.5 million is already included in the Housing Authority 2025-26 budget. The additional amounts will come from the Parking Structure project ($15.5 million) budgeted in Fund 601 and pavement rehabilitation projects ($7.7 million) budgeted in Fund 604, which will be programmed to be funded by the 2025A Lease Revenue Bond proceeds, and additional funding from the Housing Authority ($463,382).

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation and authorize City Manager to enter into the Purchase and Sale Agreement and to take any other actions necessary to consummate the purchase of the Property.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™434

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-090

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FONTANA,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF REAL
PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS APN 1110-161-44-0000 (FORMER
APN 1110-161-09-0000) – LOCATED AT 15186 FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD – FROM ALDEA FONTANA FOOTHILL, LLC
WHEREAS, the property located at 15186 Foothill Boulevard (the “Property”) was offered for sale; and
WHEREAS, in line with the City of Fontana’s plan to promote economic development by construction of high-quality multi-family housing which also serves to address the affordability needs of this community and to promote affordable housing by acquisition, substantial rehabilitation, and professional management of selected multifamily properties as a vehicle to reduce crime and code enforcement activity and to address the affordability needs of this community; and
WHEREAS, the City and Seller have prepared a purchase and sale agreement, whereby the City will purchase the Property for Twenty-Six Million Six Hundred ThirtyFive Thousand U.S. Dollars ($26,635,000.00).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND FIND AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein to this Resolution by this reference.

Section 2. CEQA Compliance. The City Council finds that approval of the Purchase and Sale Agreement is not subject to the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), as it is not a “project” within the meaning of Section 15378 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (“State CEQA Guidelines”) because it has no potential for resulting in direct or indirect physical change in the environment. This action is also exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question will have a significant effect on the environment. This resolution shall take effect immediately.

Section 3. Approval of the Purchase of Property. The City hereby approves the purchase of the Property from Aldea Fontana Foothill, LLC in the amount of Twenty-Six Million Six Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand U.S. Dollars ($26,635,000.00).

Section 4. Implementation. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to sign and enter into the agreement for the purchase of the Property on behalf of the City and to take any other actions reasonably necessary to implement its terms.
435

Section 5. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9
th day of September, 2025.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
____________________________________
City Attorney
I, Germaine Key, City Clerk of the City of Fontana, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is the actual Resolution duly and regularly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 9 th day of September,
2025, by the following vote to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Fontana
_____________________________________
Mayor of the City of Fontana
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk
436
16498.00100 1

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE

AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
This AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE AND JOINT ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between ALDEA FONTANA FOOTHILL, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Seller”), and CITY OF FONTANA, a municipal corporation (“Buyer”). Buyer and Seller are sometime individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.” The Parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below next to their respective signatures. This Agreement shall be effective on the date, following all legally required notices and hearings, this Agreement has been approved by Buyer’s governing body or its delegated representative and signed by all Parties (“Effective Date”).

A. Seller is owner in fee of certain improved real property commonly known as 15186 Foothill Boulevard, City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, California, identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number 1110-161-44-0000 (former APN 1110-161-09-0000) comprised of approximately 2.27 acres and more particularly described on EXHIBIT “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Real Property”), together with:
(1) All buildings, improvements and other structures presently located on the Real Property (the “Improvements”), together with all rights, benefits, privileges, easements, tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto or appertaining the Real Property; (2) All personal property remaining on the Real Property or in the Improvements as of the Close of Escrow (the “Personal Property”); and (3) The solar system on the Real Property for Six Hundred thirty-five Thousand U.S. Dollars ($635,000) (the “Solar System”);
(4) Any and all of Seller’s right, title and interest in and to any of the following existing at the Closing (i) all assignable warranties and guaranties issued to Seller in connection with the Improvements or the Personal Property, and (iii) all assignable permits, licenses, approvals and authorizations issued by any governmental authority in connection with the Real Property being sometimes herein referred to collectively as the “Intangibles.” The Real Property, Improvements, Personal Property and Intangibles are collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Property.” B. Seller and Buyer are parties to that certain Lease Agreement dated September 11, 2024 (the “Lease”), under which Buyer has leased the Property from Seller.

C. The Lease grants Buyer an option to purchase the Property pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in Lease Article 7 (“Option”). The Parties acknowledge Buyer has duly and properly exercised its Option in accordance with the Lease.

D. Buyer desires to purchase the Property from Seller and Seller desires to sell the Property to Buyer, upon the terms and provisions set forth in this Agreement. 437
2 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above facts and for the covenants and agreements contained herein, the Buyer and Seller agree as follows:

1. PURCHASE AND SALE.

1.1 Property. Buyer agrees to purchase the Property from Seller and Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer, upon the terms and provisions set forth in this Agreement.

1.2 Purchase Price. The total purchase price for the Property is the sum of Twenty-Six Million Six Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand U.S. Dollars ($26,635,000.00) (“Purchase Price”).

1.3 Payment of Purchase Price. The Purchase Price shall be paid as follows:

1.3.1 Concurrently with execution of the Lease, Buyer deposited the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) as Option Consideration. The Parties acknowledge that the Option Consideration was previously paid by Buyer and received by Seller and is nonrefundable to the Buyer except in the event a Seller Breach or Default pursuant to the term of this Agreement. Pursuant to the Lease, the Option Consideration shall be applied to the Purchase Price.

1.3.2 Within two (2) business days of the opening of escrow (as defined below), Buyer shall deposit Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) into Escrow (the “Deposit”). The Deposit shall remain fully refundable to Buyer until Buyer has received and approved the Title Policy pursuant to Section 2.7.2 hereof at which time the Deposit shall be released to Seller. Following said release, the Deposit shall be non-refundable to Buyer except in the event of Seller’s default under this Agreement. The balance of the Purchase Price, plus or minus any applicable prorations pursuant to Section 2.5 hereof, shall be paid through Escrow to Seller at Closing in cash or other immediately available funds.

2. ESCROW.

2.1 Opening of Escrow. Within two (2) business days following the Effective Date, Buyer and Seller shall open an escrow (“Escrow”) with Sheri Keene, First American Title Insurance Company, 4380 La Jolla Village Drive #200, San Diego, CA 92122 (“Escrow Holder”), for the purpose of consummating the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, the Escrow shall be deemed open on the date Escrow Holder shall have received a copy of this Agreement, showing it to be fully executed by Buyer and Seller (“Opening of Escrow” or “Opening Date”). Escrow Holder shall notify Buyer and Seller, in writing, of the Opening Date.

2.2 Escrow Instructions. This Agreement constitutes the joint basic escrow instructions of Buyer and Seller for conveyance of the Property. Buyer and Seller shall execute, deliver and be bound by any reasonable or customary supplemental or additional escrow instructions (“Additional Instructions”) of Escrow Holder or other instruments as may be reasonably required by Escrow Holder in order to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Any such Additional Instructions shall not conflict with, amend or supersede any portions of this Agreement unless expressly consented or agreed to in writing by Buyer and Seller. 438
3 In the event of any conflict or any inconsistency between this Agreement and such Additional Instructions, this Agreement shall govern unless otherwise expressly consented or agreed to in writing by the Parties.

2.3 Close of Escrow. For purposes of this Agreement, “Close of Escrow” or “Closing” means the recordation in Official Records of San Bernardino County, California of a grant deed (“Grant Deed”) in substantially the form and content of EXHIBIT “B” attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference conveying fee title of the Property to Buyer, and the disbursement of funds and distribution of other documents by Escrow Holder, all as described herein. Close of Escrow shall occur on November 6, 2025 (“Closing Date”), provided that Buyer and Seller may, but shall not be obligated to, close the Escrow upon such earlier date as the Buyer and Seller mutually agree to in writing. Buyer and Seller may mutually agree to change the Closing Date by joint written notice to Escrow Holder. The Closing shall be conditioned upon satisfaction, or waiver by the Party for whose benefit the condition exists, of all conditions precedent thereto.

If no notice of termination as provided in Section 7.1 herein is received by Escrow Holder, Escrow Holder is instructed to proceed with Close of Escrow as soon as possible. Rental income as may be due or as may have been prepaid shall be prorated based on the Closing Date.

2.4 Costs of Escrow and Title Policy. Buyer represents to Seller that because of Buyer’s status as a public agency, no documentary transfer tax will be payable with respect to the conveyance contemplated by this Agreement, pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11922. Similarly, no recording fees will be payable with respect to the recording of the Grant Deed pursuant to California Government Code Section 27383. Buyer and Seller shall each pay one-half of all Escrow fees and costs attributable to conveyance of the Property pursuant to this Agreement, including the cost of the Title Policy (defined below). Escrow Holder shall provide an estimated closing costs statements to Buyer and Seller at least three (3) days prior to the Closing Date.

2.5 Property Taxes and Prorations.

2.5.1 The parties acknowledge that Buyer is exercising its Option under the Lease, under which, pursuant to Lease Section 9, Buyer is responsible for payment of all property taxes and utilities applicable to the Property. As such, the parties acknowledge that no proration for utilities, property taxes and other assessments levied and assessed against the Property shall be made at the Close of Escrow. In the event there are any other prorations required, including but not limited to any supplemental tax assessments, the parties shall make best efforts to complete all prorations on the Closing Date by estimating such prorations for purposes of Close of Escrow. Thereafter, each party shall cooperate with each other and complete such prorations within sixty (60) days after Close of Escrow. Any balance owed to a party as a result of such final prorations shall be paid in cash within ten (10) days after completion of such accounting. Notwithstanding anything contained herein or in the Lease, the Parties acknowledge that Buyer is a public entity and is legally exempt from paying ad valorem property taxes and shall not pay any taxes from and after the Closing Date. Additionally, as a tax exempt entity, Buyer shall not prepay or reimburse any portion of real estate taxes to Seller if Seller has prepaid any installment of such real estate taxes within Buyer’s jurisdiction. Buyer shall cooperate, at no cost to Buyer, in any refund request Seller submits to the tax assessor.
439
4 2.6 Deliveries through Escrow. Seller and Buyer shall each deliver to the other through Escrow such documents, instruments and funds consistent with this Agreement as are necessary to consummate the purchase and sale of the Property pursuant to this Agreement, including without limitation, the following:

2.6.1 Deliveries by Seller. Seller shall deliver the following:
(1) the Grant Deed, executed and acknowledged by Seller; (2) a Bill of Sale in the form of EXHIBIT “C”, executed by Seller;
(3) two counterpart copies of the Assignment and Assumption (the “Assignment and Assumption”) in the form of EXHIBIT “D”, executed by Seller; (4) a Certificate of Non-Foreign Status executed by Seller; (5) a California Franchise Tax Board Form 593C, executed by Seller;
(6) a Seller’s Estimated Closing Statement in form and content satisfactory to Seller, executed by Seller;
(7) such evidence of Seller’s authority as the Title Company may reasonably require; and
(8) such other documents and sums, if any, required of Seller under this Agreement and by Escrow Holder in the performance of its contractual or statutory obligations.

2.6.2 Deliveries by Buyer. Buyer shall deliver the following:
(1) the Purchase Price, less the Deposit, together with all sufficient funds to pay all of Buyer’s closing costs, in cash or other immediately available funds, subject to all prorations described herein;
(2) two counterpart copies of the Assignment and Assumption, executed by Buyer;
(3) Certificate of Acceptance in the form attached to the Grant Deed (EXHIBIT “B”);
(4) Buyer Estimated Settlement Statement, in form and content satisfactory to Buyer, executed by Buyer;
(5) such evidence of Buyer’s authority as the Title Company may reasonably require; and
440
5 (6) such other documents and sums, if any, required of Buyer under this Agreement and by Escrow Holder in the performance of its contractual or statutory obligations.

2.6.3 Deliveries Outside of Escrow. Seller and Buyer shall each deliver to the other outside of Escrow such items as are necessary to consummate the purchase and sale of the Property pursuant to this Agreement, including without limitation, the delivery by the Seller to the Buyer of the following to the extent any of the following are in Seller’s possession and have not been previously delivered to Buyer:
(1) permits, warranties and plans and specifications relating to the Property; and
(2) the keys to doors or locks on the Property.

2.6.4 Simultaneous Delivery; Conditions Concurrent. All documents and other items to be delivered at the Closing shall be deemed to have been delivered simultaneously and no individual delivery shall be effective until all such items have been delivered.

2.7 Buyer’s Conditions Precedent to Close of Escrow. The Close of Escrow and Buyer’s obligation to accept title to the Property and pay the Purchase Price are subject to the satisfaction of the following described conditions for Buyer’s benefit (or Buyer’s waiver thereof, it being agreed that Buyer may waive any or all of such conditions) on or prior to the Closing Date;:

2.7.1 Buyer’s Inspections; Due Diligence Period. Under the Lease, the Buyer enjoys access to the Property and may, throughout the Due Diligence Period (defined below) of this Agreement, inspect, examine, survey and undertake all engineering, environmental, or other tests which it may deem necessary or advisable. Seller shall not be liable or responsible for any activities of Buyer within the Property, and Buyershall not allow the filing of any lien or encumbrance upon the Property. Should anyone attempt to file a lien against the Property by reason of Buyer’s activities, Buyer shall have the same canceled and discharged of record within ten (10) business days after the filing thereof. Buyer hereby indemnifies and agrees to hold Seller harmless from and against any and all liens which may arise as a result of Buyer’s activities within the Property and against any and all claims for death or injury to persons or damage to properties arising out of Buyer’s Due Diligence activities prior to the Closing. This indemnity shall survive any termination of this Agreement and shall survive the Closing. The “Due Diligence Period” shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire at 5:00 p.m., California time, on the date which is five (5) days after the Effective Date. The Buyer’s obligation to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the “Transactions”) is subject to and conditioned upon Buyer’s approval, deemed approval or waiver of the right to approve of the following prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period:

2.7.2 Title and Survey Review.
441
6 (1) The parties hereby agree that at Closing, Seller shall convey and transfer to Buyer such fee simple marketable title to the Property as will enable First American Title Insurance Company, 1250 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 200, Corona, CA 92879, Attn: Terrell Crutchfield, to issue to Buyer an ALTA Extended Coverage Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance (the “Title Policy”) in the full amount of the Purchase Price, subject only to the “Permitted Exceptions” (as hereinafter defined), and Buyer’s receipt of a commitment from Title Company to issue the Title Policy as of the Closing in such form (subject to Title Company’s receipt of payment for such Title Policy, the cost of which shall be paid by Buyer as provided in this Agreement) shall be a condition precedent to Buyer’s obligation to purchase the Property at Closing.
(2) Seller shall cause a title commitment to be issued to Buyer within two (2) business days following the opening of escrow, together with copies of all underlying documents. At Buyer’s option, the Title Policy may include any endorsements thereto as Buyer may request.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the Property shall be conveyed subject to the following matters, which shall be deemed to be Permitted Exceptions: (1) the lien of all ad valorem real estate taxes and assessments not yet due and payable as of the date of Closing, subject to adjustment as herein provided; (2) local, state and federal laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, including but not limited to, building and zoning laws, ordinances and regulations, now or hereafter in effect relating to the Property; and (3) those matters which Seller is not obligated to remove as provided below. (4) Buyer shall have until three (3) days after the Effective date to notify Seller, in writing, of such objections to title as Buyer may have. Any title matter to which Buyer does not so object by such time shall be deemed a Permitted Exception. In the event Buyer shall so notify Seller of any objection(s) to title, Seller shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure such objection(s), other than any defects, objections or exceptions which comprise mortgages or liens voluntarily created by Seller, and which can be satisfied by payment of a liquidated amount, which Seller agrees that it shall either pay, discharge or, if it is contesting such lien, make arrangement with the Title Company to insure over such matters (at normal rates) without such objection as an exception in Buyer’s Title Policy; provided, that Buyer shall have the right to reasonably approve any method which Seller elects to cure any such liquidated amount.

