HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Ventana at Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2021030597
prepared by
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Contact: Salvador Quintanilla, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
June 2022
Ventana at Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2021030597
prepared by
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Contact: Salvador Quintanilla, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
June 2022
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Table of Contents
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Format of the Final SEIR .................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-2
2 Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR ................................................................................ 2-1
3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .......................................................................... 3-1
Appendices
Appendix A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Appendices
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ii
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-1
1 Introduction
This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared by the City of
Fontana (City) for the proposed Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment (hereafter
referred to as the “proposed project” or “project”), which includes the development of up to
476,500 square feet (sf) of commercial uses, 1,671 dwelling units in three separate residential
villages with accompanying amenities, a focal point piazza (public square), and the construction of
the realigned Lytle Creek Road. The project would be developed on an approximately 102-acre site
located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Citrus Avenue, and both north and south of Duncan
Canyon Road. This Final SEIR complies with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) statutes (California Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et. seq.,
as amended) and implementing guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000
et. seq.) (the CEQA Guidelines).
Before approving a project that may cause a significant environmental impact, CEQA requires the
lead agency to prepare and certify a Final EIR. The City has the principal responsibility for approval
of the proposed project and is considered the lead agency under PRC Section 21067. According to
the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of:
The Draft SEIR or a revision of the Draft SEIR;
Comments and recommendations received on the Draft SEIR either verbatim or in summary;
A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft SEIR;
The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process; and
Any other information added by the lead agency.
The Draft SEIR and its appendices are included as Appendix A to the Final SEIR and can also be found
on the City’s website: https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents. To clarify, while
the Final SEIR under the CEQA Guidelines includes the Draft SEIR, the “Final SEIR” in this document
will refer to everything contained in this document (as described in Section 1.1, Format of the Final
SEIR) and not the Draft SEIR, whereas “SEIR” will refer both to the Final SEIR and the Draft SEIR.
1.1 Format of the Final SEIR
The Final SEIR summarizes the project information presented in the Draft SEIR and contains
responses to comments on environmental issues received from agencies, organizations, and
individuals who reviewed the Draft SEIR as part of the 47-day public review period for the proposed
project, which began on April 14, 2022, and ended on May 31, 2022. The Final EIR consists of the
following three sections:
Section 1 – Introduction. This section summarizes the contents of the Final EIR and the
environmental review process.
Section 2 – Response to Comments on the Draft SEIR. During the public review period for the
Draft SEIR, the City received written comment letters pertaining to the Draft SEIR. The City also
received verbal comments from Planning commissioners during the Planning Commission public
hearing that occurred at the City Hall Council Chambers on May 3, 2022. This section contains a
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
1-2
summary of these written comment letters (provided by agencies, organizations, and
individuals) and verbal comments and the City’s responses to the comments that raise
significant environmental points.
Section 3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This section of the Final EIR
provides the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project.
The MMRP is presented in tabular format and identifies mitigation measures for the proposed
project, the enforcing agency, the actions required by the responsible agency, the
implementation period for each measure, and the monitoring period for each measure. The
MMRP also provides a section for recordation of mitigation reporting.
1.2 Environmental Review Process
Notice of Preparation
The City determined that a SEIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of
Preparation (NOP), which was filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk and distributed to the
State Clearinghouse, interested agencies and groups, and the public on October 20, 2021, for
30 days. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, recipients of the NOP were requested to
provide responses during the public review period after their receipt of the NOP. In addition, the
City held a virtual SEIR Scoping Meeting on October 27, 2021. The purpose of this meeting was to
seek input from public agencies and the general public regarding the environmental issues and
concerns that may potentially result from the proposed project. The NOP public review period
ended on November 19, 2021. Comments received during the NOP public review period were
considered during the preparation of this SEIR. The NOP and NOP comments are included in
Appendix A-1 of the Draft SEIR. Table 1-1 of the Draft SEIR summarizes the content of the letters
received in response to the NOP during the public review period and identifies where the issues
raised are addressed in the Draft SEIR or the Initial Study. The Initial Study is included in Appendix
A-2 of the Draft SEIR.
Noticing and Availability of the Draft SEIR
The Draft SEIR was made available for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15087. The 47-day public review period for the Draft SEIR began on April 14, 2022 and
ended on May 31, 2022. The Draft SEIR and Notice of Completion (NOC) were submitted to the
State Clearinghouse on April 14, 2022. A Notice of Availability (NOA), which included a City website
link to the posted Draft SEIR, was mailed to 56 agencies and organizations. In addition, the NOA was
sent to individuals who had previously requested such notice in writing. The NOA was also filed at
the San Bernardino County Clerk on April 14, 2022. Notably, a reposting of the NOA was circulated
on April 25, 2022 to the same agencies, organizations, and individuals and was also re-filed at the
County Clerk to announce a one-day extension to May 31, 2022, in accommodation of the Memorial
Day Holiday on May 30, 2022, thereby resulting in a 47-day public review period. The NOA described
where the document was available and how to submit comments on the Draft SEIR. In addition to
the City’s website, hard copies of the Draft SEIR were also made available for public review at the
City of Fontana Community Development Department counter and at the Fontana Lewis Library &
Technology Center. The public review period provided interested public agencies, groups, and
individuals the opportunity to comment on the contents of the Draft SEIR.
Introduction
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3
Final SEIR
The Final SEIR addresses the comments received during the public review period. Based on the
comments received, no changes or revisions to the text of the Draft SEIR were necessary and
recirculation of the Draft SEIR per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 was not required. Accordingly,
this Final SEIR will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for potential
certification as the environmental document for the proposed project. All persons who commented
on the Draft SEIR will be notified of the availability of the Final SEIR prior to the public hearings, and
all agencies that commented on the Draft SEIR will be provided with a copy of the Final SEIR at least
10 days before EIR certification, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). The Final SEIR is also
posted on the City’s website: https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City shall make findings for each of the significant
effects identified in this SEIR and shall support the findings with substantial evidence in the record.
After considering the Final SEIR in conjunction with making findings under Section 15091, the lead
agency may decide whether or how to approve or implement the project. The Final SEIR for the
proposed project identified potentially significant impacts that could result from project
implementation. The City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of project
approval will still result in certain impacts being significant and unavoidable. As such, a statement of
overriding considerations prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 is required for this
project.
In addition, when approving a project, public agencies must also adopt a MMRP describing the
changes that were incorporated into the proposed project or made a condition of project approval
to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The
MMRP is adopted at the time of project approval and is designed to ensure compliance during
project implementation. Upon approval of the proposed project, the City will be responsible for
implementation of the proposed project’s MMRP.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
1-4
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2 Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
This section includes comments received during the public review period for the Draft SEIR prepared
for the proposed project. The Draft SEIR was circulated for a 47-day public review period that began
on April 14, 2022 and ended on May 31, 2022. The City of Fontana received nine comment letters
on the Draft SEIR, consisting of two letters from agencies, two letters from organizations, and five
letters from individuals. The City also received verbal comments from Planning commissioners
during the Planning Commission public hearing that occurred at the City Hall Council Chambers on
May 3, 2022. Although most comments received during the Planning Commission public hearing
were not relevant to the environmental issues analyzed in the Draft SEIR, they are nonetheless
included and summarized in this section. The commenters and the page number on which each
commenter’s letter or verbal comments appear are listed in the following table.
