Fontana City Council
December 9, 2025

267
Beginning
Balance
Ending
Balance
07/01/24 06/30/25
620 Flood Control - San Sevaine 2,602,769 92,770 112,243 (61,085) (8,320) 2,738,377 621 Flood Control - Etiwanda 47,890 0 2,032 0 0 49,922
622 Storm Drain 22,493,312 1,291,985 924,777 (2,346,553) (98,460) 22,265,062 630 Circulation Mitigation 23,564,927 12,834,603 1,907,886 (4,965,809) (73,880) 33,267,727 631 Fire Facility 742,722 420,235 28,406 (102,396) (281,570) 807,397 632 Public Facilities 13,567,378 658,930 584,929 (272,614) 0 14,538,623 633 Median Landscaping 2,556,442 423,970 108,367 (340,483) (11,720) 2,736,576 634 Library Facility 1,371,782 159,653 61,577 (66,844) (6,440) 1,519,728 635 Park Development 16,625,646 4,963,410 741,323 (5,371,141) (123,970) 16,835,268 636 Police Facilities 4,183,604 744,211 187,345 (380,627) (38,880) 4,695,653 698 Affordable Housing 8,611,409 3,137,010 250,293 (5,136,078) 0 6,862,635 702 Sewer Connection 2,851,221 675,653 119,330 163,537 (816,768) (146,210) (9,140) 2,837,623 TOTALS 99,219,103 25,402,431 5,028,506 163,537 (19,860,397) (146,210) (652,380) 109,154,590 City of Fontana
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Fund Balances, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, and Project Expenditures Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(C) and (D)
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Cost
Allocation Fund Fund Description Fees Collected
Interest
Earned
Other
Revenues
Capital
Expenditures
Other
Expenditures
Section 2

268
Fee Type 2024/25 2023/24 2022/23 2021/22 2020/21
Flood Control - San Sevaine (620)
Beginning balance 2,602,769 1,931,487 1,403,656 579,435 461,015 Revenue 92,770 994,865 626,722 977,357 216,918
Interest 112,243 88,641 2,714 (42,875) 1,880
Other revenue
Capital (61,085) (403,904) (87,935) (96,861) (86,578)
Cost allocation (8,320) (8,320) (13,670) (13,400) (13,800) Ending balance 2,738,377 2,602,769 1,931,487 1,403,656 579,435 Flood Control - Etiwanda (621)
Beginning balance 47,890 45,915 45,557 46,973 46,925
Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 2,032 1,975 358 (1,416) 48
Other revenue
Capital
Cost allocation
PPA - fees owed to County
Ending balance 49,922 47,890 45,915 45,557 46,973
Storm Drain (622)
Beginning balance 22,493,312 20,758,650 18,253,547 15,843,084 14,963,962 Revenue 1,291,985 3,085,653 3,178,479 4,373,223 3,529,070 Interest 924,777 981,038 121,550 (634,878) 22,156
Other revenue
Capital (2,346,553) (2,233,568) (669,467) (1,204,881) (2,381,903) Cost allocation (98,460) (98,460) (125,460) (123,000) (290,200) Ending balance 22,265,062 22,493,312 20,758,650 18,253,547 15,843,084 Circulation Mitigation (630)
Beginning balance 23,564,927 21,801,505 15,444,197 7,696,915 102,964 Revenue 12,834,603 7,865,186 9,796,269 10,055,943 8,680,924 Interest 1,907,886 2,074,831 231,173 (1,309,715) 64,926 Other revenue
Capital (4,965,809) (8,102,715) (3,485,004) (817,446) (1,024,499) Cost allocation (73,880) (73,880) (185,130) (181,500) (127,400) Ending balance 33,267,727 23,564,927 21,801,505 15,444,197 7,696,915 Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(C) and (D)
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
City of Fontana
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Fund Balances, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, and Project Expenditures - Five Year History Section 3

269
Fee Type 2024/25 2023/24 2022/23 2021/22 2020/21
Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(C) and (D)
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
City of Fontana
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Fund Balances, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, and Project Expenditures - Five Year History Fire Facility (631)
Beginning balance 742,722 606,389 666,331 637,971 719,932 Revenue 420,235 390,047 256,594 340,822 235,012
Interest 28,406 25,857 6,354 (20,713) 655
Other revenue
Capital (102,396) 0 0 0 0
Cost allocation (281,570) (279,570) (322,890) (291,749) (317,628) Ending balance 807,397 742,722 606,389 666,331 637,971
Public Facilities (632)
Beginning balance 13,567,378 12,445,256 11,982,002 11,327,524 10,110,789 Revenue 658,930 1,146,361 374,013 1,025,717 1,202,606
Interest 584,929 537,019 89,241 (371,240) 14,729
Other revenue
Capital (272,614) (561,258) 0 0 0
Cost allocation 0 0 0 0 (600)
Ending balance 14,538,623 13,567,378 12,445,256 11,982,002 11,327,524 Median Landscaping (633)
Beginning balance 2,556,442 5,826,878 5,900,772 5,582,394 5,809,267 Revenue 423,970 314,056 229,569 658,150 536,533
Interest 108,367 225,381 50,551 (184,480) 6,607
Other revenue
Capital (340,483) (3,798,153) (306,174) (108,392) (760,214) Cost allocation (11,720) (11,720) (47,840) (46,900) (9,800) Ending balance 2,736,576 2,556,442 5,826,878 5,900,772 5,582,394 Library Facility (634)
Beginning balance 1,371,782 1,182,630 1,179,839 1,020,693 475,855 Revenue 159,653 514,577 104,438 285,160 567,217
Interest 61,577 47,927 11,812 (38,944) 2,321
Other revenue
Capital (66,844) (366,912) (113,459) (87,070) 0
Cost allocation (6,440) (6,440) 0 0 (24,700)
Ending balance 1,519,728 1,371,782 1,182,630 1,179,839 1,020,693 Section 3

270
Fee Type 2024/25 2023/24 2022/23 2021/22 2020/21
Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(C) and (D)
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
City of Fontana
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Fund Balances, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, and Project Expenditures - Five Year History Park Development (635)
Beginning balance 16,625,646 20,319,441 18,195,031 5,120,626 5,533,262 Revenue 4,963,410 4,789,942 3,466,764 15,299,536 1,645,189 Interest 741,323 826,423 142,775 (553,613) 4,200
Other revenue
Capital (5,371,141) (9,186,190) (1,261,439) (1,452,218) (1,906,824) Cost allocation (123,970) (123,970) (223,690) (219,300) (155,200) Ending balance 16,835,268 16,625,646 20,319,441 18,195,031 5,120,626 Police Facilities (636)
Beginning balance 4,183,604 3,712,826 3,582,441 3,582,959 2,907,816 Revenue 744,211 1,160,918 412,280 640,651 767,821
Interest 187,345 162,230 25,073 (115,173) 5,343
Other revenue
Capital (380,627) (813,490) (302,278) (521,396) (80,321) Cost allocation (38,880) (38,880) (4,690) (4,600) (17,700) Ending balance 4,695,653 4,183,604 3,712,826 3,582,441 3,582,959 Affordable Housing (698)
Beginning balance 8,611,409 7,351,914 5,470,320 5,656,571 4,772,171 Revenue 3,137,010 2,451,893 2,411,904 1,497,365 876,809 Interest 250,293 250,896 22,377 (137,525) 7,591
Other revenue
Capital (5,136,078) (1,443,294) (552,687) (1,546,090) 0 Cost allocation 0 0 0 0 0
Ending balance 6,862,635 8,611,409 7,351,914 5,470,320 5,656,571 Sewer Connection (702)
Beginning balance 2,851,221 2,891,308 2,330,380 2,199,464 2,069,916 Revenue 675,653 552,195 811,632 336,864 325,729
Interest 119,330 165,106 49,523 (35,784) 3,774
Other revenue 163,537 900 504,743 510,640 509,039
Loan proceeds
Loan repayment (502,241) (502,241) (502,241) (502,241) (502,241) Capital (314,527) (246,908) (293,449) (169,463) (198,753) Other expenditures (146,210) 0 0 0 0
Cost allocation (9,140) (9,140) (9,280) (9,100) (8,000) Ending balance 2,837,623 2,851,221 2,891,308 2,330,380 2,199,464 Section 3

271
Flood Control - San Sevaine (620) 0
Due to County Flood Control
See Findings
Flood Control - Etiwanda (621) 0
See Findings
Storm Drain (622) 9,279,770
0063 COURTPLACE 2025 10,251,600 3,279,000 2,791,438 487,562 32% 3361 CYPRESS STORM DRAIN 2026 21,608,344 11,729,715 2,937,507 8,792,208 54% Circulation (630) 10,530,860
Due to other funds for project funding 1
0002 W LIBERTY PARKWAY/MILLER TS COMPLETED 733,327 41,805 41,805 0 6% 0003 FONTANA SRTS GAP CLOSURE 2025 4,593,414 45,912 45,912 0 1% 0039 CITRUS AVE WIDENING AT SR-210 2027 620,000 199,020 61,563 137,457 32% 0042 WESTGATE AT CHERRY AND VICTORIA AVE 2026 18,900,000 1,251,900 4,987 1,246,913 7% 3058 I-10 CEDAR INTERCHANGE 2026 4,109,655 4,109,655 736,646 3,373,009 100% 3087 I-10/CHERRY INTERCHANGE 9,920,301 9,553,068 9,553,068 0 96% 3088 I-10/CITRUS INTERCHANGE 26,840,374 17,614,401 16,395,578 1,218,823 66% 3281 SIERRA: FOOTHILL-BASELINE ARTERIAL 2025 21,272,264 6,852,882 6,120,774 732,108 32% 3333 FOOTHILL: HEMLOCK-ALMERIA ARTERIAL 2030 23,438,990 1,357,830 507,741 850,089 6% 3339 ALDER-LOCUST-RAMONA SRTS 2025 5,925,504 350,160 314,670 35,490 6% 3350 ETIWANDA/SLOVER ARTERIAL 2026 13,147,629 3,146,196 1,174,023 1,972,173 24% 3378 SIERRA: SUMMIT TO I-15 ROW COMPLETED 261,483 83,936 83,936 0 32% 0063 COURTPLACE 2025 10,251,600 648,000 47,946 600,054 6% 3361 CYPRESS STORM DRAIN 2026 21,608,344 109,140 2,086 107,054 1% 3367 ALDER MIDDLE SCHOOL S/W COMPLETED 3,770,889 97,144 97,144 0 3% 0054 SANTA ANA & JUNIPER AVE TS 2026 910,000 279,270 21,580 257,690 31% Fire Facility (631) 21,655,000
Due to Bondholders 21,655,000
Projects
Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(E)
City of Fontana
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025

COMPLETED

PENDING SBCTA
REC
Project # Project % From Dev
Impact Fees
Expended
Development
Impact Fees
Budgeted
Development
Impact Fees
Project
Completion
Total Project
Cost
Pending DIF
Expenditures
Section 4

272
Projects
Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(E)
City of Fontana
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Project # Project % From Dev
Impact Fees
Expended
Development
Impact Fees
Budgeted
Development
Impact Fees
Project
Completion
Total Project
Cost
Pending DIF
Expenditures
Public Facilities (632) 11,000,000
0067 Downtown West Parking Structure 2026 26,500,000 11,000,000 - 11,000,000 42% Median Landscaping (633) 1,622,603
0020 JURUPA AVE. LANDSCAPE MEDIAN COMPLETED 5,707,843 4,207,260 4,207,260 0 74% 3361 CYPRESS STORM DRAIN 2026 21,608,344 1,900,000 277,397 1,622,603 9% Library Facility (634) 0
Due to General Fund 0
0034 LEWIS LIBRARY WALL COMPLETED 200,528 200,528 200,528 0 100% Park Development (635) 5,044,457
0010 MCDERMOTT PARKING LOT 2027 520,000 520,000 210 519,790 100% 0045 MILLER PARK FENCE COMPLETED 733,635 733,635 733,635 0 100% 0058 MARTIN TUDOR PARK DESIGN 2026 50,000 50,000 10,010 39,990 100% 3345 SAN SEVAINE PH I 2026 19,052,110 6,500,000 3,726,690 2,773,310 34% 0008 SOUTHRIDGE DOG PARK EAST 2025 690,000 690,000 39,062 650,938 100% 0009 SOUTHRIDGE DOG PARK WEST 2025 700,000 700,000 39,693 660,307 100% 4241 SPORTS PARK 2026 1,818,171 496 375 121 0%
0010 VETERAN'S DOG PARK 2030 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 100% 0071 M TUDOR ACTION PARK 2028 300,000 300,000 0 300,000 100% Police Facilities (636) 194,571
0021 PD FENCE ON SEVILLE AVE 2026 488,016 24,342 24,342 0 5% 2029 POL BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 2026 531,960 498,540 303,969 194,571 94% 4328 EOC POLICE LOBBY REMODEL 2026 2,308,590 278,696 278,696 0 12% Affordable Housing (698) 771,168
0023 ALDEA LEGACY APTS 2026 6,277,012 3,427,000 2,655,832 771,168 55% Sewer Connection (702) 1,738,734
Due to State Revolving loan for San Bernardino Trunk Sewer 1,584,134 0063 COURTPLACE 2026 10,251,600 154,600 0 154,600 2%
Section 4

273
City of Fontana
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Report of Findings
(Government Code Section 66001(d))
Section 5

San Sevaine Flood Control – Fund 620
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference. The San Sevaine Flood Control fee is a “pass-through” fee to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD). The SBCFCD determines the project priorities and project expenditures and by agreement the SBCFCD will request a draw of funds on a project priority basis.

Fees are currently being accumulated and are on reserve for these SBCFCD projects.

Upper Etiwanda Flood Control – Fund 621
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Upper Etiwanda Flood Control fee is a “pass-through” fee to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD). The SBCFCD determines the project priorities and project expenditures and by agreement the SBCFCD will request a draw of funds on a project priority basis.

Fees are currently being accumulated and are on reserve for these SBCFCD projects.

Storm Drainage – Fund 622
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Circulation Mitigation – Fund 630
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference. Many of the projects funded with these fees are subject to a Measure I Agreement which identifies the City’s DIF share.

In order to move projects forward, funds have been borrowed from other sources. All circulation mitigation fees collected are obligated to repay those other sources. 274
City of Fontana
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Report of Findings
(Government Code Section 66001(d))
Section 5

Fire Facility – Fund 631
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference. In order to fund the construction of Fire Station No. 71, the Fontana Public Financing Authority issued Taxable Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds on December 8, 2010, in the amount of $5,420,000. These bonds were refinanced in November 2021 through the issuance of the City’s 2021A Lease Revenue Bonds in the amount of $23,125,000 which will also fund Fire Stations No. 80 and 81 as well as the Fire Protection District Training Facility.

Bond debt service for Fiscal Year 2024/25 is $1,381,300. Fire facility fees as available will be used to service this debt obligation, with any shortfall to be paid by the Fontana Fire Protection District.

Public Facilities – Fund 632
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Median Landscaping – Fund 633
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Library Facility – Fund 634
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Park Development – Fund 635
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference.
275
City of Fontana
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Report of Findings
(Government Code Section 66001(d))
Section 5

Police Facilities – Fund 636
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Affordable Housing – Fund 698
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Sewer Connection – Fund 702
The purpose of the fee, the relationship between the fee and the purpose, the sources of anticipated funding and the approximate dates on which funding is expected are set forth in the City’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023/2024 – 2029/2030, which is incorporated herein by reference. In order to fund the San Bernardino Trunk Sewer project, $8,322,304 was borrowed from the State Revolving Loan Fund. The loan repayment is equal to $502,241 per year. Sewer connection fees are obligated for one-half of this annual repayment amount. 276
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8437 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0690 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Agenda #: T. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Development Services
SUBJECT:

Approve and award a Professional Services Agreement to Soundbox Group RECOMMENDATION:

1. Award and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Issiah Avila dba Soundbox Group, LLC in the amount of $120,000.00 to provide consulting services for downtown economic development, with a specific focus on Stage Red marketing and promotion.

2. Approve the Non-Competitive Proposal purchase under the Purchasing Policies 3.1.5 for Single Source/Sole Source method.

3. Approve and Authorize the City Manager, or City Manager’s designee, to execute any future amendments required for the operation of Stage Red.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Promote economic development by pursuing business attraction, retention, and expansion. · Promote economic development by being business friendly at all levels and striving to constantly improve the city's competitiveness.
· Practice sound fiscal management by living within our means while investing in the future. · Concentrate on Inter-governmental relations by establishing partnerships and positive working relationships with other public agencies providing services to residents and local businesses.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Fontana has undertaken an expansive and comprehensive revitalization of Downtown Fontana. A primary component of this revitalization effort will be creating an entertainment district as a draw for consumers to enjoy as they discover the new downtown area. Stage Red is the keystone to the creation of this new entertainment district for the city.

On April 30, 2024, the City entered into an agreement for the management and operation of Stage Red with ASM Global. To increase programming at Stage Red, ASM entered into a short-term contract with Issiah Avila, the second district’s own grammy award winning music producer.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 12/17/2025
powered by Legistar™277
File #: 25-0690 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Agenda #: T. Category: Consent Calendar
The city seeks to enter into a 12-month contract where Soundbox will assume greater responsibility, managing most aspects of Stage Red future bookings and marketing programs, including:
· Leading the coordination of fulfilling backline needs to minimize rental costs. · Manage potential bookings, including assisting in vetting promotors and prospective artists or events.
· Develop consistent messaging on social media platforms, focusing on content that will appeal to the predominant Inland Empire demographic profile.
· Elevating the brand of stage red, developing story boards and messaging that will appeal to event goers and artists.
· Manage talent outreach to help secure consistent venue programming to meet the venue's goal of staging at least three events per week.
· Manage talent selection, focusing specifically on catering to bookings that align with the market & demographic profile of the Inland Empire.
· Advise on programs to create strategic initiatives, partnerships, and other collaborative efforts to drive additional revenue and specialty entertainment options to the downtown area. · Review current equipment and provide advice on potential modifications that maybe needed to highlight specific aspects of performers.

The City, consultant, and artist’s promoters, will collaborate on the booking and marketing of specific entertainment events. ASM will continue to perform all operational management of Stage Red.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact associated with the approval of this agreement is $120,000 in org 72030100.8130 and supplemented by grants when possible. The agreement is not budged in FY 2025-2026 but will be offset by salary savings of the vacant Economic Development Analyst position. All necessary budget adjustments will be included in the next quarterly budget report.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 12/17/2025
powered by Legistar™278
1 16498.00150\32126437.1

CITY OF FONTANA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
DS-26-71-MS
This Agreement is made and entered into as of December 9, 2025 by and between the City of Fontana, a public agency organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California 92335 (“City”), and Soundbox Group, LLC, a limited liability company with its principal place of business at 7532 Oakford Court, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional services for the following project:

Downtown Economic Development and Stage Red Marketing and Promotion Services for (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”).

B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.

C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit “B.” b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of $120,000.00 [One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars and No Cents]. This amount is to cover all printing and related costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for printing expenses. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.

3. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a 279
2 16498.00150\32126437.1
statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

5. Term.

The term of this Agreement shall be from December 9, 2025 to December 8, 2026, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Project. Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner within the term of this Agreement and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”). The Notice to Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.

7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements. b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.
280
3 16498.00150\32126437.1

8. Standard of Care
Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.

9. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

10. Independent Contractor
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. (iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement (8) Property Damage
281
4 16498.00150\32126437.1
(9) Independent Contractors Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status. (iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
282
5 16498.00150\32126437.1
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per accident or disease Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.
g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General 283
6 16498.00150\32126437.1
Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.
i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is 284
7 16498.00150\32126437.1
canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.

Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
b. If Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional” services (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant’s liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total 285
8 16498.00150\32126437.1
compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1. c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.

14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

15. Reserved.

16. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. 286
9 16498.00150\32126437.1
17 Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant.
18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.

19. Organization
Consultant shall assign Issiah Avila as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

20. Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described above.

21. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY:

City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Attn: Phillip Burum
CONSULTANT:

Soundbox Group, LLC
7532 Oakford Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Attn: Issiah Avila
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.
287
10 16498.00150\32126437.1

22. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

24. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each Party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

25. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the remaining provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

26. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each Party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

27. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either Party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

28. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

30. Prohibited Interests
288
11 16498.00150\32126437.1
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
289
12 16498.00150\32126437.1

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

CITY OF FONTANA
By:

Matthew C. Ballantyne
City Manager

SOUNDBOX GROUP, LLC
By:

Issiah Avila
Attest:

By:

Germaine McClellan Key
City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
By: ________________
Phillip Burum
Deputy City Manager

IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
By: ______________________________
Rakesha L. Voss
Human Resources & Risk Management Director

IN COMPLIANCE WITH PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION POLICIES/PROCEDURES ___________________________________
Jessica Brown
Chief Financial Officer

Sid Lambert
Purchasing Manager
290
13 16498.00150\32126437.1

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
291

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: Object Code:

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 $5,000 DS-26-71-MS Phillip Burum 11/25/25
$ 120,000.00
Soundbox Group, LLC
✔
✔
720 72030100-8130
✔
Stage Red Marketing and Promotion Services
Per Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual 3.1.5 Non-Competitive Proposal - Single Source for Unique Services
292

2. Price/Cost Analysis (ONLY APPLICABLE TO PURCHASES/CONTRACTS THAT EXCEED $100,000):

The action taken in verifying price reasonableness is indicated below. Identify the method(s) listed below used to verify price reasonableness. Check one or more paragraphs below as applicable.

Current price schedule (verifiable catalogue, published price list, etc.) Schedule Name/No.: Unit Price: $
Supplier Contact: Date of Schedule:

Previous purchase.

Supplier: Unit Price:

PO No.: PO Date:

Similar item in related industry.

Price Source: Unit Price:

Supplier: Date:

Any other Reasonable basis:

3. Small Business’ Solicited (Federally Funded Procurements Only) Document whether Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women Owned Small Business or Service Disabled Veterans Owned Business or Veterans of Vietnam Era Owned Business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not.

Applicable Businesses’ referenced above were solicited.

No Applicable Businesses referenced above were solicited because ---------------------Attach additional sheets as needed---------------------- 293
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8437 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0692 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Agenda #: U. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Engineering
SUBJECT:

Approve a Task Order for Traffic Engineering Staff Augmentation Services for Traffic Engineering and Land Development Support with TKE Engineering, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Task Order in a not-to-exceed amount of $350,000.00 for Traffic Engineering Staff Augmentation services for Traffic Engineering and Land Development Support (DE-24-195-SQ) with TKE Engineering, Inc.

2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute future Task Order Amendments not exceeding $50,000.00.

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

On June 25, 2024, the City Council approved the Pre-Qualified Firms List to provide professional engineering services and authorized the City Manager to execute a Master Agreement with selected firms on an as-needed basis for a period of five (5) years from approval. Subsequently, the City and TKE Engineering, Inc. entered into a Master Agreement that included support for Land Development and Project Management.

Due to the high volume of Land Development-related traffic study reviews, environmental document reviews, traffic control plan checks, signing and striping plan checks, and coordination requests, a request for a not-to-exceed amount of $350,000 is requested to provide staff augmentation support in order to provide timely plan checks and review services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact associated with the approval of this item is an increase in expenditures of City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/11/2026
powered by Legistar™294
File #: 25-0692 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Agenda #: U. Category: Consent Calendar
$350,000.00 and is included in the FY 2025/26 current budget in General Fund 101, account 10137505-8130.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/11/2026
powered by Legistar™295
1 16498.00150\32126880.1

CITY OF FONTANA

ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
DE-24-195-SQ
This Agreement is made and entered into as of September 4, 2024 by and between the City of Fontana (“City”), and TKE Engineering, Inc., a CORPORATION with its principal place of business at 2305 Chicago Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional services for the following service:

On Call Engineering Services
Project Management, Construction Management, Design Engineering, Survey, Land Development Improvement Plan Checking, Land Development Drainage Study and Sewer Area Study.
(hereinafter referred to as “the Services”).

B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services on the Project. Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional services required by City on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the task order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement (“Task Order”).

C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The services shall be more particularly described in the individual Task Order issued by the City or its designee. No services shall be performed unless authorized by a fully executed Task Order in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.

2. Compensation.
a. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in the Schedule of Charges attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference.

The maximum compensation for services to be provided pursuant to each Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order.
b. This amount is to cover all printing and related costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for printing expenses. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 296
2 16498.00150\32126880.1
of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.

3. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

5. Time of Performance.

The term of this Agreement shall expire on June 30, 2029, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines set forth in each individual Task Order issued by the City. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.

7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements. b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 297
3 16498.00150\32126880.1
c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.

8. Standard of Care
Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.

9. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

10. Independent Contractor
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. (iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 298
4 16498.00150\32126880.1
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement (8) Property Damage
(9) Independent Contractors Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status. (iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 299
5 16498.00150\32126880.1
indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per accident or disease Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 300
6 16498.00150\32126880.1
g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 301
7 16498.00150\32126880.1
i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.

Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project, any Task Order or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. b. If Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional” services (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 302
8 16498.00150\32126880.1
jurisdiction, Consultant’s liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1. c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.

14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 303
9 16498.00150\32126880.1

15. Reserved.

16. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. 17 Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant.
18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.

19. Organization
Consultant shall assign Michael P. Thornton The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

20. Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Services described above.

21. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or email addressed to:

Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 304
10 16498.00150\32126880.1
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Attn: Sid Lambert, Purchasing Office
[email protected]
TKE Engineering, Inc.
2305 Chicago Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
Attn: Michael P. Thornton
[email protected]
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

22. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

24. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

25. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the remaining provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

26. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 305
11 16498.00150\32126880.1

27. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

28. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

30. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 306
12 16498.00150\32126880.1

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

CITY OF FONTANA
By:

Matthew C. Ballantyne
City Manager
TKE Engineering, Inc.