In the event there are any objections which Seller is not obligated to cure, then within two (2) business days after receipt of Buyer’s notice of objection(s), Seller shall notify Buyer in writing whether Seller elects to attempt to cure such objection(s). Failure of Seller to give such notice shall be deemed an election by Seller not to cure such objection(s). If Seller elects to attempt to cure any such matter, Seller shall use reasonable efforts to cure such objections. If Seller elects not to cure any objection(s) specified in Buyer’s notice which Seller is not required hereby to cure, or if Seller is unable to effect a cure prior to the Closing, Buyer shall have the following options to be given by written notice within three (3) business days of Seller’s notice or deemed election:
(i) to accept a conveyance of the Property subject to the Permitted Exceptions, specifically including any matter objected to by Buyer which Seller is unwilling or unable to cure (which such matter(s) shall thereafter be deemed to be a Permitted Exception), without reduction of the Purchase Price, or (ii) to terminate this Agreement by sending written notice thereof to Seller and Escrow Holder, and upon delivery of such notice of termination, this Agreement shall terminate, 442
7 and thereafter neither party hereto shall have any further rights, obligations or liabilities hereunder except for such obligations under this Agreement as are expressly provided herein to survive the termination of this Agreement.
(5) Upon the issuance of any amendment or supplement to the Buyer’s Title Commitment for the Property that adds additional exceptions (including, but not limited to, adding additional exceptions for matters shown on the Buyer’s Survey [defined below]), the foregoing right of review and approval shall also apply to said amendment or supplement (provided that the period for the Buyer to review such amendment or supplement shall be the later of the expiration of the Due Diligence Period or three (3) business days from receipt of the amendment or supplement) and Escrow shall be deemed extended by the amount of time necessary to allow such review and approval in the time and manner set forth in this Section 2.7.2.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Closing Date shall not extend, by reason of extension of Due Diligence Period.
(6) Buyer, at its sole cost and expense, may obtain a survey of the Property (“Buyer’s Survey”). The Buyer’s Survey shall be in a form acceptable to the Title Company for the deletion of the standard survey exception in the Buyer’s Title Policy relating to boundaries, without the addition of further exceptions, unless the same are acceptable to the Buyer, in its sole and absolute discretion. The Buyer shall have until the end of the Due Diligence Period to complete and examine the Buyer’s Survey and to notify the Seller in writing of any objections the Buyer has to the Buyer’s Survey (“Buyer’s Survey Objection Notice”). The Seller shall have a period of five (5) business days after receipt of the Buyer’s Survey Objection Notice in which to deliver written notice to the Buyer (“Seller’s Survey Notice”) of the Seller’s election to either: (i) agree to remove objectionable items identified in the Buyer’s Survey Objection Notice prior to the Close of Escrow or (ii) decline to remove such items and terminate this Agreement and the Escrow.

If the Seller notifies the Buyer of its intention not to remove objectionable items identified in the Buyer’s Survey Objection Notice, the Buyer shall have the right, by written notice delivered to the Seller within five (5) business days after the Buyer’s receipt of the Seller’s Survey Notice, to agree to accept the Property subject to the objectionable items, in which event, the Buyer’s election to terminate this Agreement and cancel the Escrow shall be of no further effect, and the Buyer shall accept the Property at the Close of Escrow subject to such objectionable items identified in the Buyer’s Survey Objection Notice. In the event that this Agreement is terminated by the Buyer under this Section 2.7.2, the Seller shall be responsible for paying for all Escrow cancellation costs of the Escrow Holder.

2.7.3 Condition of the Property. The condition of the Property, including but not limited to the structure of the Improvements, the boundaries and dimensions of the Real Property and Improvements, entitlements and permits relating to the Property, the soils and environmental condition of the Property, the physical and economic condition of the Property, the suitability of the Property for Buyer’s intended use, and any and all other matters relating to the Property deemed relevant by Buyer.

2.7.4 Books and Records. All Operating Agreements, Property management files, reports, warranties, permits and other documents relating to the Property in Seller’s possession. Seller shall upon request of Buyer make such books and records available for Buyer’s review. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, 443
8 Seller shall not be obligated to provide Buyer with any of Seller’s internal memoranda or reports, any financial projections, budgets or appraisals, or any other confidential, proprietary or privileged information. In addition, Seller shall not have any liability, obligation or responsibility of any kind with respect to the content or accuracy of any report, study, opinion, projection or analysis prepared by third parties (and not by Seller).

2.7.5 Notice of Disapproval. For purposes of this Section 2.7, an approval which is conditioned or qualified in any way shall be deemed a disapproval. If Buyer disapproves of any of the items set forth in Section 2.7, Buyer shall deliver written notice of such disapproval to Seller on or before the expiration of the Due Diligence Period.

In the event Buyer does not deliver written notice to Seller disapproving any of the items set forth in Section 2.7) on or before the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, Buyer shall be conclusively deemed to have approved all of the items set forth in Section 2.7 and to have waived any right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 7.1.

2.7.6 Termination Upon Disapproval. If Buyer gives written notice to Seller on or prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period that Buyer disapproves, or if Buyer in any way conditions or qualifies its approval, of any of the items set forth in Section 2.7, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and the provisions of Section 7.1 shall apply.

2.7.7 All representations and warranties of Seller set forth in this Agreement shall be true and correct as of the Effective Date and again as of Close of Escrow.

2.7.8 Seller shall have timely performed all obligations required to be performed by Seller prior to the Close of Escrow by the terms of this Agreement.

2.7.9 Buyer shall have approved Escrow Holder’s estimated closing costs statement.

2.7.10 Seller shall have executed and notarized a utility easement, to serve the real property identified as APN 1110-161-08-0-000, adjacent to the Property.

2.8 Seller’s Conditions Precedent to Close of Escrow. The Close of Escrow and Seller’s obligation to convey the Property are subject to the satisfaction of the followingdescribed condition for Seller’s benefit (or Seller’s waiver thereof, it being agreed that Seller may waive any or all of such conditions) on or prior to the Closing Date:

2.8.1 Buyer shall have timely performed all obligations to be performed by Buyer prior to Close of Escrow by the terms of this Agreement.

2.8.2 Buyer shall have deposited into Escrow the original Grant Deed which shall have been executed by Buyer.

2.9 Notices. All communications from Escrow Holder to either Buyer or Seller shall be directed to the addresses and in the manner established in Section 8 herein for notices, demands and communications between the Buyer and Seller. 444
9 2.10 Facsimile/Counterpart Documents. In the event Buyer or Seller utilizes “facsimile” or digital-mail transmitted signed documents, the Parties hereby agree to accept and instruct Escrow Holder to rely upon such documents as if they bore original signatures. Buyer and Seller hereby acknowledge and agree to provide to Escrow Holder, within seventy-two (72) hours after transmission, such documents bearing the original signatures. Buyer and Seller further acknowledge and agree that facsimile documents bearing non-original signatures will not be accepted for recording and that the Parties will provide originally executed documents to Escrow Holder for such purpose. Escrow Holder is authorized to utilize documents which have been signed by Buyer and Seller in counterparts.

3. TERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT. Except for those provisions which expressly survive the Closing, the Parties’ Lease shall terminate upon Closing.

4. [RESERVED].

5. SELLER’S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Seller hereby represents and warrants to Buyer that the following statements are true and correct as of the Effective Date, and shall be true and correct as of the Close of Escrow, and the truth and accuracy of such statements shall constitute a condition precedent to all of Buyer’s obligations under this Agreement:

5.1.1 Hazardous Substances or Waste. Seller has not received any written complaint, order, citation or notice from any Governmental Authority or other person or entity with regard to the presence of Hazardous Substances or Waste or other environmental problems affecting the Property. To Seller’s current actual knowledge and except as disclosed in any environmental reports provided by Seller to Buyer, no release of Hazardous Substances or Waste (as defined by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Buyer Regulations at 40 C.F.R., Part 261, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Toxic Substance Control Act, and regulations promulgated under any of the foregoing) have come to be located upon or under the Property. As used herein, the terms “Hazardous Substances” or “Waste” mean petroleum (including gasoline, crude oil or any crude oil fraction), waste, trash, garbage, industrial by-product, and chemical or hazardous substance of any nature, including, without limitation, radioactive materials, PCBs, asbestos, pesticides, herbicides, pesticide or herbicide containers, untreated sewerage, industrial process sludge and any other substance identified as a hazardous, toxic or dangerous substance, material or waste in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (commonly known as “CERCLA”), as amended, the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (commonly known as “SARA”), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (commonly known as “RCRA”), or any other federal, state, city or county legislation, regulations, laws or ordinances applicable to the Property.
445
10 5.1.2 Pending Litigation. To Seller’s current, actual knowledge there is no pending litigation or judicial proceeding against Seller relating to the Property, nor has Seller received any threats that any such litigation or proceeding will be commenced.

5.1.3 No Other Contracts. Seller is not a party to any other contracts for the sale of the Property.

5.1.4 Violations of Laws. To Seller’s current, actual knowledge, there are no violations of any governmental laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or orders relating to the Property. The consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement do not violate any law with which Seller must comply.

5.1.5 Unrecorded Easements. To Seller’s current, actual knowledge, there are no unrecorded easements or other use or occupancy rights which encumber the Property.

5.1.6 Utility Moratoriums. To Seller’s current, actual knowledge, there is no existing, proposed or contemplated utility company or governmental moratorium on the providing of any utility services to the Property.

5.1.7 No Approval Necessary. No approval or consent not previously obtained is necessary in connection with the execution of this Agreement by Seller or the performance of Seller’s obligations under this Agreement.

5.1.8 No Violation of Existing Agreements. Neither this Agreement nor anything provided to be done under this Agreement violates or shall violate any contract, document, understanding, agreement or instrument to which Seller is a party or by which it may be bound.

5.1.9 Binding and Enforceable. This Agreement constitutes the legally valid and binding obligation of Seller and is enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms, except as enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws or by equitable principals relating to or limited the rights of creditors generally.

5.1.10 Bankruptcy. Seller has no present intent to file any voluntary petition in bankruptcy or to seek relief, protection, reorganization, liquidation, dissolution or similar relief for debtors under any law or inequity or to take any action which would directly or indirectly cause the Property or any portion of the Property to become the property of any bankruptcy estate or the subject to any bankruptcy, dissolution, litigation or insolvency proceedings.

5.1.11 No Leases; No Further Agreements or Undertakings. To Seller’s current actual knowledge, there are no agreements for occupancy in effect with respect to the Property and no unrecorded agreements that would adversely affect Buyer’s title to or use of the Property other than those executed pursuant to the Lease by Buyer’s property management company Quality Management Group or by Buyer. Any and all agreements relating to the leasing, operation, maintenance and repair of the Property between 446
11 Seller and third parties which burden or otherwise affect the Property or any portion thereof shall be terminated subject to and as of Close of Escrow. Seller shall not enter into any agreements nor undertake any obligations prior to Close of Escrow that would in any way burden, encumber or otherwise affect the Property, including, without limitation, any agreements for occupancy with respect to the Property, or any portion thereof.

5.1.12 Survival. The representations and warranties of Seller set forth in this Section 5, shall survive Closing for a period of eighteen (18) months.

If, prior to the Close of Escrow, Buyer becomes aware that any of Seller’s representations or warranties has been materially breached by Seller or is materially incorrect, or that any information or document provided by or on behalf of Seller to Buyer is materially incorrect, then Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by providing Seller and Escrow Agent with written notice within five (5) days of Buyer becoming aware of such material breach or inaccuracy.

Seller shall promptly notify Buyer in writing if Seller becomes aware on or before the Close of Escrow that any of its representations or warranties was not or is no longer true and correct.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FULL SATISFACTION.

6.1 Full Satisfaction. By execution of this Agreement, Seller, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, hereby acknowledges that this Agreement, once fully performed, provides full and complete payment and satisfaction for the acquisition of the Property by Buyer, and Seller hereby expressly and unconditionally waives any claim for damages, relocation assistance benefits, interest, loss of goodwill, severance damages, claims for inverse condemnation or unreasonable pre-condemnation conduct, or any other compensation or benefits other than as already expressly provided for in this Agreement, it being understood that this is a complete and full settlement of all acquisition claims, liabilities, or benefits of any type or nature whatsoever relating to or in connection with the acquisition of the Property.

6.2 Survival of Acknowledgments. The provisions of Section 6.1, above, shall survive recordation of the Grant Deed and the Close of Escrow.

7. TERMINATION, DEFAULTS, REMEDIES.

7.1 Exercise of Rights to Terminate. In the event Buyer or Seller elects to exercise its rights to terminate this Agreement and the Escrow as provided in this Agreement, then Buyer or Seller, as applicable, may so terminate by giving notice, in writing, prior to the Close of Escrow, of such termination to the other Party and Escrow Holder. In such event, the Party so terminating shall pay all Escrow Holder and Title Company termination fees and charges (collectively, “Termination Costs”). Upon such termination, all obligations and liabilities of the Parties under this Agreement, excepting for the obligation of the Party so terminating to pay Termination Costs as provided herein, and excepting for the obligations under this Agreement that expressly survive any termination of this Agreement, shall cease and terminate.

7.2 Buyer’s Breach. IN THE EVENT THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY IS

NOT CONSUMMATED BECAUSE OF A DEFAULT UNDER OR BREACH OF THIS

AGREEMENT ON THE PART OF THE BUYER, BUYER AND SELLER AGREE THAT IT

WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE AND EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FIX THE ACTUAL 447
12 DAMAGE TO SELLER. BUYER AND SELLER THEREFORE AGREE THAT, IF BUYER

FAILS TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AS HEREIN PROVIDED BY REASON OF BUYER’S BREACH OR DEFAULT, THE AMOUNT OF ANY PREVIOULSY

RELEASED FUNDS, INCLUDING THE DEPOSIT AND OPTION CONSIDERATION IS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF SELLER’S DAMAGES AND THAT SELLER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SAID SUM AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, WHICH SHALL BE SELLER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY, EITHER AT LAW OR IN EQUITY. IN SUCH EVENT,

THE ESCROW HOLDER SHALL, UPON WRITTEN DEMAND BY SELLER WITHOUT

JOINDER OF BUYER, IMMEDIATELY DELIVER THE DEPOSIT TO SELLER IN CASH OR OTHER IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE FUNDS. THE FOREGOING DOES NOT LIMIT BUYER’S LIABILITY UNDER INDEMNITY OR OTHER PROVISION OF THIS

AGREEMENT WHICH BY ITS TERMS SURVIVES A TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT OR IS TO BE PERFORMED AFTER CLOSING. TO SIGNIFY THEIR

AWARENESS AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH 7.2 BUYER AND SELLER HAVE SEPARATELY INITIALED THIS PARAGRAPH.

SELLER INITIALS: _________ BUYER’S INITIALS: _________

7.3 Seller’s Breach. In the event Seller breaches any obligation hereunder which Seller is to perform prior to the Close of Escrow, and fails to cure such breach within a reasonable period of time determined at the reasonable discretion of Buyer, then, in addition to pursuing any other rights or remedies which Buyer may have at law or in equity, Buyer may, at Buyer’s option, (i) terminate this Agreement and the Escrow by giving notice, in writing, prior to Close of Escrow, of such termination to Seller and Escrow Holder, and Escrow Holder shall immediately return the Deposit to Buyer; or (ii) initiate an action for specific performance of this Agreement. Should Buyer elect to terminate this Agreement and the Escrow as provided herein, then Seller shall pay all Termination Costs. Upon such termination, all obligations and liabilities of the Parties under this Agreement, excepting for the obligation of the Seller to pay Termination Costs as provided herein, and excepting for the obligations under this Agreement that expressly survive any termination of this Agreement, shall cease and terminate.