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
Agencies (A)
1 Daniel Guerra, Engineering Development Coordinator, West Valley Water District 2
2 Mary Padres, Office Chief District 8, State of California Department of Transportation 5
Organizations (O)
1 Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resource Analyst, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 12
2 Bernadette Ann Brierty, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Morongo Band of Mission Indians 14
Individuals (I)
1 Ada Torres 16
2 Evelin Butler 18
3 Erick Torres 20
4 Josh and Crystal Smilor 22
5 Fred Torres 24
Public Hearing Comments
1 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Commissioner Ralph Thrasher 27
2 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Secretary Idilio Sanchez 28
3 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Vice Chair Raj Sangha 29
4 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Chair Cathline Fort 30
5 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Secretary Idilio Sanchez 32
6 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Vice Chair Raj Sangha 33
7 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Chair Cathline Fort 34
8 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Secretary Idilio Sanchez 35
The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially
and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number.
The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the
number assigned to each issue (Response 1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the
first issue raised in comment Letter 1). The responses associated with the Planning Commission
public hearing are grouped based on each commissioner’s speaking turn as they verbally
commented on the project.
1
2
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter A-1
COMMENTER: Daniel Guerra, Engineering Development Coordinator, West Valley Water District
DATE: April 27, 2022
Response 1.1
The commenter confirms that the project is within the West Valley Water District (District) service
area and clarifies that the project Developer will be required to apply for and submit a plan check
for the installation of all new water services associated with the project. The commenter adds that
the project will be required to extend existing water facilities and incorporate other improvements
to provide service to the project and notes that all necessary water improvements must be installed
by one of the District’s preapproved contractors.
The commenter’s clarifications regarding the procedural requirements to provide adequate water
services to the project is noted; however, the commenter does not raise any significant
environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included
in the Draft SEIR. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Services Systems, of the
Draft SEIR, the construction of any required infrastructure improvements (e.g., water main, laterals,
fire water lanes, hydrants) would not significantly increase the project’s disturbance area or
otherwise cause significant environmental effects.
Response 1.2
The commenter clarifies that the project Developer is required to provide easements for all District
facilities within private streets or non-public rights-of-way.
The commenter’s clarification regarding easements is noted; however, the commenter does not
raise any significant environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the
environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR.
Response 1.3
The commenter clarifies that the project Developer will be required to enter into a Water System
Infrastructure Installation and Conveyance Agreement for any main line extension and various
improvements to District facilities.
The commenter’s clarification regarding the Waste System Infrastructure Installation and
Conveyance Agreement is noted; however, the commenter does not raise any significant
environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included
in the Draft SEIR.
Response 1.4
The commenter clarifies that the project Developer shall adhere to the most recent District's
"Standards for Domestic Water Facilities" and "Water Service Rules and Regulations" and any
amendments. The commenter adds that all other plan check requirements, applications, and fees
can be found on the District's Engineering web page.
3
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
The commenter’s clarification regarding the standards, regulations and the location of plan check
requirements is noted; however, the commenter does not raise any significant environmental issues
or raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR.
4
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
State of California California State Transportation Agency DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
M e m o r a n d u m Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.
Traffic Operations Surveillance Region C has reviewed the Ventana Specific Plan Amendment: Traffic Study for the Ventana Specific Plan in the City of Fontana, County
of San Bernardino. The submitted document was prepared by Urban Crossroads dated
April 6, 2022 and transmitted to Traffic Operations on April 14, 2022. We have the following
comments:
General:
1.Traffic Operations comments must be addressed prior to the issuance of the
Encroachment Permit by Caltrans.
2.Please include a response document, Response to Comments, in your next review
submittal addressing the comments provided by Traffic Operations.
3.Traffic Forecasting and Analysis Division will review the Traffic Study (TS) and concur with the trip generation and forecasted traffic volumes.
4.Traffic Operations Trucking Services will review and concur with truck-related items.5.A detailed review of site plan(s) will be performed during the Encroachment Permitprocess.
Safety Reviews:
6.Please conduct and submit traffic safety reviews as a stand-alone report forproposed land use projects and plans affecting the State Highway System. Seeattached Local Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) SafetyReview Practitioners Guidance, December 2020.
Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT) Analysis:
7.Please provide the City of Fontana’s approval of the VMT analysis report and its
results.
To: ROSA CLARK
OFFICE CHIEF
COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING
Date: May 26, 2022
File: 08-SBd-15
PM 11.214
From: MARY PADRES
Office Chief
District 8, Traffic Operations Surveillance Region C
Subject: Ventana Specific Plan Amendment: Traffic Study Ventana Specific Plan
City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino
MP
Letter A2
2.1
2.2
2.3
5
Rosa Clark
May 26, 2022
Page 2 of 2
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
Traffic Study:
8.Please provide Synchro files associated with this proposed project for review.9.Please provide traffic count data, full 24-hour counts, beyond the AM and PM
peak hours and the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data for study
intersections and areas of the proposed project. Traffic counts should beconducted when school is in session.
10.Comments related to submitted Synchro results:
i.Please verify the lane configurations for all study intersections in each study
conditions as some of them do not match the existing and the proposed
improvements. Please include the revisions in the requested Synchro files.ii.Lanes should be configured in way that reflects the allowed movements in
said lanes, such as shared left and thru, shared right and thru, left-turn only,right-turn only, etc. for proper analysis of queuing and LOS.11.On-ramp queuing analysis is missing. Please provide the on-ramp queuing study.
12.Please coordinate with the Traffic Operations, Electrical Services to synchronize
the traffic signal timing of the Lytle Creek Road & Duncan Canyon Road
intersection (#8) with Caltrans I-15 ramps at Duncan Canyon Road. Please also
provide your signal timing plans for review.13.Please consider converting the segment of Duncan Canyon Road between the I-15 NB ramps and Citrus Avenue to a four-lane road (two lanes each direction) with
dedicated right-turn lane to I-15 NB ramp from Duncan Canyon Road westbound. This expanded configuration will enable this segment to safely accommodate the
increased traffic volumes and to mitigate potential vehicular crashes.
14.Please provide site plans for both existing and proposed conditions for review. The
site plans should be fully dimensions.
15.Please provide fully dimensioned plans for the recommended alternatives forreview. Include both existing and proposed conditions for comparison.
16.Please provide truck turning templates for your proposed project. Truck Services
will review and concur with truck-related items.17.Please follow the California Highway Design Manual (HDM) and Caltrans Standard
Plans for design standards for facilities, such as driveway, ADA curb ramp, bicycle
path or lane, pedestrian walkway/access, etc., that directly interact with the state
highway system.18.Please note that traffic impacts should be analyzed cumulatively. Therefore,
please include all traffic and safety impacts from nearby pending projects that
may affect your development in the complete TS. Consult with the lead agency
for the status and information on these projects.
Note:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your project. This document is not considered
a complete review or approval of the proposed development by Traffic Operations
Surveillance Region C. Additional comments may be provided after any revisions.
If you have any questions, please contact me at , or District 8 Traffic Operations Surveillance C via email at
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
6
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter A-2
COMMENTER: Mary Padres, Office Chief District 8, State of California Department of
Transportation
DATE: May 26, 2022
Response 2.1
The commenter confirms review of the Traffic Study prepared by Urban Crossroads for the project
and lists information describing the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans)
requirements for addressing their comments and next steps for project review. Specifically,
comments must be addressed prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit by Caltrans,
responses to comments must be submitted as part of the next review submittal, and a detailed site
plan review of project components related to transportation will be conducted.
The Traffic Study was completed on April 6, 2022 and is included as Appendix I to the Draft SEIR. The
commenter’s clarifications regarding their requirements for addressing comments and follow-up
reviews is noted; however, the commenter does not raise any significant environmental issues or
raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR.