By:

Michael Thornton
President
Attest:

By:

Germaine McClellan Key
City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
By: _____________________________
Phillip Burum
Deputy City Manager
By: _____________________________
Gia Kim
Public Works Director / City Engineer

IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
By: ______________________________
Rakesha L. Voss
Human Resources & Risk Management Director

IN COMPLIANCE WITH PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION POLICIES/PROCEDURES ___________________________________
Jessica Brown
Chief Financial Officer

Sid Lambert
Purchasing Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 307
13 16498.00150\32126880.1

EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Charges/Payments
Consultant will invoice City on a monthly cycle. Consultant will include with each invoice a detailed progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each task. Consultant will inform City regarding any out-of-scope work being performed by Consultant. This is a time-and-materials contract.
* Rates subject to annual increase
Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 308
Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 309
Revised May 2024

RATE SCHEDULE
2024- 2025
HOURLY
RATE
Principal in Charge.. .......... .......... .......... ...................... .......... .......... .......... $180.00 Project Manager/Construction Manager/Licensed Surveyor ..... .......... .......... $170.00 Traffic Engineer (TE).......... .......... .......... ...................... .......... .......... .......... $160.00 Senior Engineer/Project Engineer (PE)/Senior Plan Checker.... .......... .......... $160.00 Assistant Project Manager/Associate Engineer.............. .......... .......... .......... $150.00 Assistant Engineer/Plan Checker/Designer.................... .......... .......... .......... $140.00 AutoCAD Technician.......... .......... .......... ...................... .......... .......... .......... $130.00 Engineering Technician...... .......... .......... ...................... .......... .......... .......... $100.00 Clerical ........ .......... ......... .......... .......... ...................... .......... .......... .......... $ 90.00 Forensic Engineering ......... .......... .......... ...................... .......... .......... .......... $275.00 Expert Witness Testimony .......... .......... ...................... .......... .......... .......... $375.00

SURVEYING SERVICES
2-Man Survey Crew (Prevailing Wage).... ...................... .......... .......... .......... $250.00*

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Senior Construction Inspector (Prevailing Wage) ........... .......... .......... .......... $130.00* Construction Inspector (Prevailing Wage) ...................... .......... .......... .......... $120.00*

REIMBURSABLE COSTS
In-house Reproduction ...... .......... .......... ...................... .......... .......... .......... Cost Printing and Materials ........ .......... .......... ...................... .......... .......... .......... Cost + 10% Express Mail/Courier/Next Day Service .. ...................... .......... .......... .......... Cost + 10% Special Subconsultant Services ... .......... ...................... .......... .......... .......... Cost + 10% * Will adjust annually in accordance with prevailing wage adjustments as instituted by the Division of Industrial Relations.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 310

EXHIBIT C

STANDARD TASK ORDER FORM
RVPUB\PKNOX\729481.1 (v1/20)
Consultant:

Date:

Proposal Bid No.:

Task Order #:

Contract No.:

Budget No.:

Task / Project Name:

Description of Services:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date
Dollar Amount of Task Order: Not to exceed $
Scope of Work, Deliverables, Project Milestones, Schedule of Services: See Exhibit(s) Note: Consultant will be required to commence work within five days of receiving a fully executed Task Order.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 311

CITY OF FONTANA
By:

City Manager
(Required if Over $20,000)

CONSULTANT
By:

By:

Public Works Director / City Engineering

IN COMPLIANCE WITH PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION POLICIES/PROCEDURES

Chief Financial Officer

Purchasing Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: 52AAF3E7-2E07-41D9-9CF8-4F65C7875AAB 312
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8437 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0695 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Agenda #: V. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

City Clerk
SUBJECT:

Approval of a Purchase Order with Complete Paperless Solutions for Digitization of Microfiche Building Permit Records
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Authorize the Purchasing Division to utilize the RFP 2024-16 contract awarded by the City of Menifee for document scanning services per Purchasing Policies and Procedure Manual 3.1.5 Non-Competitive Proposal; and

2. Approve a Purchase Order with Complete Paperless Solutions in the amount of $155,000 for the digitization and conversion of approximately 55,000 microfiche building permit records; and

3. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute all related documents and take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this approval.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Operate in a businesslike manner by improving services through the effective use of technology.

DISCUSSION:

The City maintains thousands of historical building permits stored on microfiche, along with film and paper records housed in multiple cabinets throughout City facilities. Many of the microfiche cards are aging and deteriorating, and the equipment required to read them is outdated and difficult to maintain. These challenges make it increasingly difficult for staff to access essential permit information while also posing long-term preservation risks.

Digitizing these approximately 55,000 microfiche records will ensure they are preserved and easily searchable within the City’s Laserfiche repository. The City has used Laserfiche for several years, and it has proven to be an effective and reliable system for long-term records retention and access.

Complete Paperless Solutions has extensive experience working with local government agencies and has successfully completed similar conversion projects. The City proposes to piggyback on the City of Menifee’s recently awarded RFP and contract with Complete Paperless Solutions, which was competitively bid and follows purchasing procedures consistent with the City’s requirements.

Digitizing the City’s microfiche building permits is necessary to preserve deteriorating records and improve access through Laserfiche. Staff recommends approval of the Purchase Order with City of Fontana Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/11/2026
powered by Legistar™313
File #: 25-0695 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Agenda #: V. Category: Consent Calendar
improve access through Laserfiche. Staff recommends approval of the Purchase Order with Complete Paperless Solutions for a total project cost of $155,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total fiscal impact for this purchase is $155,000. Funding is included in the Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 operating budget in Org# 10122000.8130.

MOTION:

Approve Staff Recommendation
City of Fontana Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/11/2026
powered by Legistar™314

Microfiche Scanning Services
BY: Complete Paperless Solutions (CPS)
5130 E La Palms Ave. #206
Anaheim, CA 92807
8/26/2025
315

City of Fontana Scanning Services

TECHNICAL APPROACH
All employees utilize security badges for access to the building which is also tracked and recorded. Our production imaging servers are air gapped and backed up daily only on an encrypted local drive which is purged in accordance with DoD Standard (DoD 5220.22-M) upon project completion. Our key employees are background verified, HIPPA Trained, CA Live Scanned, and CLETS Certified. (California Law Enforcement). Security, experience, and adherence to procedure is what makes our service offer unique.

We bear sole and complete responsibility for all work we execute.

Below is our procedure for tracking inventory once documents/boxes are picked up from a client’s location.

Record Transfer Preparation – All boxes will have a Tamper Security Seal to ensure privacy immediately upon pickup. All boxes will be inventoried by folder and series within each box, provide a barcode label, and finalize the box count prior to departing.

Document Control and Manifest Creation – We use a specialized application to not only track all records, but we have a very stringent methodology policy we adhere to internally as well making sure all procedures are followed every step of the way. Tracking reports are generated to include all of the information pertaining to the job. The use of tamperproof seals provides an extra layer of security to keep your data safe.

Secure Record Transfer Service – All pickups and deliveries will be performed by at least 2 staff which have gone through a background check as well. In order to keep the chain of custody, delivery and pickup scenarios will not make any extra stops while transit with a client’s data. If any issue arises with transport, a secondary team is on standby to assist right away.

Storage Center when Receiving – Our procedure is to have all boxes coming in to be counted and verified 2 times. Utilizing barcodes and our 2-person process ensures quality as soon as client data arrives. Any damage or discrepancies will be reported immediately and addressed immediately.

Chain of Custody Verification – Once the data is received, another check is done on all seals of the boxes.

Once security seals are removed, we verify contents again. If at any time any security issues happen to arise, clients will be notified immediately.

Audit Tracking & Quality Control Reporting – Every employee is mandated to enter all quality control, monitoring, and progress into our tracking system. Reporting is constantly being done to ensure job is on track.

All scanning is done with an operator standing next to the scanner to make sure all pages are scanned accurately and to check for double feed errors. The scanners are capable of scanning Bi-Tonal Black and White, 255 Gray Scale, Full 24-bit Color. Scanner software can output the image to all major file formats.

Kofax VRS lmage Enhancement Software is utilized to provide the optimal quality image - De-speckling, De316

City of Fontana Scanning Services
skewing, image rotation, Background suppression, Adaptive threshold, Edge enhancement, and gray tone filtering. Scanner Technicians live monitor the size, resolution and format of each document scanned using the tags/markers placed by the Document Preparation team. The files are always processed together to ensure the documents remain in the same order. Standard documents will be scanned in PDF, bi-tonal (black and White) at 300 dpi, large format documents at 300 dpi, and for documents that have been reduced, 400 dpi. Documents containing color will! Be scanned in color at 200 dpi or 300dpi, using lossless compression .JPG file formatting. Our process of creating PDF images, other file types, and indexing is as follows.

Document Preparation – Scanning sample boxes are an effective way to find out certain details of the specific job. These samples will determine the most accurate and efficient method to prepare the folder to be scanned. All staff will be trained in the job specific details and are assigned one single box at a time.

Items prepared prior to scanning including removing paperclips/staples, unfolding, utilizing copier technology to maximize scan quality, combine small documents and attached images, and anything we are not 100% clear on, we will place on the side and address with the client to ensure accuracy. If required, we are able to reassemble all data just as we picked it up with the exclusion of staples and paper clips.

Quality Assurance Document Preparation Verification – Our data sheets are updated in real time and if any problem is found, the document is sent back for reprocessing. The tracking report is updated once again, and the corrected data moves on to the next stage.

Scanning High Resolution Digital Imaging – Only the best technology available is used to provide the best outcome of a quality image. Scanning staff will be monitoring each image to ensure image is scanned correctly and no pages are double fed. The utilization of Kofax VRS Software allows for additional cleaning to be done such as de-speckle, de-skew, image rotation, background suppression, edge enhancement, gray tone filtering, blank page removal, and much more if need be.

Quality Assurance Image Quality – One of the most important parts of this process is having a human being review documents for accuracy and not solely rely on software and technology. Image quality is checked at multiple levels to ensure all images are acceptable and do not need to be reprocessed.

Indexing Verification – Staff are trained to manually index one image at a time per box to ensure accuracy every step of the way. Protocols and additional software is in place to make sure indexing errors do not occur such as misspelling or double keying entries.

Quality Assurance Indexing – Taking this process to the next level, we will compare the indexed data with the re-keyed data. If any mismatches are found, they are sent back and reprocessed until it is matched.

Data validation is performed utilizing character mix, date ranges, quantity ranges, including database lookups as well.
317

City of Fontana Scanning Services
File Transfer and Upload – Once documents are ready for transfer/upload, data will be transferred to a file server with your encrypted data. From there instant access is available via VPN to search your data to view images and indexes, along with being able to start internal quality control as well. If encrypted hard drive is preferred, this exists as an alternative as well.

Return and Delivery of Completed Job – Once all files have been reviewed and cleared for approval, data will be repacked, and security labels placed once again. Delivery procedures are followed exactly how our pick-up procedure is, which is listed above with the focus on reliability and security.

HOURLY FEE/PRICING
File Type Price per unit Estimated Volume Total
Microfiche
Permits
$2.80 55,000 $154,000.00
Subtotal $154,000.00
Box Pickup/Delivery $150.00
Laserfiche Ingestion $900.00
Grand Total $155,050.00
Document Prep (if any): $25/hour will be applied if boxes are handed to us and we need to remove mass amounts of staples, post it notes, paper clips, cropping, etc.

Data Entry/Indexing: $25/hour if additional indexing is required above and beyond file name and 2 index fields.

Pick up/delivery: $150 pickup fee with free delivery of documents when returned.

Laserfiche Ingestion: $900 for each upload which we upload all scanned images into the Laserfiche repository.
318
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24

CITY OF MENIFEE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

DOCUMENT SCANNING, INDEXING, AND QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and effective this ______ day of __________, 2024 (“Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF MENIFEE, a California municipal corporation, (“City”) and COMPLETE PAPERLESS SOLUTION, LLC, a Limited Liability Company (LLC) (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may sometimes herein be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” SECTION 1. SERVICES.

Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Services, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Services”). Consultant will perform subsequent task orders as requested by the Contract Administrator (as defined below), in accordance with the Scope of Services. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, this Agreement shall prevail.

1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on September 18, 2024 and shall end on June 30, 2026 (“Initial Term”). Upon termination of the Initial Term, this Agreement shall automatically renew for one (1) additional one (1) year term (“First Renewal Term”). Upon termination of the First Renewal Term, if it occurs, this Agreement shall automatically renew for one (1) additional one (1) year term (“Second Renewal Term”). Upon termination of the Second Renewal Term, if it occurs, this Agreement shall automatically renew for one (1) additional one (1) year term (“Third Renewal Term”), None of the renewal terms provided hereunder shall occur if the term of this Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended as provided for in Section 8. The word “term” shall refer to the Initial Term and any renewal term which actually occurs. The time provided to Consultant to complete the Services required by this Agreement shall not affect City’s right to terminate this Agreement.

1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant is a provider of first class work and services and Consultant is experienced in performing the Services contemplated herein and, in light of such status and experience, Consultant shall perform the Services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession and to the sole satisfaction of the Contract Administrator.

1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform the Services pursuant to Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 18 September
319
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -2-

1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder.

1.5 Authorization to Perform Services. Consultant is not authorized to perform any of the Services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator.

1.6 Warranty. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the Services, (ii) has carefully considered how the Services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the Services.

1.7 Covid-19 Safety. If Consultant enters City property or meets in person with City employees during the performance of the Services, Consultant shall comply with all applicable emergency orders, directives, protocols, and best practices related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including, but not limited to: (A) wearing facial coverings, (B) maintaining adequate physical distancing when possible, (C) regular hand washing, and (D) regular hand sanitizing.

SECTION 2. COMPENSATION.

City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed One Million Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,000,000.00) notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant’s proposal, for the Services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, this Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein.

Except as specifically authorized in advance by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. In no event shall the compensation paid during the term of this Agreement exceed the following amounts:
a. Initial Term: Four Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($430,000.00) b. First Renewal Term: Two Hundred Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($200,000.00) c. Second Renewal Term: One Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($190,000.00)
d. Third Renewal Term: One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($180,000.00)

2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices monthly during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for the Services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:
a. Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.;
Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 320
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -3-
b. The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; c. A “Task Summary” containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under this Agreement, and the percentage of completion;
d. At City’s option, for each item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person performing the Services, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the Services, and each reimbursable expense;
e. The total number of hours of work performed under this Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing the Services hereunder necessary to complete the Services described in Exhibit A; f. Receipts for expenses to be reimbursed;
g. The Consultant Representative’s signature.

Invoices shall be submitted to:

City of Menifee
Attn: Accounts Payable
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586

2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for the Services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred.

City shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant.

2.3 Retention of Funds, Final Payment. Consultant hereby authorizes City to retain and deduct from any amount payable to Consultant not exceeding five percent (5%) of the total compensation. The retained funds shall be paid to Consultant within sixty (60) days after final acceptance of the Services by the City and after Consultant has furnished City with full release of all undisputed payments under this Agreement. In the event there are any claims specifically excluded by Consultant from the operation of the release, City may retain proceeds of up to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the amount in dispute. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as provided in this Agreement. City shall pay the last five percent (5%) of the total amount due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the Services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all of the Services required have been satisfactorily performed.

2.4 Total Payment. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering the Services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 321
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -4-
In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entirety of the Services performed pursuant to this Agreement, unless this Agreement is modified in writing prior to the submission of such an invoice.

2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for the Services performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the fee schedule included with Exhibit A.

2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are included within the maximum amount of this Agreement.

2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any federal or state taxes.

2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, City shall compensate Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for Services satisfactorily completed and for reimbursable expenses as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs and reimbursable expenses incurred to that date.

SECTION 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT.

Except as otherwise provided, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be required to furnish any facility or equipment that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.

SECTION 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below and provide certificates of insurance, indicating that Consultant has obtained or currently maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this Section and which is satisfactory, in all respects, to City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this Section throughout the term of this Agreement.

The cost of such insurance shall be included in Consultant’s compensation. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor, consultant or other agent to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. Consultant acknowledges the insurance policy must cover inter-insured suits between City and other insureds. Consultant agrees that the requirement to provide insurance shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or property resulting from Consultant activities or the activities of any person or persons for which Consultant is otherwise responsible nor shall it limit Consultant’s indemnification liabilities as provided in Section 5.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 322
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -5-

4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code. Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident, ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) disease per employee, and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) disease per policy. In the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code.

Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the California Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against City and its officers, officials, employees, and authorized volunteers for loss arising from the Services performed under this Agreement.

4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. a. General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage, for risks associated with the Services contemplated by this Agreement, TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) general aggregate, and TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) products/completed operations aggregate. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability Insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the Services to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from the Services contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of hired, owned, and non-owned automobiles.
b. Minimum Scope of Coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 Code 2, 8, and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. c. Additional Requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy:
(i) The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis.
(ii) Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 323
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -6-

4.3 Professional Liability Insurance.
a. General Requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing the Services pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals’ errors and omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall be shown on the Certificate. If the deductible or self-insured retention exceeds TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000), it must be approved in writing by City. b. Claims-Made Limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form:
(i) The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be no later than the commencement of the Services.
(ii) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates. (iii) If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the Effective Date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement or the completion of the Services. Such continuation coverage may be provided by one of the following: (1) renewal of the existing policy; (2) an extended reporting period endorsement; or (3) replacement insurance with a retroactive date no later than the commencement of the Services under this Agreement. City shall have the right to exercise, at Consultant’s sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage.
(iv) A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to City prior to the commencement of the Services under this Agreement.

4.4 All Policies Requirements.
a. Acceptability of Insurers. All insurance required by this Section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests’ rating of no less than A:VII and admitted in California. b. Verification of Coverage. Prior to beginning the Services under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates of insurance, additional insured endorsement or policy language granting additional insured status complete certified copies of all policies, including complete certified copies of all endorsements. All copies of policies and certified endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificate of insurance must include the following reference:

DOCUMENT SCANNING, INDEXING, AND QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES. The name and address for additional insured endorsements, certificates of insurance and notice of cancellation is: City of Menifee, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. City must be endorsed as an additional insured for liability arising out of ongoing and completed operations by or on behalf of Consultant.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 324
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -7-
c. Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage. Consultant shall provide written notice to City within ten (10) working days if: (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; or (3) the deductible or self insured retention is increased. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, Consultant shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Section 4 to the Contract Administrator. d. Additional Insured; Primary Insurance. City and its officers, employees, agents, and authorized volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of the Services performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured’s general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by Consultant in the course of providing the Services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or authorized volunteers. The insurance provided to City as an additional insured must apply on a primary and non-contributory basis with respect to any insurance or self-insurance program maintained by City. Additional insured status shall continue for one (1) year after the expiration or termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services.

A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that coverage is primary insurance with respect to City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage.
e. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall obtain the written approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the Services.

During the term of this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of the Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles or selfinsured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them.
f. Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
g. Variation. The Contract Administrator may, but is not required to, approve in writing a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that City’s interests are otherwise fully protected.

4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies at law or equity City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 325
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -8-
extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option, exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant’s breach:
a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement; b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or c. Terminate this Agreement.

SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION.

5.1 Indemnification for Professional Liability. Where the law establishes a professional standard of care for performance of the Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless City and any and all of its officers, employees, officials, volunteers, and agents from and against any and all claims, losses, costs, damages, expenses, liabilities, liens, actions, causes of action (whether in tort, contract, under statute, at law, in equity, or otherwise) charges, awards, assessments, fines, or penalties of any kind (including reasonable consultant and expert fees and expenses of investigation, costs of whatever kind and nature and, if Consultant fails to provide a defense for City, the legal costs of counsel retained by City) and any judgment (collectively, “Claims”) to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error, or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, or subcontractors (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this Agreement.

5.2 Indemnification for Other than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless City, and any and all of its officers, employees, officials, volunteers, and agents from and against any and all Claims, where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or subcontractors of Consultant.

5.3 Limitation of Indemnification for Design Professionals. Notwithstanding any provision of this Section 5 to the contrary, design professionals, as that term is defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8, are required to defend and indemnify City only to the extent permitted by Civil Code Section 2782.8. The term “design professional” as defined in Section 2782.8, is limited to licensed architects, licensed landscape architects, registered professional engineers, professional land surveyors, and the business entities that offer such services in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Business and Professions Code. This Subsection 5.3 shall only apply to Consultant if Consultant is a “design professional” as that term is defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 326
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -9-

5.4 Limitation of Indemnification. The provisions of this Section 5 do not apply to claims occurring as a result of City’s sole or active negligence. The provisions of this Section 5 shall not release City from liability arising from gross negligence or willful acts or omissions of City or any and all of its officers, officials, employees, and agents acting in an official capacity.

SECTION 6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subsection 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.

The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it is or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, officials, employees, or agents of City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in this Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing the Services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing the Services hereunder. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

SECTION 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.

7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractor shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations applicable to the performance of the work hereunder. Consultant shall not hire or employ any person to perform work within City or allow any person to perform the Services required under this Agreement unless such person is properly documented and legally entitled to be employed within the United States.

Consultant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be independently responsible for reviewing the applicable laws and regulations and effectuating compliance with such laws. Consultant shall require the same of all subcontractors.

7.3 Prevailing Wages. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be independently responsible for reviewing the applicable prevailing wage laws and regulations and effectuating compliance with such laws where they apply to the Services, including, but not limited to the prevailing wage and related requirements set forth in this Subsection 7.3. Consultant shall bear all risks of payment or non-payment of prevailing wages under California law and/or the Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 327
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -10-
implementation of Labor Code Section 1781, as the same may be amended from time to time, and/or any other similar law.
a. Public Work. Consultant hereby expressly acknowledges and agrees that City has never previously affirmatively represented to Consultant, its employees or agents in writing or otherwise that the Services are not a “public work,” as defined in Section 1720 of the Labor Code. It is agreed by the Parties that, in connection with the development, construction (as defined by applicable law) and operation of the Services, including, without limitation, any public work (as defined by applicable law), if any, Consultant shall bear all risks of payment or non-payment of state and/or federal prevailing wages and/or the implementation of Labor Code Sections 1726 and 1781, as the same may be enacted, adopted or amended from time to time, and/or any other provision of law. To the extent applicable, City will enforce all penalties required by law for Consultant’s failure to pay prevailing wages. b. Labor Code of California. The Consultant’s attention is directed to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the Labor Code of the State of California and especially to Article 2 (Wages); and Article 3 (Working Hours), thereof.
(i) In accordance with Sections 1773 and 1773.2 of the Labor Code, City has found and determined the general prevailing rates of wages in the locality in which the public work is to be performed are those determined by the Director of Industrial Relations and available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/2022-1/PWD/Southern.html. Copies of the prevailing rates of wages are maintained with City’s principal office and are available to any interested party on request. Consultant shall post a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages at each job site. (ii) Consultant is aware of and will comply with the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, including the keeping of payroll records and furnishing certified copies thereof in accordance with said Section. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Consultant must submit certified payroll records to the Labor Commissioner using the Department of Industrial Relations’ electronic certified payroll reporting (eCPR) system.
(iii) Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1810, it is stipulated hereby that eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work hereunder. (iv) Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1815, work performed by employees of contractors in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week, shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day at not less than 1 ½ times the basic rate of pay. (v) Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1813, it is stipulated hereby that Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor hereunder for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one (1) calendar week in violation of the provisions of Article 3 (commencing with Section 1810), Chapter 1, Part 7, Division 2 of the Labor Code.
(vi) Consultant is aware of and will comply with the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 with respect to the employment of apprentices. Pursuant to Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 328
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -11-
Section 1777.5 it is hereby stipulated that Consultant will be responsible for obtaining compliance therewith on the part of any and all sub-consultants or subcontractors employed by Consultant in connection with this Agreement.
(vii) Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1775, it is hereby stipulated that Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit not more than two-hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for the Services by Consultant or any sub-consultant or subcontractor. c. Bidding Eligibility. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.1, no contractor or subcontractor (or consultant or subconsultant) may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. d. DIR Monitoring. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Consultant is hereby notified that this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
e. Indemnification Related to Prevailing Wages. Section 5, Indemnification, specifically encompasses Claims arising from or related to (i) the noncompliance by Consultant or any party performing the Services of any applicable local, state, and/or federal law, including, without limitation, any applicable federal and/or state labor laws (including, without limitation, the requirement to pay state prevailing wages and hire apprentices); (ii) the implementation of Labor Code Sections 1726 and 1781, as the same may be amended from time to time, or any other similar law; and/or (iii) failure by Consultant or any party performing the Services to provide any required disclosure or identification as required by Labor Code Section 1781, as the same may be amended from time to time, and/or any other similar law.

7.4 Licenses and Permits, Fees and Assessments. Consultant represents, warrants, and covenants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions, and perform the Services. Consultant represents, warrants, and covenants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions, and perform the Services. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid business licenses from City. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments, and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for Consultant’s performance of the Services, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed, or imposed against City hereunder.

7.5 Conflicts of Interest, Political Reform Act. Consultant represents, warrants, and covenants that Consultant presently has no interest, direct or indirect, which would interfere with or impair in any manner or degree the performance of Consultant’s obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement. Consultant further agrees that while this Agreement is in effect, Consultant shall not acquire or otherwise obtain any interest, direct or indirect, that would interfere with or impair in any manner or degree the performance of Consultant’s obligations and Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 329
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -12-
responsibilities under this Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that pursuant to the provisions of the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 87100 et seq.), City may determine the Consultant to be a “consultant” as that term is defined by 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18700.3. In the event City makes such a determination, Consultant agrees to complete and file a “Statement of Economic Interest” with the City Clerk to disclose such financial interests as required by City. In such event, Consultant further agrees to require any other person doing work under this Agreement to complete and file a “Statement of Economic Interest” to disclose such other person’s financial interests as required by City.

7.6 Annual Appropriation of Funding. In accord with Article 16 Section 18 of the California Constitution, payment of compensation under this Agreement is contingent upon annual appropriation of funds by City for that purpose. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that to the extent that the Services extend beyond one (1) fiscal year, payment for such Services is expressly conditioned on City’s annual appropriation of funds for such Services for each year. If no funds are appropriated then this Agreement shall be terminated. City pledges and agrees to process such appropriation requests annually and in good faith. Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to limit the right of either Party to terminate this Agreement as provided herein.

SECTION 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.

8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant.

8.2 Termination by Consultant. Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days’ written notice to City.

8.3 Consequences of Termination. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for the Services performed up to the date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or City in connection with this Agreement.

8.4 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement.

Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period.

8.5 Amendments. The Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the Parties.

8.6 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 330
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -13-
Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator.

Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in Consultant’s proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. In the event that key personnel leave Consultant’s employ, Consultant shall notify City immediately.

8.7 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the expiration or termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

8.8 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City's remedies shall include, but not be limited to, any or all of the following:
a. Immediately terminate this Agreement;
b. Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; c. Retain a different consultant to complete the Services described in Exhibit A; and/or
d. Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the Services described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the Services.

SECTION 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.

9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to City upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. Any use of such documents for other projects by City shall be without liability to Consultant.

City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports, and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both Parties unless required by law.

9.2 Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, rights of reproduction, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, test data, survey results, models, renderings, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings, digital renderings, or data stored digitally, magnetically, or in any other medium, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents and Data”). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that City Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 331
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -14-
is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents and Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents and Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents and Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents and Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at City’s sole risk.

9.3 Consultant’s Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for the Services or expenditures and disbursements charged to City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.

9.4 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Subsection 9.3 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), this Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement.

SECTION 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If either Party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses including costs, in addition to any other relief to which that Party may be entitled; provided, however, that the attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to this Subsection shall not exceed the hourly rate paid by City for legal services multiplied by the reasonable number of hours spent by the prevailing Party in the conduct of the litigation. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.

10.2 Applicable Law, Venue. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. In the event that either Party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the Parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in Riverside County.

10.3 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect.

10.4 Section Headings and Subheadings. The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 332
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -15-

10.5 No Implied Waiver of Breach. Waiver by any Party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any Party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting Party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Any waiver by either Party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

10.6 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the Parties.

10.7 Consultant Representative. All matters under this Agreement shall be handled for Consultant by Jamie Dunn, VP of Sales (“Consultant’s Representative”). The Consultant’s Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant’s Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.

10.8 City Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by a City employee, Edna Aguilar, Management Analyst (“Contract Administrator”). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his designee. The Contract Administrator shall have the power to act on behalf of City for all purposes under this Agreement. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Contract Administrator or his designee.