7.4 Return of Funds and Documents; Release of Liability as to Escrow Holder In the event Escrow Holder terminates the Escrow as a result of having received notice, in writing, from Buyer or Seller of its election to terminate the Escrow as provided in this Section 7, then Escrow Holder shall terminate the Escrow and return all funds, less Termination Costs, as appropriate, and documents to the Party depositing the same. Further, the Parties hereby release Escrow Holder, and shall hold Escrow Holder free and harmless, from all liabilities associated with such termination excepting for Escrow Holder’s obligations to return funds and documents as provided herein, to the party entitled to such funds and documents. It is expressly agreed that the provisions of this Section 7.4 shall survive any termination of this Agreement.

7.5 Survival of the Lease and Option. In the event this Agreement is terminated and/or the sale of the Real Property is not consummated for any reason, the parties agree that the Lease shall remain in full force and effect, and Buyer’s Purchase Option shall continue in accordance with its terms. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to terminate, waive, or 448
13 impair Buyer’s rights obligations under the Lease or the Option, except as may be expressly agreed in writing by both parties.

8. NOTICES AND DEMANDS. All notices or other communications required or permitted between the Parties hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be (i) personally delivered, (ii) sent by United States registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, (iii) sent by facsimile transmission with confirmation of receipt, or (iv) sent by nationally recognized overnight courier service (e.g., Federal Express or United Parcel Service), addressed to the Party to whom the notice is given at the addresses provided below, subject to the right of any Party to designate a different address for itself by notice similarly given. Any notice so given by registered or certified United States mail shall be deemed to have been given on the third business day after the same is deposited in the United States mail. Any notice not so given by registered or certified mail, such as notices delivered by personal delivery, facsimile transmission or courier service, shall be deemed given upon receipt, rejection or refusal of the same by the Party to whom the notice is given. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of changed address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice or other communication sent.

To Buyer: City of Fontana
City Hall
Attn: City Manager
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
With Copy to: Best Best & Krieger LLP
Attn: Jessica K. Lomakin, Esq.
2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 400
Ontario, CA 91761
To Seller: Aldea Fontana Foothill, LLC
Attn: Mohammad Monshizadeh
1 Venture, Suite 130
Irvine, CA 92618
With Electronic Copy to:

Mousavi Law, PC
4343 Von Karman Ave., Suite 250J
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
To Escrow Holder: First American Title Insurance Company 4380 La Jolla Village Drive, #200
San Diego, CA 92122
Attn: Sheri Keene, Escrow Officer

9. INDEMNITY BY SELLER. Seller shall, at Seller’s sole cost and expense, indemnify, protect and defend (with counsel of Buyer’s choice) and hold Buyer, its officers and/or 449
14 directors and its successors and assigns, harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, costs and expenses of any kind or nature whatsoever, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs and litigation expenses, that Buyer may reasonably incur or sustain by reason of or in connection with (i) the Property or Seller’s ownership or operation thereof on or before the Close of Escrow, (ii) the use on or before the Close of Escrow of the Property by Seller or any third party, including, without limitation, any tenant, invitee or licensee of Seller, (iii) any breach of any covenant, agreement, representation or warranty of Seller contained in this Agreement; and (iv) the Seller’s violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation, occurring or allegedly occurring with respect to the Property prior to the Close of Escrow. This indemnity by Seller herein contained shall survive recordation of the Grant Deed and the Close of Escrow. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Seller’s indemnity under this Section 9 shall expressly exclude, and Seller shall have no responsibility or liability for, any matters arising from or attributable to Buyer’s possession, use, or control of the Property during the period of Buyer’s occupancy pursuant to the Lease.

10. POSSESSION; RISK OF LOSS. Buyer shall be entitled to sole possession, of the Property immediately upon Close of Escrow. All risk of loss or damage to the Property will pass from the Seller to the Buyer at the Close of Escrow. In the event that material loss or damage occurs to the Property, or any portion thereof, prior to the Close of Escrow, Buyer may elect to terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 7.1 herein.

11. BROKERS AND SALES COMMISSIONS. Seller and Buyer each represent and warrant to the other that no broker, agent or finder has been engaged by them in connection with the transaction described in this Agreement. Each of the parties shall indemnify and defend the other party and hold it harmless from any and all loss, damage, liability or expense, including costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, which the other party may incur or sustain by reason of or in connection with any misrepresentation or breach of warranty by the indemnifying party with respect to the foregoing.

12. MISCELLANEOUS

12.1 Required Actions of Buyer and Seller. Buyer and Seller agree to execute such instruments and documents and to diligently undertake such actions as may be required in order to consummate the transaction herein contemplated and shall use their best efforts to accomplish the Close of Escrow in accordance with the provisions hereof.

12.2 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every term, condition, obligation and provision hereof.

12.3 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.

12.4 Captions. Any captions to, or headings of, the Sections or subsections of this Agreement are solely for the convenience of the Parties, are not a part of this Agreement, and shall not be used for the interpretation or determination of the validity of this Agreement or any provision hereof.
450
15 12.5 No Obligations to Third Parties. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the execution and delivery of this Agreement shall not be deemed to confer any rights upon, nor obligate any of the Parties to, any person or entity other than the Parties.

12.6 Exhibit. The Exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto are hereby incorporated herein by this reference.

12.7 Waiver. The waiver or failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any future breach of any such provision or any other provision hereof.

12.8 Applicable Law. All questions with respect to this Agreement, and the rights and liabilities of the Parties and venue hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, without application of conflicts of law principles. Any and all legal actions sought to enforce the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall be brought in the courts of the County in which the Property is located.

12.9 Assignment. Buyer shall have the right to assign this Agreement, and any right or obligation herein, to any party of its choice with Seller written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. Seller shall not assign this Agreement, or any right or obligation herein, to any party without the prior written consent of Buyer, which consent may be given or withheld in Buyer’s sole discretion; provided, however, that Seller may, without Buyer’s consent, assign this Agreement to any entity that is wholly controlled by Seller. In the event of any assignment by Seller, Seller shall not be relieved of liability hereunder.

12.10 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the voluntary and involuntary successors and assigns of the Parties hereto.

12.11 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected.

12.12 Construction. This Agreement will be liberally construed to effectuate the intention of the Parties with respect to the transaction described herein. In determining the meaning of, or resolving any ambiguity with respect to, any word, phrase or provision of this Agreement, neither this Agreement nor any uncertainty or ambiguity herein will be construed or resolved against either Party (including the Party primarily responsible for drafting and preparation of this Agreement), under any rule of construction or otherwise, it being expressly understood and agreed that the Parties have participated equally or have had equal opportunity to participate in the drafting thereof.

12.13 Legal Fees. Each Party shall be responsible for payment of its own attorney’s fees and expenses with respect to negotiation and preparation of this Agreement and processing of the Escrow. In the event of the bringing of any action or proceeding to enforce or construe any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such action or proceeding, whether by final judgment or out of court settlement, shall be entitled to have and recover of and from the other Party all costs and expenses of suit, including actual reasonable attorney’s fees. 451
16 12.14 Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreements, negotiations and communications, oral or written, and contains the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller as to the subject matter hereof. No subsequent agreement, representation, or promise made by either Party hereto, or by or to an employee, officer, agent or representative of either Party, shall be of any effect unless it is in writing and executed by the Party to be bound thereby.

12.15 Amendment to this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement may not be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing executed by each of the Parties hereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has executed this Agreement on the date set forth below next to that Party’s signature.
[SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
452
17 “BUYER”
CITY OF FONTANA, Dated: ___________________, 2025
a municipal corporation
By:

Matthew C. Ballantyne, City Manager
Attest:

Germaine Key, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

Best Best & Krieger LLP
“SELLER”
ALDEA FONTANA FOOTHILL, LLC, Dated: ___________________, 2025 a California limited liability company
By:
453
16498.00100 18

ACCEPTANCE BY ESCROW HOLDER
We acknowledge receipt on ______________________, 2025, of a fully executed copy of the foregoing “Agreement for Purchase and Sale and Joint Escrow Instructions” fully executed by Seller and Buyer. This escrow is assigned _______________ [Title]
By:
[Name]
454

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT “A” – LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
EXHIBIT “B” – GRANT DEED
EXHIBIT “C” – BILL OF SALE
EXHIBIT “D” – ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION
455
EXHIBIT “A” TO

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE

AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
Legal Description of Property
456
21 EXHIBIT “B” TO

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE

AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
Grant Deed
[Attached]
457
1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
[TITLE]
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

CITY OF FONTANA
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Attn: City Clerk
Space above this line for Recorder’s Use
No Recording Fee Pursuant to Gov’t Code § 27383
No Documentary Transfer Tax Pursuant to
California Revenue & Taxation Code § 11922
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, ALDEA FONTANA FOOTHILL, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Grantor”) hereby GRANTS to CITY Of FONTANA, a municipal corporation (“Grantee”), the following described real property in the City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California:

SEE EXHIBIT “1” ATTACHED HERETO.

Dated: ___________________, 2025 ALDEA FONTANA FOOTHILL, LLC, a California limited liability company
By: EXHIBIT ONLY – DO NOT EXECUTE
(Name)
(Title)

GRANT DEED
458
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF )
On __________________________ before me, _________________________________________________ (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared ____________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature __________________________________________ (Seal) 459
EXHIBIT “1” TO GRANT DEED
EXHIBIT “1” TO GRANT DEED

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
460

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the above Grant Deed from ALDEA FONTANA FOOTHILL, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Grantor”) to CITY OF FONTANA (“Grantee”), is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of Grantee pursuant to authority conferred by the Grantee’s governing board, and Grantee hereby consents to recordation of said Grant Deed.

CITY OF FONTANA, Dated: ___________________, 2025
a municipal corporation
By:

Matthew C. Ballantyne, City Manager
Attest:

Germaine Key, City Clerk
461
EXHIBIT “C”
EXHIBIT “C” TO

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE

AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
Bill of Sale
[Attached]
462

BILL OF SALE
This Bill of Sale is made as of this ____ day of ____________, 2025, by ALDEA FONTANA FOOTHILL, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Seller”), in favor of CITY OF FONTANA, a municipal corporation (“Buyer”).

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller hereby assigns and transfers to Buyer, its successors and assigns, all of Seller’s right, title and interest in and to all the personal property (collectively, the “Personal Property”) owned by Seller and located on the Real Property (more particularly described on Exhibit “1” hereto) as of the date hereof.

The Personal Property transferred hereby is transferred “AS IS”, “WHERE IS” and “WITH ALL FAULTS”, and without any representation or warranty whatsoever.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Bill of Sale as of the day and year first above written.

Dated: ___________________, 2025 ALDEA FONTANA FOOTHILL, LLC, a California limited liability company
By:
(Name)
(Title)
463
EXHIBIT “1” TO BILL OF SALE
EXHIBIT “1” TO BILL OF SALE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
464
EXHIBIT “D”
EXHIBIT “D” TO

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE

AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
Assignment and Assumption
[Attached]
465

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION
THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION (the “Assignment”) is made as of the ____ day of _____________, 20025, by and between ALDEA FONTANA FOOTHILL, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Assignor”), in favor of CITY OF FONTANA, a municipal corporation (“Assignee”).

1. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby assigns and transfers to Assignee as of the date title to the property described on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”) is transferred to Assignee (the “Transfer Date”), all of the following relating to the Property, to the extent assignable, and without representation or warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied:
(a) any and all assignable governmental licenses, permits, certificates (including certificates of completion and certificates of occupancy), authorizations and approvals held by Assignor in connection with the current occupancy, use and operation of, and construction upon, the Property (collectively, the “Permits”); and
(b) any and all assignable warranties and guaranties including, without limitation, contractor’s, architect’s and manufacturer’s warranties and guaranties held by Assignor and given by third parties with respect to the Property (collectively, the “Warranties”).

2. Assignee accepts this Assignment and hereby assumes and agrees to perform from and after the Transfer Date all of Assignor’s covenants, agreements and obligations under the Permits, and Warranties.

3. The Parties shall engage in good faith non-binding mediation prior to initiation of any litigation. If legal action is commenced to enforce or to declare the effect of any provision of this Assignment, or any document executed in connection with this Assignment, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs. In addition to the foregoing award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, the prevailing party in any lawsuit on this Assignment or any document executed in connection with this Assignment shall be entitled to its attorneys’ fees incurred in any post judgment proceedings to collect or enforce the judgment. This provision is separate and several and shall survive the merger of this Assignment or any document executed in connection with this Assignment into any judgment on this Assignment or any document executed in connection with this Assignment.

4. This Assignment shall binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors in interest and assigns.

5. This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
466
EXHIBIT “1” TO BILL OF SALE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Assignment and Assumption is made as of the day and year first above written.
“ASSIGNOR”
ALDEA FONTANA FOOTHILL, LLC, Dated: ___________________, 2025 a California limited liability company
By:
(Name)
(Title)
“ASSIGNEE”
CITY OF FONTANA, Dated: ___________________, 2025
a municipal corporation
By:

Matthew C. Ballantyne, City Manager
Attest:

Germaine Key, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

Best Best & Krieger LLP
467
EXHIBIT “1” TO ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
468
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0431 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: A. Category: Public Hearing
FROM:

Planning Department
SUBJECT:

Appeal No. 25-0001: Request to overturn the Planning Commission’s June 3, 2025 decision certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2023030788) and adopting a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, and approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-000025 (TPM No. 20611) and Design Review No. 22-000051 for the consolidation of six (6) parcels into one parcel and the vacation of Windflower Avenue and the development of an industrial warehouse building totaling approximately 398,514 square feet on approximately 18.3 acres located between Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet south of Summit Avenue (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 1119-241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, and -27).

RECOMMENDATION:

Deny Appeal No. 25-0001, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s decision on June 3, 2025 approving, pursuant to the certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of a Migitation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-000025 (TPM No. 20611) and Design Review No. 22-000051 for the consolidation of six (6) parcels into one parcel and the vacation of Windflower Avenue and development of an industrial commerce building totaling approximately 398,514 square feet on approximately 18.3 acres located between Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet south of Summit Avenue (APN Nos.: 1119-241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, and -27).

APPELLANT / APPEAL APPLICANT:

Appeal No. 25-0001: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, 765 N. Main Street, Ste. 151, Corona, CA 92880.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Promote economic development by concentrating on job creation. · Promote economic development by establishing a quick, consistent development process. · Promote economic development by being business friendly at all levels and striving to constantly improve the city's competitiveness.

DISCUSSION:

On June 16, 2025, the City received an application for an appeal (Appeal No. 25-0001) from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. The application is a request to overturn the Planning Commission certification of a Final Impact Report (“FEIR”) and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and approval of the consolidation of six parcels into one, vacation of Windflower Avenue, and development of an industrial warehouse building totaling approximately 398,514 square feet.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 3 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™469
File #: 25-0431 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: A. Category: Public Hearing
Project entitlement includes Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-000025 (TPM No. 20611) and Design Review (DRP) No. 22-000051 along with the certification of an FEIR, (SCH No. 2023030788) and adoption of an MMRP for the consolidation of six (6) parcels into one parcel and vacate Windflower Avenue and development of an industrial warehouse building totaling approximately 398,514 square feet on approximately 18.3 acres between Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet south of Summit Avenue (APN Nos.: 1119-241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, and -27).

Background:

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 3, 2025, and certified the FEIR, (SCH No. 2023030788), adopted an MMRP and a Statement of Facts and Findings for the project, and approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-000025 (TPM No. 20611) and Design Review No. 22-000051 along with adoption of Resolution PC Number 2025-019 and Resolution PC 2025-020, with a vote of 3-0. The staff report and attachments for the June 3, 2025, Planning Commission hearing for the project, along with meeting minutes, are included as Attachment Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, to this staff report.

The EIR for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (SCH No. 2023030788) was made available for the public review at the City’s website: <<https://www.fontanaca.gov/2137/Environmental-Documents>>, front counter, and reviewed by the Planning Commission at the June 3, 2025, regular meeting.