Response 2.2
The commenter requests that traffic safety reviews be conducted as a stand-alone report for the
project analyzing its effects on the State Highway System.
The commenter’s request for additional safety reviews is noted. Hazards related to geometric
design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) were reviewed as part of the Initial
Study to the Draft SEIR, which is included as Appendix A-2 to the Draft SEIR. As discussed in Section
17, Transportation, of the Initial Study, the project would be accessible through Duncan Canyon
Road, Citrus Avenue, and Lytle Creek Road. Duncan Canyon Road connects the site to the nearby I-
15 for regional access to and from the site. However, the project would comply with the City’s
roadway standards and would not include any design features that would increase circulation
hazards. Furthermore, as discussed Section 4.14, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, on-site traffic
signing and roadway striping would be implemented, consistent with the provisions of the California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for
the project site. Sight distance at each project access point would be reviewed by the City to ensure
compliance with standard Caltrans and City of Fontana sight distance standards at the time of
preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. In addition, the following
standard conditions relation to transportation (and identified in the 2007 EIR) remain applicable to
the proposed project:
Standard Condition 4.4.2: Future developments would be subject to plan check review to ensure
that the necessary access, parking, and roadway improvements are provided as part of
individual developments, in accordance with the City’s traffic safety design criteria.
Standard Condition 4.4.3: Future developments on the site shall be accompanied by the
construction of internal and perimeter roadways, in accordance with the City’s Circulation
Master Plan and City roadway standards, including the City’s standard intersection configuration
for southbound traffic at the Lytle Creek Road/Duncan Canyon Road intersection.
7
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
In addition to complying with these standards, Urban Crossroads will provide the stand-alone report
requested by Caltrans in connection with the encroachment permit process, and in accordance with
Caltrans’ standard requirements. Compliance with the above requirements will ensure the project
will not have any significant impacts related to safety.
Response 2.3
The commenter requests that the City provide their written approval of the vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) analysis conducted for the project and submit the results of the analysis.
Urban Crossroads conducted a VMT analysis for the project as part of the Traffic Study (Appendix I
to the Draft SEIR), which is referenced in Section 4.14, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR. The Traffic
Study was prepared in accordance with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment and with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB)
743.
As detailed in the Draft EIR, the project would not exceed the City’s adopted threshold of 15 percent
below County of San Bernardino baseline VMT per service population (i.e., 27.8) in both baseline
and cumulative scenarios. Further, as calculated in the Traffic Study and noted in Section 4.14 of the
Draft SEIR, there is a net decrease of 0.30 VMT per service population within the City for baseline
conditions and a net decrease of 0.22 VMT per service population within the City for cumulative
conditions, which would indicate that the proposed project does not have a negative effect on VMT
under baseline and cumulative conditions. The project’s VMT impact is therefore considered less
than significant. The City reviewed these findings and had no further questions related to the Traffic
Study and concurred with the findings therein, including the VMT analysis. The City provided
Caltrans with the Draft SEIR and Traffic Study for their separate review as part of the public review
period for the Draft SEIR.
Response 2.4
The commenter requests that the traffic count data and Synchro files associated with the project be
provided for their review, including full 24-hour counts, beyond the AM and PM peak hours and the
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data for study intersections and project areas. The commenter
clarifies that traffic counts should be conducted when school is in session.
The commenter’s requests concerning traffic count data do not raise any significant environmental
issues, since traffic congestion is no longer considered to be an environmental impact for purposes
of CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code section 21099.) Nonetheless, LOS impacts are analyzed in the Traffic Study
prepared for the project (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR).
Per the City of Fontana traffic study guidelines, unless otherwise noted, traffic counts should be
conducted during the AM and PM peak hours. As such, traffic counts outside of the AM and PM
peak hour were not collected or included as part of this study. Consistent with the City’s guidelines,
the operations analysis in the traffic study is conservatively based on the traffic volumes during the
AM and PM peak hours, when traffic is most severe. Therefore, 24-hour traffic counts are
unnecessary.
As noted in the Traffic Study (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR), due to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools
and businesses within the study area were closed or operating at less than full capacity at the time
of the Traffic Study was prepared. As such, to avoid underestimating traffic under existing
conditions, historic traffic counts from 2018 were utilized in conjunction with a 1.16 percent per
year, compounded annually, growth rate to develop peak hour traffic volumes for 2021 conditions.
8
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
The historic weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour count data is representative of typical
weekday peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the
field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity
or detour routes and near-by schools were in session and operating on normal schedules. Existing
and historical traffic counts are included in Appendix 3.1 of the Traffic Study. Synchro files
associated with the traffic analysis are included throughout Appendices 3.2, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5
through 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.5 through 6.8, 7.1, 7.2, and 7.5 through 7.8 of the Traffic Study.
Response 2.5
The commenter requests verification of lane configurations such that they match existing and
proposed transportation improvements and requests that any revisions be included in the
requested Synchro files. The commenter adds that lanes should be configured in way that reflects
the allowed movements in said lanes, such as shared “left and thru,” shared “right and thru,” left-
turn only, and right-turn only, for proper analysis of queuing and LOS.
The commenter’s requests concerning LOS do not raise any significant environmental issues, since
traffic congestion is no longer considered to be an environmental impact for purposes of CEQA.
(Pub. Res. Code section 21099.) Nonetheless, LOS impacts are analyzed in the Traffic Study prepared
for the project (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR). Synchro files associated with the traffic analysis are
included throughout Appendices 3.2, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5 through 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.5 through 6.8, 7.1, 7.2,
and 7.5 through 7.8 of the Traffic Study.
Response 2.6
The commenter states that the on-ramp queuing analysis is missing and that the on-ramp queuing
study be provided for review.
The commenter’s request for the on-ramp queuing analysis is noted; however, traffic congestion is
no longer considered to be an environmental impact for purposes of CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code section
21099.) Nonetheless, an off-ramp queuing analysis is provided for each analysis scenario evaluated
in the Traffic Study (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR). On-ramp queuing analyses were not provided
since on-ramp queues typically indicate operations of the freeway facilities, whereas off-ramp
queues typically indicate operations of the freeway ramp-intersections.
Response 2.7
The commenter requests that the Developer team coordinate with Traffic Operations and Electrical
Services to synchronize the traffic signal timing of the Lytle Creek Road and Duncan Canyon Road
intersection (#8) with I-15 ramps at Duncan Canyon Road. The commenter also requests that the
signal timing plans be provided for review.
The commenter’s request for further coordination regarding signal timing is noted; however, the
commenter does not raise any significant environmental issues or raise other issues on the
adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR. The traffic signal timing will be
coordinated between the Developer team and Caltrans as part of the encroachment permit process.
Response 2.8
The commenter suggests that the project Developer consider conversion of the segment of Duncan
Canyon Road between I-15 northbound ramps and Citrus Avenue to a four-lane road (two lanes
9
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
each direction) with dedicated right-turn lane to I-15 northbound ramp from Duncan Canyon Road
westbound.
The Traffic Study (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR) evaluates the roadway segment of Duncan Canyon
Road, between I-15 northbound ramps and Citrus Avenue, as a six-lane divided roadway, consistent
with the City’s General Plan. The roadway widening of this segment is included as a project design
feature and improves the anticipated LOS from unacceptable operations (for Without Project
conditions) to acceptable operations (for With Project conditions).