10.9 Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to:

COMPLETE PAPERLESS SOLUTION, LLC
Attn: Jamie Dunn, VP of Sales
5130 E. La Palma Ave #206
Anaheim, CA 92807
Any written notice to City shall be sent to the Contract Administrator at:

City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
Attn: Edna Aguilar, Management Analyst
with a copy to:

City Clerk
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 333
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -16-

10.10 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the Contract Administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled “Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility,” as in the following example.
__________________________________________
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report/design responsibility.

10.11 Rights and Remedies. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative and the exercise by either Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other Party.

10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of services attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either Party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.

10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.

10.14 Execution of Contract. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of each of the Parties hereto represent and warrant that (i) such Party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said Party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such Party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other agreement to which said Party is bound.

10.15 Nondiscrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that in the performance of this Agreement there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of any impermissible classification including, but not limited to, race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry.

10.16 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries under this Agreement and no such other third parties shall have any rights or obligations hereunder.

10.17 Nonliability of City Officers and Employees. No officer, official, employee, agent, representative, or volunteer of City shall be personally liable to Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount which Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 334
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -17-
may become due to Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

10.18 No Undue Influence. Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used against or in concert with any officer or employee of City in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of City shall receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee, or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement.

10.19 No Benefit to Arise to City Employees. No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or has responsibilities with respect to this Agreement during his/her tenure or for one (1) year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for the Services to be performed under this Agreement. [Signatures on Following Page]
Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 335
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 -18-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed and entered into this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY OF MENIFEE
Armando Villa, City Manager
Attest:

Stephanie Roseen, Acting City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

Jeffrey T. Melching, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
Jamie Dunn, VP of Sales

Claude Schott, CFO
[Note: 2 officer’s signatures required if
Consultant is a corporation, unless provided
with a certificate of secretary in-lieu]
Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 336
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24
EXHIBIT A.

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Services shall include DOCUMENT SCANNING, INDEXING, AND QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES in the amount not to exceed One Million Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,000,000.00) as further detailed in the following page(s). In no event shall the compensation paid during the term of this Agreement exceed the following amounts:

Initial Term: Four Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($430,000.00) First Renewal Term: Two Hundred Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($200,000.00) Second Renewal Term: One Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($190,000.00) Third Renewal Term: One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($180,000.00) Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 337
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 EXHIBIT A.

SCOPE OF WORKFor the purposes of this Scope of Work, the terms “Consultant,” “Vendor,” and “Proposer” will all refer to Consultant.

The Consultant will be responsible for the following tasks:

Task 1 – Comprehensive Document Scanning & Indexing Services Some of the file types to be scanned will consist of, but are not limited to:
• Building Plans
• Planning Cases and Project Files
• Engineering Plans and Project Files
• Capital Improvement Projects
• Specialized Studies and Reports
• Plan Rolls, Folded Maps and Mylar Maps
• Agreements and Bid Documents
File types may contain flat and folded documents of varying sizes and plan rolls will vary in size from under an inch to 12” or more in diameter. Proposers may assume all paper records are in satisfactory condition. Letter, legal and ledger-sized documents are primarily printed on standard white office paper (approximately 20 lb); ANSI-C and above sized documents may be printed on paper, Mylar, blueprints, sepia, or vellum and must be organized by project as directed by the City.

THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA MUST BE MET:

A. Laserfiche:

Ability to scan content directly and seamlessly into Laserfiche using an upload utility – must have a tool that directly uploads content to Laserfiche including the ability to file directly into established folders and ability to add required meta data.

B. Ability to Scan:
a. Manila folder – content in file folders
b. Legal documents
c. Ledger-size documents
d. Letters
e. Carbon copies
f. Photo exhibits
g. Spiral-bound books
h. Tabbed paper
i. Large format items: Posters, banners, etc., with dimensions specified. j. Drawings & Blueprints
k. All ANSI-sized documents
Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 338
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 EXHIBIT A.

C. Images:
a.Duplex scan documents to capture both front and back of documents where needed.

Images must be oriented correctly for viewing. Text must be readable up to the edge of the document.
b.Image clean-up: the scanned documents should be de-skewed, de-speckled, blank pages and black borders removed, hole punch images removed, and background color drop out (where possible). Color images must be viewable quality so that detail in the image is captured.
c.For the purposes of this RFP, Proposer is invited to offer suggestions on how best to scan color photos to maintain the quality and detail of an image while striving to reduce size of the electronic image.

D. OCR all content with guarantee of 99.5% accuracy on images and ability for 600 dpi images.

E. Quality checking images scanned:
a. Visual inspection of each image against the original, rescanning documents as needed b. Manual image quality adjustment and QA of every image for clarity, legibility, quality, cut-offs or file type compression errors
c. Images are of the same or better quality than the original d. Ensure all images are accurately indexed
e. All documents are to be scanned and returned in the same order as provided f. All folders within the XML file should appear in the same order as they exist in paper g. The City may perform a QA of each image and associated indexing delivered by the vendor; if the City discovers unacceptable images, the Vendor, at no additional cost to the City, will correct all such unacceptable images
F. Data entry of index fields following Laserfiche Templates. Fields change depending on the document scanned.

G. Quality checking index data.

H. Perform rework on errors or omissions with no additional charge.

I. Warranty period of 1 year against defects.

J. Records must be saved in PDFA format.

K. Any and all City documents in the possession of the Proposer must be stored in a climate controlled safe and secure location. The City must have access to all City documents in the Proposer’s possession upon request, with a hard copy or electronic file provided within 24 hours.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 339
2905/031858-0001
19338889.2 a04/02/24 EXHIBIT A.

L. Document prep:
a. Ability to scan small documents such as receipts in line with large-size documents in a single scan
b. Staple and fastener removal
c. Metal, plastic, twine, glue binder removal
d. Industrial staple removal capability including box and plier staples e. Fix torn pages prior to scanning
f. Black and white, greyscale and color scanning options M. Once electronically imaged and upon the request of the Project Manager, documents shall be returned to their original state (re-stapled, bound, rolled, etc.) and returned to the original filing location.

N. Pick-up and delivery of paper documents. When content is picked up, there must be at least two representatives of the scanning organization present; pick-up must not be outsourced.

There shall always be two representatives with the content in transit.

O. Pickup and delivery are to occur every three to four weeks or as agreed upon by the Project Manager and the vendor.

P. Vendor must pick up and return original documents promptly according to an established schedule.

Q. Vendor must provide a proof of pickup acknowledgement, to be signed by the Vendor staff and City staff.

R. Vendor must return original documents after scanning or conversion, and provide a proof of return acknowledgement, to be signed by the Vendor staff and City staff.

S. Vendor will only receive direction from the contract manager (to be spelled out in the contract).

T. Vendor will maintain documented chain of command through an audit trail.

U. Vendor will submit quarterly reports of documents being stored at their facility.

V. Vendor must agree to provide private transport; content will never be mixed in transit with other clients, nor additional, non-mission critical stops to occur en route.

W. Content will not leave the state of California.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 340
2905
/031858-0001
19338889.2 a00/00/00
EXHIBIT A.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 341
2905
/031858-0001
19338889.2 a00/00/00 EXHIBIT A
.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 342
2905
/031858-0001
19338889.2 a00/00/00 EXHIBIT A
.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 343
2905
/031858-0001
19338889.2 a00/00/00 EXHIBIT A
.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 344
2905
/031858-0001
19338889.2 a00/00/00 EXHIBIT A
.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 345
2905
/031858-0001
19338889.2 a00/00/00 EXHIBIT A
.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 346
2905
/031858-0001
19338889.2 a00/00/00 EXHIBIT A
.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 347
2905
/031858-0001
19338889.2 a00/00/00 EXHIBIT A
.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 348
2905
/031858-0001
19338889.2 a00/00/00 EXHIBIT A
.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 349
2905
/031858-0001
19338889.2 a00/00/00 EXHIBIT A
.

Docusign Envelope ID: AB9C6426-5957-4FC6-B1B8-0E52D608A473 350
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8437 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 26-0709 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Agenda #: W. Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Human Resources
SUBJECT:

Third Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement between the City of Fontana and Matthew A. Ballantyne.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Third Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement between the City of Fontana and Matthew A. Ballantyne.

COUNCIL GOALS:
· Create and maintain a dynamic team by promoting stability and predictability by providing consistent policy direction.

DISCUSSION:

Matthew Ballantyne has served as the City Manager for the City of Fontana since 2022. The City Council recently concluded its annual evaluation of Mr. Ballantyne and, as a result of that positive evaluation, recommended an extension of the City Manager’s employment term for an additional two (2) years, ending on April 17, 2030, and a five percent (5%) merit increase effective July 1, 2025.

The amendment also increases Mr. Ballantyne’s salary by an amount equal to the maximum annual employee FSA contribution each year, which is $3,300 for 2025 and $3,400 for 2026, while reducing the City’s payments on behalf of Mr. Ballantyne for 125 Cafeteria Plan Fringe Benefits in an equal amount.

The accompanying amendment reflects these proposed modifications.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact associated with the approval of the Third Amendment for Mr. Ballantyne’s contract, which includes a five percent (5%) merit increase, is $26,620 for 2025-26, inclusive of benefits, and is not included in the 2025-26 current budget. The required budget adjustments will be included in the Midyear Budget Status Report.

MOTION:

Approve Staff Recommendation.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/11/2026
powered by Legistar™351
16498.00004\44412264.3
1 THIRD AMENDMENT

TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement (“Third Amendment”) is entered into on the execution date shown in the signature block below, and effective as of the 1st day of July, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), between the City of Fontana (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) and Matthew C. Ballantyne (hereinafter referred to as “Employee”).

RECITALS
A. Whereas on April 13, 2022, City and Employee entered into that certain City Manager Employment Agreement to retain the services of Employee as City Manager; and
B. Whereas on September 13, 2022, City and Employee entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement (both Agreement and its amendments are collectively referred to hereinafter as “Agreement”); and
C. Whereas on September 12, 2023, City and Employee entered into a Second Amendment to the Agreement (both Agreement and its amendments are collectively referred to hereinafter as “Agreement”); and D. Whereas, the City and Employee now wish to revise specified sections of the Agreement to modify provisions of the Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The first paragraph of Section I of the Agreement, entitled “Employment and Term,” is hereby amended, in its entirety, as follows:

I. Employment and Term.

The City hereby employs the Employee as City Manager for the City of Fontana.

Unless otherwise extended by mutual agreement of the parties or terminated as provided herein, the term of this Agreement shall commence on April 18, 2022, and end on April 17, 2030, unless sooner terminated or extended by the City Council as set forth in the Agreement. In the event that the City Council determines that the Employee is not to be reemployed upon expiration of this Agreement, he shall be given written notice thereof by the City at least six (6) months in advance of the expiration of the term of this agreement. Should the City fail to give notice at least six (6) months prior to the end date of this Agreement, the Agreement shall be extended on the same terms for an additional period of one (1) year.

352
16498.00004\44412264.3
2 2. The first paragraph of Section II of the Agreement, entitled “Salary/CalPERS Retirement,” is hereby amended, in its entirety, as follows:

On July 12, 2025, the City agreed to pay Employee a base annual salary of three hundred eighty three thousand, three hundred twenty dollars and seventy-seven cents ($383,320.77). Employee will continue to receive cost-of living adjustments equal in percentage to, and at the same time as, Executive Group employees. In addition, the City agrees to separately increase Employee’s salary by an amount equal to the maximum annual employee FSA contribution each year, which is $3,300 for 2025 and $3,400 for 2026. Base salary shall be no less than 5% above the salary of any Department Head including POST Certificate Pay. The City Council shall annually assess Employee's performance and salary and may, in its sole and absolute discretion, grant Employee a merit increase. Any such merit increase must be expressly memorialized in a subsequent written and executed Amendment to this Agreement, approved at a duly-noticed regular meeting of the City Council.

3. Section X of the Agreement, entitled “Fringe Benefits,” is hereby amended, in its entirety, as follows:

A. City shall pay to or on behalf of Employee for 125 Cafeteria Plan Fringe Benefits an amount five percent (5%) above provided to the City Department Heads. The City’s payment on behalf of Employee shall be reduced by an amount equal to the maximum annual employee FSA contribution each year, which is $3,300 for 2025 and $3,400 for 2026. In addition, Employee shall be enrolled in the City's retirement plan pursuant to its contract with the State of California Public Employees Retirement System (CaIPERS). The appropriate retirement formula that will be applied to the Employee is determined by CaIPERS.

B. City shall pay to or on behalf of Employee for 125 Cafeteria Plan Fringe Benefits an amount five percent (5%) above provided to the City Department Heads. In addition, Employee shall be enrolled in the City's retirement plan pursuant to its contract with the State of California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). The appropriate retirement formula that will be applied to the Employee is determined by CalPERS.

C. In addition, Employee shall be provided all the fringe benefits which are proportional to those provided to Executive Group employees. These benefits may be adjusted by the City for Executive Group employees from time to time and the amounts shall be adjusted proportionately based on any adjustments in City contributions.

D. The following benefits will be provided in the amounts listed below, in lieu of or in addition to, the amounts and benefits listed in the Executive Management Benefits Schedule:
353
16498.00004\44412264.3
3 1. $125 cell phone allowance per month

2. An iPad or laptop

3. Pay for an annual physical at UCI Executive Health or equivalent facility

4. $5000 annual contribution to a Retirement Health Saving Plan (Deposit made May 1, 2022 and every year thereafter on May 1st)

5. Cover Employee's portion of Medicare

4. Section XII of the Agreement, entitled “Annual Leave,” is hereby amended, in its entirety, as follows:

These leave accruals are in addition to recognized City holidays. Employee shall accrue Personal Leave each year during the term of this Agreement at the same rate as Executive Group employees (beginning at 16 years; 11.385 hours per pay period). Employee shall begin his employment with an annual leave balance of 240 hours. Employee shall be entitled to cash out up to one (1) year of accrued, but unused, personal leave in accordance with the City's policies pertaining to other City employees. No more than 1,200 hours may be carried forward in any fiscal year.

Employee shall begin his employment with an Administrative Leave balance of 80 hours and shall accrue 80 hours of Administrative Leave per each subsequent year during the term of this Agreement. Unused Administrative Leave shall be cashed out on June 30th of each year. The annual amount of Administrative Leave accrued by the City Manager shall be adjusted to be the same number of days accrued by City Department Heads without the need for a written modification of this Agreement.

5. Section XIV of the Agreement, entitled “Longevity Pay,” is hereby amended, in its entirety, as follows:

Employee shall be eligible to receive Longevity Pay consistent with the rates listed in the Executive Management Benefits Schedule for Executive Group employees hired post July 1, 1990 with continuous service of 10 years or more at $2,250; 15 years or more at $2,750; 20 years or more at $3,250 and 25 years or more at $3,750 based upon the Employee's anniversary date (date of initial hire into a regular full-time position) of April 18, 2022. Longevity will be paid annually in December and will cease upon termination of employment.

6. Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Third Amendment, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Agreement, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Third Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Third Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement on the 9th day of December 2025. 354
16498.00004\44412264.3
4 CITY MANAGER
__________________________________
Matthew C. Ballantyne, Employee

CITY OF FONTANA
__________________________________
Acquanetta Warren, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Germaine McClellan Key, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Ruben Duran, City Attorney
355
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8437 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0646 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Agenda #: A. Category: Public Hearing
FROM:

Planning Department
SUBJECT:

Appeal No. 25-0002: Request to overturn the Planning Commission’s August 19, 2025 decision adopting a Categorical Exemption per Section 15332 (Class No. 32) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022, and Design Review No. 23-0024 for the development of a mixed use project (163 multi-family units and 5,000 square feet of commercial retail) within the R-5 zoning district that includes a five-story 83,125 square foot mixed-use building and associate improvements, on a 3.5 acre site located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue and identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 1110-331-13 and 1110-331-25.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open the public hearing and accept public comments.

2. Continue Appeal No. 25-0002 to the January 27, 2026, City Council Meeting.

APPELLANT / APPEAL APPLICANT:

Appeal No. 25-0002: Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility, 1939 Harrison Street, Suite No. 150, Oakland, CA 94612.

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:

Appeal:

At its August 19, 2025 hearing, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 24- 0022 and Design Review No. 23-0024, pursuant to a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Section 15332 (Class No. 32), with adoption of Resolution PC Number 2025-027 on a 4-0 vote. The staff report and attachments for the August 19, 2025, Planning Commission hearing for the project, along with meeting minutes, are included as Attachment Nos. 4 and 5, respectively, to this staff report.

On August 26, 2025, the City received Appeal No. 25-0002 from Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility. In summary, the appellant contends that the terms of the Class No. 32 Exemption do not apply because the Project site has value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The appellant also claims that the City should rescind the Project approvals, City of Fontana Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/11/2026
powered by Legistar™356
File #: 25-0646 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Agenda #: A. Category: Public Hearing
threatened species. The appellant also claims that the City should rescind the Project approvals, conduct an initial study, and prepare a new CEQA document, whether a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report, to analyze and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts. Responses to the letters have been prepared to address the issues raised by the appellant (see Attachment No. 3).

The project environmental consultant (Lilburn Corporation), who prepared the CEQA Class No. 32 (In -Fill Development) Categorical Exemption Memorandum for the Mixed-Used Project, has prepared written responses to the applicant’s claims. The responses explain why the claims raised in the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility letter were not significant and the Categorical Exemption was appropriate. The detailed response to the claims raised in the appeal finds that none of the comments provide substantial evidence to support the preparedness of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

City Council Hearings:

On October 28, 2025, the City Council open the scheduled public hearing for Appeal 25-0002 to take comments from the public for this item. At staff’s recommendation, the public hearing was continued to the December 9, 2025, City Council Meeting, to allow staff additional time to prepare an adequate response to the public communication letter that was submitted to staff on October 27, 2025.

The approved project entitlements include Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022 and Design Review No. 23-0024 and adoption of a Categorical Exemption Section 15332 (Class No. 32) for the development of a five-story mixed use project (163 multi-family units and 5,000 square feet of commercial retail) within the R-5 zoning district totaling 83,125 square foot mixed-use building and associate improvements, on a 3.5 acre site located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue (APNs: 11110-331-13 and 1110-331-25).

Continuance:

Staff requests that the City Council continue the public hearing to allow for additional time to respond to the comment letter of October 27, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

MOTION:

Approve staff’s recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Appellant Letter - Support Alliance for Environmental Responsibility Memorandum

3. Applicant’s Environmental Consultant Response to Appeal Letter

4. Planning Commission August 19, 2025, Report

5. Planning Commission Minutes of August 19, 2025

6. Clerk of the Board Fee Receipt and NOE
City of Fontana Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/11/2026
powered by Legistar™357
File #: 25-0646 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Agenda #: A. Category: Public Hearing

7. Public Hearing Notice
City of Fontana Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/11/2026
powered by Legistar™358
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

VICINITY MAP
DATE: October 28, 2025
CASE: Appeal No. 25-0002
Master Case No. 23-0101

N CITY OF FONTANA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sultana Avenue
Foothill Boulevard
Project Site
359
Via Accela Portal
August 26, 2025
Germaine Key
City Clerk’s Office
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
[email protected]
Patty Nevins
Director of Planning
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
[email protected]
[email protected]
Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of August 19, 2025, Planning Commission Decision Approving Master Case No. 23-0101 (Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022, Design Review No. 23-0024) and Class 32 Categorical Exemption
Dear City Clerk Key, Director Nevins, and Planner Quintanilla:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), regarding Master Case No. 23-0101 (Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022, Design Review No. 23-0024), which proposes the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 163 multi-family residential units located on a 3.5 acre site located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue on APNs 1110-331-13 and 1110-331-25 in the City of Fontana (“Project”). Through this letter, SAFER appeals the City of Fontana Planning Commission’s (“City”) August 19, 2025 decision to approve the Project based on the City’s reliance on a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the Project.

The Planning Commission’s August 19, 2025, decision related to the Project should not be upheld because under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the terms of the Class 32 Exemption do not apply because the Project site has value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. SAFER requests that the City rescind the Project approvals, conduct an initial study, and prepare a CEQA document, whether a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report, to analyze and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts. 360
Appeal of August 19, 2025, Planning Commission Decision Approving Master Case No. 23- 0101 (Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022, Design Review No. 23-0024) and Class 32 Categorical Exemption
August 26, 2025

Sincerely,
Hayley Uno
Lozeau Drury LLP
361

VIA EMAIL
October 27, 2025
Acquanetta Warren, Mayor Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner Peter Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem Fontana City Planning Department John Roberts, Council Member 8353 Sierra Avenue
Jesse Sandoval, Council Member Fontana, CA 92335
Phillip Cothran, Council Member [email protected] Fontana City Council
8353 Sierra Avenue Germaine Key, City Clerk
Fontana, CA 92335 Fontana City Clerk’s Office
[email protected] 8353 Sierra Avenue
[email protected] Fontana, CA 92335
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Comment for the California Environmental Quality Act Class 32 Categorical Exemption for Master Case No. 23-0101 (CUP No. 24-0022; DR No. 23-0024)
Dear Mayor Warren, Honorable Members of the Fontana City Council, Mr. Quintanilla, and Ms.

Key:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in the City of Fontana (“City”), in support of SAFER’s appeal of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 32 Categorical Exemption, or Infill Exemption (“Exemption”), for the Master Case No. 23-0101 Project (Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022; Design Review No. 23-0024) (“Project”). The Project involves the construction of a new, five-story, mixed-use residential and commercial building with 163 dwelling units and 5,000 square feet of retail space, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue in the City of Fontana, California. The Project is scheduled to be heard at the Fontana City Council hearing on October 28, 2025. The Fontana Planning Commission approved the Project based on an Infill Exemption at its hearing on August 19, 2025.

After careful review of Project documents, SAFER maintains that the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption because, as discussed below, substantial evidence shows that the Project will have significant adverse impacts related to biological resources and air quality. The 362
Appeal Comment Re: Master Case No. 23-0101
October 27, 2025

City therefore cannot rely on the Exemption because (1) the Exemption does not apply on its face, and (2) the Unusual Circumstances Exception to the Exemption applies.

SAFER’s review of the Project has been assisted by expert wildlife ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.; air quality experts Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., and Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., from the environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”); and indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann, P.E., C.I.H. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. SWAPE’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit B and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Mr. Offermann’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit C and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

For the reasons discussed below, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption and instead requires an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review before approval, whether a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or an environmental impact report (“EIR”). SAFER thus respectfully requests that the City Council grant SAFER’s appeal and find that the Project does not qualify for the Exemption under CEQA.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project involves the construction of a new, five-story, mixed-use residential and commercial building with 163 dwelling units and 41 accessory dwelling units, as well as 5,000 square feet of commercial retail space and 277 parking spaces on the first floor. The Project site, currently undeveloped and vacant, totals 3.5 acres. The site is located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue, in the City of Fontana. The site is bounded by Foothill Boulevard to the south, Sultana Avenue to the west, the Pacific Electric Trail to the north, and vacant land to the east. The site is surrounded by single-family residences to the north and east, vacant land to the east and west, and commercial uses to the south. The site is zoned MultipleFamily High Density Residential (R-5) and has a General Plan land use designation of Multi Family High Residential (R-MFH).

LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. (Pub. Res. Code § 21001(d) [“PRC”].) A “project” is “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (PRC § 21065; 14 Cal.

Code Regs. § 15378(a) [“CCR”].) CEQA requires environmental factors to be considered at the “earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum,” (Bozung v. Loc.

Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 284), “at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains.” (Sundstrom v. Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.)
To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered 363
Appeal Comment Re: Master Case No. 23-0101
October 27, 2025

structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86 [“Hollywoodland”].) First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or if it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further evaluation is required under CEQA. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(1).) Second, if the project is not exempt, and there is a possibility the project will have a significant environmental effect, then the agency must perform an initial threshold study. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(2).) Third, if the initial study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental effect (id.), then a MND is required, but if the initial study shows that the project may have a significant environmental effect, then an EIR is required. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(3).) Here, because the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first step of the CEQA process applies.

CEQA identifies certain classes of projects as exempt from CEQA’s provisions. These are called categorical exemptions. (14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and ‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’ [Citations].” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 [“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. [Citations.] Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’”].) Here, the City has recommended that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA’s requirements pursuant to the Class 32 Exemption, or “Infill Exemption.” (14 CCR § 15332.) Under CEQA’s Infill Exemption, a project is exempt from CEQA’s requirements if the project meets the following five conditions:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. (14 CCR § 15332 [emph. added].)

DISCUSSION
I. CEQA’s Infill Exemption does not apply on its face to the Project, thus a full CEQA analysis is required.
364
Appeal Comment Re: Master Case No. 23-0101
October 27, 2025

The City relies on the CEQA Infill Exemption for the Project. One of the Exemption’s key limitations is that it does not apply if a project (1) has value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, or (2) will have any significant effects related to air quality. (14 CCR § 15332(c), (d).) Here, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption because the Project site has value as habitat for several special-status species, and the Project will have significant adverse impacts related to air quality. Therefore, the City must prepare an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review before approval, whether an EIR or an MND.

A. There is substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse impacts on biological resources, precluding reliance on the Infill Exemption.

Expert wildlife ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. has reviewed the Project, the Categorical Exemption Memo (“CE Memo”), and other relevant documents regarding the Project’s impacts on biological resources. Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project site serves as habitat for multiple special-status species and that the CE Memo failed to adequately analyze the Project’s significant adverse impacts on wildlife. (Ex. A at 1, 22.) He recommended several mitigation measures that are needed to reduce the Project’s significant impacts on biological resources. (Id. at 27-28.)

1. The CE Memo did not fully account for the diversity of species that use the Project site as habitat, including several special-status species.

Dr. Smallwood’s associate, biologist Noriko Smallwood, M.S., visited the Project site on August 15, 2025 for a 3-hour survey and on August 19, 2025 for a 1.83-hour diurnal survey and a 1.67-hour nocturnal survey. (Id. at 2.) During her visit, Ms. Smallwood detected 24 species of wildlife at the Project site, including eight special-status species. (Id. at 3.) These special-status species included: (1) the Monarch Butterfly, a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act; (2) the Western Red Bat, a Western Bat Working Group (“WBWG”) high-priority species and a California Species of Special Concern (“SSC”); (3) the Canyon Bat, a WBWG moderate-priority species; (4) the Northern Harrier, a Priority 3 California Bird SSC, a Bird of Conservation Concern (“BCC”) with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and a Bird of Prey (“BOP”) protected under California Fish & Game Code § 3503.5; (5) the Allen’s Hummingbird, a BCC; (6) the American kestrel, a BOP; (7) the Cooper’s Hawk, a BOP and a species on the California Department of Fish & Wildlife Taxa to Watch List (“WL”); and (8) the White-Faced Ibis, also on the WL. (Id. at 3, 12.)
In contrast to Noriko’s site visit, the City failed to complete any wildlife surveys of the Project site. (Id. at 16.) As a result, the City has no basis for determining whether the site provides habitat to special-status species of wildlife. (Id.) CEQA requires government agencies to describe the “environmental setting” of the Project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322.) The “environmental setting” is defined as “the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” (CEQA Guidelines § 365
Appeal Comment Re: Master Case No. 23-0101
October 27, 2025

15360; see CEQA Guidelines § 21060.5; Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1192.) By failing to conduct any wildlife surveys of the Project site, or disclose the site’s existing conditions, including the fact that the site contains at least eight special-status species, the CE Memo inadequately described the Project’s “environmental setting” and thereby insufficiently analyzed the Project’s biological impacts.