Appeal:

Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s June 3, 2025, approval, the City received an appeal application. In summary, the appellant claims that the EIR does not accurately or adequately describe the project as “the whole of an action.” The appellant alleges that the EIR mislead the public and decision makers by circumventing an adequate and accurate environmental analysis for the entire scope of construction and operation. The appellant also asserts that the Planning Commission should have requested a revised EIR to include more information on the whole of an action and status of the vacation of Windflower Avenue. The applicant’s letters state that the Planning Commission’s findings and approval of the Project are unsupported by substantial evidence, namely the Project’s alleged piecemealing, inadequate environmental analysis, that the EIR did not provide accurate site plan, floor plan, conceptual grading plans, building elevations, and project narrative for public review, a failure to provide information on the vacation of Windflower Avenue, that the EIR does not include analysis relevant to environmental justice, and that the health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. Responses to the letters have been prepared to address the issues raised by the appellant.

The project environmental consultant (Kimley-Horn), who prepared the EIR for the Sierra Distribution Facility building project, has prepared written responses to the applicant’s claims. The responses explain why the claims raised in the Golden State Environmental Justice letter were not significant and the EIR was created adequately. Also, the detailed response to the claims raised in the appeal finds that none of the comments provide substantial evidence to support any revisions to the EIR or requires the revision of any of the findings made by the Planning Commission.

FISCAL IMPACT:

City of Fontana Page 2 of 3 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™470
File #: 25-0431 Agenda Date: 9/9/2025
Agenda #: A. Category: Public Hearing
None.

MOTION:

Approve staff’s recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Appellant Letter - Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance & Response Memorandum

3. Applicant’s Environmental Consultant Response to Appeal Letter

4. Planning Commission June 3, 2025, Packet

5. Planning Commission Minutes of June 3, 2025

6. Clerk of the Board Fee Receipt and NOD

7. Public Hearing Notice
City of Fontana Page 3 of 3 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™471
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

VICINITY MAP
DATE: September 9, 2025
CASE: Master Case No. 22-000104
Appeal 25-0001

N

CITY OF FONTANA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sierra Avenue
Summit Avenue
Mango Avenue
Project Site
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
ATTACHMENT NO.3
kimley-horn.com 3801 University Avenue, Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951 543 9868

MEMORANDUM
To: Fontana City Council c/o Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner From: Candyce Burnett, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scott Irwin, Seefried Industrial Properties
Date: August 7, 2025
Subject: Applicant Response to Appeal No. 25-0001 to the Certification of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project EIR (SCH No. 2023030788) (MCN 22-000104)
Introduction
This Memorandum is provided as the Applicant’s response to Appeal No. 25-0001 to the Planning Commission’s approval of Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project) on June 3, 2025. Several issues were raised by the Appellant which have been grouped and responded together, as appropriate. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Final EIR are referred to as the “EIR” when referring to the whole of the environmental analysis. Specific references to the Draft EIR and Final EIR are made as well.

Applicant’s Responses

LEGAL AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ISSUES
Piecemealing
The Appellant reasserts that the EIR does not accurately or adequately describe the whole of the Project (MCN 22- 000104). The Appellant continues to assert that the timing of the submission of applications for projects MCN 22- 00079, MCN 22-000104, and MCN 22-000105 is substantial evidence for piecemealing. Piecemealing occurs when a Project is segmented in a way that environmental evaluation of some of the activities associated with the Project is deferred, not when multiple applications for similar developments are submitted around the same time.

Additionally, the Appellant fails to recognize that MCN 22-00079 and MCN 22-000105 are geographically distinct and separate from the Project. Notably, MCN 22-000105 and MCN 22-000079 are located in the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan (SWIP). SWIP is generally located south of Interstate 10 (I-10), which is more than 5.5 miles south of the Project site. No part of the Project is reliant on the implementation of these other separate, distinct projects to be made feasible, and neither MCN 22-00079 nor MCN 22-000105 rely on the implementation of the Project in order to be developed. A Project level EIR remains the appropriate CEQA document for the Project. This issue was adequately addressed in the Final EIR Section 2, Responses to Comments and no further response is required.

Project Description
The Appellant asserts that the project description fails to be legally adequate as it fails to provide legible site plans, elevations, and grading documents. Revised figures were provided in the Final EIR as a response to previous comments regarding the lack of information in those figures. It is important to note that all information was provided in either narrative or tabular format in the Project Description of the Draft EIR. As an informational document charged with being accessible to the lay person and the public, an EIR need not only be presented in a manner that would be sufficient for professional technical review. As such, the information provided in the EIR that was derived 529

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Avenue, Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951 543 9868 from the technical design documents was distilled into a digestible format for ease of review by the public.

Additionally, the full set of Project plans have been available for review at the City, both physically and digitally, throughout the public review process for the EIR. Further, Attachment A to Appendix K of the Draft EIR contains a full-size high-resolution sheet of the overall site plan where all of this information is available.

Additionally, the Appellant asserts that the figures and technical drawings provided throughout the EIR are illegible and prevent any meaningful public review. The Appellant then goes on to evaluate and provide comment on information provided within figures that were provided in the EIR, demonstrating their ability to review the information provided within the EIR. As indicated by this, the figures and technical drawings that have been provided are clearly adequate to allow meaningful public review. Further, all Project plans have been made available to the Public by the City though the public review process. No further response is required.

Land Use and Planning
The Appellant asserts that the Project conflicts with the Light Industrial (M-1) zoning requirements as the Project would generate 239 truck trips (634 passenger car equivalents [PCE]). As the Project would redevelop the site from the existing operational businesses with the Project, the Project is able to “credit” the existing traffic from the site because the existing operational businesses are part of the Project’s environmental baseline. As a part of the Trip Generation Assessment and Traffic Scoping (Appendix K to the Draft EIR), traffic counts were taken at the existing businesses. During this three-day period the average daily truck trips, represented as PCEs, for the existing site was 877 PCEs. As a result, the Project would result in a reduction of truck trips by 243 PCEs. The Project would result in a 27.7 percent reduction in the amount of truck trips generated by the Project site.

Further, the City of Fontana Planning Commission is charged by the City Council to review the design of projects and ensure consistency with the zoning for the subject properties. After careful consideration and review of the Project, including its trip generation analysis, the Planning Commission approved the Project, finding that the Project was consistent with the zoning.

Regarding truck routes, Sierra Avenue is a designated truck route within the City of Fontana. Due to the median within Sierra Avenue, trucks leaving the Project site would not be able to turn southbound onto Sierra Avenue to gain access to State Route 210 (SR-210). As a result, trucks would enter/exit the Project site via a driveway along Mango Avenue, which is a low-speed road with a 25 mile per hour (mph) posted speed limit. Mango Avenue intersects with Sierra Lakes Parkway to the south which then reconnects with Sierra Avenue. Trucks would access southbound Sierra Avenue from this point to reach SR-210 and regional destinations beyond. Truck access to the Project site via Sierra Avenue is prohibited and limited to access for auto traffic. While Mango Avenue is not officially designated as a truck route within the City, the road primarily serves industrial uses and this segment of Mango Avenue north of Sierra Lakes Parkway terminates, providing no through connection northerly. The utilization of Mango Avenue, a lower traffic volume roadway, minimizes potential conflicts with automobile traffic and creates a safer condition when compared to ingress and egress along Sierra Avenue due to the much lower speeds and traffic volumes. Further, this route ensures that trucks drive less than 1 mile on City roads to access SR-210 and avoid passing through residential areas. If trucks were required to enter/exit along Sierra Avenue to travel north to the I-10/Sierra Avenue interchange, approximately 2.5 miles to the north, they would pass multiple residential areas.

Based on direction provided by staff, all trucks from the Project site will use Mango Avenue for access. 530

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Avenue, Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951 543 9868 Truck Turning
Regarding truck turning templates and roadway geometrics, the Appellant has used an outdated graphic (the left and lower right screenshot on Page 4 of the Appellant’s June 12, 2025, Appeal to the City document). These screenshots display information provided within Attachment A to Appendix K of the publicly circulated Draft EIR.

The plan shown in Attachment A has a plot date of January 3, 2023, and represents a conceptual design of the Project site that was still subject to revisions from the City design review. Furthermore, analyzing truck turning movements is not within the scope of the Trip Generation Assessment and Scoping Agreement. As a part of the Final EIR, Errata to the Draft EIR were provided, which included an updated Figure 3-5: Overall Site Plan where the truck turning template was refined and depicts adequate turning space. This updated plan was prepared in 2025.

In the upper right screenshot on Page 4 of the Appellant’s June 12, 2025, Appeal to the City document, the image shows a green portion of the truck turning movement seemingly overlapping with the curb. The red lines in the truck turning template depict the wheel path of the truck, while the green area indicates the overhang of the trailer. The outside width of the trailer exceeds that of the wheels. The turning template confirms that the truck’s wheel path does not drive over the curb line. No further response, analysis, or design revisions are required.

All proposed driveways are designed to meet relevant design standards and will continue to undergo the City’s review process.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Cumulative Impacts
The Appellant continues to assert that the EIR did not evaluate cumulative impacts specific to air quality and air pollution. The claims were raised in the Appellant’s October 23, 2024, comment letter on the Draft EIR. Responses to those comments were provided within Section 2, Responses to Comments of the Final EIR. As stated in those responses, the Draft EIR, and reiterated here, the Project’s cumulative impacts for all environmental resource areas were analyzed consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130.

Specific to air quality and pollution, South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) standard methodology for the evaluation of cumulative air quality impacts include comparing a project’s modeled air quality emissions against the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for specific criteria air pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in non-attainment.

SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for state standards of tropospheric ozone (O3), particulate matter with diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), and particulate matter with diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for federal standards of O3 and PM2.5, attainment, and serious maintenance for federal PM10 standards, and is designated as unclassified or attainment for all other pollutants.

Table 4.3-8 and Table 4.3-9 of the Draft EIR show that the Project’s construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for any criteria air pollutant. As a result, the Project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.

Additionally, there was a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared as part of the Project’s CEQA documentation, following SCAQMD methodologies. The HRA determined that the Project would not result in exceedances of SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic health hazards. The City approved and adopted the Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1891) on April 12, 2022. 531

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Avenue, Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951 543 9868 This Ordinance is applicable to all warehouse uses throughout the City. The Ordinance requires warehouse uses to meet and exceed all state and federal environmental standards. Standards include providing adequate buffering and screening from adjacent sensitive receptors, implementing appropriate signage and traffic patterns, incorporating alternative energy, and other operation and construction measures such as the use of super-compliant VOC architectural coatings and highest rated CARB Tier technology for construction equipment. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable standards of the Ordinance and final documentation of compliance would be subject to review and approval prior to issuance of applicable permits.

Environmental Baseline
The Appellant claims, due to only one of the existing uses located on-site having a valid business license when the EIR states that four businesses operated on-site, that the EIR fails to provide an adequate environmental baseline consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The environmental baseline for the Project was generally established by the release date of the Notice of Preparation and the timing of the traffic counts taken at the existing site, which is standard practice. The EIR accurately described the conditions of the Project site at the time of the traffic data collection and the release of the Notice of Preparation.

Furthermore, it is not within the scope of an environmental review to verify that existing uses have their Cityrequired paperwork in order, nor does the presence or absence of business licenses impact the baseline environmental conditions. CEQA requires that the proper environmental baseline is the existing condition of the project site, even if that condition may be the result of prior illegal activity. Fat v. County of Sacramento (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1277 (upholding agency’s discretion to use existing conditions baseline for use permit for privately owned airport that had been operating without county authorization for 30 years and had not previously been reviewed under CEQA).The number of businesses operating on the Project site is important to the environmental analysis contained within the EIR, affecting several environmental resource areas including, but not limited to, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic. Ignoring the operation of three additional businesses would have artificially lowered the environmental baseline and misrepresented reality. In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 cited by the Appellant, the Court held that SCAQMD failed to “use the actually existing levels of operation as a baseline and treat any increase over that baseline as a project impact.” 1If the EIR had instead only measured traffic counts for the specific business with a valid business license, this would have created a hypothetical baseline not based on the “actually existing levels of operation” of the Project site. Therefore, the environmental baseline established for the Project is adequate, and no further response is required.

Conclusion
As demonstrated by the substantial evidence provided within the EIR and this Memorandum, the EIR is adequate, and the Project does not require or necessitate additional environmental review. The EIR need not be recirculated for public review and the decision by the Planning Commission to certify the EIR was proper. 1 Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310; Page 9. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2010/s161190/ 532
City of Fontana
Action Report
Planning Commission
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0297 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
FROM:

Planning Department
TITLE:

Master Case No. 22-000104: Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-000025 (TPM No. 20611), Design Review (DRP) No. 22-000051, reporting on the conformity of the proposed vacation of Windflower Avenue with the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65402; and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the development of an industrial warehouse building totaling approximately 398,514 square feet on approximately 18.3 acres, located between Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet south of Summit Avenue (Assessor Parcel numbers: 1119-241-10,- 13,-18,-25,-26, and -27), pursuant to the Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearing House No. 2023030788) and Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Based on the information contained in this staff report, resolution and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2025-_____, and:
a. Certify the FEIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Facts and Findings, and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

2. Based on the information contained in this staff report, resolution and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2025-_____, and:
a. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-000025 (TPM No. 20611); and b. Approve Design Review No. 22-000051.

APPLICANT:

Seefried Industrial Properties Inc.

Scott Irwin
2321 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 2220
El Segundo, CA 90245
LOCATION:

The project site is located east of Sierra Avenue, west of Mango Avenue, and south of Summit Ave (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 1119-241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, and -27).

City of Fontana Page 1 of 5 Printed on 5/28/2025
powered by Legistar™5331
File #: 25-0297 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
REQUEST:

Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-000025 (TPM No. 20611) - A request to consolidate six (6) parcels and vacate Windflower Avenue comprised of approximately 18.3 acres into one parcel for the development of the project. Additionally, the proposed vacation will conform to the General Plan finding under Government Code Section 65402.

Design Review (DRP) No. 22-000051 - A request to review the architecture, site design and associated improvements for an industrial warehouse commerce center building totaling 398,514 square feet, including 5,000 square feet of office on a site comprised of approximately 18.3 acres.

PROJECT PLANNER:

Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

A. Existing Land Use Designation:

General Plan Zoning/Overlay Existing Land Use
Site: Light Industrial (I-L) Light Industrial (M-1)/
Warehousing
Distribution Logistics
Overlay District/Fire
Hazard Overlay
Existing Industrial
Uses
North: Light Industrial (I-L) Light Industrial (M-1)/
Warehousing
Distribution Logistics
Overlay District/Fire
Hazard Overlay
Existing Warehouse
South: Light Industrial (I-L) Light Industrial (M-1)/
Warehousing
Distribution Logistics
Overlay District/Fire
Hazard Overlay
Existing Warehouse
East: City of Rialto City of Rialto Land Fill
West: Residential Planned
Community
Planning Area No. 4
- Sierra Lakes
Specific Plan
Residential
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

A. Site Area: Approximately 18.3 gross acres
B. FAR Ratio:

Building Maximum Allowed: .60
Provided: .50
City of Fontana Page 2 of 5 Printed on 5/28/2025
powered by Legistar™5342
File #: 25-0297 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
C. Building Analysis:

Office/Mezzanine: 5,000 square feet
Warehouse/packing area 393,514 square feet
Total Area: 398,514 square feet
D. Landscaping
Required: 15 percent
Provided 21.5 percent
E. Parking
Required: 102 parking spaces
Provided: 142 parking spaces
ANALYSIS:

The applicant, Seefried Industrial Properties Inc., is requesting that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-000025 (TPM No. 20611), and Design Review (DRP) No. 22- 000051 for the development of a new 398,514 square foot industrial commerce center building and associated improvements on an approximately 18.3 gross acres site located between Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue, south of Summit Avenue.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-000025 (TPM No. 20611)
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20611 is a proposal to consolidate six (6) parcels and vacate Windflower Avenue comprised of approximately 18.3 acres into one parcel for the development of a 398,514 square foot industrial commerce center building. As part of the project the developer will construct all on-site and off-site improvements per the City Standards.