Response 2.9
The commenter requests that fully dimensioned site plans depicting existing and proposed
conditions be provided for review. The commenter also requests that fully dimensioned site plans
depicting recommended alternatives (under both existing and proposed conditions) be provided for
review for comparison.
The commenter’s request for additional plans is noted; however, the commenter does not raise any
significant environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis
included in the Draft SEIR. Fully dimensional site plans depicting requested conditions are currently
unavailable at this stage of planning for a Specific Plan Amendment. Specific site plans will become
available as individual projects come forward to the City for entitlement processing, which will
result in separate analyses.
Response 2.10
The commenter requests that truck turning templates be provided for review.
The commenter’s request for additional plans is noted; however, the commenter does not raise any
significant environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis
included in the Draft SEIR. Specific site plans and turning templates will become available as
individual projects come forward to the City for entitlement processing, which will result in separate
analyses.
Response 2.11
The commenter requests that the project Developer follow the California Highway Design Manual
(HDM) and Caltrans Standard Plans for design standards for facilities (e.g., driveway, ADA curb
ramp, bicycle lanes, walkways).
The project is required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable standards. The
commenter does not raise any significant environmental issues or raise other issues on the
adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR.
Response 2.12
The commenter states that traffic impacts should be analyzed cumulatively and requests that all
nearby pending projects be included in the traffic study.
Cumulative traffic impacts are provided in the Traffic Study (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR). A list of
cumulative development is included in Table 4-3 of the Traffic Study, the locations of which are also
depicted on a map in Exhibit 4-7 of the Traffic Study. Cumulative traffic conditions are analyzed in
Section 5, Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Traffic Conditions, and Section 6, Opening Year
Cumulative (2030) Traffic Conditions of the Traffic Study. Furthermore, as calculated in the Traffic
10
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Study, there is a net decrease of 0.22 VMT per service population within the City for cumulative
conditions, which would indicate that the proposed project does not have a negative effect on VMT
under cumulative conditions.
11
12
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter O-1
COMMENTER: Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resource Analyst, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
DATE: May 4, 2022
Response 1.1
The commenter provides a list of recommended cultural and tribal cultural resources mitigation
measures to be incorporated into the project.
Project impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources impacts were analyzed in Section 4.4,
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft SEIR. As discussed in Section 4.4, a
recent records search and pedestrian survey did not identify any archaeological resources within the
project site. However, the surveyors noted poor surface visibility based on heavy disturbance
throughout the project site in the form of three to four inches of plowing and disking, several large
modern trash dumps, and dense vegetation. Historical aerial imagery indicates that the project site
has had moderate disturbance due to agricultural use, grading and building, demolition, or removal
over the last 50 years. Due to the poor visibility on site, the potential for subsurface archaeological
resources cannot be ruled out, and the project site is considered to have a moderate sensitivity for
archaeological cultural resources.
As such, Mitigation Measure CUL-2A (Archaeological Resources) is included in the Draft SEIR and
would require archaeological monitoring by a qualified Archaeologist and a Native American
monitor (from consulting tribes) during all project-related ground-disturbing activities. Mitigation
Measure CUL-2A also specifies additional requirements for the treatment of a resource in the event
an unanticipated discovery during project construction, such as stopping work within 50 feet of the
find. Mitigation Measure CUL-2B is also identified in the Draft SEIR, which would require the
preparation of construction workers on the types of cultural material that may be encountered and
proper protocol prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities. Compared to the
recommended measures provided by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the measures
included in the Draft SEIR are more conservative since they require archaeological monitoring
during all ground-disturbing activities (not just in the event of a find). Therefore, implementation of
the measures provided by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians would be less conservative for
the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources. Furthermore, with respect to the discovery
of human remains, the project would be required to comply with the State of California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 in which the County coroner would notify the Native American Heritage
Commission to identify the most likely descendant. Although the San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians recommends a mitigation measure for the discovery of human remains, it is not necessary
as the project is already required by law to comply with the stipulations of California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5. Accordingly, as set forth in the Draft EIR, with implementation of
Mitigation Measures CUL-2A and CUL-2B, and compliance with Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5, potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources will be less than significant, and no
further mitigation is required.
13
TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
quintanilla@fontana.org
May 15, 2022
Salvador Quintanilla, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 9233
Re: Request for Consultation under SB 18: Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan
Amendment
Dear Mr. Quintanilla:
The Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Tribe/MBMI) Tribal Historic Preservation Office is in receipt of the
City of Fontana letter regarding the above referenced project. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment for
Ventana at Duncan Canyon does not encompass land located within the boundaries of the ancestral
territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians.
Thank you for notifying the MBMI about this project. MBMI encourages your consultation with tribes more
closely associated with the lands upon which the project is located.
Respectfully,
Bernadette Ann Brierty
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
CC: Morongo THPO
Letter O2
2.1
14
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter O-2
COMMENTER: Bernadette Ann Brierty, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
DATE: May 15, 2022
Response 2.1
The commenter states that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment for Ventana at Duncan Canyon
does not encompass land located within the boundaries of the ancestral territory and traditional use
area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.
The commenter’s statement regarding the location of the proposed project is noted, and, for the
purposes of Senate Bill 18, consultation with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians is considered
complete.
15
From: Ada Torres
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 7:05 AM
To: Salvador Quintanilla <squintanilla@fontana.org>
Subject: Ventana comment
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello
Quintanilla
I am following this project and have received several signatures on the objections of the new addendum
or change that the builder is requesting.
I have been living in coyote canyon and I’m a lead Nextdoor app. We do not want an increase on higher
density residents. The builder wants to double the original residents and we are objecting because we
need new schools, new markets to shop, new stores. In the amendment the builder is increasing the
residents from 870 to 1670 new families. We live here and there is no more room for the markets. The
only shopping area is summit and serves already the residents in other communities.
Please advice council I have roughly 100 signatures objection the new change from the builder.
Please confirm receipt of this comment!
Thank you
Ada Torres
Have a great day!
Letter I-1
1.1
16
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter I-1
COMMENTER: Ada Torres
DATE: May 13, 2022
Response 1.1
The commenter states concern regarding the increased density of residents, from 870 to 1670 new
families, resulting from the proposed project. The commenter opines that there is already a need
for more schools and shopping centers for current residents and notes that the existing shopping
area along Summit Avenue serves residents in other communities.
The commenter’s opinion that the City should prioritize the development of commercial uses and
schools, rather than residential uses, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the City’s
decisionmakers for consideration. Although the proposed project would reduce the total
commercial area envisioned in the Specific Plan by 98,000 square feet (17 percent), from 574,500
square feet under the existing Specific Plan, to 476,500 square feet for the proposed project, the
project would still provide commercial/retail uses. Moreover, by incorporating more mixed-use
development, the project would increase the walkability (e.g., integration of paseos) of the site.
The commenter does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns regarding the
adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR. Nonetheless, as discussed in
detail throughout the Draft EIR, the proposed project (and the associated decrease in commercial
space and increase in residential density) would not result in any significant environmental impact
not previously identified in the Final EIR for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan (State
Clearinghouse No. 2005111048), approved by the City of Fontana on March 27, 2007.
With respect to schools, school impacts fees paid by future development on the project site would
assist in the provision of school services to residents of the site, and the Project would not result in a
significant adverse impact on school facilities, as discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services, of the
Draft SEIR.
17
18
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter I-2
COMMENTER: Evelin Butler
DATE: May 16, 2022
Response 2.1
The commenter states that there is already a higher need for shopping, dining, and entertainment
uses for the current and growing population in the city. The commenter notes that the project
would increase the housing units on the site, objects to the project Developer’s request to increase
density, and asks that the City consider the needs of the existing residents.