Additionally, Dr. Smallwood found that the City’s desktop review was incomplete. (Ex.

A at 16.) Desktop review includes literature and database reviews and consultation with local experts to inform field surveys and interpret a project’s impacts on wildlife. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood found that the City’s desktop review was inadequate and incomplete. (Id.) The City’s desktop review was distorted to minimize the chances of the occurrence of special-status species. (Id.) Furthermore, the City did not conduct any desktop review specifically to evaluate the likelihood of the occurrence of special-status wildlife species on the Project site. (Id.) From his own assessment based on database reviews and Ms. Smallwood’s site visits, Dr. Smallwood estimates that about 137 special-status wildlife species are known to occur close enough to the Project site to warrant analysis of their occurrence potential. (Id.) Given Ms. Smallwood’s identification of at least eight special-status species on the Project site, as well as the records of the occurrence of multiple other special-status species near the site, Dr. Smallwood deems the site as habitat for special-status species. (Id. at 22.) These species use the site for stopover during migration, survival, and reproduction. (Id.) Therefore, the proposed Infill Exemption is improper. Further CEQA review is needed to appropriately assess and reduce the Project’s impacts on the wildlife community.

2. The Project will have significant adverse impacts on wildlife that the CE Memo failed to analyze and mitigate.

Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project will have significant impacts on biological resources, including: (a) habitat loss; (b) interference with wildlife movement; and (c) birdwindow collision mortality. The CE Memo did not address any of these impacts. a. The Project will have a significant impact on the site’s reproductive capacity as a result of habitat loss.

Dr. Smallwood calculated that the loss of habitat from the Project would cause the loss of 13 bird nesting sites and 18 nesting attempts per year, a loss that “would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed by the City of Fontana.” (Id. at 23.) However, these impacts would not end with this immediate numerical loss of nesting sites, for the reproductive capacity of the Project site would also be permanently lost. Dr. Smallwood estimated that the Project would prevent the production of 52 fledglings and 59 birds per year. (Id.) He concluded that “the loss of 59 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value,” and that “the loss of this many birds would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.” (Id.) This is a significant adverse impact that must be analyzed and mitigated in an MND or EIR. 366
Appeal Comment Re: Master Case No. 23-0101
October 27, 2025

b. The Project will have a significant impact on wildlife as a result of interference with wildlife movement.

Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project site provides wildlife with stopover opportunities during migration and dispersal of young, facilitating wildlife movement. (Id.) The Project would deprive wildlife of all such opportunities. However, the CE Memo failed to analyze how the Project would interfere with wildlife movement. (Id.) c. The Project will have a significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions.

The Project would introduce glass windows into open airspace space that is currently an essential bird habitat. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood’s database review and Ms. Smallwood’s site visits showed that there are 95 special-status bird species with the potential to use the airspace around the Project site. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood calculated that the Project will add about 13,455 square meters of external glass windows that would expose birds to collision mortality. He predicted that the Project will cause 984 bird fatalities per year from window collisions. (Id. at 26.) Most of these predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treat Act and California Migratory Bird Protection Act, “thus causing significant unmitigated impacts.” (Id.) Given the estimated level of bird-window collision mortality, Dr. Smallwood concluded that “the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species.” (Id.) Therefore, the Exemption would be improper for the Project, given the magnitude of the predicted adverse impact to wildlife caused by bird-window collision mortality.

3. Mitigation measures are needed to reduce the Project’s significant impacts on biological resources.

Dr. Smallwood suggests numerous mitigation measures that the City should implement to reduce the Project’s significant adverse impacts on biological resources, should the Project proceed. Potential mitigation measures include preconstruction take-avoidance surveys for nesting birds, use of bird-safe glass and window treatments, compensatory mitigation for habitat loss, funding of wildlife rehabilitation facilities, and native plant landscaping. (Id. at 27-28.) B. There is substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse air quality impacts, thereby precluding reliance on the Infill Exemption.

Air quality experts Dr. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., and Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., from the environmental consulting firm SWAPE have reviewed the Project, the CE Memo, and other relevant documents regarding the Project’s air quality and human health impacts. SWAPE concluded that: (1) the CE Memo failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality impacts; and (2) the Project may have significant adverse health risk impacts related to Project’s construction emissions. (Ex. B at 1, 6.) SWAPE recommended that “a full CEQA analysis be prepared . . . to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.” (Id. at 7.)
367
Appeal Comment Re: Master Case No. 23-0101
October 27, 2025

1. The CE Memo failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s construction emissions of toxic air contaminants.

CEQA requires agencies to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to associated impacts on human health risks. (See Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502.) Here, SWAPE found that the CE Memo neither assessed the Project’s construction emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), a toxic air contaminant and known carcinogen, nor conducted a quantified health risk assessment (“HRA”) to evaluate the health risks posed by the Project’s DPM emissions to nearby sensitive receptors. (Ex. B at 2.) Therefore, the CE Memo is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to connect the increase in DPM emissions created by the Project’s construction to the adverse impacts of those emissions on human health. (Id.) An MND or EIR must be prepared to evaluate these impacts.

2. The Project may have significant adverse health risk impacts related to the Project construction’s emissions.

Using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality dispersion model, SWAPE conducted a preliminary HRA of the cancer risk impacts of the Project’s construction DPM emissions on nearby residential sensitive receptors. (Id.) The CE Memo indicates that Project construction would produce about 69.5 pounds of DPM over the 422-day construction period. (Id.) The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site include single-family residences just 80 feet away. (Id. at 3; CE Memo at 14, 72.) SWAPE calculated that, during construction, the excess cancer risk of the Project’s DPM emissions to these sensitive receptors is 29.3 per million. (Ex. B at 5.) This far exceeds the 10 per million cancer risk threshold of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”). (Id.) Thus, SWAPE’s findings show that Project construction may result in a significant health risk impact. A full CEQA analysis should be prepared to analyze and mitigate this impact. (Id. at 6.) C. There is substantial evidence that the Project will pose significant health risks from indoor air quality impacts, thereby precluding reliance on the Infill Exemption.

Certified industrial hygienist, Francis Offermann, P.E., C.I.H., has reviewed the Project, the CE Memo, and other relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. These documents provide no analysis of the Project’s indoor air quality impacts. Mr. Offermann concluded that the Project will expose its future residents to significant health impacts related to indoor air quality, particularly emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr.

Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic.

Mr. Offermann explained that many composite wood products used in building materials commonly found in residences contain formaldehyde-based glues which release formaldehyde gas over a very long period of time. He stated, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential, office, and retail building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. C at 2.) 368
Appeal Comment Re: Master Case No. 23-0101
October 27, 2025

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen, classified by the State as a Toxic Air Contaminant. The SCAQMD has established a CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Mr. Offermann found that future Project occupants may be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde emissions of about 120 per million for residents and 17.7 per million for commercial employees, even assuming that all materials comply with the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id. at 4-5.) This exceeds the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk. (Id. at 2.) Mr. Offermann concluded that the Project will have significant environmental impacts that must be analyzed in an EIR or MND and mitigation measures must be imposed to reduce the raised cancer risk. (Id. at 12-13.) Mr. Offermann prescribed a methodology for estimating the Project’s formaldehyde emissions for a more project-specific health risk assessment. (Id. at 6-

10.) He also identified feasible several mitigation measures to decrease the significant health risks, like installing air ventilation systems and requiring the use of composite wood materials only for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB-approved no-added formaldehyde (“NAF”) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (“ULEF”) resins. (Id. at 12-14.) When a project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. (See, e.g.

Schenck v. Cnty. of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”]; see also Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-11 [“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”].) The California Supreme Court has shown the importance an air district significance threshold has in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 [estimated emissions in excess of air district’s significance thresholds “constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact”].) Since expert evidence shows the Project will exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. (See Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.) The City’s failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Cal. Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). The Court held in CBIA that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. (Id. at 800-01.) However, to the extent that a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those effects would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801 [“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”].) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language requires lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s 369
Appeal Comment Re: Master Case No. 23-0101
October 27, 2025

effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800.)
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions Mr. Offermann has identified are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions will be from the Project. Residential tenants will be the Project’s users. Currently, there is presumably little to no formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once built, the Project will start emitting formaldehyde at levels posing significant direct and cumulative health risks to the Project’s users. The California Supreme Court in CBIA expressly found that this air emission and health impact from the Project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed under CEQA.

The California Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 [emphasis in original].) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment— that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000(b), (c), (d), (g), 21001(b), (d).) It goes without saying that the Project’s future residents are human beings, and their health and safety must be subjected to CEQA’s safeguards.

The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts. (See Cnty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cnty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597-

98. [“[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts.”].) The Project will have significant effects on indoor air quality and health risks by emitting formaldehyde that will expose future residents to cancer risks exceeding SCAQMD’s significance threshold for cancer risk of 10 per million. In light of this impact and the City’s lack of any evidence to the contrary, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption and must undergo CEQA review before approval.

II. The Project does not qualify for CEQA’s Infill Exemption due to the Unusual Circumstances Exception.

The Unusual Circumstances Exception (“Exception”) prohibits categorical exemptions where there is a “reasonable possibility” that a project will significantly impact the environment “due to unusual circumstances.” (14 CCR § 15300.2(c).) To determine whether the Exception applies, agencies examine (1) whether the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location, and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect due to that unusual circumstance. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1098; IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 132.) The California Supreme Court has held that “a party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect.” (Berkeley Hillside Preservation, 60 Cal.4th at 1105 [emph. added].) That evidence, if convincing, necessarily also establishes a reasonable possibility that the project will significantly affect the environment due to those unusual 370
Appeal Comment Re: Master Case No. 23-0101
October 27, 2025

circumstances. (Id.)
The close proximity of a project site to sensitive receptors is an unusual circumstance.

Here, the closest sensitive receptors include existing single-family residences as close as 80 feet northeast of the Project site. (CE Memo at 14, 72; Ex. B at 3.) As a result of this unusual circumstance, the Project poses a dramatically higher cancer risk from DPM to neighboring sensitive receptors, as discussed by SWAPE. DPM cancer risks are highly dependent on proximity. This is very similar to the case of Lewis v. Seventeenth Dist. Agric. Assn. (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 823, 831, where the close proximity of residences to a proposed automobile racetrack was held to be an “unusual circumstance” precluding reliance on a CEQA exemption because the proximity created heightened noise impacts.

Additionally, as discussed above, we have submitted substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse impacts related to biological resources and air quality. The fact that these impacts will occur constitutes an unusual circumstance, thereby precluding the City’s reliance on the Exemption.

CONCLUSION
The City cannot rely on a CEQA Infill Exemption because SAFER has provided substantial evidence showing that the Project will have significant adverse impacts related to biological resources, air quality, and indoor air quality. Therefore, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council find that the Project does not qualify for the Exemption. The City instead must prepare an MND or EIR before Project approval.

Sincerely,
Hayley Uno

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
371

EXHIBIT A
372
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Rebecca L. Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612 28 August 2025
RE: Fontana Master Case No. 23-0101
Dear Ms. Davis,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that would result from development of the proposed Fontana Master Case No. 23-0101 project. I understand the project would add 163 residential units, 41 Americans with Disabilities Act Units and 5,000 sf of commercial space on 3.5 acres at the northeast corner of Sultana Ave and Foothill Blvd in Fontana, California. My comments that follow address my concern that the proposed Class-32 CEQA Categorical Exemption and the Exemption under AB 130 would be inappropriate, because the site is habitat for multiple special-status species, and there has been no analysis of potential impacts to wildlife due to habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement in the region and bird-window collision mortality.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.

THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts specifies that such evaluation includes potential impacts to special-status species. However, an important policy of CEQA is “to prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.” Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). This policy is not restricted to special-status species, but it also applies to wildlife populations and plant 373
2 and animal communities. In fact, the CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because these species are forage, provisioners of refugia and nest substrates, and ecological mutualists; no special-status species can exist in a vacuum of other wildlife. The CEQA Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which specialstatus species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.

All wildlife species should be of concern in a CEQA review, but the CEQA prioritizes special-status species. The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors).

What follows is a summary of a site visit to detect as many of the species of wildlife as possible within the short time available. The survey was also intended to detect as many of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most specialstatus species are less readily detectable due to rarity and crypticity. Nonetheless, the species detected can indicate the ecological integrity of the site and thus the likelihood of occurrence of special-status species not yet detected.

SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 3 hours from 06:16 to 09:16 hours on 15 August 2025, AND for 1.83 hours of diurnal survey from 18:04 to 19:54 hours and 1.67 hours of nocturnal survey from 19:25 to 21:05 hours on 19 August 2025. During daylight, Noriko walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. At night, Noriko strapped a Petterson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 30-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran Sonobat Live. Sonobat Live identifies bats to species based on the bats’ sonograms that are detected by the M500. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen just off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.
374
3 Conditions were cloudy with no wind and temperatures of 62-70° F on 15 August 2025.

On 19 August 2025, conditions were sunny with 12 MPH west wind and temperatures of 89-84° F during the diurnal survey, and clear with 7 MPH west wind and temperatures of 84-78° F during the nocturnal survey. The site is primarily annual grassland that appears to be mowed periodically, with eucalyptus, willow, rosemary, and other ornamental plants and trees along the western and northern borders (Photos 1 and 2).

Noriko saw American kestrel and Cooper’s hawk (Photos 3 and 4), Allen’s hummingbird and Anna’s hummingbird (Photos 5 and 6), white-faced ibis (Photo 7), lesser goldfinch and house finch (Photos 8 and 9), common raven (Photo 10), Cassin’s kingbird and black phoebe (Photos 11 and 12), Eurasian collared-dove and mourning dove (Photos 13 and 14), northern mockingbird and western side-blotched lizard (Photos 15 and 16), Great Basin fence lizard (Photo 17), monarch (Photos 18 and 19), desert cottontail (Photo 20), canyon bat (Photos 21 and 24), California ground squirrel and house cat (Photos 22 and 23), and possible western red bat (Photo 25), among the other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 23 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including six or seven species with special status as well as Monarch, which is a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (Table 1).

Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site, 15 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
375
4 Photos 3 and 4. American
kestrel (top), and American
kestrel harassing a Cooper’s
hawk (bottom) on the
project site, 15 and 19
August 2025. Photos by
Noriko Smallwood.
376
5 Photos 5 and 6. Allen’s hummingbird (left), and Anna’s hummingbird (right) on the project site, 15 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 7. White-faced ibis flying over the project site, 15 August 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
377
6 Photos 8 and 9. Lesser goldfinch (left), and house finch (right) just off the project site, 19 and 15 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 10. Common ravens on the project site, 19 August 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
378
7 Photos 11 and 12. Cassin’s kingbird (left), and black phoebe (right) on the project site, 15 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 13 and 14. Eurasian collared-dove just off the project site (left), and mourning dove on the project site (right), 19 and 15 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
379
8 Photos 15, 16, and 17. Northern mockingbird (top left), western side-blotched lizard (top right), and Great Basin fence lizard (bottom) on the project site, 19 August 2025.

Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
380
9 Photos 18 and 19. Monarchs on the project site, 19 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. The Monarch is a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Photos 20 and 21. Desert cottontail (left), and canyon bat (right) on the project site, 15 and 19 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
381
10 Photos 22 and 23. House cat (bottom) hunting a California ground squirrel (top) just off the project site, 15 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 382
11 Photos 24 and 25. Sonograms of canyon bat (top) and possible western red bat (bottom) detected on site using Sonobat Live and a Pettersson M500, 19 August 2025. 383
12 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 3 hours of diurnal survey on 15 August 2025, and 1.83 hours of diurnal survey and 1.67 hours of nocturnal survey on 19 August 2025.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC 3 observed on site
Great Basin fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
longipes Multiple juveniles
Western side-blotched
lizard
Uta stansburiana
elegans Multiple juveniles
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Many
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Just off site Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Foraged, territorial
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Foraged, territorial White-faced ibis Pledagis chihi WL Flew over
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Flew over just off site
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Pair, hunted over site, harassed by AMKE
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Hunted over site, harassed COHA
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Flew over
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Foraged
Common raven Corvus corax
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Juveniles
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M
Detected using Sonobat
Live and Pettersson M500
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii
SSC,
WBWG: H
Possible, detected using
Sonobat Live and
Pettersson M500
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii One observed on site California ground
squirrel
Otospermophilus
beecheyi Hunted by house cat
House cat Felis catus Non-native Hunted ground squirrels Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID =109406) as FC = federal candidate for listing; BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservationconcern-2021.pdf); SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).
384
13 Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

ANALYSIS OF RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY DATA
Noriko detected 23 species of vertebrate willdife, which was a typical number for the brevity of her survey effort. However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her surveys, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s cumulative numbers of vertebrate species detected with time into her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. The model fit to Noriko’s survey data from the morning of 15 August, for example, predicts 26 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected, or 10 more species than she detected that morning (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate wildlife
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s
visual-scan
surveys on 15 and
19 August 2025.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
95% CI 2019-2024 in region
YAM 0.99
YPM 0.98
r
2 385
14 Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on 15 and 19 August 2025 composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some require more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. A survey on only one or two days cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s two surveys.

However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.

As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ = 1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r 2,
of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 17 species over my first 4.83 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (4.83 hours to match the 4.83 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 30% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 21 diurnally active species Noriko detected after her 4.83 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 30% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 21

0.30 ⁄ = 70 species
of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of specialstatus to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 70 386
15 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 17 special-status species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife.

Because my prediction of 70 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 17 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance surveys should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her two surveys to produce an inventory the project site’s wildlife community.

Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.

Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the wildlife community and any key ecological relationships and known and ongoing threats to special-status species. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of the CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
387
16 of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To the CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources. In the case of this project, however, no analysts obtained the information needed to accurately predict impacts to wildlife.

As far as I can determine, no wildlife survey of any kind has been completed on the project site. Therefore, the City of Fontana possesses no basis for determining whether the project site provides habitat to wildlife including special-status species of wildlife.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database reviews and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths. In the case of this project, the desktop review was incomplete, and the review that was completed was distorted to minimalize the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species.

As far as I can determine, no desktop review has been completed to assess the occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of wildlife on the project site.

In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 137 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Of these 137 species, 7 were recorded on or just off the project site, and another 12 (9%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 36 (26%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 70 (51%) within 4 to 30 miles (In region). Almost half of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least seven special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of recorded occurrences. 388
17 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood during her site visit.

Common name Species name Status1
Occurrences in data
base records, Site visits
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT In region San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE In region Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE In region Delhi sands flower-loving fly Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis FE In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close/On site
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Nearby
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC, SSC In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata FC, SSC In region
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Nearby Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC In region San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Very close California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC In region South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Nearby
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC In region Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
389
18 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrences in data
base records, Site visits
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close/On site Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL In region
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Nearby
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Nearby Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Nearby/On site
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP In region
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP, WL Nearby Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Nearby/Just off site Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close 390
19 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrences in data
base records, Site visits
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close/On site Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Nearby
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP In region
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE, SSC2, BOP Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close/On site Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Nearby
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Nearby
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Nearby Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT In region
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
391
20 Common name Species name Status
1 Occurrencesin data
base records, Site visits
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Nearby
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Nearby California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Nearby
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Nearby
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 In region Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC Nearby
Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Nearby
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG: M In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM In region
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG: M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG: H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG: H In range
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region
Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In region Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M In region/On site Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: L In region
392
21 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrences in data
base records, Site visits
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG: M In range Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M In region
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG: H In region/Possible on site Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG: H In region Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG: H In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG: H In region Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG: H In range
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG: L In region Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG: M In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG: H In range San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC In region
Northwestern San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC In region
Pallid San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC In range Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC In region San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti SSC In region Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors). 393
22 On the Presence of Special-status Species of Wildlife There is no doubt that at least seven special-status species of wildlife occur on the project site, including the Monarch which is a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. Modeling the rate of species detections during Noriko’s survey, and analytically bridging Noriko’s survey results to a larger research effort, predicts 17 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife should be detectable on the project site after a larger survey effort conducted over the period of a year or longer. Indeed, species occurrence records reveal that 19 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife have been detected within 1.5 miles of the site, and 48 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife have been detected within four miles of the site. The evidence is overwhelming that the project site provides habitat to multiple special-status species of wildlife.

Considering Noriko’s observations of at least seven special-status species, and the occurrence records of multiple other special-status species very close to the project site the project site is habitat as defined in the scientific literature (Hall et al. 1997). These species are using the site for migration stopover, survival, and likely for reproduction.

These species are members of a larger wildlife community, the entire composition of which has yet to be characterized but which undoubtedly adds to the habitat value of the project site. Therefore, the proposed Class-32 CEQA Categorical Exemption and the Exemption under AB 130 would be inappropriate, and at least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize the wildlife community as an important part of the existing environmental setting.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which are analyzed by the City of Fontana.

REDUCED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY FROM HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species. The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 23 species of vertebrate wildlife which Noriko observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown. Because Noriko’s survey was only a reconnaissance survey and therefore unsuitable for detecting all bird nests on the site, estimating total nest density of birds was not possible. The alternative method would be to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere. Noriko has completed several studies to estimate total avian nest density in similar environments in the local area.

Noriko estimated 5.56 nests/acre on a 3.6-acre site of ruderal grassland bordering a woodland strip in Murrieta, and 1.86 nests/acre on another 4.83-acre grassland site bordering a strip of woodland in Murietta. The average of the above two estimates is

3.71 nests/acre. This density applied to the 3.5 acres of the project site would predict 13 nest sites. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate 18 nest attempts per 394
23 year on the project site. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of

2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 52 fledglings/year at the project site.

The loss of 13 nest sites and 18 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed by the City of Fontana. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The project would prevent the production of 52 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022):
{(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 59 birds per year denied to California.

The loss of 59 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of this many birds would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.

INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The species Noriko detected on the project site had at some point moved to the site, and in fact members of some of these species were in flight when she detected them. At minimum, the project site provides wildlife with stopover opportunities during migration or dispersal of young. However, the City of Fontana has provided no reporting on any analysis of whether and how the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region.

BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY
The project would introduce glass windows into an essential portion of avian habitat – that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere.

The aerosphere is habitat, to which an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).

Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and Noriko’s site visit indicate there are 95 specialstatus species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 2). All the birds represented in Table 2 can quickly fly from wherever they have been documented to the project site, so they would all be within brief flights to the proposed project’s windows.

And Noriko confirmed 22 species on the project site, some of them flying across the site. 395
24 Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.

Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but they are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.

Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the birdwindow collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.

By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA birdwindow fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only two of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how 396
25 and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.

In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.

Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.

Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.
397
26 Project Impact Prediction
By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.

The City’s Notice of Public Hearing summarizes the project simply by the number of residential units and 5,000 sf of commercial space. The number and extent of structural glass on the project’s building façades are not reported.

Assuming 1,127 sf per residential unit (the average of five condominium projects I have reviewed), then I estimate 229,208 sf of residential floorspace in the project. Assuming the average window space/sf of homes I have recorded from other proposed projects of

0.05835 m2 of window/sf floorspace, then I predict 13,374 m2 of windows among the 204 residential units. My average window space per sf of commercial space is 0.0162 at other projects. With this rate applied to 5,000 sf, I predict 81 m2 of windows on the commercial space. Combined, the project is predicted to add 13,455 m2 of external glass that would expose birds to collision mortality. The above-reported average of bird collision deaths per m2 of glass per year applied to 13,455 m2 of external glass in the project predicts 984 (95% CI: 584-1,383) bird collision fatalities per year.

The vast majority of these predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species. Not only would the project take habitat of rare and sensitive species of birds, but it would transform the project’s airspace into a lethal collision trap to birds.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ANALYSES
The preceding analyses are only several of many types of impacts that need to be addressed in an EIR. Another potential impact would be caused by project-generated traffic, which can lead to wildlife-automobile collision mortality. Another is the projectgenerated demand for electrical energy, which would cause wildlife mortality wherever the energy is generated and along the electric distribution lines that deliver the energy to the project. Because the impacts would result in deaths and injuries of special-status species of wildlife, the proposed Class-32 CEQA Categorical Exemption and the 398
27 Exemption under AB 130 would be inappropriate, and at least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts.

NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds: To comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys must be required. Even with this measure, however, the impacts of the project on birds would be permanent and of large magnitude (see my prediction, above, of the lost productive capacity of breeding birds). Mitigation would still be needed for habitat loss.

Habitat loss: Should the project go forward, compensatory mitigation is needed for the loss of habitat. Habitat of equal or greater area should be protected as close to the project site as feasible.

Bird-Window Collision Mortality: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and 399
28 some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).

Van Doren et al. (2021) found that nocturnal migrants contributed most of the collision fatalities in their study, and the largest predictors of fatalities were peak migration and lit windows. Van Doren et al. (2021) predicted that a light-out mitigation measure could reduce bird-window collision mortality by 60%.

Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities.

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with building windows and with automobiles traveling to and from the project site.

Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as important sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threatened insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022).

Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
400
29 LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.

Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.

Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.

Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.

J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.

Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.

Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
401
30 Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.

Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.

Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.

Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.

Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.

Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.

P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, 402
31 and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.

Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.

Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.

Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.

PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.

Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.

Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.

Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.
403
32 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI

10.7717/peerj.2170
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.

PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.

Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.

Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.

Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.

Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.
404

EXHIBIT B
405
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
September 26, 2025
Hayley Uno
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Master Case No. 23-0101 Project Dear Ms. Uno,
We have reviewed the April 2025 Categorical Exemption Memorandum (“Memo”) for the Master Case No. 23-0101 (“Project”) located in the City of Fontana (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 204 residential units, five 1,000 square-foot retail units, and 277 parking spaces on the 3.5-acre site.

Our review concludes that the Memo fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk impacts. As a result, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and 14 Cal. Code of Regs. 1500 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”) and, therefore, a full CEQA analysis must be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk impacts that the Project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Improper Reliance on Class 32 Categorical Exemption
The Memo indicates that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Guidelines § 15332. Regarding Class 32 Categorical Exemptions, the Memo states:
“CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 states that a Class 32 CE applies when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. 406
2 d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services” (p. 1).

As demonstrated above, a project can only qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption if approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

However, the Memo’s air quality analysis is insufficient. The Project may not qualify for a Class 32 exemption and a full CEQA analysis should be prepared for two reasons:
(1) The Memo fails to adequately evaluate diesel particulate matter emissions; and (2) SWAPE’s screening-level analysis indicates a potentially significant health risk impact. 1) Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The Memo does not evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project construction nor conduct a quantified health risk assessment (“HRA”). The Memo is thus inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Under CEQA, agencies must make a “reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” 1 To comply with this requirement, a construction-phase HRA should have been performed to assess the potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions generated during construction. The resulting cancer risk estimate should then be compared against the SCAQMD established threshold of 10 in one million.2
2) Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact We conducted a screening-level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality dispersion model which uses a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed.3 We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction-related health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the Memo’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.4 The “TPM23-015, Fontana Detailed Report” model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 69.5 pounds of DPM over the 422-day construction period.5 The AERSCREEN model relies 1 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2018/s219783a.html 2 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, March 2023, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25. 3 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/airquality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models. 4 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 5 See Attachment A for health risk calculations. 407
3 on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over construction of the Project, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 69.5 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
422 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.000864 grams per second (“g/s”).