Currently, Windflower Ave runs through the middle of the subject property. Due to the configuration of the project and to facilitate truck traffic to Mango Avenue Windflower Avenue will be vacated.

Design Review (DRP) No. 22-000051
The development will be comprised of a 398,514 square feet industrial commerce center building that includes 5,000 square feet of office/mezzanine area, approximately 393,514 square feet of warehouse area. The warehouse building would have 54 loading docks located on the south side of the building. Project on-site improvements include parking, landscaping, and lighting.

The building facades would incorporate architectural elements (e.g., windows, pillars, wall plane breaks) to minimize stretches of blank walls. All colors and materials would consist of gray tones with a red banning’s as an accent color. Large expanses of blank walls would be broken up with expansion joints, reveals, or changes in texture and color. The proposal provides a development that has been designed with modern features to enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Grading / Walls
The subject site has a gradual slope the property and adjacent areas at a higher elevation to the north. The proposed project will slope to the south of the project site where the underground basins will capture the water. Also, any overflow will go to the storm drain system on Sierra Avenue.

Decorative 14-foot-high walls will provide screening for truck courts. Additionally, an eight (8) foot high wrought iron fence will be installed on the northerly property line, an eight (8) foot high wrought City of Fontana Page 3 of 5 Printed on 5/28/2025
powered by Legistar™5353
File #: 25-0297 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
high wrought iron fence will be installed on the northerly property line, an eight (8) foot high wrought iron gate and man gate will be constructed on the west and east sides of the loading docks.

Site Access / Circulation /Parking
Access to and from the Project site will be provided along Sierra Avenue with one (1) driveway in the center of the site exclusively for passenger vehicles and an EVA access point on the southerly portion of the site. Additionally, there will be two (2) driveways along Mango Avenue, one exclusively for trucks, which accommodates truck queuing and provides access to the loading dock area, and a second driveway that will be exclusively for passenger vehicles. The truck movements would occur along the southerly driveway (along Mango Avenue) and within the truck court and would be separated from passenger vehicle areas.

Fire Hazard Overlay
Since the subject parcel is within Fire Hazard Overlay a Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) plan, showing all fuel modification areas has been provided and approved by the City’s Fire Marshall/Fontana Fire Protection District, subject to the conditions in the Fire Modification Zone plan.

Environmental:

The Draft EIR (DEIR) for the Sierra Distribution Facility Development Project (SCH No. 2023030788) was made available for the public review at the City’s website:
<https://www.fontanaca.gov/2137/Environmental-Documents>.

Subsequent to the preparation and distribution of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP), the DEIR was prepared for the project. The environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR is based in part on specific studies and assessments undertaken for the City by qualified environmental scientists, specialists, and consultants. This analysis addresses air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation.

These technical studies are contained in the Technical Appendices document of the Draft EIR and are made available for the public review. The Draft and Final EIR and Technical Appendices can be viewed at the following URL: <https://www.fontanaca.gov/2137/Environmental-Documents> The Final EIR describes the environmental impacts of the project and the mitigation measures to help minimize the project impacts on the environment. The scope of this Final EIR includes analysis of minimize the project impacts on the environment. The scope of this Final EIR includes analysis of environmental issues identified and raised in response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) and during the DEIR comment period.

The Final EIR determined that twenty (20) of environmental effects for the project would have impacts found not to be significant. These 20 categories are Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Services Systems, and Wildfire. The potential impacts from the aforementioned topical areas are fully addressed in the IS/DEIR.

City of Fontana Page 4 of 5 Printed on 5/28/2025
powered by Legistar™5364
File #: 25-0297 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
Alternatives
As required by CEQA, an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which meets the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The proposed alternatives for this project include “No Project,” “Drop Lot/Trailer Storage,” and “Reduced Project.” Circulation
The project DEIR was circulated for the 45-day public review period beginning on September 11, 2024, and ending originally on October 25, 2024. The document was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for notification to State agencies for their possible comment. The City received comments on the DEIR from the following
public agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Letter Date Received Organization/Name

1. West Valley Water District, October 9, 2024

2. Blum, Collins & Ho LLP., October 23, 2024

3. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, October 24, 2024 The City along with the environmental consultant, has reviewed and provided responses to the letters/comments above; these are included in the Final EIR. The Final EIR along with errata has been included with the environmental documentation.

To approve the project, the Planning Commission must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating that the project benefits override or outweigh the project identified unavoidable environmental impacts.

MOTION:

Approve staff’s recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Project Plans

3. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2025- Certification of the EIR and MMRP

4. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2025- Project approval

5. Notice of Determination

6. Public Hearing Notice
City of Fontana Page 5 of 5 Printed on 5/28/2025
powered by Legistar™5375
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

VICINITY MAP
DATE: June 3, 2025
CASE: Master Case No. 22-000104
Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-000025
Design Review No. 22-000051

N

CITY OF FONTANA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sierra Avenue
Summit Avenue
Mango Avenue
Project Site
5386
Project Number:

Revision:

Date:

Drawn by:

Title:

Sheet:
20533
CC
07/01/22
MA
G
N
N O
Y
L I C

E N S E D A R C H I T E
C
T

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
DATE

RENEWAL
3−31−23
C−29451
2nd Submittal 01/03/23
3rd Submittal 06/16/23
4th Submittal 04/07/25

PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DATA

VICINITY MAP

SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES SITE PLAN KEYNOTES

SITE LEGEND
SITE
5397
Project Number:

Revision:

Date:

Drawn by:

Title:

Sheet:
20533
CC
07/01/22
MA
G
N
N O
Y
L I C

E N S E D A R C H I T E
C
T

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
DATE

RENEWAL
3−31−23
C−29451
2nd Submittal 01/03/23
3rd Submittal 06/16/23
4th Submittal 04/07/25

SITE PLAN KEYNOTES
5408
Project Number:

Revision:

Date:

Drawn by:

Title:

Sheet:
20533
CC
07/01/22
MA
G
N
N O
Y
L I C

E N S E D A R C H I T E
C
T

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
DATE

RENEWAL
3−31−23
C−29451
2nd Submittal 01/03/23
3rd Submittal 06/16/23
4th Submittal 04/07/25
KEYMAP
SCREEN WALL COLOR LEGEND/SCHED.

KEYNOTES
5419
Project Number:

Revision:

Date:

Drawn by:

Title:

Sheet:
20533
CC
07/01/22
MA
G
N
N O
Y
L I C

E N S E D A R C H I T E
C
T

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
DATE

RENEWAL
3−31−23
C−29451
2nd Submittal 01/03/23
3rd Submittal 06/16/23
4th Submittal 04/07/25

FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES
54210
12345
12345
Project Number:

Revision:

Date:

Drawn by:

Title:

Sheet:
20533
CC
07/01/22
MA
G
N
N O
Y
L I C

E N S E D A R C H I T E
C
T

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
DATE

RENEWAL
3−31−23
C−29451
2nd Submittal 01/03/23
3rd Submittal 06/16/23
4th Submittal 04/07/25
ELEVATION KEYNOTES ELEVATION COLOR LEGEND/SCHED.

GLAZING LEGEND
54311
Project Number:

Revision:

Date:

Drawn by:

Title:

Sheet:
20533
CC
07/01/22
MA
G
N
N O
Y
L I C

E N S E D A R C H I T E
C
T

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
DATE

RENEWAL
3−31−23
C−29451
2nd Submittal 01/03/23
3rd Submittal 06/16/23
4th Submittal 04/07/25
54412
Project Number:

Revision:

Date:

Drawn by:

Title:

Sheet:
20533
CC
07/01/22
MA
G
N
N O
Y
L I C

E N S E D A R C H I T E
C
T

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
DATE

RENEWAL
3−31−23
C−29451
2nd Submittal 01/03/23
3rd Submittal 06/16/23
4th Submittal 04/07/25
KEYMAP
54513
Decorative Concrete Decorative Concrete BUILDING

SIERRA AVENUE
MANGO AVENUE Decorative Concrete Electrical Transformer 16'-5" 15' Employee Break Area w/ Tables 3' High Landscape Berms for Screening Landscape Berms

SIGHT LINE

SIGHT LINE

SIGHT LINE

SIGHT LINE

SIGHT LINE
3' High Landscape Screening3' High Landscape Screening3' High Landscape Screening Proposed Public Art Location
3' High Landscape Berms for Screening
3' High Landscape Berms for Screening
3' High Landscape Berms for Screening Brisbane Box Tristania conferta TREES 24" Box African Sumac Rhus lancea 21 L SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME PLANTING LEGEND SIZE QTY WUCOLS REMARKS 38 M Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Olive Olea europaea Standard Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa 24" Box 17 L Standard 8 L Multi 36" Box 9 L Standard 48" Box Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow 36" Box 5 L Multi 24" Box Afghan Pine Pinus eldarica 21 L Standard London Plane Platanus acerifolia 36" Box 7 M Street Tree 24" Box 10 Standard Street Tree Standard 24" Box 24 24" Box 24" Box Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia i 'Muskogee' 2 M Multi ACCENTS GROUNDCOVER Rosmarinus o. 'Huntington Carpet' 1 Gal 48" O.C. Autumn Sage Salvia greggii Coast Rosemary Westringia fruticosa L SYMBOL SIZE REMARKS SHRUBS BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME WUCOLS SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS REMARKS SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING WUCOLS REMARKS Prostrate Rosemary Dasylerion wheeleri Desert Spoon Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca Texas Privet Ligustrum j. Texanum Lonicera j. 'Halliana' Hall's Honeysuckle Baccharis p. 'Centenial' 5 Gal Coyote Bush L 1 Gal 48" O.C. L Coral Aloe Aloe striata 1 Gal L 5 Gal L 5 Gal L 5 Gal M 5 Gal L Texas Ranger Leuconphyllum frutiscens 5 Gal L Allen Chickering Sage Salvia c. 'Allen Chickering' 5 Gal L 5 Gal L Fortnight Lily Dietes bicolor 5 Gal M Deer Grass Muhlenbergia rigens 5 Gal M Dwarf Coast Rosemary Westringia f. 'Grey Box 5 Gal L 80,668 sf total landscape area, total site area minus building sf = 398,519 sf, 15% required, 20% provided. 14,000 sf total parking lot landscape area Trees required 1:600 - 134 trees required, 165 trees provided 90% trees 24" or larger - 83% Provided Parking lot trees spaced to shade 35% within 15 years DECORATIVE CONCRETE -FIELD TO BE NATURAL COLOR WITH MEDIUM BROOM FINISH AND 6'X6' SAWCUT JOINTS @ 45° SURROUNDED BY A 2' WIDE CONCRETE BAND WITH SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH. 10% trees 36" or larger - 17% Provided Note: Groundcover to be planted at a space equal to 80% of maximum groth rate for each species per Sunset Western Garden Book NOTES: 1. ALL TREES WITHIN 5' OF HARDSCAPE SHALL BE IN A LINEAR ROOT BARRIER. 2. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL CONCRETE MOW CURB BETWEEN PLANTERS AND 3. A MINIMUM 3-INCH LAYER OF MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED GRAVEL AREAS. SEE PLANTING DETAIL SHEET. SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT TURF AREAS, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVERS, OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED. 4. ALL ABOVE GROUND EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREEN WITH 3' HIGH SHRUBS. 5. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO BE FULLY AUTOMATICALLY IRRIGATED. 6. REQUIRED ONE TREE/600SF, 90% PERCENT 24-INCH BOX AND 10% 36-INCH BOX OR LARGER. 7. BERMING SHALL BE PROVIDED, MOUNDED TO AN AVERAGE HEIGHT OF THE THREE FEET ABOVE THE CURB HEIGHT. Fontana, California 22-083 07.01.22 Sierra Ave and Windflower Seefried Industrial Partners HUNTER LANDSCAPE 711 FEE ANA STREET 714.986.2400 FAX 714.986.2408 PLACENTIA, CA 92870 12.20.22 02.22.23 06.08.23 07.25.23 09.27.23 10.17.23 0 20' 40' 80' N 14 546
15 547
54816
17 549
18 550
ATTACHMENT NO. 3 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

FONTANA ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFYING THE

SIERRA DISTRIBUTION FACILITY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2023030788), ADOPTING THE MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE
PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the development is comprised of one industrial distribution center building (“Project”) which proposes to be located on one site and is evaluated in the Sierra Distribution Facility Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”); and WHEREAS, the Project consists of an approximately 18.3 net acre property, located within the City of Fontana, in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, California, on six parcels (APNs 1119-241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, and -27); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approvals of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 22-025) to consolidate the existing six parcels into one parcel; a proposed Design Review Project (DRP No. 22-051) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to ensure Project compliance with City municipal code.

WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Fontana is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on April 3, 2023, the City sent to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, formerly known as the Office of Planning and Research, and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2023030788) would be prepared; and WHEREAS, five (5) comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on April 19, 2023, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project and, no additional comments were received; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: Air 55119
2 Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire.

WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, formerly known as the Office of Planning and Research, on September 10, 2024; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public at the same time that the City sent Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on September 11, 2024; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall, on the City’s website, and at the Lewis Library and Technology Center public libraries; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for at least a 45-day public review and comment period from September 11, 2024 to October 25, 2024; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City received three written comment letters on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on May 23, 2025; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing to consider the Draft EIR and approvals of TPM and DRP for the Project and solicited comments on the document. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to certify the EIR for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2025, the City released the Final EIR (“Final EIR”), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and errata to the Draft EIR and technical appendices; and
55220
3 WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and the EIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives capable of reducing these effects to an even lesser level of significance; and
WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2.2 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 2.6 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section 2.7 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to a level of less than 55321
4 significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2025, the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FONTANA:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The Planning Commission declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Planning 55422
5 Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, and all written and oral evidence presented, the Planning Commission hereby approves the proposed Project.

SECTION 6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City of Fontana Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. The custodian for these records is Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 7. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of 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 3rd day of June, 2025.