The commenter’s opinion that the City should prioritize the development of commercial and
entertainment uses over residential uses is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the City’s
decisionmakers for consideration. The commenter does not raise any specific environmental issues
or concerns regarding the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR.
See also Response 1.1 of Letter I-1, which addresses the decrease in commercial space and increase
in residential density under the proposed project.
19
From: E.T
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 8:13 AM
To: Salvador Quintanilla <squintanilla@fontana.org>
Subject: Ventana Project opposition of increasing homes from 800-1670
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello
Quintanilla
We do not want an increase on higher density residents. The builder wants to double the original
residents and we are objecting because we need new schools, new markets to shop, new stores. In the
amendment the builder is increasing the residents from 870 to 1670 new families. We live here and
there is no more room for the markets. The only shopping area is summit and serves already the
residents in other communities.
Please advice council I have roughly 100 signatures objection the new change from the builder.
Please confirm receipt of this comment!
Thank you,
Erick Torres
Letter I-3
3.1
20
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter I-3
COMMENTER: Erick Torres
DATE: May 16, 2022
Response 3.1
The commenter states concern regarding the increased density of residents, from 870 to 1670 new
families, resulting from the proposed project. The commenter adds that there is already a need for
more schools and shopping centers for current residents and notes that the existing shopping area
along Summit Avenue serves residents in other communities.
The commenter’s opinion that the City should prioritize the development of commercial uses and
schools, rather than residential uses, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the City’s
decisionmakers for consideration. The commenter does not raise any specific environmental issues
or concerns regarding the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR.
See also Response 1.1 of Letter I-1, which addresses the decrease in commercial space and increase
in residential density under the proposed project.
21
22
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter I-4
COMMENTER: Josh and Crystal Smilor
DATE: May 17, 2022
Response 4.1
The commenter states concern regarding the decrease in commercial, shopping, and entertainment
uses and increase in density of residents resulting from the proposed project and objects to the
project Developer’s request. The commenter adds that there is a need for more destination points
to meet the demands of the current and growing population in the city and notes congestion and
traffic issues associated with the residents currently utilizing available shopping centers both within
and outside of the city.
The commenter’s opinion that the City should prioritize the development of commercial and
entertainment uses over residential uses is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the City’s
decisionmakers for consideration.
See also Response 1.1 of Letter I-1, which addresses the decrease in commercial space and increase
in residential density under the proposed project.
With respect to traffic issues, although traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental
impact for purposes of CEQA, a Traffic Study (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR) was prepared for the
proposed project to evaluate the impact the project would have on traffic. The Traffic Study
identifies circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the project and
recommends improvements to resolve identified deficiencies to achieve acceptable operational
conditions at study area intersections and create consistency with the City’s General Plan. Based on
the results of the analysis scenarios for future opening and horizon years, Urban Crossroads
identified various infrastructure recommendations to address potential deficiencies which are
incorporated into the project.
23
24
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter I-5
COMMENTER: Fred Torres
DATE: May 17, 2022
Response 5.1
The commenter states concern regarding the increased density of residents resulting from the
proposed project. The commenter adds that there is a need for more schools and shopping centers
rather than residences.
The commenter’s opinion that the City should prioritize the development of commercial uses and
schools, rather than residential uses, is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the City’s
decisionmakers for consideration.
See also Response 1.1 of Letter I-1, which addresses the decrease in commercial space and increase
in residential density under the proposed project.
Response 5.2
The commenter states concern regarding “water issues, parking issues and many more.”
While the commenter did not elaborate on a specific issue related to water, as discussed in Section
4.15, Utilities and Services Systems, of the Draft SEIR, the construction of any required infrastructure
improvements (e.g., water main, laterals, fire water lanes, hydrants) would not significantly increase
the project’s disturbance area or otherwise cause significant environmental effects. Furthermore, a
Water Supply Assessment was prepared by Water Systems Consulting on October 29, 2020 for the
project, which was subsequently approved by WVWD on December 17, 2020, and is included as
Appendix G to the Draft SEIR. As discussed in Section 4.15, the project would not exceed WVWD’s
projected supply during all normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2040.
Therefore, based on the water demand projections, projected local water supplies are sufficient to
serve the project during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years and impacts would be less than
significant.
The commenter’s concern regarding parking is noted; however, impacts to parking are generally not
considered to be significant environmental impacts for purposes of CEQA. (San Franciscans
Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 697.)
As such, the commenter does not raise any significant environmental issues or raise other issues on
the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR. Furthermore, the commenter
does not elaborate their “many more” concerns, and therefore they cannot be addressed at this
time.
Response 5.3
The commenter requests that the City meet the state housing requirements elsewhere near public
transportation to make up for lack of parking. The commenter adds that no buses currently pass in
the area and rideshare options (i.e., Uber, Lyft) are expensive, thereby creating a problem.
The commenter’s concern regarding parking is noted; however, as previously discussed in Response
5.2, impacts to parking are generally not considered to be a CEQA impact, and the commenter’s
concern regarding parking accordingly does not raise a significant environmental impact.
25
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Nonetheless, consistent with the City’s General Plan, the project would include bus turnouts to
accommodate future bus service in the project area.
26
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Public Hearing Comment 1
COMMENTER: Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Commissioner Ralph Thrasher
DATE: May 3, 2022
Response 1.1
The commenter asked where Planning Area 10 is located on the new plans.
The commenter’s question was answered during the public hearing. Planning Staff clarified that
Planning Area 10 was changed to Planning Area 6, which is also discussed in Section 2, Project
Description, and shown in Figure 2-4 of the Draft SEIR. The commenter does not raise any significant
environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included
in the Draft SEIR.
27
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Public Hearing Comment 2
COMMENTER: Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Secretary Idilio Sanchez
DATE: May 3, 2022
Response 2.1
The commenter questioned if there is a reason for reducing commercial space and increasing
residential space.
The commenter’s question was answered during the public hearing. Planning Staff clarified that by
reducing commercial space, the project incorporated more mixed-use development to combine
commercial, mixed-use, and residential uses space and increase the walkability (e.g., integration of
paseos) of the site. Philip Burum, Deputy City Manager, added shortly after in response to another
comment (see Response 4.4 of Public Hearing Comment 4) that one of the conditions of the City
selling this property to the Developer was to increase residential density to meet a City Council-
driven density number. The commenter does not raise any significant environmental issues or raise
other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR.
28
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Public Hearing Comment 3
COMMENTER: Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Vice Chair Raj Sangha
DATE: May 3, 2022
Response 3.1
The commenter questioned what the ratio of commercial use types would be, specifically the mix of
retail use versus industrial use.
Planning Staff briefly responded to the commenter’s question by clarifying that there are areas
where business parks were integrated such that there would be small commercial buildings with
warehouses behind. Planning Staff added that project details can be revisited at the future
scheduled Planning Commission public hearing and reminded the Commission that the intent of this
hearing was to take comment on the Draft SEIR. The commenter does not raise any significant
environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included
in the Draft SEIR.
29
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Public Hearing Comment 4
COMMENTER: Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Chair Cathline Fort
DATE: May 3, 2022
Response 4.1
The commenter questioned if additional units are anticipated when compared to the existing
Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan approved by the City on March 27, 2007.
The commenter’s question was answered during the public hearing. Planning Staff clarified that the
residential component of the would be increased from 842 units to 1,671 units under the proposed
project when compared to the approved Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan, as shown in Table
2-3 of the Draft SEIR. The commenter does not raise any significant environmental issues or raise
other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR.