Construction was simulated as a 1.5-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with an initial vertical dimension of 1.5 meters and a maximum horizontal dimension of 168.31 meters. The minimum horizontal dimension is about 84.15 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Fontana was obtained from U.S. 2024 Census data.6 The AESCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations for the Project. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.7 The Memo states that the closest known sensitive receptors include singlefamily residential buildings that are as close as 80 feet, or 24.4 meters, to the Project site (Appendix C, pp. 82).

However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrate that the maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”) is located approximately 75 meters downwind of the Project site.8 Thus, the singlehour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for construction of the Project is therefore approximately

1.806 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1806 µg/m3 for Project construction.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD. Guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters used for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:
6 “Fontana.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2024, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0624680. 7 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf. 8 See Attachment B for AERSCREEN output files. 408
4 Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)9
Age
Sensitivity
Factor10
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home11
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)12
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 – 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify doses for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. We used the following dose algorithm, therefore, to assess exposures:

𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �
𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
We then used the following equation for each appropriate age group to calculate the overall cancer risk:
9 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/riskassessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 10 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 11 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 12 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 409
5 𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐹𝐹 ×
𝐸𝐸
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:

DoseAIR = do.se by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 422-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.91 years of the entire infantile stage of life (0-2 years). The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1806 2.46E-06
Construction 0.91 0.1806 2.69E-05
Operation 1.09 * *
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 2.69E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 * *
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 * *
Lifetime 30 2.93E-05
*Operational HRA not conducted due to the residential nature of the Project.

The estimated excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy and infants at the MEIR located approximately 75 meters away, over the course of construction, are approximately 2.46 and 26.9 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of construction is approximately 29.3 in one million. The infant and lifetime construction cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not addressed or identified by the Memo or associated documents.

Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between project-generated emissions and 410
6 adverse health risk impacts. The U.S. EPA Exposure Assessment Guidelines suggest an iterative, tiered approach to exposure assessments, starting with a simple screening-level evaluation using basic tools and conservative assumptions.13 If required, a more refined analyses with advanced models and detailed input data can follow.

Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact. A full CEQA analysis should therefore be prepared to include a refined HRA, as recommended by the U.S. EPA. If the refined analysis similarly reaches a determination of significant impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described in our “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section below.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions The Memo is required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated above, the Project may result in a significant health risk impact that should be mitigated further if a refined HRA similarly demonstrates a significant impact.

To reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction, we recommend the Memo consider several mitigation measures as listed below. The Southern California Association of Governments’ Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Connect SoCal 2024 recommends the following Project-level air quality mitigation measures: 14
• Assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower [hp] and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.

Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet. • Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. • Minimize idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements — saves fuel and reduces emissions.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites.
• Obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit for portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles. Arrange appropriate consultations with 13 “Exposure Assessment Tools by Tiers and Types - Screening-Level and Refined.” U.S. EPA, May 2024, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-tiers-and-types-screening-level-and-refined. 14 “Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Connect SoCal 2024.” SCAG, May 2020, available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/program-environmental-impact-report-0. 411
7 CARB or the local air district to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.
• Use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 hp. In the event that construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final or better engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the project’s lead agency before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction, unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 Final or better engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible or higher tier standard diesel equipment as it becomes developed and feasible.
• Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.

Provided above are several mitigation measures that would reduce Project-related DPM emissions.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction.

A full CEQA analysis should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as updated health risk analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The full CEQA analysis should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or 412
8 otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul Rosenfeld CV
413
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.04 Total DPM (lbs) 69.47945205 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.219178082 Total DPM (g) 31515.87945 Construction Duration (days) 212 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000864377 Total DPM (lbs) 46.46575342 Release Height (meters) 3
Total DPM (g) 21076.86575 Total Acreage 3.5
Start Date 6/3/2025 Max Horizontal (meters) 168.31
End Date 1/1/2026 Min Horizontal (meters) 84.15
Construction Days 212 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Setting Urban
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.02 Population 218,455
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.109589041 Start Date 6/3/2025 Construction Duration (days) 210 End Date 7/30/2026
Total DPM (lbs) 23.01369863 Total Construction Days 422 Total DPM (g) 10439.0137 Total Years of Construction 1.16 Start Date 1/1/2026 Total Years of Operation 28.84
End Date 7/30/2026
Construction Days 210
2026
Construction
2025 Total
Attachment A
414
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1806 2.46E-06
Construction 0.91 0.1806 2.69E-05
Operation 1.09 * *
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 2.69E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 * *
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 * *
Lifetime 30 2.93E-05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor 415
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112                                      09/23/25 14:54:22
TITLE: Master Case, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ******************************  AREA PARAMETERS  **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE:         0.864E‐03 g/s             0.686E‐02 lb/hr AREA EMISSION RATE:           0.610E‐07 g/(s‐m2)        0.484E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT:                       3.00 meters               9.84 feet AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:           168.31 meters             552.20 feet AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:           84.15 meters             276.08 feet INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION:        1.50 meters               4.92 feet RURAL OR URBAN:                   URBAN
POPULATION:                      218455
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =          5000. meters             16404. feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ***********************  BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS  ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **************************  FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS  *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM  IMPACT  RECEPTOR
Zo        SURFACE   1‐HR CONC  RADIAL  DIST   TEMPORAL
SECTOR    ROUGHNESS  (ug/m3)    (deg)   (m)    PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1*       1.000     1.806       0    75.0     WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Attachment B
416
**********************  MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:    250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED:       0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:     10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE:    Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON:          Winter
ALBEDO:                  0.35
BOWEN RATIO:             1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH:       1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 10  10 01
H0     U*     W*  DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH  M‐O LEN    Z0  BOWEN ALBEDO  REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.30  0.043 ‐9.000  0.020 ‐999.   21.      6.0 1.000   1.50   0.35    0.50 HT  REF TA     HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

10.0   310.0    2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM                             MAXIMUM
DIST     1‐HR CONC                  DIST     1‐HR CONC
(m)      (ug/m3)                    (m)      (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐               ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1.00     1.401                   2525.00    0.1702E‐01
417

25.00     1.558                   2550.00    0.1679E
‐01

50.00     1.684                   2575.00    0.1656E‐01

75.00     1.806                   2600.00    0.1635E‐01 100.00     1.556                   2625.00    0.1613E‐01 125.00     1.015                   2650.00    0.1593E‐01 150.00    0.7910                   2675.00    0.1572E‐01 175.00    0.6412                   2700.00    0.1552E‐01 200.00    0.5346                   2725.00    0.1533E‐01 225.00    0.4554                   2750.00    0.1514E‐01 250.00    0.3947                   2775.00    0.1495E‐01 275.00    0.3467                   2800.00    0.1477E
‐01
300.00    0.3080                   2825.00    0.1459E‐01 325.00    0.2763                   2850.00    0.1442E‐01 350.00    0.2498                   2875.00    0.1424E‐01 375.00    0.2274                   2900.00    0.1408E‐01 400.00    0.2085                   2925.00    0.1391E‐01 425.00    0.1919                   2950.00    0.1375E‐01 450.00    0.1775                   2975.00    0.1359E‐01 475.00    0.1650                   3000.00    0.1344E‐01 500.00    0.1540                   3025.00    0.1329E‐01 525.00    0.1441                   3050.00    0.1314E
‐01
550.00    0.1352                   3075.00    0.1299E‐01 575.00    0.1273                   3100.00    0.1285E‐01 600.00    0.1202                   3125.00    0.1271E‐01 625.00    0.1137                   3150.00    0.1257E‐01 650.00    0.1078                   3175.00    0.1244E‐01 675.00    0.1024                   3200.00    0.1230E‐01 700.00    0.9743E‐01               3225.00    0.1217E‐01 725.00    0.9286E‐01               3250.00    0.1204E‐01 750.00    0.8867E‐01               3275.00    0.1192E
‐01
775.00    0.8479E‐01               3300.00    0.1180E‐01 800.00    0.8121E‐01               3325.00    0.1167E‐01 825.00    0.7788E‐01               3350.00    0.1155E‐01 850.00    0.7479E‐01               3375.00    0.1144E‐01 875.00    0.7190E‐01               3400.00    0.1132E‐01 900.00    0.6921E‐01               3425.00    0.1121E‐01 925.00    0.6667E‐01               3450.00    0.1110E‐01 950.00    0.6430E‐01               3475.00    0.1099E‐01 975.00    0.6207E
‐01               3500.00    0.1088E‐01
1000.00    0.5996E‐01               3525.00    0.1078E‐01 1025.00    0.5797E‐01               3550.00    0.1067E‐01 1050.00    0.5609E‐01               3575.00    0.1057E‐01 1075.00    0.5432E‐01               3600.00    0.1047E‐01 1100.00    0.5264E‐01               3625.00    0.1037E‐01 1125.00    0.5105E‐01               3650.00    0.1028E‐01 1150.00    0.4954E‐01               3675.00    0.1018E‐01 1175.00    0.4811E‐01               3700.00    0.1009E
‐01
1200.00    0.4675E‐01               3724.99    0.9993E‐02 1225.00    0.4546E‐01               3750.00    0.9902E‐02 1250.00    0.4422E‐01               3775.00    0.9813E‐02 418
1275.00    0.4304E
‐01               3800.00    0.9724E‐02
1300.00    0.4192E‐01               3825.00    0.9638E‐02 1325.00    0.4085E‐01               3849.99    0.9552E‐02 1350.00    0.3982E‐01               3875.00    0.9468E‐02 1375.00    0.3884E‐01               3900.00    0.9385E‐02 1400.00    0.3790E‐01               3925.00    0.9303E‐02 1425.00    0.3700E‐01               3950.00    0.9223E‐02 1450.00    0.3613E‐01               3975.00    0.9143E‐02 1475.00    0.3531E‐01               4000.00    0.9065E
‐02
1500.00    0.3451E‐01               4025.00    0.8988E‐02 1525.00    0.3374E‐01               4050.00    0.8913E‐02 1550.00    0.3301E‐01               4075.00    0.8838E‐02 1575.00    0.3249E‐01               4100.00    0.8764E‐02 1600.00    0.3179E‐01               4125.00    0.8692E‐02 1625.00    0.3112E‐01               4150.00    0.8620E‐02 1650.00    0.3048E‐01               4175.00    0.8549E‐02 1675.00    0.2986E‐01               4200.00    0.8480E
‐02
1700.00    0.2926E‐01               4225.00    0.8411E‐02 1725.00    0.2868E‐01               4250.00    0.8344E‐02 1750.00    0.2812E‐01               4275.00    0.8277E‐02 1775.00    0.2758E‐01               4300.00    0.8211E‐02 1800.00    0.2705E‐01               4325.00    0.8146E‐02 1825.00    0.2655E‐01               4350.00    0.8082E‐02 1850.00    0.2606E‐01               4375.00    0.8019E‐02 1875.00    0.2558E‐01               4400.00    0.7957E‐02 1900.00    0.2512E
‐01               4425.00    0.7896E‐02
1924.99    0.2467E‐01               4450.00    0.7835E‐02 1950.00    0.2424E‐01               4475.00    0.7775E‐02 1975.00    0.2382E‐01               4500.00    0.7716E‐02 2000.00    0.2342E‐01               4525.00    0.7658E‐02 2025.00    0.2302E‐01               4550.00    0.7600E‐02 2050.00    0.2264E‐01               4575.00    0.7544E‐02 2075.00    0.2226E‐01               4600.00    0.7488E‐02 2100.00    0.2190E‐01               4625.00    0.7432E
‐02
2125.00    0.2155E‐01               4650.00    0.7378E‐02 2150.00    0.2121E‐01               4675.00    0.7324E‐02 2175.00    0.2087E‐01               4700.00    0.7271E‐02 2200.00    0.2055E‐01               4725.00    0.7218E‐02 2225.00    0.2023E‐01               4750.00    0.7166E‐02 2250.00    0.1993E‐01               4775.00    0.7115E‐02 2275.00    0.1963E‐01               4800.00    0.7064E‐02 2300.00    0.1934E‐01               4825.00    0.7014E‐02 2325.00    0.1905E
‐01               4850.00    0.6965E‐02
2350.00    0.1877E‐01               4875.00    0.6916E‐02 2375.00    0.1850E‐01               4900.00    0.6868E‐02 2400.00    0.1824E‐01               4924.99    0.6820E‐02 2425.00    0.1798E‐01               4950.00    0.6773E‐02 2450.00    0.1773E‐01               4975.00    0.6726E‐02 2475.00    0.1749E‐01               5000.00    0.6681E‐02 2500.00    0.1725E‐01
419
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED 1‐HOUR      3‐HOUR      8‐HOUR     24‐HOUR      ANNUAL
CALCULATION          CONC        CONC        CONC        CONC        CONC PROCEDURE         (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN        1.844       1.844       1.844       1.844         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE         85.00 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY    1.401       1.401       1.401       1.401         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE          1.00 meters
420
1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
MatthewF. Hagemann,P.G., C.Hg.
• Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies • Industrial Stormwater Compliance
• CEQAReview
• Expert Testimony
Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist, P.G.

California Certified Hydrogeologist, C.Hg.

Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where I identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, I served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, I developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions held include:

Government:

Attachment C
Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); 421
2 Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998).

Educational:

Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995).

Private Sector:

Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
• Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities. • Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLAcompliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applicationsfor large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following:

Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking 422
3 Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities included:
• Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
• Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in LosAngeles that met strict Sate of California regulatory requirements. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation withclients and regulators.
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliancewith Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.EPA legal counsel.
423
4 With the National Park Service, directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential forthe gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinkingwater supplies.
• Shaping EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributingto guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water:

Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
• Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for thecity of Medford, Oregon.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. 424
5 Duties included the following:
• Supervising year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifertests.
• Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. • Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Summary of Testimony Experience Over Past Four Years
In Re New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. vs. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-14766-RMB-JBC. Deposition in 2025.

Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater, wastewater, soil, and air with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

In Re Edmond Asher, et al., vs. RTX Corporation (f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.) in the County of Huntington Superior Court, Indiana, Cause number 35D01-2006-CT-000338. Deposition in 2024. Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and soil vapor with trichlorethylene.

In Re Wright vs Consolidated Rail Corporation In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No: 21L3966.

Deposition in 2023, Representing Plaintiff in matters involving groundwater and drinking water contamination of perchloroethylene, trichlorethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride.

In Re Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division at Dayton, Case No: 08-cv-326. Deposition in 2022. Representing Plaintiff in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and indoor air with perchloroethylene and trichloethelene.

Orange County Water District vs. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC, et al. In the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large RCRA hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. 425
6 Los Angeles Waterkeeper vs. AAA Plating and Inspection, Inc. In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No: No. CV 18-5916 PA (GJSx). Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Compton, California.

Californians for Alternatives to Toxics vs. Schneider Dock and Intermodal Facility. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No: 3:17-cv-05287-JST. Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Eureka, California.

Bells et al. vs. The 3M Company et al. In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No: 1:16-CV02531-RBJ. Deposition in 2018. Expert witness representing Plaintiff on matters regarding the general hydrogeological conditions present in an area impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.

Ungar vs. Foundation for Affordable Housing. In the Superior Court, State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No.

BC628890 Deposition in 2017. Expert witness representing defendant on matters involving alleged drinking water contamination.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making andPublic Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins atschools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Division 1, California, Case No: D070553. Deposition in 2020. Representing Plaintiff in matters involving compliance with The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 426
7 Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to atribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to ameeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies.

Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting ofthe National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to ameeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA andState Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground StorageTanks.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin 427
8 Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal WatercraftUsage.

Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George WrightSociety Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval AirStation, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Airand Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Basesin California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,2009‐2011.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. 428

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment D
429

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 17 March 2025
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Spaeth, K.R., McCarthy, S.J. et al. Camp Lejeune Marine Cancer Risk Assessment for Exposure to Contaminated Drinking Water From 1955 to 1987. Water Air Soil Pollut 235, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06863-y.

Rosenfeld P.E., Spaeth K.R., Remy L.L., Byers V., Muerth S.A., Hallman R,C., Summers-Evans J., Barker S. (2023) Perfluoroalkyl substances exposure in firefighters: Sources and implications, Environmental Research, Volume 220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115164.

Rosenfeld P.E. and Spaeth K.R., (2023) Authors’ Response to Letter to the Editor from Bullock and Ramacciotti, Water Air Soil Pollution Volume 234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06165-3 Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
430

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 17 March 2025
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E., (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., Rosenfeld, P.E. Davletshin, A.R. (2008). Responsible Care. Gulf Publishing. Texas.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy of Odour Wheels for Odours of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme for The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated with Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49(9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. 431

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affects on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook for Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation on St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Master’s thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelor’s Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
432

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted at University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus on Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
433

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model for PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting for Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
434

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. The course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate the effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. 435

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 17 March 2025
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate the effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the District Court of Harris County Texas
Mt Davis Interest, Inc v Sesco Cement Corp
Cause No 2023-26512
Trial 6-6-2-25
In the United States Southern District of New York
Gallo vs Avon Products Inc., et al
Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-2023
Deposition 4-24-2025
In Vanderburgh Superior Court 5, County of Vanderburgh, Indiana Markello v CSX
Civil Action No 82D05-2011-CT-004962
Deposition 3-26-25
Iin the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jarosiewicz v Northeast Regional Railroad
Case No 2023 L 002290
Deposition 2-27-25
In the District Court 191st Judicial District Dallas County Acklin v Poly America International
Cause No DC-22-08610
Deposition 1-8-2025
United States District Court, Norther District of California Asustin Vs Monsanto
Case No 2:23-cv-272
Deposition 12-20-25
In Jefferson Circuit Court Division One, Louisville, Kentucky Stafford vs, CSX
Case No. 18-CI-001790
436

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 17 March 2025
Deposition: 8-27-24
In the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of St. Louis. State of Missouri Patricia Godfrey vs, Amtrak
Case No. 2122-CC-00525
Deposition: 7-17-24
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda Early Vs. CSX
Case number CV-2021-00241
Deposition 6-24-24
In the Court of Common Please Lucas County, Ohio
Brenda Conkright vs. CSX
Case No. G-4801-CI-0202102664-000
Deposition: 6-4-24
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Greenup Circuit Court
Patsy Sue Napier vs. CSX
Case No. 19-CI-0012
Deposition: 5-8-2-24
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Trial 3-29-24 and 4-5-24
In the District Court of Hood County State of Texas
Artie Gray vs. Exxon Mobil
Case No. C-2018047
Rosenfeld Deposition:4-22-2024
In the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana
Estate of Clark Stacy vs. Penn Central Corporation
Cause No 2D01-2001-CT-00007
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-25-2024 and 3-7-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Michael J. Sylla et al. vs. High-Crush Whitehall LLC
Case No. 2019-CV-63, 2019-CV-64, 2019-CV-65, 2019-CV-66 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Leland Drangstveit vs. High-Crush Blair LLC
Case No. 19-CV-66
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Donald Lee Ashworth vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No CV-2021-901261
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-23-2024
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-19-2024
437

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 17 March 2025
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Ricky Bush v. Clean Harbors Colfax LLC
Case No. 1:22-cv-02026-DDD-JPM
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-18-2023 and 1-15-2024
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-29-2023
In the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois Timothy Gray vs. Rural King et al.

Case No 2022-LA-355
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-26-2023
In United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L. Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Fox vs. BNSF
Case No. 2021 L12
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-12-2023
In the Court of Common Please Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Thomas Schleich vs. Penn Central Corporation
Lead Case No. CV-20-939184
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-27-2023
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri at Kansas City Timothy Dalsing vs. BNSF
Case No. No. 2216-cv06539
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-28-2023
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division International Terminals Company LLC Deer Park Fire Litigation Lead Case No. 4:19-cv-01460
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-25-2023
In the Circuit Court of Livingston County Missouri
Shirley Ralls vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Lind Railroad Case No. 28LV-CV0020
Rosenfeld Daubert Hearing 7-18-2023 Trial Testimony 7-19-2023 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Brenda Wright vs. Penn Central and Conrail
Case No. No. 2032L003966
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-13-2023
In the Circuit Court Common Please Philadelphia of Jefferson County Alabama Frank Belle vs. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company et al.

Case No. 01-cv-2021-900901.00
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-6-2023
438

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 17 March 2025
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda De Gregorio vs. Penn Central
Case No. 002278
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-27-20203
In the United States District Court Eastern District of New York Rosalie Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-16-2023
In the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County
Judy Cundy vs. BNSF
Case No. 21-2-03718-32
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-9-2023
In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA Civil Trial Division Feaster v Conrail
Case No. 001075
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-1-2023
In United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois Sherman vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:17-cv-01192
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Gonzales vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01690
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-17-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Abeyta vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01689-KMT
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-3-2023
In United States District Court For The Easter District of Louisiana Nathaniel Smith vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-01235
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-30-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division 439

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 17 March 2025
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022, Trial 1-10-2023
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022

In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
440

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 13 of 17 March 2025
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al. vs Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois 441

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 14 of 17 March 2025
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants 442

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 15 of 17 March 2025
Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintifs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. vs. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. 443

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 16 of 17 March 2025
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the County of Kern, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Rose Propagation Services vs. Heppe Enterprises
Case No. S-1500-CV-278190, LHB
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2014
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
In the Court of Galveston County, Texas 56th Judicial District MDL Litigation Regarding Texas City Refinery Ultracracker Emission Event Litigation Cause No. 10-UC-0001
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: September 2013
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the United States District court of Southern District of California United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 2,560 Acres of Land, more or less, located in Imperial County, State of California; and Donald L. Crawford, et. al.

Civil No. 3:11-cv-02258-IEG-RBB
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2012, January 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant. 444

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 17 of 17 March 2025
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
445

EXHIBIT C
446

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: September 24, 2025
To: Hayley Uno
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Master Case No. 23-101 Project, Fontana, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4898)
Pages: 20
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain 447
2 of 20
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 448
3 of 20
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentration of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the Master Case No. 23-101 Project, Fontana, CA the building consists of residential and commercial spaces.
449
4 of 20
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
450
5 of 20
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 511 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
451
6 of 20
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.
452
7 of 20

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing ureaformaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.
453
8 of 20
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 454
9 of 20

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.

𝐶!" = #!"!#$
$"#
(Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the 455
10 of 20
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde

Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air 456
11 of 20
concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.

Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The Master Case No. 23-101 Project, Fontana, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Sultana Avenue, Foothill Boulevard. etc.), thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.

The NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use Noise Impact Analysis (Ganddini Group, 2025) contains in Table 1 just five short-term 15 minute noise measurements collected on Thursday November 21, 2024 which ranged from 48.6 to 67.6 Leq dBA and in Table 2 just one long-term 24 hour measurement with a CNEL dBA of 62.8. Tables 10 and 11 report modeled ambient noise levels for the existing with Project and the future (no future year cited) with Project respectively. The existing with Project ambient noise levels ranged from 65.9 to 73.4 CNEL dBA and the future with Project ambient noise levels ranged from 58 to 74 CNEL dBA.

In order to design the building such that the interior noise levels are acceptable, long-term one-week measurements need to be conducted to assess the ambient CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels for the purpose of selecting the appropriate STC for the windows.

As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed 457
12 of 20
windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. The Master Case No. 23-101 Project, Fontana, CA, is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 511 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic.

An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g., stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
458
13 of 20
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the 459
14 of 20
system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf 460
15 of 20
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Ganddini Group. 2025. NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use Noise Impact Analysis. 461
16 of 20
Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management 462
17 of 20
District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
463
18 of 20

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the StandardMethod fortheTesting andEvaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissionsfor Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 464
19 of 20
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate, I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, 465
20 of 20
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 466
City of Fontana
Action Report
Planning Commission
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 25-0448 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
FROM:

Planning Department
TITLE:

Master Case No. 23-0101: Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022, and Design Review No. 23-0024; A request for the development of a mixed use project (163 multi-family units and 5,000 square feet of commercial retail) within the R-5 zoning district and for site and architectural review of a five-story 83,125 square foot mixed-use building and associate improvements, on a 3.5 acre site located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue (APNs: 1110-331-13 and 1110-331-25), pursuant to a Categorical Exemption in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the information in the staff report and resolution, and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC No. 2025-____, and

1. Determine that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section No. 15332 (Class No. 32.

Infill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Section No. 3.22 (Categorical Exemption) of the Local 2019 Guidelines for Implementing the CEQA, and direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption; and

2. Approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 24-0022; and

3. Approve Design Review (DRP) No. 23-0024.

APPLICANT:

Andresen Architecture, Inc.
17087 Orange Way
Fontana, CA 92335
LOCATION:

The project site is located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue (APNs:
1110-331-13 and 1110-331-25).

REQUEST:

Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 24-0022- A request for the establishment of mixed-used project within an R-5 zone.

Design Review (DR) No. 23-0024 - A request for site and architectural approval for a new five (5) story, mixed-use development building consisting of 163 multifamily units, with amenities, retail use, and a first-floor parking garage.

City of Fontana Page 1 of 5 Printed on 8/13/2025
powered by Legistar™4671
File #: 25-0448 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
PROJECT PLANNER:

Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Land Use Table:

General Plan Zoning/Overlay Existing Land Use
Site: Multi-Family High
Density (R-MFH)
Multi-Family High
Density Residential
(R-5)
Vacant
North: Public Facility (PPF)Public Facility (P-PF) Pacific Electric Trail
South: General
Commercial (CG)/County of San
Bernardino
General Commercial
(C-2)/ County of San
Bernardino
Warehouse
Building
East: General
Commercial (C-G)
General Commercial
(C-2)
Vacant
West: Multi-Family
Residential/MultiFamily High Density
(R-MF/ R-MFH)
Multiple Family/ Multi
Family High Density
Residential (R-3/R-5)
Water tank and
supporting
building/Vacant
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

A. Site Area: 151,589 square feet, approximately 3.5 acres B. Building Analysis:

Height 62’9” at corner roof top deck
Retail 5,000 square feet
Multifamily Units 163
ADU Units 41
C. Parking:

Vehicle Required: 274 parking spaces
Vehicle Provided: 277 parking spaces
D. Landscaping:

Required: 10,270 square feet (15 percent)
Provided” 22,383 square feet (32.6 percent)
ANALYSIS:

The applicant, Andresen Architecture, Inc., is requesting that the Planning Commission review and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022 for the establishment of a mixed-use development within an R-5 zoning district and approve Design Review No. 23-0024 for site and architectural City of Fontana Page 2 of 5 Printed on 8/13/2025
powered by Legistar™4682
File #: 25-0448 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
within an R-5 zoning district and approve Design Review No. 23-0024 for site and architectural review for the development of a new five (5) story mixed-use project which includes 163 multi-family units and 5,000 square feet of commercial retail. The ADUs are depicted on the plans and in the summary for informational purposes only; they are not a part of the Planning Commission’s consideration as they are not subject to discretionary review.

The project site is located on the northeast corner of Sultana Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The project consists of a rectangular building with parking, commercial retail on the first floor and multifamily units on the 3rd through 5th floor, and amenities through various floors of the building.