City of Fontana
__________________________
Idilio Sanchez, Chair
ATTEST:

I, Joseph Armendarez, 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 3rd day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Joseph Armendarez, Secretary
55523

EXHIBIT A

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
55624
Findings of Fact
Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the:

Sierra Distribution Facility Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2023030788
Lead Agency
City of Fontana
Community Development Department
18353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
CEQA Consultant
Kimley-Horn and Associates
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
Project Applicant
Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc.
3333 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30339
June 3, 2025
55725
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
i
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Summary.................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Site Location...........................................................................................................1

1.1.2 Project Description.................................................................................................1

1.1.3 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................1

1.2 City of Fontana Actions Covered By the EIR .......................................................................2

1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation.................................................................2

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings ......................................................................................4

2.1 General Findings.................................................................................................................4

2.1.1 Independent Judgment Finding .............................................................................4

2.1.2 Finding of the Absence of any Need to Recirculate the EIR ...................................4

2.1.3 General Finding on Mitigation Measures..............................................................4

2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation ...........................................................................................................5

2.2.1 Aesthetics...............................................................................................................5

2.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.......................................................................6

2.2.3 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................8

2.2.4 Biological Resources.............................................................................................10

2.2.5 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................11

2.2.6 Energy ..................................................................................................................12

2.2.7 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................14

2.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................18

2.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................19

2.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................21

2.2.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................27

2.2.12 Mineral Resources................................................................................................28

2.2.13 Noise ....................................................................................................................29

2.2.14 Population and Housing.......................................................................................31

2.2.15 Public Services......................................................................................................32

2.2.16 Recreation............................................................................................................35

2.2.17 Transportation .....................................................................................................36

2.2.18 Utilities and Services Systems..............................................................................38

2.2.19 Wildfire ................................................................................................................40

2.3 Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant .....................................................................................................41

2.3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................42

2.3.2 Biological Resources.............................................................................................46

2.3.3 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................47

2.3.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................49 55826
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
ii

2.3.5 Tribal Cultural Resources.....................................................................................52

2.3.6 Wildfire ....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.4 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable.................................59

2.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................................................59

2.5.1 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................59

2.5.2 Agriculture And Forestry Resources.....................................................................60

2.5.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................60

2.5.4 Biological Resources.............................................................................................61

2.5.5 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................62

2.5.6 Energy ..................................................................................................................63

2.5.7 Geology And Soils.................................................................................................63

2.5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................64

2.5.9 Hazardous And Hazardous Material....................................................................64

2.5.10 Hydrology And Water Quality..............................................................................65

2.5.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................65

2.5.12 Mineral Resources................................................................................................66

2.5.13 NOISE ...................................................................................................................66

2.5.14 Population And Housing ......................................................................................67

2.5.15 Public Services......................................................................................................68

2.5.16 Recreation............................................................................................................68

2.5.17 Transportation .....................................................................................................68

2.5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.....................................................................................69

2.5.19 Utilities And Service Systems ...............................................................................69

2.5.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................70

2.6 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented....................................................................................70

2.7 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project..........................................................71

2.8 Project Alternatives ..........................................................................................................72

2.8.1 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis .............73

2.8.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis in the EIR........................................................74

2.8.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative..................................................................76

3.0 Additional Facts on Record...................................................................................................77

3.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures.................................................77

3.2 Custodian of Record..........................................................................................................77 55927
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
1 1.0 Introduction
The Planning Commission of the City of Fontana (the “Planning Commission”) in approving the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (the “Project”), makes the Findings presented herein. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the Planning Commission, as described in Subsection 4.1.3 below, including the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project on behalf of the City of Fontana (the “City”) acting as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Hereinafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, Final EIR (containing responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and textual revisions to the Draft EIR), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified.

1.1 Project Summary

1.1.1 Site Location
The approximately 18.3-acre Project Site is located within the City of Fontana, which is located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, California. The City of Fontana is located east of the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, west of the City of Rialto and the unincorporated community of Bloomington, and north of the City of Jurupa Valley. The Project Site is located approximately 0.5 mile north of State Route 210 (SR-210), approximately 2 miles east of Interstate 15 (I-15), and approximately 5 miles west of Interstate 215 (I-215). The Project Site includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1119- 241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, and -27.

1.1.2 Project Description
The Project’s site-specific actions entail a proposed Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 22-025) to consolidate six APNs into one APN and a Design Review Project (DRP No. 22-051) to construct one 398,514 square foot warehouse on approximately 18.3 acres. The Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation of I-L: Industrial Light and zoning which is M-1: Light Industrial which allows for employee-intensive uses. The Project will also be subject to City Ordinance No. 1891 which establishes buffering and screening requirements, methods to improve traffic circulation, requirements for alternative energy, and improvements to circulation as it relates to industrial commerce center development in Fontana.

1.1.3 Project Objectives
The fundamental purpose and goal of the Project is the following:

1. Implement the City of Fontana’s desire to create a revenue generating use that capitalizes on nearby transportation corridors and truck routes, stimulates employment, and responds to current market opportunities.

2. Revitalize a section of the City with new industrial use(s) to create an economic engine to drive future growth in the City.
56028
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
2 3. Develop the site with a more efficient use of the Property, to enhance the value of the Property, generating increased property values.

4. Provide infrastructure and landscaping improvements to Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue vicinity to enhance aesthetics as well as improve safety and traffic flow.

5. Facilitate goods movement for the benefit of local and regional economic growth.

6. Provide new development that will generate a positive fiscal balance increasing the City tax base and a potential for added point of sale tax base for the City moving forward.

7. Provide additional temporary and permanent employment opportunities while improving the local balance of housing and jobs.

1.2 City of Fontana Actions Covered By the EIR
The City of Fontana has primary approval responsibility for the proposed Project. As such, the City serves as the Lead Agency for the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The City’s Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Final EIR. For the Project, the Planning Commission will consider the TPM No. 22-025 and DRP No. 22-051. A public hearing will then be held before the Planning Commission regarding certification of the Final EIR and approval of TPM No. 22-025 and DRP No. 22-051 for the Project. The Planning Commission is the approval authority for certification of the DRP and TPM for the Project. Other agencies also may use the EIR as part of their decision-making processes concerning the proposed Project.

1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the City’s decision makers and the public are fully informed about potential significant environmental effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; and to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project through the use of mitigation measures and project design requirements which have been found to be feasible. In order to do this, the City, acting as lead agency under CEQA, undertook the following:
 Prepared a Notice of Preparation, which was used as the basis for the determination that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. The Notice of Preparation identified the environmental issues to be analyzed in detail in the Project’s EIR as: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, Land Use & Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire;  The Notice of Preparation was sent to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (the “State Clearinghouse”), Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on April 3, 2023, for a 30-day review period;
 Held a publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting on April 19, 2023;  Submitted a Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability, and Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse on September 10, 2024;
56129
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
3  Mailed a Notice of Availability to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, County Clerk, other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the Notice on September 11, 2024 to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on September 11, 2024, and ending on October 25, 2024;  Mailed the Notice of Availability to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project Site on September 11, 2024;
 Provided copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals on September 11, 2024;
 Made the Notice of Availability and Draft EIR available to the public on the City’s website;  Published the Notice of Availability in the San Bernardino County Sun, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on September 11, 2024;  Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR;  Sent notice of the Planning Commission’s hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on May 15, 2025;  Sent written responses to comments to all public agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments the Draft EIR on May 23, 2025 (3 comment letters were received);  Sent notice of the Planning Commission’s hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on May 15, 2025.  Published a notice on May 23, 2025, in the San Bernardino County Sun, the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on June 3, 2025, to consider approval of the Project and certification of the EIR;  Held a public hearing of the Planning Commission on June 3, 2025, and, after full consideration of all comments, written and oral, certified that the Final EIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA and approved the Project.

All of the documents identified above and all of the documents which are required to be part of the administrative record pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) are on file with the City of Fontana Community Development Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. 56230
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
4 2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings

2.1 General Findings

2.1.1 Independent Judgment Finding
Finding: The EIR for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The EIR was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., an independent, professional consulting firm hired by the Project Applicant and working under the supervision and direction of the City’s Planning Department staff. The Planning Commission, as the City’s final decision-making body for the Project, received and reviewed the EIR and the comments, written and oral, provided by public agencies and members of the public prior to certifying that the EIR complied with CEQA. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff and its consultants, the thorough and independent review of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comments and responses, by City staff, and the review and careful consideration of the Final EIR by the Planning Commission, including comments and responses, all conclusively show that the Final EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency, and of the Planning Commission as the decision-making body for the Project.

2.1.2 Finding of the Absence of any Need to Recirculate the EIR Finding: The Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Planning Commission recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed and that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, and minor modifications to the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information contained in it and has determined that the new information added to the Final EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, nor a feasible mitigation measure or an alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the Project Applicant declined to adopt and that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project. No information provided to the Planning Commission indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR.

2.1.3 General Finding on Mitigation Measures
It is the City’s intent to adopt and implement all mitigation measures identified in the EIR which are applicable to the Project, which the City finds to consist of all feasible measures that reduce the Project’s significant impacts. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended 56331
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
5 in the EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures.

2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact under the following resource areas and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures:

2.2.1 Aesthetics
A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Threshold “Impact 4.1-1”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction activities would temporarily alter visual characteristics of the site as viewed from the surrounding uses due to construction activities, which is expected to last approximately 15 months. Upon Project completion, views of the site would remain consistent with current visual characteristics as the site would be consistent with City land use policies, surrounding development, and current site development. The Project would be well below the height limit of 75 feet in the area at 45.5 feet, which would reduce impacts to scenic resources within the Project area. As such, the Project would cause a less than significant impact to scenic vistas (Draft EIR Page 4.1-8) B. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Threshold “Impact 4.1-2”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There are no state scenic highways within the City. The nearest State Scenic Highway, State Route 330 (SR-330), is approximately 8.8 miles east of the Project site. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project site would not damage or obstruct a scenic resource (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) within a State Scenic Highway. (Draft EIR Page 4.1-9) C. In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, 56432
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
6 would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Threshold “Impact 4.1-3”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: As the City is considered an urbanized area, this section analyzes whether the Project is consistent with applicable zoning. Impacts associated with implementation of the Project would be temporary in nature and abide by all applicable local regulations to ensure minimal impacts. The development would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or public views. To further reduce changes in the visual environment, the Project would incorporate perimeter landscaping, trees, and ground covers to visually buffer the structures. The Project would be consistent with zoning regulations as determined by the City. For this reason, it is anticipated that implementation of the Project would not degrade the visual characteristics that are already considered low. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.1-10)
D. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Threshold “Impact 4.1-4”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Existing sources of light and glare exist in the Project’s immediate vicinity.

Existing lighting sources include streetlights, outdoor safety and security lighting from adjacent developments including the residential developments to the west and warehouses to the north and south, and vehicle headlights from adjacent roadways. Construction of the warehouse building would be limited to the daytime hours of construction permitted in the Fontana MC and nighttime lighting would not be required until the site is operational. Therefore, no short-term impacts associated with light and glare would occur.

Once operational, the building would use interior and exterior security lighting. Consistent with all applicable regulations to ensure no structures or features that create adverse glare effects are permitted.

Thus, all exterior lighting would be shielded/hooded to prevent light trespass onto nearby properties.

Additionally, the single warehouse building for the Project would use a variety of non-reflective building materials, and although some new reflective improvements (i.e., windows and building front treatments) would be introduced to the site, the warehouse building would not be a source of glare in the area.

Therefore, long-term impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page

4.1-11)

2.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
A. Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Threshold “Impact 4.2-1”)
Finding: No Impact
56533
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
7 Facts in Support of Finding: The City’s land use map shows that there are no zones which allow agricultural uses within or nearby the Project site. The Project would occupy a portion of the City which has been classified for Light Industrial land use and zoning. The Project, being a warehousing development with some office uses, would be consistent with the goals and standards intended for these zones. Additionally, the entire Project site is categorized as Urban and Built-Up Land according to the California Important Farmland Finder. Due to the lack of agricultural uses and land classifications, the Project would not impact or convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR Page 4.2-9)
B. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract (Threshold “Impact 4.2-2”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site contains Light Industrial land use designations, and the California Department of Conservation lists the area as Urban and Built-Up Land which would preclude it from being agriculturally active. Additionally, there are no Williamson Act Contract-designated parcels within the Project site or within the Fontana Sphere of Influence surrounding the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR Page 4.2-9)
C. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? (Threshold “Impact 4.2-3”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and would be located on land with a Light Industrial zoning. The City does not contain areas with land use designations for either Forest Land or Timberland. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland and no impacts would occur. (Draft EIR Page 4.2-9) D. Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Threshold “Impact 4.2-4”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Because this area of the City is developed, it is not conducive to forest land or forestry activities. Further, the City has zoned the area for Light Industrial use which would be consistent with the proposed developments associated with the Project. The Project’s location in a previously developed, urbanized area would lead to no impacts on forest land. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR Page 4.2-9)
56634
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
8 E. Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Threshold “Impact 4.2-5”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The location of the Project is currently designated as a Light Industrial land use zone. The California Department of Conservation also classifies the Project’s location as Urban BuiltUp Land which is not Unique Farmland, Prime Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no impacts related to the conversion of farmland or forest land would occur. (Draft EIR Page 4.2-10)

2.2.3 Air Quality
A. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Threshold “Impact 4.3-1”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s growth projections and RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.

The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
 Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.  Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.

The Project would not exceed the construction or operational standards of the SCAQMD emissions thresholds as emissions thresholds for criteria air pollutants: Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), Sulfur Oxides (SOX), Coarse Particulates (PM10), Fine Particulates (PM2.5) would not be exceeded by Project construction or operation as shown in further detail in Draft EIR Table 4.3-7, on page 4.3-16. Additionally, the Project would not result in substantial unplanned growth or unaccounted for growth in the General Plan or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop 56735
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
9 the AQMP. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR Page 4.3-19) C. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Threshold “4.3-3”)
Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Sensitive receptors located in the Project site vicinity include single family residences located approximately 130 feet west of the Project. Localized significance of construction and operations emissions would be in attainment with SCAQMD AQMP regulations pertaining to sensitive receptors at a distance within 25 meters. The project would be compliant with all Central San Bernardino Valley Source Receptor Area (SRA) requirements and would not generate substantial pollution that would impact sensitive receptors.

Based on the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. It can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 286 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project. The Carbon Monoxide Hotspot modeling included on page 4.3-31 of the Draft EIR determined there would be a concentration of 4.6 ppm, well below the Federal standard of 35 ppm.

Combined construction and operations would result in a maximum cancer risk of 1.20 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million as shown in Table 4.3-13 of the Draft EIR.

Therefore, impacts associated with carcinogenic risk would be less than significant.

A chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the chronic exposure by the reference exposure level. The chronic hazard was calculated based on the highest annual average concentration at the maximally exposed individual receptor and the acute hazard is based on the 1-hour concentration. The highest maximum chronic index associated with unmitigated diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the Project would be 0.0007 as shown in Table 4.3-14 of the Draft EIR. It should be noted that there is no acute REL for DPM and acute health risk cannot be calculated. Therefore, non‐carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.3- 32)
D. Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Threshold “Impact 4.3-4”) Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and 56836
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
10 fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.

During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. Furthermore, odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.

Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors. (Draft EIR Page 4.3-33)

2.2.4 Biological Resources
B. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Threshold “Impact 4.4-2”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would be confined to areas that have been heavily disturbed previously. No sensitive habitats were identified within the Project site during field visit conducted on August 17, 2022. No Riparian habitat is present on the Project site, and no members of the Riparian Forest plant community were observed on-site. Therefore, the presence of riparian habitat is deemed absent, and no sensitive natural communities would be impacted from Project implementation and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR Page 4.4-13) C. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Threshold “Impact 4.4-3”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Aerial photography was reviewed in conjunction with a field investigation in order to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Board, or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project side during the habitat assessment that would be considered jurisdictional by the USACE, Regional Board, or CDFW. As a result, implementation of the Project would not result in any impacts or have a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands. (Draft EIR Page 4.4-14) D. Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Threshold “Impact 4.4-4”) 56937
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
11 Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, the Project site has not been identified as occurring within a Wildlife Corridor or Linkage. The Project would be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed and are isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages. In addition, there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within the Project site or connecting the site to a recognized wildlife corridor or linkage.

As such, implementation of the Project would not prevent local wildlife movement through the Project area. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages would not occur. (Draft EIR Page 4.4-14) E. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Threshold “Impact 4.4-5”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Fontana MC Chapter 28.61 addresses how to preserve and protect heritage, significant, and specimen trees and procedures to replace them within the City. Section 28-65 prevents removal of these trees without first obtaining a tree removal permit. No heritage, significant, or specimen trees are located on the Project site and therefore, impacts to local policies or ordinances are not expected to occur from development of the Project, and mitigation is not required. (Draft EIR Page

4.4-14)
F. Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Threshold “Impact 4.4-6”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The literature search identified 20 special-status plant species, 42 specialstatus wildlife species, and three special-status plant communities as having potential to occur within the Devore United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle. However, no special-status plant species, wildlife species, or plant communities were observed on-site during the habitat assessment due to the disturbed nature of the site and lack of suitable habitat. No special-status species will be impacted by Project implementation and no mitigation is required. Therefore, impacts to any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans are not expected to occur from development of the Project, and mitigation is not required. (Draft EIR Page 4.4-15)

2.2.5 Cultural Resources
A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Threshold “Impact 4.5-1”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Four structures, each erected within the last 45 years, which is the age threshold for identifying whether or not built properties are considered historic in age, currently occupy 57038
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
12 the Project site. As the structures are not of historic age or classified as a historic resource, the Project would have no impact.