Response 4.2
The commenter questioned if there be an increase in height to allow for higher residential density.
The commenter’s question was answered during the public hearing. Planning Staff clarified that the
maximum height of on-site buildings would remain the same when compared to the existing
Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan. The commenter does not raise any significant
environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included
in the Draft SEIR.
Response 4.3
The commenter questioned if the increase in residential units result from the proposed reduction in
commercial space.
The commenter’s question was answered during the public hearing and Planning Staff confirmed
their assumption as correct. The commenter does not raise any significant environmental issues or
raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR.
Response 4.4
The commenter asked about the comments that were received from the West Valley Water District.
The commenter’s question was answered during the public hearing. Planning Staff clarified that the
District submitted comments regarding the procedural and infrastructure installation requirements
to provide adequate water services to the project and noted that the comments were not in
opposition to the project itself or related to the Draft SEIR. See Responses 1.1 through 1.4 of Letter
A-1. Furthermore, to provide more context, Philip Burum, Deputy City Manager, added that one of
the conditions of the City selling this property to the Developer was to increase residential density
to meet a City Council-driven density number. The commenter does not raise any significant
environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included
in the Draft SEIR.
30
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response 4.5
The commenter questioned if the increase in units was to support the regional housing needs
allocation (RHNA).
The commenter’s question was answered during the public hearing. Philip Burum, Deputy City
Manager, confirmed that the increase in units would support the City’s RHNA. Furthermore, as
clarified by Mr. Burum, one of the conditions of the City selling this property to the Developer was
to increase residential density to meet a City Council-driven density number. The commenter does
not raise any significant environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the
environmental analysis included in the Draft SEIR.
31
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Public Hearing Comment 5
COMMENTER: Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Secretary Idilio Sanchez
DATE: May 3, 2022
Response 5.1
The commenter questioned if the City has the infrastructure to support the project.
The commenter’s question was answered during the public hearing. Philip Burum, Deputy City
Manager, confirmed that the nearby roadways are designed to accommodate added traffic and
added that the Developer will incorporate underground infrastructure for added support. Mr.
Burum points to the Traffic Study prepared by Urban Crossroads for the project (Appendix I to the
Draft SEIR), which states that the purpose of the study is to evaluate the potential deficiencies
related to traffic, identify circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of
the project, and to recommend improvements to resolve identified deficiencies to achieve
acceptable operational conditions at study area intersections and create consistency with the City’s
General Plan. Based on the results of the analysis scenarios for future opening and horizon years,
Urban Crossroads identified various infrastructure recommendations to address potential
deficiencies. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft
SEIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to other local infrastructure,
including water, wastewater, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
32
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Public Hearing Comment 6
COMMENTER: Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Vice Chair Raj Sangha
DATE: May 3, 2022
Response 6.1
The commenter provided concerns related to parking in accommodation of increased residential
units.
The commenter’s concern regarding parking is noted; however, the provision of parking is not
considered a CEQA issue. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San
Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 697.) As such, the commenter does not raise any significant
environmental issues or raise other issues on the adequacy of the environmental analysis included
in the Draft SEIR. Nonetheless, consistent with the City’s General Plan, the project would include bus
turnouts to accommodate future bus service in the project area.
33
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Public Hearing Comment 7
COMMENTER: Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Chair Cathline Fort
DATE: May 3, 2022
Response 7.1
The commenter questioned how the increase in residential units would change the outcome of the
traffic study and identified impacts.
To clarify, the Traffic Study conducted by Urban Crossroads (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR) assessed
the proposed project as a new project on the site independent of the approved Ventana at Duncan
Canyon Specific Plan, and thus, all impacts associated with the proposed project are already
identified in the Traffic Study. Jose Alire, Traffic Engineer with Urban Crossroads, stated during the
public hearing that the Traffic Study assessed the land use components of the proposed project and
“started over” to determine infrastructure needs generated by new development and associated
traffic. As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, the project would have less
than significant impacts related to VMT and programs, plans, ordinances, or policies governing the
City’s public transit, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities.
Response 7.2
The commenter questioned if there would be any improvements to biking trails or pedestrian
crossings.
Jose Alire, Traffic Engineer with Urban Crossroads, stated during the public hearing that preparation
of the Traffic Study (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR) included review of the City’s Circulation Element
and future bicycle facilities planned in the Circulation Element. Mr. Alire added that the Traffic Study
references and includes planned bicycle facilities near the project to encourage their completion
and complement the walkable design of the project. Mr. Alire also confirms that proper pedestrian
facilities, which are required to meet ADA and other state requirements, are also included in the
Traffic Study. As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, the project would have
less than significant impacts related to programs, plans, ordinances, or policies governing the City’s
public transit, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities.
34
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Public Hearing Comment 8
COMMENTER: Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Secretary Idilio Sanchez
DATE: May 3, 2022
Response 8.1
The commenter questioned if there are plans of opening Citrus Avenue to the I-15 by adding a new
on- and off-ramp. The commenter added concerns related to the project area being overloaded
with more traffic under a cumulative scenario and questioned if these impacts were analyzed.
Jose Alire, Traffic Engineer with Urban Crossroads, stated during the public hearing that the opening
of Citrus Avenue to I-15 would be a regional matter best answered by the San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and Caltrans as they are the controlling agencies. Mr. Alire
clarified that local agencies, such as City of Fontana, would have to collect their fair shares for
improvements in coordination with SBCTA. With respect to cumulative impacts, Mr. Alire confirmed
that the Traffic Study (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR) analyzes traffic under a cumulative scenario
based on pending and future project information provided by the City. Philip Burum, Deputy City
Manager, further confirmed that added ramps along Citrus Avenue is a Caltrans decision and there
is currently no plan for such improvements.
35
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
36
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Supplemental Environmental Imact Report 3-1
3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project
approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment
(PRC Section 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is intended to track and
ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase. For
each mitigation measure recommended in the Final SEIR, specifications are made herein that
identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department
responsible for oversight.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
3-2
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Air Quality
AQ-1: Transportation Control Measures
The proposed project shall implement transportation
control measures (TCMs) to reduce vehicular emissions to and from the site, which may include the
following:
Ridesharing Programs
Area-wide Carpooling and Vanpooling –
The developer/building managers shall
provide information brochures on carpooling and vanpooling.
Modified Work Schedules – The
developer/building managers shall
encourage commercial and office tenants to allow modified work schedules for
employees.
Park and Ride Facilities – The
developer/building managers shall accommodate the parking of vehicles to
promote carpooling and vanpooling. Ares for future bus stops shall be reserved,
where feasible.
Parking Management
Off-street Parking Controls – Measures to
discourage single-occupant vehicles shall
be implemented through parking controls.
Parking Management Programs – Measures to discourage single-occupant
vehicles (SOV) shall be implemented.
Non-Motorized Strategies
Bicycle Lanes and Storage Facilities –
Bicycle paths and bike racks shall be provided on-site.
Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways shall be provided
throughout the site.
Review and approval of
identified and implemented TCMs.
Prior to the issuance of
a construction permit and during construction
prior to the issuance of
an occupancy permit
Continuous;
throughout construction
activities
City of
Fontana Planning
Department
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Supplemental Environmental Imact Report 3-3
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Telecommunications
Adequate system connections in all homes – Telecommunication systems
shall be provided in residential villages.
Wi-Fi “hot-spots” within the Community –
High-speed wireless local area network shall be provided at select locations on-
site.