Currently, the site is vacant and comprised of two (2) parcels totaling 3.5 acres that will be consolidated into (1) parcel as part of a future lot line adjustment.

Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022
The project is a vertical mixed-use project, that includes residential units above ground-floor commercial uses. Mixed use projects are permitted in the R-5 zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). As identified in the Zoning and Development Code and as proposed, this mixed-use project supports transit use by providing a denser residential project, enhances access to public transportation, and encourages pedestrian activities and use of non-motor vehicle transportation. The project is located along Foothill Boulevard, a major bus corridor in Fontana that provides access to the Fontana Metrolink station. In addition, the project promotes pedestrian activities by establishing a pedestrian commercial use along Foothill Boulevard. The building is pulled back at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue to create a more comfortable pedestrian space at the intersection.

Design Review (DRP) No. 23-0024
The proposed five-story mixed-use building will be comprised of 163 multi-family units with amenities.

Five (5) 1,000 square foot retail units are proposed on the ground floor along with a 277-vehicle parking spaces. The 1,054 square foot units, 1,000 square foot units and 863 square foot residential units are located on the second through fifth floors.

PLAN NO. Type A Type A
SIZE 1,054 sq. ft 1,000 sq. ft.

NO. BEDRMS 3-Bed 3-Bed
NO. BATHS 2-Bath 1-Bath
OPEN SPACE 107 sq. ft. 94-98 sq. ft.

The applicant proposes a Contemporary style of architecture for the building. The architectural features for the proposed building will incorporate a white/gray neutral tone color palette with black and blue accent, with aluminum panels and railings, stone and brick veneer, exterior metal doors, and glazed windows The variations to the building face, varying roof lines and building’s height from 55 feet high to 62.9 feet high at the front corner of the building, will make the project architecturally pleasing and be consistent with the surrounding area. The project will contain amenities for the residents of all age groups; amenities include a BBQ island and seating area, corn hole, pool & spa, a fitness center, a recreation room with balcony, firepit and sitting area, as well as an amenity outdoor roof top deck with seating area for residential units’ use.

City of Fontana Page 3 of 5 Printed on 8/13/2025
powered by Legistar™4693
File #: 25-0448 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
The Project includes associated on and off-site improvements to include installing parking spaces, impervious pedestrian paving, new landscaping, enhanced paving, and lighting.

Grading/Walls:

The topography of the Project Site is relatively flat. The existing drainage pattern flows from north to south, with the proposed drainage pattern to direct the water to the east into an underground storage chamber which will be installed as part of the project. The Project will construct a six (6) foot high masonry wall along the north side of the property along the Pacific Electric Trail, and a six (6) foot high wrought iron fence on the east and west side, with the west side having a decorative pilaster every 20-30 feet. Additionally, the main entrance to the multi-family area there will be a six (6) foot high wrought iron fence with a swing gate and a four-foot-wide man gate.

Site Access/Circulation/Parking:

The project includes vehicle ingress/egress on Sultana Avenue for residents only and on Foothill Boulevard for the retail patrons and the future residential tenants. Parking for the retail patrons will be located in the rear of the retail units that are facing Foothill Boulevard. Residential parking will be on the ground floor, with additional parking along the west and north property lines. The project size is suitable in size and shape to support the development of the proposed multi-family and retail use building.

The project site meets the minimum parking requirements pursuant to the Zoning and Development code based for this type of development. The internal circulation has been reviewed by Planning, Fire, Traffic, and Engineering. The internal circulation is sufficient to support this type of use.

The project site is physically suitable in size and shape to support the development of the proposed mixed-use development. Applicable building codes, zoning codes, and fire codes and standards will make for a safe, attractive, and well-designed project. The project design incorporates safety measures f/or pedestrians.

Environmental:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Section No. 3.22 (Categorical Exemption) of the City of Fontana’s 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA, the proposed Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section No. 15332 as a Class 32, In-Fill Development Project. The project site is considered Infill Development and meets the CEQA requirements of Infill: (1) The Project is consistent with the Multi-family High Residential (R-MFH) designation of the General Plan and the Multi-family High Density Residential (R-5) zoning district; (2) The Project Site is less than five (5) acres at 3.5 acres; (3) The Project Site is not within any known sensitive or threatened habitat area; (4) The Project will not have any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) There are adequate public services for the development of the proposed residential project. Further, none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply to the project.

MOTION:

Approve staff’s recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS:

City of Fontana Page 4 of 5 Printed on 8/13/2025
powered by Legistar™4704
File #: 25-0448 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
Attachment No. 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment No. 2 - Project Plans
Attachment No. 3 - Planning Commission Resolution, and Conditions of Approval Attachment No. 4 - Notice of Exemption
Attachment No. 5 - Public Hearing Notice
City of Fontana Page 5 of 5 Printed on 8/13/2025
powered by Legistar™4715
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

VICINITY MAP
DATE: August 19, 2025
CASE: Master Case No. 23-0101
Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022
Design Review No. 23-0024

N CITY OF FONTANA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sultana Avenue
Foothill Boulevard
Project Site
4726
FOOTHILL BLVD.
16 221
1 206
193
182 192
181
167
152
166
136
105
90 81
76 64'-0" 64'-0" 64'-0" 64'-0" 63'-0"
89 151
120 135
39 67
68 77
80 119
8'-0" 5
2'-0"
17 ELEV.
23 104
26'-0"
30 24

WROUGHT IRON FENCE
222
247
R 35'-0"

LINE OF
FLOOR
ABOVE

SWINGING
GATES

EXISTING

MANHOLE

EXISTING MANHOLE

EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND

STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN
1 25
38 26
25 2'-3"
1,000 SF RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF RETAIL UNIT
26'-0"
50 MIN
90'-8"
34'-0"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'-0"

SETBACK
10'-0"

SETBACK
5'-0"
6'-0" HIGH

WROUGHT

IRON FENCE
6'-0" HIGH

MASONRY

SCREEN WALL
4'-0" WIDE MAN

GATE TO PACIFIC

ELECTRICAL TRAIL
TYP
9'-0"
19'-0"
TYP
TYP
9'-0"
19'-0"
TYP
TYP
9'-0"
TY
19 P
'-0"

SETBACK
5'-0"
80'-0"
3 PL1
26'-0"
STAIRS
ELEV.

STAIRS
205
34'-0"
9'-0"
TYP.

TYP.
19'-0"
2-MOTORCYCLE

PARKING SPACES

LOADING ZONE
7'-6"

PATH OF TRAVEL

PATH OF TRAVEL

PATH OF
TRAVEL

ELEVATOR
30'-0"
20' x 19' TRASH

STAGING AREA (FOR

TRASH ENCLOSURE IN

PARKING GARAGE)
164 165
55'-0"
12'-0"
5'-0"
9'-0" 10'-0"
179 180
2-MOTORCYCLE

PARKING SPACES
9'-0"
5'-0"
12'-0"
10'-0"PROPOSED 3:1 LANDSCAPING BERM PROPOSED 3:1 LANDSCAPING BERM 24'-0" 10'-0"

STREET LIGHT PER
CITY STANDARDS 60'-0"

STREET LIGHT PER

CITY STANDARDS

STREET LIGHT PER

CITY STANDARDS

STREET LIGHT PER

CITY STANDARDS

STREET LIGHT PER

CITY STANDARDS

FIRE HYDRANT PER

CITY STANDARDS

FIRE HYDRANT PER

CITY STANDARDS

FIRE HYDRANT PER

CITY STANDARDS

FIRE HYDRANT PER

CITY STANDARDS

UNDERGROUND

INFILTRATION

CHAMBER
50'-0" STACKING MIN.
15'-0" HALF SWINGING -
15'-0" HALF SLIDING GATE
(ENTRANCE/EXIT FOR

RESIDENTS ONLY)
4'-0" WIDE MAN GATE

RAMP DOWN TO

PARKING GARAGE
4'-11"

NO PARKING ZONE PROVIDED

AS A TURNAROUND FOR

PASSENGER VEHICLES
30'-0"
4'-0"
10'-0"
4'-0"
18'-0"
LIN
E
O
F
SIG
H
T
LIN
E
O
F
SIG
H
T

LINE OF SIGHT

LINE OF SIGHT
SULTANA AVE.

OWNER: MIKE MAHMOUDI
PROJECT ADDRESS: NEC FOOTHILL BLVD.& SULTANA ST
FONTANA, CA 92336
ARCHITECT: ANDRESEN ARCHITECTURE INC.
17087 ORANGE WAY
FONTANA, CA 92335
(909) 355-6688
[email protected]
TRAFFIC: K2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

KAY HSU
(714) 832-2116
[email protected]
FOOTHILL BLVD.
1,000 SF RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF RETAIL UNIT
4'-0"
4'-0" MAN GATE
8'-6"
53'-7"
6'-0" HIGH

WROUGHT

IRON FENCE
6'-0" HIGH

MASONRY

SCREEN WALL
4'-0" WIDE MAN

GATE TO PACIFIC

ELECTRICAL TRAIL
26'-0"
277'-6"
43'-9"
54'-6" 4'-0" 332'-4"
174'-6"
47'-2"
R 45'-0" R 19'-0"
30'-0"
30'-0"
SULTANA AVE.
6'-0" HIGH

MASONRY

SCREEN WALL
50'-0" STACKING MIN.
6'-0" HIGH

WROUGHT IRON

FENCE WITH

DECORATIVE

PILASTER EVERY
20 ' - 30'
1 PL1
6'-0" HIGH

WROUGHT IRON

FENCE WITH

DECORATIVE

PILASTER EVERY
20 ' - 30'
1 PL1
15'-0" HALF SWINGING -
15'-0" HALF SLIDING GATE
(ENTRANCE/EXIT FOR

RESIDENTS ONLY)
4'-0" WIDE MAN GATE
4'-0"
10'-0"
4'-0"
18'-0"

1. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE DIRECTED AND SHIELDED TO ILLUMINATE ONLY THE PARKING, BUILDING, AND LOADING AREA AND AVOID GLARE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

2. THE APPLICANT SHALL DESIGN THE PROJECT TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE LATEST ADOPTED EDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS APPLICABLE:

A. CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
B. CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
C. CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
D. CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
E. CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
F. CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
G. CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
H. CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
145'-4"

PACIFIC ELECTRIC TRAIL
BASIN
NOTE: POWDER COATED W.I. FENCING
4"
EQ.
(6'-0" MAX)
EQ.
(6'-0" MAX)
EQ.
(6'-0" MAX)
6' HIGH
4"
(PILASTER AT 20' - 30' O/C) 3'-0"
3"
8"X16"X16" GRAY PRECISION

PILASTER WITH SMOOTH PLASTER FINISH
2" X 2"
16 GA. T.S.
@ 6'-0" O/C
2" X 2"
5/8" SQ.
16 GA. T.S.
16 GA. T.S.

POWDER
COATED
@6 1/2" O/C
EARTH OR A.C.

PAVING
2" X 2"
16 GA. T.S.

POWDER
COATED
C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Douglas And r esen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:44:05 PM Site Plan PL1
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
1" = 30'-0"
Site Plan / Parking Garage
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St,
Fontana, CA 92336
APN: 111033113 / 111033125
ZONING: R-5
OCCUPANCY: GROUP R-2
CONSTRUCTION: PARKING GARAGE: TYPE 1 / TYPE V-A
FIRE SPRINKLERS: AUTOMATIC LIFE SAFETY SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED 163 UNITS APARTMENT AND 41 ADU UNITS COMTEMPORARY STYLE COMPLEX (TOTAL 204 UNITS) WITH PARKING STRUCTURE. FIRST FLOOR TO HAVE (5) 1,000 SF RETAIL UNITS AND 277 PARKING SPACES. SECOND FLOOR THROUGH FIFTH FLOOR TO HAVE PROPOSED 1,000 SF AND 800 SF UNITS THROUGHOUT ALL FOUR FLOORS.

AMENITIES ON SITE INCLUDE POOL & SPA (1ST FLOOR), FITNESS CENTER (3RD FLOOR), RECREATION CENTER (4TH FLOOR), SITTING AREA WITH BBQ AND TRELLIS AND ROOF TOP DECK WITH FIREPIT.

LOT AREA: 151,589 SQ. FT. (3.5 AC.)
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 83,125 SQ. FT.

NET LOT AREA: 68,464 SQ. FT. (100%)
LANDSCAPE AREA: 22,383 SQ. FT. (32.6%)
HARDSCAPE AREA: 44,725 SQ. FT. (67.4%)
COMBINED TOTAL PRIVATE AND COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED:
37,898 SQ. FT. (25.0%)
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (BALCONIES) TOTAL:
18,894 SQ. FT.

COMMOM OPEN SPACE (ATRIUM): 17,415 SQ. FT.
(POOL AREA): 2,341 SQ. FT.
(UPPER POOL AREA): 1,107 SQ. FT.
(ROOF TOP DECK): 2,341 SQ. FT.

TOTAL COMMON OPEN SPACE: 23,204 SQ. FT.

COMBINED TOTAL PRIVATE AND COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:
42,098 SQ. FT. (27.7%) OK!
LOT COVERAGE: 54.8%
DENSITY:

39.1 UNITS MIN. (3.5 x 39.1) = 137 UNITS MIN.
50 UNITS MAX. (3.5 x 50) = 175 UNITS MAX.

UNITS PROVIDED = 163 UNITS
PROJECT DENSITY (163 UNITS / 3.5 ACRES): 47 UNITS / AC.

TOTAL ADU UNITS (163 UNITS x 25%) = 41 UNITS
41 of 60 (2) BEDROOM UNITS (863 SF) TO BE ADU'S
UNIT BREAK DOWN:
3 BEDROOM UNITS (1,054 SF): 28 UNITS
3 BEDROOM UNITS (1,000 SF): 116 UNITS
2 BEDROOM UNITS (863 SF): 60 UNITS
TOTAL OVERALL UNITS PROVIDED:

TOTAL UNITS 204 UNITS
BALCONIES VARY FROM UNIT TO UNIT FROM 82 SF TO 107 SF
(SEE SITE PLAN / OVERALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN)
(NO GROUND LEVEL UNITS. ALL UNITS PROVIDED ARE UPPER-LEVEL) PARKING TABULATION:

TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED:
163 UNITS x 1.50: 245 SPACES
TOTAL UNIT PARKING SPACES PROVIDED:

TOTAL SPACES 247 SPACES
INCLUDING ADA SPACES: 7 SPACES
INCLUDING EV-CAPABLE (10%): 25 SPACES
INCLUDING EVSE-READY (25%) 62 SPACES
INCLUDING EVSE-INSTALLED (5%): 13 SPACES
RETAIL UNITS 175 SF / 1 (5,000): 29 SPACES
TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES: 29 SPACES
(175 SF/ PER 1 SPACE FOR THE FIRST 5,000 SF THEN 200 SF / PER 1 SPACE AFTER THAT) TOTAL RETAIL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED:

TOTAL SPACES 30 SPACES
INCLUDING ADA SPACES: 2 SPACES
INCLUDING EV-CAPABLE (10%): 3 SPACES
INCLUDING EVSE-READY (25%) 8 SPACES
INCLUDING EVSE-INSTALLED (5%): 2 SPACES
TOTAL OVERALL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED:

TOTAL SPACES 277 SPACES

TREES REQUIRED
(1/4 / 279 PARKING SPACES): 70 TREES
TREE PROVIDED: 71 TREES
Building Data
1" = 30'-0"
Fence/Fire Plan
General Notes
1" = 30'-0"
Distance to North Side of Pacific Electric Trail
Overhead View
Area Schedule
Name Area
Parking Garage
Commercial Units 5,000 SF
Conditioned 5,000 SF
Parking Garage 71,044 SF
Unconditioned 71,044 SF
Parking Garage 76,044 SF
1st Floor
2-Bed Unit 12,819 SF
3-Bed Unit "A" 29,002 SF
3-Bed Unit "B" 7,386 SF
Men's RR 230 SF
Women's RR 230 SF
Conditioned 49,668 SF
Atrium 17,415 SF
Pool Area 2,341 SF
Open Space 19,756 SF
Balcony 4,740 SF
Corridor 7,830 SF
Unconditioned 12,570 SF
1st Floor 81,994 SF
2nd Floor
2-Bed Unit 12,819 SF
3-Bed Unit "A" 29,011 SF
3-Bed Unit "B" 7,382 SF
Men's RR 230 SF
Women's RR 230 SF
Conditioned 49,672 SF
Upper Pool Area 1,107 SF
Open Space 1,107 SF
Balcony 4,657 SF
Corridor 7,805 SF
Unconditioned 12,462 SF
2nd Floor 63,242 SF
3rd Floor
2-Bed Unit 12,819 SF
3-Bed Unit "A" 29,002 SF
3-Bed Unit "B" 7,380 SF
Fitness Center 2,341 SF
Men's RR 230 SF
Women's RR 230 SF
Conditioned 52,003 SF
Balcony 4,740 SF
Corridor 7,830 SF
Unconditioned 12,570 SF
3rd Floor 64,573 SF
4th Floor
2-Bed Unit 12,802 SF
3-Bed Unit "A" 29,002 SF
3-Bed Unit "B" 7,380 SF
Men's RR 230 SF
Women's RR 230 SF
Conditioned 49,645 SF
Balcony 4,752 SF
Corridor 7,847 SF
Unconditioned 12,599 SF
4th Floor 62,244 SF
Roof Top Deck
Roof Top Patio 2,626 SF
Open Space 2,626 SF
Roof Top Deck 2,626 SF
Grand total 350,723 SF
Sequence Of Drawings - DR
Number Description
PL1 Site Plan
PL2 Site Plan/Overall First Floor Plan
PL2.1 Overall Floor Plans
PL3 Typical Floor Plans
PL4 Main Corner Plans
PL4.1 Main Corner Plans
PL4.2 Main Corner Plan
PL5 Exterior Elevations
PL6 Roof Plan
PL7 3D Views
PL8 3D Renderings
PL9 3D Renderings
1 of 1 Preliminary Grading Plan
E-1 Site Photometric Plan
L-1 Preliminary Landscape Plan
L-2 Preliminary Landscape Plan
1 3/8" = 1'-0"
Wrought Iron Fencing
4737
STAIRS
3 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.

OPTION "A"
2 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.
32'-11" 6'-0" 40'-0" 27'-0"59'-0" 40'-0" 6'-0" 37'-0"
31'-4" 6'-0" 40'-0" 59'-0" 40'-0" 6'-0" 5'-8" 31'-4" 3'-0" POOL
12'-0" 191'-11" 8'-0" 40'-0" 6'-1"
53'-0"
37'-0" 17'-11" 25'-0" 12'-11" 25'-0" 25'-0" 10'-0" 25'-0" 6'-1" 40'-0" 111'-0" 7'-4" 40'-0"
6'-0" 25'-0" 19'-6" 50'-0" 19'-6" 25'-0" 6'-0" 40'-0"
SPA
5'-0"
3 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.

OPTION "B"
3 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.

OPTION "B"
2 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.
2 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.
2 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.
3 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.

OPTION "B"
3 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.

OPTION "A"
3 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.

OPTION "A"
3 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.

OPTION "A"
3 BEDROOM
UNIT TYP.

OPTION "A"
27'-6"
ELEV.

TRASH
SHOOT
STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.

ELEV.

TRASH
SHOOT
TRASH
SHOOT
18'-6"
107 SF
98 SF
98 SF
98 SF
107 SF
107 SF
98 SF
98 SF
82 SF
82 SF
83 SF
96 SF
82 SF 82 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF 94 SF
94 SF 94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
98 SF
82 SF
82 SF
82 SF
82 SF
82 SF 82 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
98 SF
(2) ALL-GENDER

RESTROOM
2-BEDROOM UNITS
3-BEDROOM OPTION "A" UNITS
3-BEDROOM OPTION "B" UNITS

UNIT BALCONIES

ELEVATOR

ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM / STORAGE

TRASH SHOOT ENCLOSURE
C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Douglas And r esen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:44:09 PM PL2
Site Plan/Overall
First Floor Plan
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
1/16" = 1'-0"
Site Plan / Overall First Floor Plan
NOTE: ALL UNITS ARE PROPOSED WITH 126 CUBIC FEET OF STORAGE SPACE Field Region Legend
4748
STAIRS
ELEV.

TRASH
SHOOT
STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.

ELEV.

TRASH
SHOOT
TRASH
SHOOT

FITNESS
CENTER
107 SF
102 SF
102 SF
98 SF
107 SF
105 SF
98 SF
88 SF
82 SF
82 SF
96 SF
98 SF
101 SF 99 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF 94 SF
94 SF 94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
98 SF
82 SF
82 SF
82 SF
82 SF
114 SF 113 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
98 SF
(2) ALL-GENDER

RESTROOM
94 SF
94 SF
STAIRS
ELEV.

TRASH
SHOOT
STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.

ELEV.

TRASH
SHOOT
TRASH
CHUTE

FITNESS
ROOM
108 SF
98 SF
97 SF
98 SF
102 SF
107 SF
98 SF
98 SF
82 SF
82 SF
82 SF
98 SF
82 SF 82 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF 94 SF
94 SF 94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
95 SF
100 SF
82 SF
100 SF
100 SF
108 SF 108 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
98 SF
3'-6"
5'-8" 6'-4"
94 SF
94 SF
(2) ALL-GENDER

RESTROOM
STAIRS ELEV.

TRASH
SHOOT
STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.

ELEV.

TRASH
SHOOT
TRASH
SHOOT
(2) ALL-GENDER

RESTROOM

OPEN TO
BELOW

FITNESS
CENTER
107 SF
98 SF
98 SF
98 SF
107 SF
107 SF
98 SF
98 SF
82 SF
82 SF
83 SF
96 SF
82 SF 82 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF 94 SF
94 SF 94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
98 SF
82 SF
82 SF
82 SF
82 SF
82 SF 82 SF
94 SF
94 SF
94 SF
98 SF
35'-11"
2-BEDROOM UNITS
3-BEDROOM OPTION "A" UNITS
3-BEDROOM OPTION "B" UNITS

UNIT BALCONIES

ELEVATOR

ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM / STORAGE

TRASH SHOOT ENCLOSURE
C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Doug las And resen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:44:25 PM PL2.1
Overall Floor
Plans
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
3/64" = 1'-0"
Overall Third Floor Plan
3/64" = 1'-0"
Overall Second Floor Plan
3/64" = 1'-0"
Overall Fourth Floor Plan
NOTE: ALL UNITS ARE PROPOSED WITH 126 CUBIC FEET OF STORAGE SPACE Field Region Legend
4759
DW
REF.

W/D
REF.

DW
W/D
W/D
REF.

DW
W/D
REF.

DW
REF.

DW
W/D
DW
REF.

W/D
Kitchen
Dining Room
Living Room
Bedroom #1
Bathroom
Bedroom #2
25'-0"
5'-1" 5'-7" 1'-10" 6'-10" 5'-8"
2'-11" 5'-0" 2'-11" 7'-3 1/2" 6'-9"
15'-8" 5'-10 1/2" 3'-7 1/2" 11'-10"
10'-0"
6'-0"
Storage
14 SQ. FT. x 9 FT HIGH =
126 CUBIC FEET. OK!
B
D
B
B
E
E
6080
A
A1
LH
LHR
LHR
LH
LH
RH
Balcony
Private Open Space
36'-0"
13'-3 1/2" 11'-5" 11'-3 1/2"
31'-4"
Bedroom #2
14 SQ. FT. x 9 FT HIGH =
126 CUBIC FEET. OK!
5080
4050 4050 3040
M.Bedroom
Living Room
13'-3 1/2" 7'-7" 3'-10" 11'-3 1/2"
10'-6" 2'-3 1/2" 6'-0 1/2" 2'-6" 10'-0"
13'-1" 2'-4" 6'-0" 9'-11"
#3 Bedroom
Storage
Bathroom #2
M. Bathroom
Kitchen
Dining Room
B
B
B
E
E
A
D
B
E
B
LRH
LH
RHR
LH
RH
RH
RH
LH
A1
Balcony
Private Open Space
5065
5065
10'-9"
5'-2"
M.Bedroom
M. Bathroom
Laundry
Bedroom #2 Bedroom #3
Bathroom #2
Dining Room
M.Bedroom
M. Bathroom
Laundry
Bathroom #2
Bedroom #2
Bedroom #3
Dining Room
25'-0" 25'-0"
50'-0"
5'-9" 7'-1" 1'-10" 5'-3" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-3" 1'-10" 7'-1" 5'-9" 4040
40'-0"
24'-8 1/2" 4'-0" 11'-3 1/2"
11'-8" 11'-4" 6'-0" 11'-0"
11'-3 1/2" 4'-0" 24'-8 1/2"
40'-0"
14 SQ. FT. x 9 FT HIGH =
126 CUBIC FEET. OK!
Kitchen
Storage
Kitchen
Storage
Living Room Living Room
3640
25'-0" 25'-0"
3'-0" 5'-0" 2'-4" 2'-4" 2'-0" 2'-4" 5'-0" 3'-0" 10'-4" 2'-0" 2'-4" 10'-4" A
B
B
D
B
B B
E
E E
?
A
B
B
D
B
B B
E E
LH
RH
LHR
LHR
LH
LH RH
LH
B
RH
LH
RHR
RHR
RH
LH RH
B
RH

REVERSE TYPICAL
Balcony
Private Open Space
Balcony
Private Open Space
5065 5065
5'-0"
8'-0"
8'-0"
8'-0"
8'-0"
5'-0"
30'-0"
8'-0"
8'-0"
2'-6" 25'-0" 2'-6"
33'-4"
30'-0"
Bedroom #2
M.Bedroom #3 Bedroom
Storage
Bathroom #2
M. Bathroom
Kitchen
Dining Room
Living Room
B
A1
B
B
B
E
E
E
B
D
A
RHR
RH
LHR
RH
LH
LH
LH
RH
Balcony
Private Open Space
Dining Room
Living Room
Kitchen Bedroom #2
Laundry
Bathroom
Bedroom #1
Storage
A1
B
B
D
A
B
RH
RHR
RHR
RH
RH
LH
6080
Balcony
Private Open Space
C 2021 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Douglas And resen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:44:28 PM PL3
Typical Floor
Plans
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
1/4" = 1'-0"
Typical 2-Bedroom Floor Plan
1/4" = 1'-0"
Typical 3-Bedroom Floor Plan - Option "B"
1/4" = 1'-0"
Typical 3-Bedroom Floor Plan - Option "A"
1/4" = 1'-0"
Typical Retail Unit
1/4" = 1'-0"
Typical 3-Bedroom (Reverse) Floor Plan - Option "B"
1/4" = 1'-0"
Typical 2-Bedroom (Reverse) Floor Plan
47610
W/D
DW
REF.

W/D
W/D
POOL
SPA
9'-6" 9'-0"

LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE
10'-0"
STAIRS
ELEV.

TRASH
CHUTE

LINE OF FLOOR BELOW
C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Doug las And resen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:44:36 PM PL4
Main Corner
Plans
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
1/4" = 1'-0"
First Floor Patio Plan
1/4" = 1'-0"
Second Floor Patio Plan
47711
REF. REF.