Additionally, no fewer than 17 previous cultural resource investigations have occurred within 0.5 mile of the Project site since 1978, including the Cultural Resource Assessment for the Project, and have found no cultural resources within the Project site boundaries. The Project site is currently developed and previously disturbed with no native intact sediments observed during the field survey. As construction activities would occur within the footprint of existing development, historical resources would not be impacted by construction of the Project. Operation of the Project would commence upon the completion of construction activities. This land use operation would not impact any known or unknown historical resources. As such, no impact would occur regarding adverse change to a historical resource. (Draft EIR

2.2.6 Energy
A. Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Threshold “Impact 4.6-1”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project’s net increase in electricity usage (subtracting estimated energy use from existing uses) would constitute approximately 0.0113 percent of typical annual electricity usage, and approximately 0.0014 percent of typical annual natural gas consumption for the County.

Construction-related on- and off-road automotive fuel consumption (i.e., fuel consumed during construction) would constitute 0.0303 percent of diesel and 0.0047 percent of gasoline consumption.

During operations, the net increase in on-road automotive fuel consumption (i.e., fuel consumed from operational vehicle trips to and from the Project site) would constitute 0.0388 percent of diesel and

0.0086 percent of gasoline of Countywide automotive fuel consumption.

During construction, the Project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Project construction would comply with the latest Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board (CARB) engine emissions standards and use reasonable best efforts to deploy the highest rated CARB Tier technology that is available at the time of construction. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energyefficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature as shown in Table 4.6-4 of the Draft EIR. Fuel consumption utilized by operation and construction of the Project would be nominal when compared to cumulative County fuel usage. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
57139
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
13 Project operations are estimated to consume approximately 107,282 additional gallons of diesel fuel and 74,192 additional gallons of gasoline fuel per year in comparison to existing uses, which would constitute approximately 0.0388 percent and 0.0086 percent, respectively, of Countywide automotive fuel consumption. The Project would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. On-site motorized operational equipment would be zero emissions and not require the use of fossil fuel), pursuant to the Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Operations of the Project would result in a net increase of approximately 1,810,010 kWh of electricity per year and approximately 7,177 therms of natural gas per year. The Project would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances; water, space heating, and cooling equipment; building insulation and roofing; and lighting. As such, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.6-11)
B. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Threshold “Impact 4.6-2”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) contains energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings based on a state mandate to reduce California’s energy demand. Specifically, Title 24 addresses a number of energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning, including the energy impact of the building envelope such as windows, doors, skylights, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, attics, and roofs.

Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 per state regulations. In accordance with Title 24 Part 6, the Project would have: (a) sensor-based lighting controls— for fixtures located near windows, the lighting would be adjusted by taking advantage of available natural light; and (b) efficient process equipment— improved technology offers significant savings through more efficient processing equipment.

Title 24, Part 11, contains voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project under the California Green Building Standards Code. As discussed above, the Project would result in an increased demand for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. In accordance with Title 24 Part 11 mandatory compliance, the Applicant would have (a) 50 percent of its construction and demolition waste diverted from landfills; (b) mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; (c) low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particle boards; and (d) a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use. Compliance with all of these mandatory measures would decrease the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. 57240
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
14 The San Bernardino County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP) establishes a series of energy efficiency related goals intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions based on the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Those applicable to the Project are Renewables Portfolio Standard for Building Energy Use, AB 1109 Energy Efficiency Standards for Lighting, Electricity Energy Efficiency, and Commercial Energy Efficiency Requirements.

In addition, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable standards of the Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance and final documentation of compliance would be subject to review and approval prior to issuance of applicable permits. Standards include alternative energy measures that require all building rooftops to be solar-ready, zero emission on-site motorized operational equipment, a minimum of 10 percent of all passenger vehicles to be electric vehicle ready, and at least five percent of all passenger vehicle parking spaces to be equipped with working electric vehicle charging stations. The Project would not conflict with any of the federal, state, or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Because the Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24 and with GHGRP measures, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occur.

Therefore, impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans would be considered less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.6-12)

2.2.7 Geology and Soils
A. Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving (Threshold “Impact 4.7-1 through 4.7-4”):
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding:

Rupture of Known Earthquake Fault: There are no known active faults crossing or projecting through the Project site. The Project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, the geotechnical investigation did not identify any evidence of faulting. Therefore, the possibility of ground rupture at the site is considered to be low. Impacts for the Project site would be less than significant regarding substantial evidence of known fault.

Strong Seismic Ground Shaking: The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no evidence of faulting was identified during the geotechnical investigation. The Project site is not subject to surface rupture of a known active fault, as the nearest fault is approximately three miles northwest of the Project site. The possibility of significant ground shaking on the site is considered to be low. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant regarding strong seismic ground shaking. 57341
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
15 Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction: Southern California is considered a seismically active region and the regional vicinity of the Project site contains a number of known earthquake faults.

The Project site is located in the southern California region, which is prone to seismically induced ground shaking. The Project site would be developed with a 398,514-square foot facility. All Project site components would be constructed to the then current CBC and International Building Code standards. All structures would be designed in conformance with all applicable standards to resist the effects of seismic ground shaking. As part of the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters were generated for future structural improvements within the Project area. Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed 2022 CBC standards for earthquake resistance. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with a specified probability at the Project site. Therefore, future development of habitable structures within the Project site would be conducted in accordance with the 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters generated as part of the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, which would reduce impacts from seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils undergo a temporary loss of strength during severe ground shaking and acquire a degree of mobility sufficient to permit ground deformation. In extreme cases, the soil particles can become suspended in groundwater, resulting in the soil deposit becoming mobile and fluid-like. Liquefaction is generally considered to occur primarily in loose to medium dense deposits of saturated soils. Thus, three conditions are required for liquefaction to occur:
(1) a cohesionless soil of loose to medium density; (2) a saturated condition; and (3) rapid large strain, cyclic loading, normally provided by earthquake motions.

The Project site is not located within a zone identified as having a potential for liquefaction by the County.

According to the geotechnical investigation, groundwater was not encountered during Project explorations. Impacts in relation to these hazards for the Project site would be less than significant.

Landslides: Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mudflows, debris flows, soil slips, and rock falls occur as soil or rock moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. The susceptibility of a geologic unit to landslides is dependent upon various factors, primarily: 1) the presence and orientation of weak structures, such as fractures, faults, and joints; 2) the height and steepness of the pertinent natural or cut slope; 3) the presence and quantity of groundwater; and 4) the occurrence of strong seismic shaking. The Project site is not located in an area subject to landslides. The Project site is located on relatively flat ground and is not adjacent to any areas with steep slopes such that if ground shaking occurred the site would experience damage from a landslide. Therefore, impacts related to landslides for the Project site would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.7-21) B. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Threshold “Impact 4.7-5”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
57442
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
16 Facts in Support of Finding: Construction activities such as excavation and grading would be minimal given that the Project site is relatively flat. No major grading or excavation would be needed to substantially alter the slope of the site, create or remove steep slopes, create retaining walls, or make other landform modifications. Nevertheless, grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. During construction, the Project site would be required to comply with erosion and siltation control measures. This would include measures such as sandbagging, placement of silt fencing, erosion control blankets, straw wattles, mulching, etc., to reduce runoff from the site and to hold topsoil in place during all grading activities. Operation of the Project site would not involve procedures which would result in substantial soil erosion. Following construction of the Project site, the site would be covered with hardscape which would not contribute to erosion. The Project site also would contain some landscaping, and these areas would include ground covers to reduce erosion or loss of on-site soils post-construction. This would ensure that operation of the Project site would not result in the loss of topsoil or sedimentation into local drainage facilities and water bodies. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact regarding soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Draft EIR Page 4.7- 21)
C. Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Threshold “Impact 4.7-6”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not included within an Earthquake Fault Zone as identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. As discussed for Impact 4.7-1 through 4.7-4, the Project site and the surrounding area is relatively flat and/or developed which indicates that the Project would not be susceptible to landslides nor cause significant erosion that would result in a landslide. Additionally, the City’s Local hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) lists the types of geologic hazards known to occur in the City regarding slope instability, leading to possible mudflow, liquefaction, and collapsible or expansive soils. The Project site is not located in an area identified as susceptible to slope instability or landslides.

The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include shallow groundwater table elevation, soil type and plasticity characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. Although the Project site is located in a seismically active region, the Project site is not located within a zone identified as having a potential for liquefaction by the County.

Furthermore, groundwater was not encountered during Project explorations. Therefore, liquefaction and landslides are not considered to be a design concern for the Project, and potential for lateral spreading would be low to negligible since the Project’s topography does not contain steep slopes and the Project site and the immediate area are not within a zone of generalized landslide susceptibility.

The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Based on the conditions encountered in the borings and trenches conducted for the geotechnical investigation, groundwater was not encountered and is estimated to be at a depth greater than 320 feet below ground surface. The Project does not propose or require additional groundwater wells within the area and therefore the risk of ground subsidence as result of excessive groundwater withdrawal is low. Additionally, 57543
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
17 based on anticipated groundwater depths, it is not expected that groundwater would affect excavations for the foundations and utilities and subsidence is unlikely due to the distance to groundwater.

Furthermore, all structures would comply with CBC requirements to mitigate the possibility of subsidence.

Lastly, soil liquefaction is not likely to occur at this site primarily because the groundwater level is deep.

The Project site is relatively flat and is not located adjacent to any potentially unstable topographical feature, such as a hillside or riverbank. Therefore, impacts associated with these hazards would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.7-21)
D. Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Threshold “Impact 4.7-7”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Expansive soils are soils that expand and contract depending on their moisture level. This change can occur seasonally as water levels and precipitation changes throughout the year.

These soils normally occur within the first five feet below the surface. Expansive soils can lead to structural damage as their compositions and volume changes dramatically. According to the geotechnical investigation, the near-surface soils consist of sands, silty sands, and gravelly sands with no appreciable clay content. These materials have been visually classified as non-expansive. As such, the geotechnical investigation does not anticipate expansive soils to adversely impact the design, construction, or operation of the Project. Therefore, the Project site would not be impacted by significant soil expansion and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR Page 4.7-22) E. Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Threshold “Impact 4.7-8”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. The Project site would not use an alternative wastewater disposal system and is proposed to tie into the existing sewer line. Impacts in this regard for the Project site would not occur. (Draft EIR Page

4.7-23)
F. Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Threshold “Impact 4.7-9”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site occurs on alluvial soils deposited during the Holocene Epoch (within the last 11,700 years). This reduces the potential for the disturbance of any unknown buried paleontological resources and makes the likelihood of damage or destruction to such resources remote.

Additionally, the Paleontological Assessment concluded that the records search did not produce any fossil 57644
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
18 localities from within the Project area or from the same geologic unit within five miles. Searches of online databases and other literature did not produce any additional fossil localities within one mile.

Excavation for construction could result in significant paleontological resources being encountered; however, the underlying sediment is likely to be from the Holocene Epoch and located at a significant depth. Therefore, and ground disturbing activities are not anticipated to impact paleontological resources.

The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.7-25)

2.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Threshold “Impact 4.8-1”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would result in the generation of approximately 1,207 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 40 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. The Project would generate approximately 2,528 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations and the Project. The existing approximately 48,000 square feet of warehouse use located on the Project site generates approximately 1,985 MTCO2e annually and will be removed and replaced by the Project. Existing emissions have been estimated based on CalEEMod default emissions factors for building operations and estimated trip generation. Therefore, the development of the Project would generate approximately 543 MTCO2e net new emissions annually. The net Project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. Therefore, the Project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR Page 4.8-18) B. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Threshold “Impact 4.8-2”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies 57745
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
19 that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals and FCAA requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state. The Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets. Additionally, the net new GHG emissions caused by long-term operation of the Project would not exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs because the Project would generate low levels of GHGs, and would not impede implementation of the Scoping Plan, or conflict with the policies of the Scoping Plan or any other GHG reduction plan. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan sets targets for reducing GHG emissions. Approximately 83 percent of the Project’s GHG emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan measures as a greater amount of renewable energy sources come online.

Additionally, the Project would be consistent with resource efficiency goals established in the Fontana General Plan Update as shown in Table 4.8-5 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.8-22)

2.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
C. Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Threshold “Impact 4.9-3”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction of the Project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials on-site and off-site, which include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents, but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a manner that would pose a significant hazard to nearby schools. The nearest schools to the Project site are Sierra Lakes Elementary School, located approximately one mile west of the Project site; Wayne Ruble Middle School, located approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project site; and AB Miller High School, located approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the Project site. None of these schools are located along the officially designated local truck route, Sierra Avenue, located adjacent to the Project site. Note, however, that Project-related truck traffic would be prohibited from using Sierra Avenue. This would fall outside of the 0.25-mile requirement of this threshold. Notwithstanding, the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure Project construction would not create a significant hazard to nearby schools due to the transport of any hazardous materials on local roadways. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR Page 4.9-23) 57846
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
20 D. Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Threshold “Impact 4.9-4”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). The Project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. The Phase I ESA indicated that there were no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) identified in association with the Project site. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.9-24) E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (Threshold “Impact 4.9-5”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not within proximity to, or within two miles of a public or private use airport. The nearest airstrips are the Ontario International Airport (located roughly 11 miles to the southwest) and the San Bernardino International Airport (located roughly 11 miles to the southeast). There are no associated safety hazards or noise issues. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR Page

4.9-24)
F. Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Threshold “Impact 4.9-6”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither construction or operations of the Project site would disrupt or interfere with emergency access or impede access to nearby roadways or would interfere with the City’s emergency management program. On-site construction would not impeded traffic flows; however, all offsite improvements to be constructed will require a Traffic Control Plan be processed for approval by the City to ensure adequate roadway circulation can be maintained during off-site construction. The City does not designate any roads as emergency evacuation routes and any future construction activities on the site would not affect any evacuation route and would not interfere with the City’s emergency management program. As discussed, construction activities may require the transport of heavy equipment and materials to and from the site. These activities may temporarily impede traffic flows; however, these impediments would be localized and short-term in nature. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The Project would comply with design standards for emergency services and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard and mitigation is not required. (Draft EIR Page 4.9-25)
57947
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
21 G. Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Threshold “Impact 4.9-7”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The City is categorized as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) by CAL FIRE. Also, according to CAL FIRE, the Project site is designated as a Non-very high Fire Hazard Safety Zone (FHSZ).

However, according to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Project site is within a High FHSZ within the City. The Project site is located within the City limits and is surrounded by developed land. Although the Project site is not located in a VHFHSZ, the City, in conjunction with the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), reviews all building plans for compliance with the California Building Code, state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations relating to the prevention of fire, the storage of hazardous materials, and the protection of life and property against fire, explosion, and exposure to hazardous materials. Adherence to regulations already in place through the development application and review process at the City would reduce the potential impacts associated with fire hazards as a result of wildland fires to less than significant.

In addition, the Fontana MC has a fire hazard overlay district provision for areas designated on the Fontana GP land use map. Projects within the overlay district must prepare a fuel modification zone plan for each new tentative tract map, parcel map, or design review application. Therefore, in conformance with the Fontana MC, a fuel modification zone plan has been prepared for the Project. The fuel modification zone plan for the Project establishes fuel zones in conformance with Section 30-658 of the Fontana MC that includes permanent fuel modification zones, access requirements and protection measures. The Project’s fuel modification zone plan protects the site from wildfire exposure and reduces exposure to the City of Fontana residents, people, and structures from wildfires. (Draft EIR Page 4.9-25)

2.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
A. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Threshold “Impact 4.10-1”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction at the Project site would result in the baring and exposure of soils. During construction, fuels, lubricants, and solid and liquid wastes would be stored within active construction areas. Temporary water quality impacts could occur due to run-off from the active construction site, if the construction areas are not properly managed to contain loose soils, and liquid and solid contaminants.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit) associated with the Project site. The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as: clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one acre of total land area. In addition, the applicant would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana 58048
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
22 River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that all construction contractors would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property.