The developer shall incorporate the TCMs
above to facilitate the option to select a non- SOV transportation option.
Biological Resources
BIO-1A: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey
A burrowing owl pre-construction clearance survey
shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to ensure that
burrowing owls remain absent from the project site.
In accordance with the CDFW’s Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), two pre-
construction clearance surveys shall be conducted 14 - 30 days, and 24 hours prior to any ground
disturbance or vegetation removal activities.
Verification that the project
Applicant has retained a qualified biologist to prepare
two scheduled burrowing owl
pre-construction clearance surveys.
Review and approval of both
pre-construction clearance
surveys.
Prior to the issuance of
a grading or other construction permit
Once City of
Fontana Planning
Department
BIO-1B: Burrowing Owl Avoidance Measures
A burrowing owl survey shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction to
ensure avoidance of this species. If no occupied
burrows are found, a report shall be submitted to the City and construction may begin without further
actions. If owl burrows are found, a 300-foot buffer zone shall be established around each burrow with an
active nest until the young have fledged and are able
to exit the burrow. For occupied burrows without active nesting or active burrows after the young have
fledged, passive relocation of the owls would be
performed. This shall involve installation of a one-way door at the burrow entrance. The Burrowing Owl
Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California
If no occupied burrows are found from survey, review and
approval of a final report
prepared by a qualified biologist documenting their
lack of presence.
Prior to issuance of a grading or other
construction permit
Once City of Fontana
Planning
Department
If occupied burrows with active
nesting are found from survey, field verification that proper
avoidance buffer zones are
demarcated and enforced around each active burrow
until the young have
Upon discovery of
occupied burrows
Continuous,
throughout construction
activities
near active burrow(s)
Same as above
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
3-4
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993) shall be utilized for
current methods for passive relocation of any owls found during the survey. A qualified biologist shall
conduct the relocation activities and provide construction monitoring during construction activities
near the burrows.
fledged/exited and a qualified
biologist is retained to monitor construction activities near
burrows.
If occupied burrows without
active nesting (or after young have fledged/exited), field
verification of passive relocation of owls conducted
by a qualified biologist.
Upon discovery of
occupied burrows
Continuous,
throughout relocation
activities
Same as above
BIO-1C: Nesting Bird Avoidance
All construction activities shall comply with the MBTA
and CFGC Sections 3503, 3511 and 3513. The MBTA
governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests and prohibits the take of any
migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following measures
shall be implemented:
To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-
status bird species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Commission,
construction activities related to the project,
including but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and
demolition shall occur outside of the bird
breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If construction must begin during the
breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more
than 30 days prior to initiation of construction
activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot inside the
project site disturbance areas. If an active avian
nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall
stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this
buffer shall be expanded to 500 feet.
If project construction
activities/disturbances begin
during bird nesting season (February 1 – August 31),
verification that the project Applicant has retained a
qualified biologist to prepare a
pre-construction nesting bird survey.
Prior to issuance of a
grading or other
construction permit
Once City of
Fontana
Planning Department
Field verification that all inaccessible areas are surveyed by a qualified biologist from
afar using binoculars.
Prior to issuance of a grading or other construction permit
Once Same as above
If active nests are found from survey, field verification that proper avoidance buffer zones
are demarcated and enforced around each active nest.
Upon discovery of active nests Continuous, throughout construction
activities near active
nest(s)
Same as above
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Supplemental Environmental Imact Report 3-5
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Inaccessible areas (e.g., private lands) shall be
surveyed from afar using binoculars to the
extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the
identification of avian species known to occur in
the valley/foothill areas of San Bernardino County. If nests are found, an appropriate
avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist and demarcated by a qualified
biologist with bright orange construction
fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. Effective buffer
distances are highly variable and based on
specific project stage, bird species, stage of nesting cycle, work type, and the tolerance of a
particular bird pair. The buffer may be up to 500 feet in diameter, depending on the species of
nesting bird found and the biologist’s
observations.
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
CUL-2A: Archaeological Resources
a. The City shall designate a qualified archaeologist to monitor all project-related ground disturbing
activities. Archaeological monitoring shall be performed under the guidance and direction of
a Project Archaeologist meeting the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service
1983). A Native American monitor from the
consulting tribes (those tribes that have consulted on the project under AB 52) shall also
be retained to monitor ground disturbing activities. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural
or archaeological resources, all construction
activities in the immediate vicinity (50 feet) of the find shall cease until the find can be
assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction
Retention of a qualified
archaeologist and locally affiliated Native American
monitor to monitor ground-
disturbing activities.
Prior to issuance of a
grading or other construction permit
Once City of
Fontana Planning
Department
If archaeological resources are found, field verification that all
construction activities within
50 feet have ceased.
Upon discovery of archaeological
resources
Continuous, throughout
construction
near resource(s)
Same as above
If archaeological resources are
found, consultation with retained qualified archaeologist
to determine treatment of
resource.
If archaeological resources of
Native American origin are
Upon discovery of
archaeological
resources
Continuous,
throughout
construction
near
resource(s)
Same as above
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
3-6
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
activities shall be evaluated by the qualified
archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant
from a consulting tribe. 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 (including evaluations for CRHR
listing) and curation of these resources. Work may continue on other parts of the project while
evaluation takes place.
b. Monitors shall have the authority to halt and
redirect work should any archaeological resources be identified during monitoring. If
archaeological resources are encountered
during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and the find
evaluated for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Construction monitoring may be reduced or halted at the
discretion of the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, as warranted
by conditions that include, but are not limited to
encountering bedrock, non-native sediments (infill), or negative findings. Should
archaeological spot-checking be recommended
by the Project Archaeologist, it will only occur in areas of new construction, where ground
disturbance will extend to depths not previously reached (unless those depths are within
bedrock). Upon completion of project related
ground disturbance and monitoring efforts, a monitoring report should be submitted to the
City for review and approval. The final report
should be transmitted to the South-Central Coastal Information Center housed at California
State University, Fullerton.
c. 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
found, consultation with Native
American representatives to
determine treatment of resource.
If archaeological resources are
found, review and approval of
treatment plan.
Upon completion of
coordination with
monitors
Once Same as above
Review and approval of final monitoring report. Upon completion of ground-disturbing
activities
Once Same as above
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Supplemental Environmental Imact Report 3-7
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
excavation to remove the resource from its
current location for reburial elsewhere on the
project site. 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 reburied on the project site.
CUL-2B: Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program
A qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the
Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service [NPS]
1983) shall conduct worker environmental awareness
program (WEAP) training, prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities.
The sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, the
regulatory environment, and the proper protocol for treatment and disposition of cultural materials in the
event of a find. The training shall be required for all
earthmoving construction personnel and a sign-in-sheet shall also be required.
Verification that the project
Applicant has retained a qualified archaeologist to
conduct WEAP training.
Prior to the start of
construction activities
Once City of
Fontana Planning
Department
Review and retention of WEAP
training sign-in sheet signed by all trainees.
Prior to the start of
construction activities and during ground-
disturbing activities, as
needed
Continuous;
throughout ground-
disturbing
activities
Same as above
Geology and Soils
GEO-2: Implement Engineering Recommendations
Final design for each planning area shall incorporate
engineering recommendations based on site specific soil investigations, and shall consider collapsible soils,
protection from corrosive soils, and other applicable
soil conditions. More specifically, final design shall incorporate recommendations from the Preliminary
Geological Investigation Approximately 81.1-Acre Site
Duncan Canyon, City of Fontana California, prepared by Converse Consultants in September 2005, or
subsequent analysis.