STAIRS

ELEVATOR

CABLE FITNESS MACHINE

TREADMILLS

ELLIPTICAL MACHINE

EXERCISE SPINNING BIKES

FLAT BENCH CHEST PRESS

ROWING MACHINE

DUMBELL WEIGHTS EXERCISE BALLS
TRASH
CHUTE
Recreation Room
Recreation Balcony
C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Doug las And resen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:44:37 PM PL4.1
Main Corner
Plans
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
1/4" = 1'-0"
Third Floor Fitness Center Plan
1/4" = 1'-0"
Fourth Floor Recreation Center Plan
47812
STAIRS

ELEVATOR

SEE LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR ROOF TOP AMENITIES
C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Douglas And r esen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:44:37 PM PL4.2
Main Corner
Plan
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
1/4" = 1'-0"
Roof Top Deck Patio
47913
Parking Garage
1274'-0"
1st Floor
1287'-0"
T.P. 1
1296'-1"
T.O.P.P.G.
1284'-6"
2nd Floor
1297'-1"
T.P.2
1306'-2"
3rd Floor
1307'-2"
Parapet
1330'-10"
T.P.4
1326'-4"
T.P.3
1316'-3"
4th Floor
1317'-3"
Roof Top Deck
1327'-4"
M10 M4 M1 M2 M3 M1 M4 M1
10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 13'-0"
M2 M4 M2 M1 M3
M9
M2
M8 M8 M9 M5
M6
M9
63'-4"
57'-0"
55'-0"
M12 M12 M12
M6 M12 M6
Parking Garage
1274'-0"
1st Floor
1287'-0"
T.P. 1
1296'-1"
T.O.P.P.G.
1284'-6"
2nd Floor
1297'-1"
T.P.2
1306'-2"
3rd Floor
1307'-2"
Parapet
1330'-10"
T.P.4
1326'-4"
T.P.3
1316'-3"
4th Floor
1317'-3"
Roof Top Deck
1327'-4"
M4
M3
M3 M2
M3
M2 M1 M2
M1 M2 M3
M2 M4
M8 M5
57'-0"57'-0"
55'-0"
52'-9" 2'-3"
M12 M12 M12
M12
Parking Garage
1274'-0"
1st Floor
1287'-0"
T.P. 1
1296'-1"
T.O.P.P.G.
1284'-6"
2nd Floor
1297'-1"
T.P.2
1306'-2"
3rd Floor
1307'-2"
Parapet
1330'-10"
T.P.4
1326'-4"
T.P.3
1316'-3"
4th Floor
1317'-3"
4'-6" 9'-1" 1'-0" 9'-1" 1'-0" 9'-1" 1'-0" 9'-1" 2'-6" 10'-6" 56'-10"
Roof Top Deck
1327'-4"
M4
M1
M3
M4
M4 M10 M2 M3
M2
M2 M4 M3
M10
M7
13'-0"13'-0"
55'-0" 2'-0" 6'-4"
M11
63'-4"
M11
M12 M12
M12 M4 M12 57'-0"63'-4"
M7
M7
M12 M11
1st Floor
1287'-0"
T.P. 1
1296'-1"
T.O.P.P.G.
1284'-6"
2nd Floor
1297'-1"
T.P.2
1306'-2"
3rd Floor
1307'-2"
Parapet
1330'-10"
T.P.4
1326'-4"
T.P.3
1316'-3"
4th Floor
1317'-3"
Roof Top Deck
1327'-4"
M1 M3 M2
M1 M12 M4 M2 M3 M2
M4
M11
M12
C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Douglas And r esen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:46:39 PM PL5
Exterior
Elevations
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
1" = 10'-0"
South Elevation (Foothill Blvd)
1" = 10'-0"
East Elevation (Driveway)
1" = 10'-0"
West Elevation (Sultana Ave)
1" = 10'-0"
North Elevation
Material List
Material: Mark Material: Description
Material:

Manufacturer Material: Model
M1 MAIN COLOR - EGRET WHITE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SW7570
M2 ACCENT COLOR - THUNDER GRAY SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SW7645
M3 ACCENT COLOR - GATEWAY GRAY SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SW7644
M4 ACCENT COLOR - ROOKWOOD CLAY SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SW2823 M5 ACCENT COLOR - TRICORN BLACK SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SW6258 M6 Natural Stone Veneer Cultured Stone Country Ledgeston - Ashfall M7 Expanded Mesh Amico Architectural Apex01
M8 Brick Veneer Cultured Stone Handmade Brick Veneer - Canvas M9 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT BLACK ANODIZED
M10 ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL REYNOBOND DURAGLOSS 5000: ELEGANT BLACK M11 ALUMINUM VERTICLE FIN ALUMINUM WOOD FINISH
M12 ALUMINUM RAILING ALUMINUM WOOD FINISH
48014

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.37:12

0.26:12

0.26:12

0.37:12

0.26:12

0.31:12

0.44:12

0.26:12

0.26:12

0.31:12

0.31:12

0.44:12

0.44:12

0.33:12

0.28:12

0.40:12

0.28:12

0.34:12 0.34:12 0.49:12 0.51:12

0.25:12

0.58:12 0.49:12

0.34:12

0.37:12

0.34:12 0.34:12

1.14:12

1.14:12

0.29:12

0.56:12

0.56:12

0.29:12

0.40:12

0.40:12 0.40:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.31:12

0.40:12

0.49:12 0.58:12

0.40:12

0.33:12

0.28:12

0.41:12

0.36:12

0.81:12

0.33:12

0.29:12

0.57:12

0.25:12

0.40:12

0.40:12

0.31:12

0.49:12

0.45:12

1.01:12

0.57:12

0.40:12

0.33:12

0.33:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.25:12

0.25:120.33:12 0.33:12

0.25:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.26:12

0.34:12

0.40:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.44:12

0.98:12

0.33:12

0.25:12

0.25:12

0.33:12 0.33:12

0.25:12

0.26:12

0.34:12

0.40:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.26:12

0.33:12

0.31:12

0.49:12

0.45:12 1.01:12

1.01:12

0.40:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.40:12

0.65:12

0.34:12
0 0.56:12
.33:12

0.40:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.40:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.33:12

0.25:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.25:12

0.40:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.46:12

0.30:12

0.25:12

0.33:12 0.33:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.25:12

0.33:12 0.33:12

0.25:12

0.25:12

0.33:12

0.33:12

0.25:12

0.40:12

0.33:12

0.60:12

0.33:12

0.60:12

0.25:12 0.32:12 0.37:12

0.27:12

0.73:12

0.73:12

0.40:12

0.28:12

0.28:12
55'-0" TP
54'-0 9/16" TS
55'-0" TP
54'-0 9/16" TS
54'-8 11/32" TS
55'-0" TP

0.40:12

0.40:12
C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Douglas And r esen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:46:47 PM Roof Plan PL6
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
1/16" = 1'-0"
Roof Plan
48115
C 2021 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Douglas And resen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:49:49 PM PL7 3D Views
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
3D Street View
3D Aerial View
3/32" = 1'-0"
Corner Elevation
48216
C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED ARCH I TECT

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
Douglas And r esen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:49:49 PM 3D Renderings PL8
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
48317
C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

L I CENSED
A

RCH I TECT
STATE
OF
CA

L I FORN I A
Doug la
s
A
nd resen
C-14504
12-31-25

RENEWAL
DATE
C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt5/21/2025 1:49:49 PM 3D Renderings PL9
Proposed Apartment Complex For:

Mike Mahmoudi
20-3872
16 Apr. 2025
NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336
48418
19 485
FOOTHILL BLVD.
1,000 SF

RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF

RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF

RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF

RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF
RETAIL UNIT 6'-0" HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE 6'-0" HIGH MASONRY SCREEN WALL 4'-0" WIDE MAN GATE TO PACIFIC ELECTRICAL TRAIL SULTANA AVE. 1 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN E-1 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN C 2020 Doug Andresen, Architect expressly reserves his common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Douglas Andresen, Architect.

C:\Users\JonatanBallesteros\Documents\20-3872 Mahmoudi Foothill R25_jonatan.ballesteros.rvt 6/19/2024 2:34:59 PM Proposed Apartment Complex For: Mike Mahmoudi 20-3872 1 Nov. 2023 NEC Foothill Blvd & Sultana St, Fontana, CA 92336 TYPE B - SINGLE HEAD POLE FIXTURE TYPE C - SINGLE HEAD POLE FIXTURE TYPE A - 11" SURFACE LIGHT FIXTURE 20 486
FOOTHILL BLVD. 16 221
1206 193 182 192 181 167 152 166 136 105 90 81 76
64'-0" 64'-0" 64'-0" 64'-0" 63'-0" 89 151 120 135 39 67 68 7780 119 8'-0" 52'-0" 17 ELEV. 23 104
26'-0" 30 24 WROUGHT IRON FENCE 222 247
R35'-0" LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE SWINGING GATES EXISTING MANHOLE EXISTING MANHOLE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN 125 3826 25 2'-3"
1,000 SF

RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF

RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF

RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF

RETAIL UNIT
1,000 SF

RETAIL UNIT
26'-0"
90'-8"
50 MIN 34'-0"
5'-0"

SETBACK
10'-0" SETBACK 5'-0" SETBACK 6'-0" HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE 6'-0" HIGH MASONRY SCREEN WALL 4'-0" WIDE MAN GATE TO PACIFIC ELECTRICAL TRAIL 9'-0" TYP 19'-0"
TYP 9'-0" TYP
19'-0"
TYP
9'-0" TYP
19'-0" TYP
5'-0" SETBACK
80'-0" 26'-0" STAIRS ELEV. STAIRS 205 34'-0"
9'-0"
TYP. 19'-0" TYP. 2-MOTORCYCLE PARKING SPACES LOADING ZONE 7'-6" PATH OF TRAVEL PATH OF TRAVEL PATH OF TRAVEL ELEVATOR 30'-0" 20' x 19' TRASH STAGING AREA (FOR TRASH ENCLOSURE IN PARKING GARAGE) 164 165 55'-0"
12'-0"
5'-0"
9'-0"10'-0" 179 180 2-MOTORCYCLE PARKING SPACES 9'-0" 5'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" PROPOSED 3:1 LANDSCAPING BERM PROPOSED 3:1 LANDSCAPING BERM 24'-0" 10'-0" STREET LIGHT PER CITY STANDARDS 60'-0" STREET LIGHT PER CITY STANDARDS STREET LIGHT PER CITY STANDARDS STREET LIGHT PER CITY STANDARDS STREET LIGHT PER CITY STANDARDS FIRE HYDRANT PER CITY STANDARDS FIRE HYDRANT PER CITY STANDARDS FIRE HYDRANT PER CITY STANDARDS FIRE HYDRANT PER CITY STANDARDS UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION CHAMBER 50'-0"STACKING MIN. 15'-0" HALF SWINGING - 15'-0" HALF SLIDING GATE (ENTRANCE/EXIT FOR RESIDENTS ONLY) 4'-0" WIDE MAN GATE RAMP DOWN TO PARKING GARAGE 4'-11" NO PARKING ZONE PROVIDED AS A TURNAROUND FOR PASSENGER VEHICLES 30'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" 4'-0" 18'-0" LINE OF SIGHT LINE OF SIGHT

LINE OF SIGHT

LINE OF SIGHT
DIANELLA tasmanica 'Variegata' LANTANA montevidensis Low VARIEGATED FLAX LILY TRAILING LANTANA 2' TALL & WIDE 1'-2' TALL, 3'-5' WIDE LAGERSTROEMIA indica 'Natchez' Mod. NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE 20' TALL & WIDE SENECIO serpens BLUE CHALKSTICKS PLANT PALETTE WUCOLS SIZE Mod. LIRIOPE muscari 'Majestic' Mod. MAJESTIC LILYTURF 18" TALL, 2' WIDE MAGNOLIA grandiflora 'St. Mary' Low SWAN HILL FRUITLESS OLIVE 25' TALL, 20' WIDE Note: All planters shall receive 3" layer shredded bark mulch.

RHAPHIOLEPIS 'Majestic Beauty' Mod. MAJESTIC BEAUTY INDIAN HAWTHORN 25' TALL, 10' WIDE Low 1' TALL, 2-3' WIDE LANTANA 'New Gold' Low NEW GOLD LANTANA 1-2' TALL, 2-4' WIDE PITTOSPORUM tobira 'Shima' CREAM DE MINT™ DWARF PITTOSPORUM Mod. 24"-30" TALL & WIDE LANTANA montevidensis 'Monma' Low WHITE LIGHTNIN' TRAILING LANTANA 1' TALL, 3'-5' WIDE TREES FOUNDATION SHRUBS ACCENTS AND GROUNDCOVERS WINTER GEM BOXWOOD Mod. 3-4' TALL & WIDE CAREX tumulicola BERKELEY SEDGE Low 1-2' TALL, 2-3' WIDE BUXUS microphylla japonica 'Winter Gem' ROSMARINUS officinalis 'Tuscan Blue' TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY Low 5' TALL, 2-4' WIDE GARDENIA jasminoides 'Frostproof' FROSTPROOF GARDENIA Mod. 5' TALL, 4' WIDE Low LITTLE JOHN DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH CALLISTEMON 'Little John' 3' TALL, 3-5' WIDE PITTOSPORUM tenuifolium 'Oliver Twist' OLIVER TWIST PITTOSPORUM Mod. 8-10' TALL, 5-7' WIDE HEMEROCALLIS x 'Ruby Spider' CATAWBA CRAPE MYRTLE RUBY SPIDER DAYLILY Mod. 2-3' TALL,2' WIDE LAGERSTROEMIA indica 'Catawba' Mod. 15' TALL & WIDE EUPHORBIA characias 'Wilcott' SILVER SWAN EUPHORBIA Low 2' TALL & WIDE LEUCOPHYLLUM frutescens ‘Green Cloud’ GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE Low 6-8' TALL & WIDE ROSA 'Pink' REMINISCENT PINK ROSE Mod. 3-4' TALL, 2' WIDE ANIGOZANTHOS Yellow Low YELLOW KANGAROO PAW 1-3' TALL & WIDE AFROCARPUS falcatus Mod. AFRICAN FERN PINE 40-60' TALL, 25' WIDE CERCIS canadensis 'Forest Pansy' Low PURPLE LEAF EASTERN REDBUD 30' TALL, 20-25' WIDE JOB NO. SHEET DESIGN PROJECT MANAGER Sara Zoll [email protected] (951) 264-8195 Proposed Apartment Complex
May 16, 2025632 DESCRIPTION
H
S
G r e g o r y P a u l Z o l l OR
T
E

A T C O
F

A L I F
S
I C L EN Signature Renewal Date Date 5204
I N
A
T
I T CE
L
A
ED
C
AN
DS A
PE
RC
April 30, 2026
May 16, 2025
Landscape Dynamics
Landscape Architecture - Consulting
Water Management - Certified Arboriculture
(951) 264-4839
URBAN | ECOSYSTEM | SOLUTIONS
Preliminary Landscape Plan of 2
NEC Foothill Blvd and Sultana Street, Fontana, CA 92336 Inland Empire | Los Angeles | Eugene GROUND FLOOR
1 21 487
STAIRS 3 BEDROOM UNIT TYP. OPTION "A" 2 BEDROOM UNIT TYP.

POOL
SPA 3 BEDROOM UNIT TYP. OPTION "B" DIANELLA tasmanica 'Variegata' LANTANA montevidensis Low VARIEGATED FLAX LILY TRAILING LANTANA 2' TALL & WIDE 1'-2' TALL, 3'-5' WIDE LAGERSTROEMIA indica 'Natchez' Mod. NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE 20' TALL & WIDE SENECIO serpens BLUE CHALKSTICKS PLANT PALETTE WUCOLS SIZE Mod. LIRIOPE muscari 'Majestic' Mod. MAJESTIC LILYTURF 18" TALL, 2' WIDE MAGNOLIA grandiflora 'St. Mary' Low SWAN HILL FRUITLESS OLIVE 25' TALL, 20' WIDE Note: All planters shall receive 3" layer shredded bark mulch.

RHAPHIOLEPIS 'Majestic Beauty' Mod. MAJESTIC BEAUTY INDIAN HAWTHORN 25' TALL, 10' WIDE Low 1' TALL, 2-3' WIDE LANTANA 'New Gold' Low NEW GOLD LANTANA 1-2' TALL, 2-4' WIDE PITTOSPORUM tobira 'Shima' CREAM DE MINT™ DWARF PITTOSPORUM Mod. 24"-30" TALL & WIDE LANTANA montevidensis 'Monma' Low WHITE LIGHTNIN' TRAILING LANTANA 1' TALL, 3'-5' WIDE TREES FOUNDATION SHRUBS ACCENTS AND GROUNDCOVERS WINTER GEM BOXWOOD Mod. 3-4' TALL & WIDE CAREX tumulicola BERKELEY SEDGE Low 1-2' TALL, 2-3' WIDE BUXUS microphylla japonica 'Winter Gem' ROSMARINUS officinalis 'Tuscan Blue' TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY Low 5' TALL, 2-4' WIDE GARDENIA jasminoides 'Frostproof' FROSTPROOF GARDENIA Mod. 5' TALL, 4' WIDE Low LITTLE JOHN DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH CALLISTEMON 'Little John' 3' TALL, 3-5' WIDE PITTOSPORUM tenuifolium 'Oliver Twist' OLIVER TWIST PITTOSPORUM Mod. 8-10' TALL, 5-7' WIDE HEMEROCALLIS x 'Ruby Spider' CATAWBA CRAPE MYRTLE RUBY SPIDER DAYLILY Mod. 2-3' TALL,2' WIDE LAGERSTROEMIA indica 'Catawba' Mod. 15' TALL & WIDE EUPHORBIA characias 'Wilcott' SILVER SWAN EUPHORBIA Low 2' TALL & WIDE LEUCOPHYLLUM frutescens ‘Green Cloud’ GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE Low 6-8' TALL & WIDE ROSA 'Pink' REMINISCENT PINK ROSE Mod. 3-4' TALL, 2' WIDE ANIGOZANTHOS Yellow Low YELLOW KANGAROO PAW 1-3' TALL & WIDE AFROCARPUS falcatus Mod. AFRICAN FERN PINE 40-60' TALL, 25' WIDE CERCIS canadensis 'Forest Pansy' Low PURPLE LEAF EASTERN REDBUD 30' TALL, 20-25' WIDE JOB NO. SHEET DESIGN PROJECT MANAGER Sara Zoll [email protected] (951) 264-8195 Proposed Apartment Complex
May 16, 2025632 DESCRIPTION
H
S
G r e g o r y P a u l Z o l l OR
T
E

A T C O
F

A L I F
S
I C L EN Signature Renewal Date Date 5204
I N
A
T
I T CE
L
A
ED
C
AN
DS A
PE
RC
April 30, 2026
May 16, 2025
Landscape Dynamics
Landscape Architecture - Consulting
Water Management - Certified Arboriculture
(951) 264-4839
URBAN | ECOSYSTEM | SOLUTIONS
Preliminary Landscape Plan of 2
NEC Foothill Blvd and Sultana Street, Fontana, CA 92336 Inland Empire | Los Angeles | Eugene ROOF TOP PATIO POOL DECK FIRST FLOOR 2 22 488
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
FONTANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 24-0022 TO ESTABLISH A MIXED_USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-5 ZONE, AND
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 23-0024 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FIVESTORY BUILDING CONSISTING OF 204 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE WITH
ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON APPROXIMATELY 3.5 GROSS

ACRES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF

FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND SULTANA AVENUE IDENTIFIED AS
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 1110-331-13 AND 1110-331-25,

PURSUANT TO A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION.

WHEREAS, the project site identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (“APNs”) 1110-331-13 and -25, (“Project Site”) was annexed from San Bernardino County into the City of Fontana on September 16, 2006; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2023, the City of Fontana (“City”) received an application from Andresen Architecture (“Applicant”) for a design review (DRP No. 23- 0024) for site and architectural review of a mixed-use building at the Project Site; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, the City received a conditional use permit application (CUP No. 24-0022) for the establishment of a mixed-use development at the Project Site (CUP No. 24-0022 and DRP No. 23-0024 are referred to herein as the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project Site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Multiple Family High Residential (R-MFH) and is located within the Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-5) zoning district, which allows for such projects; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section No. 15332 (Class No. 32, Infill Development) and Section No. 3.22 (Categorical Exemption) of the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing the CEQA as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; the project development occurs within city limits on a project site of less than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services, and none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to protect and preserve the quality of life throughout the City, through effective land use and planning; and
48923
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
WHEREAS, Conditions of Approval have been prepared and are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” for CUP No. 24-0022 and DRP No. 23-0024; and WHEREAS, all notices required by statute and the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC) have been given as required; and
WHEREAS, the owners of property within 660 feet of the Project Site were notified via public hearing notice mailer prior to the public hearing; and a notice of the public hearing was published in the Fontana Herald newspaper on August 8, 2025, and simultaneously displayed at City Hall and at the Project Site; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2025, a duly noticed public hearing on CUP No. 24- 0022 and DRP No. 23-0024, was held by the Fontana Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) to consider testimony and evidence presented by the Applicant, City staff, and other interested parties; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2025, the Planning Commission carefully considered all information, evidence and testimony presented at its public hearing on CUP No. 24-0022 and DRP No. 23-0024; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission RESOLVES as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true, correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section No. 15332 (Infill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section No. 3.22 (Categorical Exemption) of the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Project site is considered Infill as: (1) The Project is consistent with the Multi-Family High Residential (R-MFH) General Plan Land Use Designation and the Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-5) zoning designation; (2) The Project Site is less than five (5) acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses; (3) The Project Site is not within any known sensitive or threatened habitat area; (4) The Project will not have any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) There are adequate public services for the development of the residential project. The Planning Commission further determines that none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the Project and directs Staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for CUP No. 24-0022 in accordance with Section 30-452(c) “Required Findings” for conditional use permits with mixed-use development, in the Fontana Zoning and Development Code.

Finding No. 1. The project consists of a use or mix of uses encouraging transit 49024
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
use and is demonstrably oriented toward transit users.

Findings of Fact: The Project Site will create new commercial and residential uses along a major transit corridor and the conditions of approval regulate the use.

The Project Site is less than ½ mile from a major transit stop. This development it will encourage transit use and is demonstrably oriented towards transit users.

Finding No. 2. The project is designed to enhance pedestrian access and/or other non-motor vehicle modes of transportation to public transit.

Findings of Fact: The Project Site is located on a 3.5 gross acre lot. The Applicant has provided various access points for pedestrians to walk to the nearest public transit station. The Project consists of one (1) new five (5) story mixed-use building with 204 multi-family units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space, located on Foothill Boulevard, a major east-west bus route that connects to the Fontana, Montclair and San Bernardino Metrolink stations.

Finding No. 3. The project encourages pedestrian activity and/or other nonmotor vehicle modes of transportation and reduces dependency on motor vehicles.

Findings of Fact: The Project is designed to encourage pedestrian activity by locating a commercial retail suite along Foothill Boulevard, a major transit corridor. The Project’s proximity to public transit, with a transit stop less than 583 feet away, promotes the use of non-motor vehicle transportation.

Section 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for CUP No. 24-0022 in accordance with Section 30-150 “Required Findings” for conditional use permits in the Fontana Zoning and Development:

Code.

Finding No. 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning and Development Code, Municipal Code, general plan, any applicable specific plan or area plan, and City
regulations/standards.

Findings of Fact: The Project Site is located at the northeast corner of Sultana Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (APNs: 1110-331-13 and -25). The General Plan Land Use designation for the Project Site is R-MFH and it is located within the R-5 zone. In accordance with Section 30-452 of the Zoning and Development Code, mixed use developments are required to obtain a conditional use permit. The General Plan and the Zoning and Development Code support the development of new commercial and residential uses along a major transit corridor, and the conditions 49125
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
of approval will regulate the use. The project site meets the requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code, General Plan, and Zoning and Development Code.

Finding No. 2. The site is physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints and can be conditioned to meet all related performance criteria and development standards.

Findings of Fact: The Project Site is located on a 3.5 gross acre lot, is already equipped with utilities and is physically suited for the type of use. The site improvements have been reviewed by the City of Fontana Fire, Building and Safety, and Engineering Department. During the review process, changes were made to the plans to ensure that the Project is well designed. The project has access along Sultana Avenue and Foothill Boulevard for the residents and the public. The project will meet all the requirements from the Fontana Municipal Code.

Finding No. 3. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located.

Findings of Fact: There will be no adverse effect to the neighboring sites or their permitted uses from this mixed-use development. There are other similar existing uses in the vicinity. The development will improve the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Additionally, the granting of the permit will not be detrimental to the public interest instead it will provide the necessary housing units and commercial units for the City.

Section 5. Design Review Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for DR No. 23-0024 in accordance with Section 30-120, “Findings for approval,” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:

Finding No. 1: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning and Development Code, and any applicable Specific Plan.

Findings of Fact: The Project consists of the development of five (5) story mixed-use building totaling 83,125 square feet on a 3.5 adjusted gross acre lot.

Architectural features for the Project include aluminum panels and railings, stone and brick veneer, exterior metal doors, and glazed windows. The site and building design comply with the criteria contained in the design review section of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code as it has high quality architecture and appropriate screening comprised of screen walls and landscaping 49226
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
that will make for an appropriate and desirable development.

More specifically, the Project meets Goal number 2 of Chapter 15 of the General Plan by encouraging livable corridor design, more walkable neighborhoods with higher density housing and a mixeduse development on larger infill sites along corridors such as Foothill Boulevard, connecting them to adjoining neighborhoods and locating multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby access to retail, services, and public transportation.” The project is located within the R-5 zoning district. The Project will meet all zoning and development standards set forth in the Zoning and Development Code, including the required density range. The density for the multi-family dwellings is 47 dwelling units/acre. This density is within the maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre range allowed by the R-5 zoning district. The Project is not within a specific plan.

Finding No. 2. The proposal meets or exceeds the criteria contained in this chapter and will result in an appropriate, safe, and desirable development promoting the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.

Findings of Fact: The Project consists of the construction of a five (5) story mixed-use building totaling approximately 83,125 square feet. This building will be built in accordance with all applicable building, zoning, and fire codes, Division 11 of the Zoning and Development Code, and the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and referenced herein. Architectural features include aluminum panels and railings, stone and brick veneer, exterior metal doors, and glazed windows.

The exterior color palette for the building is comprised of white/gray and neutral tone with black and blue accent. The variations to the building face and roof lines, and tower elements at a maximum of

62.5 feet on a portion of the building, adds structural and visual interest to the building and is consistent with the surrounding area.

The Project includes sidewalks and landscape improvements along the project boundaries.

The site improvements have been reviewed by the City of Fontana Fire Prevention, Building and Safety, and Engineering Departments, Based on each department’s review, it was determined that the Project meets the minimum requirements of the Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-5) zone. The Project will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the occupants and community.

Finding No. 3. The proposal, in its design and appearance, is aesthetically and architecturally pleasing, resulting in a safe, well-designed facility while enhancing the character of the surrounding 49327
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
neighborhood.