BMPs are designed to control and prevent discharges of pollutants that can adversely impact the downstream surface water quality. Construction activities are also required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 28-111, Stormwater management and rainwater retention, Section 9-16 – 9-25, Control of Blowing Sand and Soil Erosion, and other required regulations. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydroseeding. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article III, all project applicants also would be required to implement an erosion control plan to minimize water and windborne erosion. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the erosion control plan would ensure that the construction of the Project site does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

Stormwater pollutants that could be produced during operation of the Project site include pathogens (bacterial/virus), phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, metals, oil/grease, trash/debris, pesticides/herbicides, and organic compounds. The expected pollutants of concern for the Project site would be pathogens, nitrogen, copper, and lead.

To meet the requirements of the City’s Municipal Storm Water Permit – and in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX – the Project applicant for the Project site would be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP). A SWQMP is a site-specific post-construction WQMP designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long-term conditions via BMPs.

Implementation of the SWQMP ensures ongoing, long-term protection of the watershed basin. It is anticipated that the structural source control BMPs would be sufficient to reduce impacts. Structural source controls would consist of measures such as LID strategies including underground infiltration chambers, bioretention areas, and hydrodynamic separators as well as operational source control BMPs (including but not limited to the installation of water-efficient landscape irrigation systems, storm drain system stenciling and signage, and implementation of a trash and waste storage areas) to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater run-off flows before they are discharged into the City’s storm drain system.

Specifically related to industrial uses, the NPDES program requires certain industrial land uses to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program, unless an exemption has been granted. On April 1, 2014, the SWRCB adopted an updated new NPDES permit for stormwater discharge associated with industrial activities (referred to as the “Industrial General Permit”). On November 6, 2018, the SWRCB amended the Industrial General Permit, which is 58149
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
23 more stringent than the former Industrial General Permit and became effective on July 1, 2020. Under this currently effective NPDES Industrial General Permit, the industrial uses such as but not limited to manufacturing, facilities subject to stormwater effluent limitations, transportation facilities, and other uses with typically heavy industrial uses would require permitting. Warehousing uses are not specifically included. Based on the future uses, if a covered use is implemented, the Project could require NPDES coverage under this order (2014-0057-DWQ). This would require preparation of a SWPPP for operational activities and implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program or receive an exemption. This permit is dependent upon a detailed accounting of all operational activities and procedures. Prior to final Project approval a detailed account of the proposed uses within the proposed facility would be provided to the City to determine if permitting would be required. If such permitting is required, the mandatory compliance with all applicable water quality regulations would reduce potential water quality impacts during long-term operation. This impact would, therefore, be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.10-19)
B. Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Threshold “4.10-2”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site lies within the Chino Basin. The Chino Basin is the subbasin of the Upper Santa Ana River contained within the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) South Coast Hydrologic Region. The Project site would be within the service area of Fontana Water Company (FWC), which derives some of its water from the Chino Basin. Accordingly, the Project site would connect to the municipal water system and would not use on-site wells, nor would any other groundwater extractive activities occur. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater basin. Accordingly, implementation of the Project in this regard would not substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and direct impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.

Additionally, as discussed in additional detail in Section 4.19: Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, considering the above and considering current as well as Project water demand through the year 2040 in both normal, and single, two year, and multiple dry year scenarios, FWC has an adequate supply of water to serve the Project. This would be done without jeopardizing groundwater supplies in any of the underlying basins.

While construction of the Project would introduce new impermeable surfaces to the site, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be required. As part of the WQMP, the Project would include elements to reduce the effects of the new impervious areas. The WQMP would include design measures such as Low Impact Development (LID) and other stormwater drainage controls. The LIDs would be engineered to capture and control run-off prior to being released downstream. This would increase the duration that water is held on-site prior to being released to downstream receiving waters, and would facilitate recharge. In addition, LIDs that include permeable materials, enable run-off to immediately infiltrate and begin the recharge process. Lastly, the Project site also includes areas that would be landscaped with permeable surfaces, which also would facilitate groundwater recharge. Therefore, the Project would not 58250
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
24 change recharge characteristics, with the required measures in place, the loss of the permeable area would not be substantial, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.10-20) C. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would (Threshold “4.10-3 through 4.10-6”):
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding:

Erosion and Siltation: Construction of the Project would alter the subject’s property’s interior drainage patterns, but the changes would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The Project would be required to follow the SWRCBs erosion control standards and would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. Because the Project site is greater than one acre, this requirement would apply.

In addition, because the Project area is located within the Sana Ana RWQCB’s jurisdiction, it would be required to conform with the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities. More specifically, BMPs would be required to be implemented in accordance with the SWPPP that would be required prior to initiation of any construction activities. These measures would help ensure that during construction, waterborne pollution from erosion and siltation is reduced, prevented, or minimized. Other measures may include ways to treat run-off prior to discharge. BMPs may include but not be limited to, sandbag barriers, silt fences, soil stabilizers, reseeding, straw mats, and other ground covers. Lastly, the Project would be required to implement an erosion and dust control plan pursuant to City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article III and to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize water- and windborne erosion. Conformance with these requirements and measures would ensure that erosion during construction is reduced to less than significant.

Erosion control measures would also be in place upon completion of construction on the Project site, and these measures would take effect immediately. The Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWQMP as well. The SWQMP would be site-specific and would include post-construction water quality management measures that would be implemented and designed to minimize erosion and siltation. The SWQMP would include engineered erosion control and sediment control measures used to reduce or 58351
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
25 eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. Each set of erosion control measures would be site-specific and respond to anticipated flows, run-off constituents, and unique demands of the site. This would ensure an ongoing and long-term erosion control plan is in place to account for operational impacts from the Project site. Compliance would be ensured because the SWQMP is required pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX. Because the Project would be required to prepare and implement such a plan as a condition of Project approval, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.

Stormwater Runoff: Implementation of the Project would alter the existing ground contours of the Project site. The Project site is currently developed with light industrial use buildings, but the construction of the warehouse would result in the installation of more impervious surfaces. Although the same southerly drainage patterns and flows would be maintained, the Project would result in changes to the site’s existing, internal drainage patterns.

The rate and amount of surface run-off versus infiltration on a given site is determined by multiple factors, including the amount and intensity of precipitation; amount of other imported water that enters a watershed; surface and subsurface soil layers vegetative cover, existing soils moisture content, slope, and others. In addition, the rate of surface run-off is largely determined by topography and the intensity of rainfall over a given period of time.

None of the Project elements would alter precipitation amounts or intensities, nor would they require any additional water to be imported into the Project site. However, construction of the Project would require earth-disturbing activities which may temporarily affect site specific infiltration and permeability during construction and permanently, from operation. This would result in a substantially greater volume of water flowing off-site from the Project site.

The Project would have a new stormwater system designated and installed to be site-specific and that would contain and collect stormwater flows in the Project site. Run-off within the Project site would be directed to one of two on-site underground infiltration systems located on the southeast and southwest corners of the Project property. Water would be captured and stored and treated if needed before runoff can drain off-site. New stormwater facilities would be planned and designated to satisfy the SWQMP requirements as discussed above. In cases where excess run-off would generate overflow conditions, the southeast underground infiltration system would discharge through a proposed storm drain line B to an existing 54-inch storm drain in Mango Avenue and the southwest underground infiltration system would discharge through a proposed storm drain line E to an existing 36-inch storm drain in Sierra Avenue.

All designs and conformance with the SWQMP would be verified by the City and incorporated as conditions of approval to the Project site prior to the issuance of any construction permit. In addition, this would include plans that ensure the post-development flows do not exceed pre-development flows.

Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts are less than significant and mitigation would not be required.

The Project site must comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit, which helps control water pollution by regulating point and non-point sources that discharge pollutants into receiving waters. 58452
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
26 The Project would be required to obtain a General Construction Permit. The General Construction Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP, which would include BMPs designated to protect the quality of stormwater run-off. Preparation, implementation, and participation with both the NPDES General Permit and the General Construction Permit, including the SWPPP and BMPs, would reduce the potential for stormwater flows, and any potential contaminants contained within those flows, to be conveyed off-site during construction of the Project. As a result, short-term construction-related impacts associated with creating or contributing to run-off and additional sources of polluted run-off would be less than significant.

Conformance with these requirements would be verified prior to any Project approval and included as conditions of approval to any future project. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.

As mandated by the RWQCB and through implementation of the SWQMP, the Project would include new stormwater drainage system facilities that would be engineered, designed, and installed to satisfy all the water quality requirements. These measures would include maximizing natural infiltration practices and preserving existing drainage patterns by draining the entire site underground; re-vegetating disturbed areas with landscaping; and minimizing unnecessary compaction of stormwater infiltration areas.

To ensure that the new stormwater drainage improvements are planned and designed to satisfy these requirements as well as all other applicable standards and requirements, plans would be verified by the City and incorporated as conditions of approval to the Project prior to the issuance of any construction permit. Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts are less than significant and mitigation would not be required.

Flood Flows: The FEMA FIRM shows that the Project site being covered by one main indication panel, which is 06071C7920H, effective August 28, 2008. Based on a review of this panel, this is an area of minimal flood hazard. More specifically, the Project site is located within “Zone X,” which corresponds to areas with minimal flood hazard outside of the 500-year floodplain (also referred to as the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain). Therefore, no portions of the Project site are located within a 100-year flood hazard area and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR Page 4.10-21) D. Would the Project result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Threshold “4.10-7”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 60 miles from the Project.

Considering this distance, there is no potential for the Project site to be impacted by a tsunami. The Project site also is not subject to flooding hazards associated with a seiche because the nearest large body of surface water likely to be affected by a seiche is Lake Matthews approximately 36 miles to the south. At this distance, the Project would be unaffected. Furthermore, as noted in the City’s General Plan EIR, the City is not mapped in a dam inundation area. Accordingly, the impacts to the Project site associated with release of pollutants due to inundation would not occur. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR Page 4.10- 22)
58553
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
27 E. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Threshold “4.10-8”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located within the Upper Santa Ana River Basin. The site’s related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan which requires the preparation of and adherence to a SWPPP and SWQMP. The Project would be required to show conformance prior to any approval.

Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant. The Project site is located within the Rialto-Colton Basin, which is an adjudicated groundwater basin. Adjudicated basins, like the Rialto-Colton Basin, are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court-ordered management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability of the basin.

Therefore, the Project components would not obstruct or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Rialto-Colton Basin. As such, construction and operation of the Project would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page

4.10-22)

2.2.11 Land Use and Planning
A. Would the Project physically divide an established community? (Threshold “Impact 4.11-1”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not include any existing residential structures or an established community and is not currently zoned for residential use. Neighboring land uses to the west of the Project site include single family residential units which are located among commercial and industrial uses to the east beyond Sierra Avenue.

The redevelopment of the Project site would not include improvements which would substantially alter existing roadways and transportation corridors in a manner that would cause the removal or separation of existing adjacent communities from important resources and neighboring units. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community and there would be a less than significant impact. (Draft EIR Page 4.11-6)
B. Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Threshold “Impact 4.11-2”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: At a regional level, the Project would comply with the goals and policies presented in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Locally, the Project would comply with the City’s General Plan document. Implementation of the Project would be generally consistent with the City General Plan goals 58654
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
28 and policies. The Project is generally consistent and in harmony with the City General Plan, Land Use Category and is located in a developed area of the City. Additionally, consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Project’s EIR includes mitigation measures related to specific environmental resource areas to reduce or eliminate potential effects of the Project. The Project would not result in a change in, or conflict with a land use or zoning district that would result in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with any existing plan, policy, or regulation would be less than significant. (Draft EIR Page 4.11- 13)

2.2.12 Mineral Resources
A. Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? (Threshold “Impact 4.12-1”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located on lands designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3) by the County, which designates land that has areas containing known or inferred mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources. The Project site is not designated as land that contains known mineral resources of significance, and any mineral resource extraction would require a Conditional Use Permit from the County. The Fontana Forward General Plan (Fontana Forward GP) Update does not contain policies that conflict with the recovery of future mineral resources. The City plans to instill long term protections over any significant mineral resource deposits, should they be unearthed in the future.

The City does not expect that their General Plan Update would contribute to a loss of mineral resources.

Further the Project site is already developed for light industrial uses and the surrounding area is currently urbanized for industrial uses. Additionally, the Project site has previously been developed and did not contain any known mineral resources or require extraction of any mineral resources. No part of the Project site is within a boundary that is owned or controlled by an aggregate producer or has previously been used for mineral extraction. As the Project site does not currently contain mineral extraction facilities, consists of previously disturbed land, and has not been designated as containing confirmed mineral resources of significance, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources which are of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the state. As such, there would be no impacts due to Project implementation. (Draft EIR Page 4.12-6) B. Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (Threshold “Impact 4.12-2”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There are many mineral resource recovery sites within the County, of which there is one within the general vicinity of the Project Site. The City of Rialto is operating an Open Pit that is within 0.3 mile of the Project area. The Fontana Forward GP does not mention any mineral resource recovery sites located within the City or its sphere of influence. The Project is located in northern portion of the City at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive. The Project 58755
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
29 site is currently disturbed with existing light industrial uses and the site is located within an urbanized industrial area. The Project site is not delineated as a mineral resource recovery site on any general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of any locally important mineral resource recovery site. As such, there would be no impact. (Draft EIR Page

4.12-6)

2.2.13 Noise
A. Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Threshold “Impact 4.13-1”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods located to the west of the construction site. Existing residential uses are located approximately 130 feet from the Project construction area. However, construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.

Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities could require concrete/industrial saws, excavators, and dozers during demolition; dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, graders, and dozers during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, mixers, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels as shown in Table 4.13-3 of the Draft EIR. Construction activities may also cause increased noise along site access routes due to movement of equipment and workers. Compliance with the Municipal Code would minimize impacts from construction noise, as construction would be limited to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays. Construction noise levels from the Project would not exceed the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA’s) construction noise thresholds and would be required to comply with the Municipal Code standards. Expected Project construction noise levels would reach approximately 67.8 dBA from the nearest sensitive receptor, below the City threshold of 80 dBA as shown in Table 4.13-4 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, there is a less than significant noise impact for construction activities.

Implementation of the Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. Mechanical equipment noise would attenuate to 43.7 dBA, which is below the City’s 65 dBA standard. Operation of 58856
Sierra Distribution Facility Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2023030788
30 mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels. These closest residences would experience truck noise levels of approximately 49.1 dBA, which is below the City’s acceptable limits of 65 dBA for residential noise. Additionally, these noise levels would also be further attenuated by the intervening structures. Loading dock doors would also be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Back-up beepers produce a typical volume of 97 dBA at one meter from the source. The property line of the nearest sensitive receptor would be located approximately 130 feet west of the Project driveway where trucks could be reversing and maneuvering into the loading area. At this distance, exterior noise levels from back-up beepers would be approximately 64 dBA, which is below the City’s acceptable limits of 65 dBA for residential noise. Parking lot noise would occur within the surface parking lot on-site and would be up to 52.7 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors located approximately 130 feet away which is below the City’s 65 dBA residential standard. Existing Plus Project traffic-generated noise levels on Project area roadways would range between 66.2 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and 73.3 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.1 dBA CNEL along Sierra Lakes Parkway and Sierra Avenue. As such, a less than significant impact would occur, and mitigation is not necessary. (Draft EIR