Review and approval of
implemented geotechnical engineering recommendations.
Prior to issuance of a
grading or other construction permit
Once City of
Fontana Planning
Department
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
3-8
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
GEO-3 Paleontological Monitoring
Monitoring shall be conducted for excavation activities extending to estimated depths of eight feet
or more below the existing ground surface. If required, the paleontologic monitor shall be
equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to
avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of
small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors
are empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large
specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the
subsurface, or if present, are determined upon
exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil
resources. Also, the following measures shall be
made during the monitoring of excavation activities on undisturbed subsurface Pleistocene sediments.
During monitoring, preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and
permanent preservation, including washing of
sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates should occur.
During monitoring, identification and curation of
specimens into a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage should occur.
The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the
initiation of mitigation activities.
During monitoring, preparation of a report of findings with an itemized inventory of
specimens should occur. The report and
inventory, when submitted to the City of Fontana (as the Lead Agency), will signify
completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.
If excavation or other ground-
disturbing activities extend to depths of eight feet or below,
verification that the project
Applicant has retained a qualified paleontologist to
monitor such activities.
Prior to issuance of a
grading or other construction permit
Once City of Fontana
Planning Department
Review and approval of
qualified paleontologist’s written repository agreement.
Prior to the start of
construction activities Once Same as above
If fossils are discovered from
disturbance of previously
undisturbed subsurface Pliestocene sediments,
verification that all finds are
recovered, identified,
preserved, and curated.
Upon discovery of
fossils
Continuous;
throughout ground-
disturbing activities
Same as above
Review and approval of a final
findings report with itemized
inventory of finds.
Upon completion of
ground-disturbing
activities
Once Same as above
If qualified paleontologist confirms full-time monitoring is
not warranted, review and
approval of recommendation
that monitoring be limited.
During initial ground-disturbing activities Once Same as above
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Supplemental Environmental Imact Report 3-9
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
HAZ-1A: Soil Sampling – Phase II ESA
Prior to the start of construction (demolition or
grading), the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional
Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer
(PE), to prepare a Phase II ESA of the project site that will be developed, to determine whether the soil has
been impacted at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for residential/commercial
land uses. The Phase II ESA will be completed prior to
construction and will be focused on the former agricultural use of the property (all Planning Areas),
potential presence of aerially deposited lead
(Planning Areas 3, 4, 5b, and 6), and the onsite presence of undocumented soil piles/trash (Planning
Areas 4 and 6).
As part of the Phase II ESA, the qualified
environmental consultant will screen the analytical results against the San Francisco Regional Water
Quality Control Board environmental screening levels (ESL). These ESLs are risk-based screening levels for
direct exposure of a construction worker under
various depth and land use scenarios. The lead agency will review and approve the Phase II ESA prior
to demolition and grading (construction).
If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates
that contaminants are detected in the subsurface at the project site, the project applicant will take
appropriate steps to protect site workers and the
public. This may include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils (see Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1B) prior to project construction.
If the Phase II ESA for the contaminant site indicates
that contaminants are present at concentrations
exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil and/or groundwater (California
Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24 Characteristics of Toxicity), the project applicant will take appropriate steps to protect site workers and
Verification that the project Applicant has retained a
qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to
prepare a Phase II ESA.
Review and approval of the Phase II ESA.
Prior to the start of construction activities Once City of Fontana
Planning Department
If the Phase II ESA for the
development site indicates that
contaminants are present, verification that the project
Applicant addresses
contamination through appropriate action through
compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1B or -IC (below).
Upon discovery of on-
site contaminants and
prior to the start of construction activities
Continuous,
throughout
remediation activities
Same as above
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
3-10
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
the public. This may include the completion of
remediation (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-1C) at the
proposed project prior to onsite construction.
HAZ-1B: Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils
If impacted soils or other impacted wastes are
present at the project site, the project applicant will
retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prior
to construction. The SMP, or equivalent document,
will be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils or other impacted
wastes, and reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan
must establish remedial measures and/or soil
management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and
the off-site migration of contaminants from the site.
These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
Stockpile management including stormwater
pollution prevention and the installation of
BMPs
Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials
Monitoring and reporting
A health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the safety and health
hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures
for employee protection
The health and safety plan will also outline
proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and
public exposure to hazardous materials during
construction.
The lead agency will review and approve the
development site Soil Management Plan for Impacted
Soils prior to demolition and grading (construction).
If the Phase II ESA for the
development site indicates the presence of impacted soils or
other impacted wastes,
verification that the project Applicant has retained a
qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to
prepare a SMP, or equivalent
document.
Review and approval of the
SMP, or equivalent document.
Upon discovery of on-
site contaminants and prior to the start of
construction activities
Once City of
Fontana Planning
Department
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Supplemental Environmental Imact Report 3-11
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
HAZ-1C: Remediation
If soil present within the construction envelope at the
development site contains chemicals at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening
thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of
Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental
consultant (PG or PE), to conduct additional analytical testing and recommend soil disposal
recommendations, or consider other remedial
engineering controls, as necessary.
The qualified environmental consultant will utilize the development site analytical results for waste
characterization purposes prior to offsite
transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified
environmental consultant will provide disposal
recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted wastes (as
necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.
The project applicant will review and approve the disposal recommendations prior to transportation of
waste soils offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.
Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls,
may require additional delineation of impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling
facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite
disposal or recycling.
The lead agency will review and approve the
development site disposal recommendations prior to
transportation of waste soils offsite and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to
construction.
If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates the
presence of impacted soils with chemicals at concentrations
exceeding applicable
thresholds, verification that the project Applicant has retained
a qualified environmental
consultant (PG or PE) to conduct additional testing,
prepare disposal
recommendations, and identify remedial engineering controls.
Upon discovery of on-site contaminants and
prior to the start of
construction activities
Once City of Fontana
Planning
Department
Verification that the project
Applicant has reviewed and
approved the disposal recommendations and
remedial engineering controls.
Prior to transportation
of waste soils offsite
and prior to the start of construction activities
Once Same as above
Review and approval of the disposal recommendations and
remedial engineering controls.
Prior to transportation of waste soils offsite
and prior to the start of
construction activities
Once Same as above
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
3-12
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Noise
N-3: Exterior-to-Interior Noise Analysis
For residential units where exterior noise levels
exceed 65 dBA CNEL, the project applicant shall coordinate with the project architects and other
contractors to ensure compliance with the 45 dBA
CNEL interior noise level standard. This shall be achieved through additional exterior-to-interior noise
analysis and incorporation of noise attenuation
features once specific building plan information is available. The information in the analysis shall include
wall heights and lengths, room volumes, window and door tables typical for a building plan, as well as
information on other openings in the building shell.
With this specific building plan information, the analysis shall determine the predicted interior noise
levels at the planned on-site buildings. If predicted
noise levels are found to be in excess of the applicable limit, the report shall identify architectural
materials or techniques that could be included to reduce noise levels to the applicable limit. The project
applicant shall comply with mitigation measures
included in the interior noise report to reduce interior noise levels where applicable noise limits are
exceeded.
Verification that the project
Applicant has coordinated with architects/contractors to
comply with 45 CNEL interior
noise standard through additional interior-to-exterior
noise analysis.
Review and approval of exterior-to-interior noise
analysis and noise attenuation architectural materials,
features.
Prior to approval of
project plans once specific building plan
information is available
Once City of
Fontana Planning
Department