Findings of Fact: The Project is aesthetically and architecturally pleasing and compatible with the surrounding area. The Project Site is approximately 3.5 adjusted gross acres and is physically suitable in size and shape to support the mixed-use building. The Project creates visual interest with architectural features such as window glazing, tower elements, with variations to the roof and roof lines. The development is designed with features of architectural relief, landscaping, street improvements and lighting to enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

The Project has been reviewed by the Engineering, Building and Safety and Fire Department with respect to the site circulation, access, and safety and it was determined that the Project meets the standards of the Zoning and Development Code and will provide a safe design for public access.

Finding No. 4: The site improvements are appropriate and will result in a safe, well-designed facility.

Findings of Fact: The development will include appropriate improvements that benefit not only for the Project Site, but also the surrounding area. The Project features sidewalks, drainage, grading, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, lighting, perimeter walls and fencing to provide a safe and well-designed neighborhood.

The improvements have been reviewed by the City’s Planning, Fire, Building and Safety, and Engineering Departments. Based on the department’s review, it was determined that the Project met all the city standards regarding circulation, access and safety.

Section 6. Approvals. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves CUP No. 24-0022 and DRP No. 23-0024 subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 7. Resolution Regarding Custodian of Record: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.

This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

Section 8. Certification. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

Section 9. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any 49428
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
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.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, California, at a regular meeting held on this 19th day of August 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 19th day of August. 2025, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Joseph Armendarez, Secretary
49529
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Exhibit “A”

CITY OF FONTANA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. 23-0101 DATE: August 19, 2025
Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022
Design Review No. 23-0024
LOCATION: The project site is located at northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue (APNs: 1110-331-13 and -25).

PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

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

A. All of the improvements, construction, alteration and other work set forth in this project have been completed and have been accepted by the City, as evidenced by the City’s issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or other document evidencing the City’s final inspection and acceptance of the work; and B. All other Conditions of Approval imposed by this project have been fulfilled.

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

In the event of any such third party action or proceeding, the City shall have the right to retain legal counsel. The applicant shall be responsible and reimburse the City for such legal fees and costs, in their entirety, including actual attorneys’ fees, which may be incurred by the City in defense of such action or proceeding. This indemnification shall also include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred 49630
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, the City and/or any parties bringing such forth.

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

3. In the event that one or more of the Conditions of Approval for this project needs to be amended and/or deleted due to health, safety or welfare concerns, the City Manager is authorized to approve or conditionally approve such amendment/deletion, provided that City Manager shall bring such proposed amendment/deletion to the City Council at the next available meeting for City Council ratification, but in no event later than sixty (60) days following the City Manager’s decision. The noticing of such City Council meeting for possible ratification shall be pursuant to Sections No. 30-23 of the Municipal Code.

4. Prior to the construction of any modifications, all structural and aesthetic changes to the project design must be requested and approved in writing by the Director of Planning or his/her designee. Major structural and aesthetic changes exceeding the codified parameters of administrative policy shall be presented to the Planning Commission for approval. Changes made without approval as stated herein, will prevent the occupancy of the structure until corrections are approved in writing by all appropriate staff.

5. The occupants of this facility shall comply with applicable provisions of local, state and federal laws and regulations with respect to noise, vibration, smoke, odors, fire and explosive hazards, including, but not limited to the City’s adopted Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Industrial Wastewater/Discharge requirements.

6. The applicant shall develop the mixed-used project as shown in the Planning Commission approved plans.

7. All signs shall be reviewed under a separate Design Review Sign application. This includes, but is not limited to, building signs, monument signs, pylon signs, etc.

8. All temporary signs (banners, wind flags, etc.) shall not be placed on the property unless the proper permits are obtained.

9. All built in gas barbeques shall be installed with safety locks to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.

10. The applicant shall install an underground electrical line for the built-in barbeques.

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

12. The current Development fees must be paid prior to issuance of building/construction permit.
49731
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3

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

14. The developer shall provide clustered and/or individual mail box(es) for the delivery of mail to future residents of the development in a convenient location and is well-lit. The mail box shall not block the line of sight. The mail boxes shall be made of durable material and shall be installed in a manner that is resistant to vandalism and meets the requirements of the Post Office. The developer is responsible for contacting the Post Office for the type and location of the mail boxes within their development. Any replacements of the mail boxes subsequent to the original installation shall be the responsibility of the developer, the property management company, and/or the homeowners association, and the Post Office.

15. Graffiti and unauthorized markings on any wall, sign, or structure must be removed within twenty-four (24) hours.

16. All landscaping must be adequately maintained at all times.

17. All masonry block walls shall be a minimum of six (6) ft. tall with a prefabricated cap when fronting the public right of way.

18. The amenities for this project shall include the following:
a. Swimming Pool/Space
b. Seating areas
c. Built-in barbeques with tables
d. Firepit
e. Con hole
f. Community recreational room
g. Indoor gym/fitness facility

19. Color combinations and color schemes for multi-family buildings approved under a Design Review Permit application shall not be modified or changed without prior approval from the original approving body by a revision to the original application. Minor hue color changes may be approved by the Director of Planning. The Director of Planning shall have the authority to refer minor hue color changes to the Planning Commission for consideration under a revision to the original application if deemed necessary. Appeals shall follow provisions of the Municipal Code.

20. Any foam treatment used for architecture treatments and/or projections located on the first floor (under 14 feet) shall be covered with concrete or similar durable material a minimum of ½ inch thick, or as determined by the Director of Planning.

21. The applicant shall provide up-lighting on the perimeter and up-light proposed trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and his/her designee.

22. The applicant shall post a publicly visible sign on the project site with the telephone number and 24-hour point of contact for dust, noise, and construction complaints. The 24-hour point of contact shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and have authority to commit additional assets to control dust, or respond to construction complaints after hours, on weekends and on holidays. Construction shall be limited to 49832
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
7:00am to 6:00pm on weekdays, 8:00am to 5:00pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays.

23. A locator map or directory should be posted at the site entrances. The directory should be located on the site so as to be easily and quickly identified and free from visual obstruction. The directory should be illuminated from dusk until dawn. The directory should have vandal resistant glazing to minimize criminal damage and the structure should be weather resistant.

24. Community address numbers and complex numbers should be visible. Building and unit numbers should be posted and visible. Address specifications are meant to ensure identification and location of buildings. Proper posting and maintenance minimizes confusion as to location and expedites public safety response.

25. Adhere to the city light standard of one foot candle minimum of light for all entrances, exits, pedestrian walkways, parking lots and activity areas. Reflect all light fixtures on the site plan. The type of illumination shall be either florescent, metal halide or white L.E.D.’s., and the luminaries shall be vandal resistant. All luminaries shall remain lit from dusk until dawn. Provide a photometric layout under separate exhibit to ensure the minimum light standard is met.

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

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

C. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken.

Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
49933
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3

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

A. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the building inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section 18-63(7) of the Municipal Code.

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

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

D. Have only necessary equipment onsite.

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

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

2. Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources.

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

4. Applicant shall demonstrate that the project meets the driveway aisle setback standards.

5. Applicant shall submit a parking plan for approval of the Director of Community Development that each unit shall have at least one assigned parking space within 150’ of the unit.

Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit

28.All Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be incorporated into all applicable final construction plans and a copy of these conditions shall be placed on a sheet in the final building or grading plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permits.

Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy

29. Development fees and Planning Department final inspection fee must be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall underground all utilities, which for the purpose of this condition shall include all boxes, structures and/or other equipment located in the public rights-of-way, any public utility easement(s), and on any private property, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
50034
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3

POLICE DEPARTMENT

30. Install and maintain the Fontana Police Department’s R.E.A.C.T. electronic gate system (in addition to the County’s Knox Box system).

31. If a digital video surveillance system is available at the premise, it is recommended to be an internet-based system and shall be maintained in proper working order at all times.

The surveillance video/visual media shall be maintained for a minimum of sixty (60) days and upon request, shall be accessible to law enforcement personnel for viewing, copying and collection purposes during regular business hours.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LAND DEVELOPMENT:

32. The project shall be served by the City’s sanitary sewer system, all sewer facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City Standards. Main trunk sewer line shall be in accordance with master sanitary sewer plan or as approved by the City Engineer. Onsite sewer shall be owner maintained.

33. The Applicant shall obtain design and plan approval from all utility providers having jurisdiction over the on-site and off-site utilities. Completion of all undergrounding of onsite and off-site utilities is required by Section 27-52 of the City Municipal Code and in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer.

34. The Applicant’s responsibility to maintain all improvements and utilities within the public right-of-way, including street sweeping, prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy by the City.

35. Traffic specific conditions are provided under the Traffic Conditions of Approval section Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit

36. The Applicant shall submit and gain approval of a complete Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) report in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Technical Guidance Document and latest template.

37. The Applicant shall submit and gain approval of a final drainage study prepared in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Hydrology Manual and Fontana Master Plan of Drainage.

Prior to Issuance of Construction Permits

38. The Applicant shall provide a Land Improvement Agreement, with accompanying security. The agreement shall be executed on City-provided forms.

39. The Applicant shall record All, lot line adjustments, right-of-way dedications, easements, as required for the development.

40. The Applicant shall submit engineered improvement plans and obtain full approval. All required public improvements, including but not limited to streets, storm drainage systems, sewers, traffic signals, streetlights, striping, signs, landscape, and any required traffic control and/or detour plans. All plans shall conform to City Standards and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer.
50135
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3

41. Project will be required to construct all offsite improvements along Foothill Boulevard if the City capital improvement project has not already completed the work. This includes construction of the center median on Foothill Blvd together with minor traffic signal equipment such as loop detectors and signage and striping modifications at the intersection of Foothill Blvd and Sultana Ave.

42. The Applicant shall perform a pavement quality analysis by a qualified geotechnical engineer for Sultana Avenue and Foothill Boulevard for the City to review and approve.

Depending on the results, Sultana Avenue and Foothill Boulevard along the project frontage may need to be fully replaced to bring the pavement structural section into conformance with City standards. Any remedial action less than full replacement shall be justified by the pavement analysis and shall bring the pavement condition to a 20 year pavement life.

Prior to Issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy

43. Complete all public improvements required of the project. Underground utilities required of the project. Ensure streetlights are energized and operating properly.

44. The Applicant/Engineer to provide the City of Fontana with As-Built/Record Drawings for all public improvement plans. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a copy of the streetlight electric bill.

45. Slurry seal roads effected by the development as directed by the inspector. Slurry seal limits may extend past the project frontage to address existing striping/pavement markings that conflicts with new striping/pavement markings, repair trenches, and other areas as determined by the inspector.

46. The Surveyor of Record shall provide centerline ties to the City of Fontana reflecting proper setting of all survey monuments within the project limits and replace any existing survey monuments damaged or removed during construction.

47. The Surveyor of Record shall set survey monuments as required by the map and corner records must be recorded with the County. The Surveyor of Record shall notify the City in writing that monuments have been set in accordance with the recorded subdivision map and he/she has been paid in full for doing so.

48. The applicant/Landscape Architect shall provide a “Landscape Certificate of Compliance” certifying that the work has been designed, installed, and will be maintained in accordance with the City of Fontana’s Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance 1743, FCC Section 28).

49. All sewer shall be video inspected by applicant/contractor. Sewer video shall include clean-out connection, clean-out to lateral segment, lateral, and main line. Contractor performing the video inspection must have a NASSCO PACP, LACP, and MACP certification. Applicant shall provide a copy of the video on DVD or flash drive to inspection staff with an accompanying full report. Videos to be inspected and approved by City Inspector. If removal and replacement of any utility is required, a subsequent video of the repair will be required.

50. All storm drains shall be video inspected by applicant/contractor. Storm drain video shall include main lines and laterals. Applicant shall provide a copy of the video on DVD or flash drive to inspection staff. Videos to be inspected and approved by City Inspector. If 50236
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
removal and replacement of any utility is required, a subsequent video of the repair will be required.

51. The Applicant/Engineer of Record shall submit a conforming copy of the recorded Memorandum of Agreement for the Water Quality Management Plan and Storm Water BMP Transfer. The Access, Maintenance, and the WQMP Certification for BMP Completion must be submitted to the City Project Engineer.

ENGINEERING TRAFFIC:

52. Project ingress and egress locations and restrictions shall be as follows, with additional or lesser restrictions being necessitated subject to changes in the site plan and approval of the City Engineer:
a. The project may have a single ingress/egress point along Foothill Ave that shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict egress to right-in and right-out movements only.
b. The project may have a single ingress/egress point along Sultana Ave that shall be designed, constructed, and signed to allow for all movements.

53. Left-turn ingress and/or egress at all access locations may be restricted in the future due to traffic operational or safety concerns. Alternatives to such restrictions may be considered, subject to approval of the City Engineer.

54. Intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance must be shown to meet the required standards both horizontally and vertically at all ingress/egress locations including consideration for walls, landscaping, grading, and vegetation.

55. The location of bicycle parking shall be depicted on the site plan. Bicycle parking shall comply with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.

56. The loading and unloading zone for the retail component of the project shall not interfere with on-site circulation or cause vehicles entering the site from Foothill Ave or Sultana Ave to queue within the public Right-of-Way, subject to approval of the City Engineer.

57. All gated ingress locations shall provide a visual indication to drivers prior to entering the gated driveway whether the gate is closed or open. This may be excluded if sufficient turn-around space is provided for the design vehicle or if the gate is manned with personnel who would permit an errant driver to enter the gate to turn around and depart.

At no time shall the project cause vehicles entering the site to need to reverse into a travel lane in the public right-of-way in order to depart or turn-around.

BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT:

General Conditions

58. The applicant shall design the project to show compliance with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:

A. California Building Code
B. California Residential Code
C. California Electrical Code
D. California Mechanical Code
50337
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
E. California Plumbing Code
F. California Energy Code
G. California Fire Code
H. California Green Building Standards Code

59. The applicant shall install an automatic fire suppression system, which is required in all new construction per FMC Chapter 11 Article II. Design and type of system shall be based upon the requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the requirements of the Fontana Fire Prevention District.

60. The applicant shall verify that any temporary building, trailer, commercial coach, etc. installed and/or used in connection with a construction project complies with FMC Chapter 5 Article XIV.

61. The applicant shall verify that all perimeter/boundary walls are designed and constructed so that the outer/exterior face of the wall is as close as possible to the lot line. In any case, the outer/exterior face of the wall shall be within two (2) inches of the lot line.

Distances greater than two (2) inches may be approved prior to construction by the Building Official on a case-by-case basis for extenuating circumstances.

62. The applicant shall have the lot line adjustment recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits.

63. The applicant shall comply with the following grading requirements:

A. Grading plans shall be submitted to and approved by Building & Safety. The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-offs.

B. All drainage water shall drain via approved methods to an approved location, such as a public street, a public drainage system, etc.

C. Drainage water shall not cross over a public sidewalk. Drainage water may, however, cross under a sidewalk if an approved drainage structure is used.

D. A recorded drainage acceptance agreement is required from adjoining property(s) receiving flows from this property.

E. No water course or natural drainage shall be obstructed.

F. Minimum slope or grade for ALL drainage structures shall be one half (0.50) percent for concrete and one (1.0) percent for all other, or as otherwise approved by the Building Official.

G. Drainage water shall not pass from an ‘improved’ type of drainage structure to an ‘unimproved’ type of drainage structure (e.g., concrete swale to a dirt swale) unless otherwise approved by the Building Official.

H. A complete hydrology study using the latest edition of the San Bernardino County Flood Control Hydrology Manual, and complete hydraulic calculations justifying the size, slope, capacity, etc. of any and all drainage structures being utilized, shall be submitted to and approved by Building & Safety.

The on-site drainage system shall, as a minimum, be designed to handle the run-off generated by a ten (10) year storm. Check for flooding of all on-site structures (buildings) and all adjacent properties during a hundred (100) year 50438
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
storm.

I. The grading plans shall, as a minimum, contain sections at all lot lines and/or permit boundary lines. These sections shall clearly indicate:

1. The relationship between the proposed finished on-site grade elevations and the existing adjacent property grade elevations (Indicate any additional drainage water that may come from an adjacent property.); and

2. The ground cover/finished surface material being proposed (e.g., type of pavement, plant material, etc.); and

3. All proposed drainage structures; and

4. Any proposed and/or required walls or fencing.

64. The applicant shall verify that all exterior lighting shall be oriented, directed, and/or shielded as much as possible so that direct illumination does not infringe onto adjoining properties.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

65. The following items (as applicable) shall be completed by the applicant and submitted to Building & Safety prior to the issuance of building permits for this project:

A. Precise grading plans shall be approved
B. Rough grading completed
C. Compaction certification
D. Ped Elevation certification
E. Rough grade inspection signed off by a City Building Inspector FONTANA FIRE PREVENTION DISTRICT:

66. Jurisdiction. The above referenced project is under the jurisdiction of the Fontana fire Protection District (herein “Fire Department”). Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Department for verification of current fire protection requirements. All new construction shall comply with the current California Fire Code requirements and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, and standards of the Fire Department.

67. Fire Access Road Width. Prior to map recordation, all fire access roadways shall be designed to meet the requirements for this development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. All buildings shall have access provided by approved roads, alleys and private drives with a minimum twenty-six (26) foot unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches in height. Buildings three (3) stories in height or more shall have a minimum access of thirty (30) feet unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches in height. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-1.

68. Turnaround. An approved turnaround shall be provided at the end of each roadway one hundred and fifty (150) feet or more in length. Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet; all roadways shall not exceed a 12 % grade and have a minimum of nineteen (19) foot inside radius and a forty-five (45) foot outside radius for all turns.

California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-1.
50539
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3

69. Fire Lanes. The applicant shall submit on a site plan to the Fire Department for review and approval all proposed signage and striping for all fire access roadways. All curbs adjacent to fire lanes shall be painted red and “No Parking, Fire Lane” signs shall be installed on public and private roads in accordance with approved standards. SBCoFD Standard A-2.

70. Water System Commercial. Prior to map recordation or lot line adjustment, all water supply systems shall be designed to meet the required fire flow for this development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. The required fire flow shall be determined by using Appendix BB of the California Fire Code. A minimum of one new six (6) inch fire hydrant assembly with two (2) two and one half (2 1/2) inch and one (1) four (4) inch outlet (4”x2.5”x2.5”) shall be provided. All fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than three hundred (300) feet as measured along vehicular travel-ways. California Fire Code Chapter & SBCoFD Standard W-2.

The Fire Flow for this project shall be: 4,000 GPM for a two-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. Fire Flow is based on a 350,438 sq ft structure.

71. Hydrant Marking. Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specified by the Fire Department. SBCoFD Standard W-2.

72. Water Improvement Plan: The applicant shall submit “Water Improvement Plans” to Fontana Fire Prevention. W.I.P. to include site plan, existing & proposed PUBLIC fire hydrant locations, building construction type, square foot details of the largest building, total square foot of ALL floors in a multifloored building, square foot size of entire site, and description of what is being constructed/occupancy type. Once approved by Fire Department, applicant will provide stamped/approved W.I.P to water purveyor for their construction needs. ON-SITE PRIVATE FIRE WATER SUPPLY SHALL BE

INSPECTED AND IN WORKING CONDITION PRIOR TO PLACING COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS ON THE JOBSITE. California Fire Code Chapter 5.

73. Combustible Protection. Prior to combustibles being placed on the project site an approved paved roadway providing fire access and fire hydrants providing an acceptable fire flow shall be installed. California Fire Code Chapter 5.

74. Fire Sprinkler-NFPA #13. An automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA 13 and Fire Department standards is required. A fire sprinkler contractor shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The plans shall include hydraulic calculations and manufacturer specification sheets. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. California Fire Code Chapter 9 & SBCoFD Standard F-1.

75. Standpipe system. A standpipe system is required. A fire sprinkler contractor shall submit three (3) sets of hydraulic calculations and detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The system shall comply with NFPA 14 and Fire Department standards. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. California Fire Code Chapter 9.
50640
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Hood and Duct Extinguishing system: (IF APPICABLE IN RETAIL SPACE) An automatic hood and duct fire extinguishing system is required. A licensed contractor shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans (minimum 1/8” scale) with manufactures’ specification sheets to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. California Fire Code Chapter 9, NFPA 17A, & NFPA 96.

76. Fire Alarm, Manual or Automatic. A manual, automatic or manual and automatic fire alarm system complying with the California Fire Code, NFPA 72 and all applicable codes is required. A fire alarm contractor shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. California Fire Code Chapter 9, SBCFD Standard F-5, & NFPA 72.

77. Fire Extinguishers. Hand portable fire extinguishers are required. The location, type, and cabinet design shall be approved by the Fire Department. California Fire Code Chapter

9. 78. Commercial (large facility) Addressing. Commercial, industrial developments in excess of 100,000 sq. ft. shall have the street address installed on the building with numbers that are a minimum twelve (12) inches in height and with a one and one half (1 ½) inch stroke.

The street address shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers shall be electrically illuminated (internal or external). Where the building is two hundred (200) feet or more from the roadway, additional non-illuminated contrasting six (6) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property access entrances. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard B-1.

79. Key Box. An approved Fire Department key box is required. The key box shall be provided with a tamper switch and shall be monitored by a Fire Department approved central monitoring service. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-4.

80. Security Gates. In commercial, industrial and multi-family complexes, all swing gates shall have an approved fire department Knox Lock. Where an automatic electric security gate is used, an approved Fire Department override switch is required. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-3.

81. Material Identification Placards: (IF APPLICABLE IN RETAIL SPACES) The applicant shall install, in all locations deemed appropriate by the Fire Department, approved material identification placards on the outside of all buildings and/or storage tanks that store hazardous or flammable materials. Additional placards shall be required inside the buildings when chemicals are segregated into separate areas. California Fire Code Chapter 50 & NFPA 704

82. Secondary Access. The development shall have a minimum of 2 points of vehicular access during each phase of construction for fire and emergency access purposes and for evacuation routes. SBCoFD Standard A-1.
50741
Resolution PC No. 2025-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3

83. San Bernardino County Fire Standards/Codes: Items not directly called out on these Conditions of Approval, shall also adhere to currently adopted San Bernardino County Fire Standards, California Fire Code, & NFPA.

END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
50842
Notice of Exemption FORM “A”
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO:
☐
Office of Land Use and Climate
Innovation
State Clearinghouse
P. O. Box 3044, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
FROM:
(Public
Agency)
Name: City of Fontana
Address: 8353 Sierra Ave,
Fontana CA 92335
Telephone: 909-350-6656
☒ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
or
County Clerk (Include County
name)
Address:

1. Project Title: Master Case No. 23-0101, Conditional
Use Permit No. 24-0022, and Design
Review No. 23-0024.

2. Project Applicant (include address,
telephone number and email address):

Bobbie Rey,
Project Administrative Coordinator
[email protected]
(909) 355-6688
Andresen Architecture
17087 Orange Way
Fontana, CA 92335

3. Project Location – Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’ topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):

The project site is located at the northeast
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana
Avenue at (APNs: 1110-331-13 and -25)

4. (a) Project Location – City: Fontana (b) Project Location – County: San Bernardino

5. Description of nature, purpose, and
beneficiaries of Project:

The project is for the development
(Mahmoudi Mixed Use Project) of a
mixed-use development of multi-family
residential units that include 163 multifamily units, 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and first floor parking
garage on approximately 3.5 acres,
located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Sultana Avenue at (APNs:
1110-331-13 and -25)

6. Name of Public Agency approving
project:

City of Fontana
50943
Notice of Exemption FORM “A”
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

7. Name of Person or Agency undertaking
the project, including any person
undertaking an activity that receives
financial assistance from the Public
Agency as part of the activity or the
person receiving a lease, permit,
license, certificate, or other entitlement
of use from the Public Agency as part of
the activity:

Bobbie Rey,
Project Administrative Coordinator
[email protected]
(909) 355-6688
Andresen Architecture
17087 Orange Way
Fontana, CA 92335

8. Exempt status: (check one)
(a) ☐ Ministerial project. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(1); State CEQA Guidelines § 15268)
(b) ☐ Not a project. State CEQA Guidelines 15050(c)(2)-(3) (c) ☐ Declared Emergency (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(3); State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(a))
(d) ☐ Emergency Project. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(4); State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(b),(c))
(e) ☒ Categorical Exemption.

State type and section
number:

Exempt under Section 15332, Class 32
(Accessory Structures) of the California
Environmental Quality Act
(f) ☐ Statutory Exemption.

State Code section number:
(g) ☐ Other. Explanation:

9. Reason why project was exempt: The proposed Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section No. 15332 (Class No.
32 In-Fill Development Project), Class 32
The project site is currently two lots
surrounded by development within the
City’s designated infill boundary. The
project is consistent with the General
Plan and zoning, site is on five (5) gross
acres or less (3.5 acres), has no value as
habitat for endangered, rare, or
threatened species, the project would not
result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality,
and streets, schools, water, and fire
protection have already been developed
and are provided in the general area.

Therefore, it has been determined that the
project qualifies for a categorical
exemption.
51044
Notice of Exemption FORM “A”
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

10. Lead Agency Contact Person:

Telephone:

Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner
909-350-6656

11. If filed by applicant: Attach Certificate of Determination (Form “B”) before filing.

12. Was a public hearing held by the Lead Agency to consider the exemption? Yes ☐ No ☐
If yes, the date of the public hearing was: August 19, 2025 Date: August 20, 2025
________________________________
Signature
Name: DiTanyon Johnson
Title: Planning Manageer
☒ Signed by Lead Agency ☐ Signed by Applicant
Date Received for Filing:
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code.

Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. 51145

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

In compliance with Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof, the Agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Should you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Department by calling (909) 350- 7602. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

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

Master Case No. 23-0101, Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022, and Design Review No. 23-0024 A request to develop a mixed-use development of 163 multi-family residential units and 41 ADU units, 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and first floor parking garage on approximately 3.5 acres.

Environmental
Determination:

This project is Categorically Exempt with studies pursuant to Section No. 15332 (In-Fill Development Project) of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section No. 3.22 of the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA.

Location: Northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard
and Sultana Avenue (APNs: 1110-331-
13 and -25).

Date of Hearing: August 19, 2025
Place of Hearing: City Hall Council Chambers
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Time of Hearing: 6:00 P.M.

Should you have any questions concerning this project,
please contact Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner, at (909) 350-6656 or [email protected].

ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY APPEAR AND PRESENT ANY INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. A COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY HALL.

IF YOU CHALLENGE IN COURT ANY ACTION TAKEN CONCERNING A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY

THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO THE CITY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLISH: August 8, 2025
Project
Site
Foothill Blvd
Sultana
Ave
51246
City of Fontana
Planning Commission
Minutes
Idilio Sanchez, Chair
Ricardo Quintana, Vice Chair
Joe Armendarez, Secretary
Torrie Lozano, Commissioner
Dylan Keetle, Commissioner
Tuesday, August 19, 2025 6:00 P.M. Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL:

A. Call to Order/Roll Call:

A regular meeting of the City of Fontana Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 19, 2025. Vice Chair Quintana called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

Present: Vice Chair Quintana, Secretary Armendarez, Commissioners Keetle and Lozano.

Absent: Chair Sanchez
INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

A. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance:

Following the Invocation by Chaplain Bianca Pescina, the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Lozano.
513
Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 2025