HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix M - Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to Public Comment
1
CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California 92507 951.781.9310 www.lsa.net
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 18, 2025
TO: Alexia Barbarena, Associate Planner, City of Fontana
FROM: Dionisios Glentis, Senior Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Fontana Walnut Residential Project (Master Case No. 24-0060) Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments
In accordance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency shall consider the
proposed environmental document together with any comments received during the public review
process. Although there is no legal requirement to formally respond to comments on a proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as there is for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), this
memorandum provides responses to the written comments received on the proposed Fontana
Walnut Residential Project (Master Case No. 24-0060) (Project) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) to aid the City of Fontana decision-makers in their review of the proposed
project.
The Draft IS/MND was available for public review and comment from October 17, 2025, to
November 17, 2025. Two comment letters were received on the IS/MND during the public review
period. The comments are attached to this memorandum as Public Comment Letter 1 (Attachment
A) and Public Comment Letter 2 (Attachment B). This memorandum includes a reproduction of the
comment letters received. In the following pages, the topic sections addressed in the comments and
associated responses are enumerated to allow for cross-referencing of CEQA-related comments. As
noted above, CEQA does not require or provide guidance on responding to comments on MNDs;
therefore, this memorandum follows CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, applicable to responses to
comments on EIRs, which requires that agencies respond only to significant environmental issues
raised in connection with the proposed project. Therefore, this document focuses primarily on
responding to comments that relate to the adequacy of the information and environmental analysis
provided in the IS/MND.
The sections below list the comments received during the comment period (Section A), followed by
the enumerated comment sections and responses to the comments (Section B). Neither the
comments nor the following responses to comments constitute “significant new information” (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15073.5) that would require recirculation of the IS/MND or the preparation of an
EIR.
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to Public
Comments.docx) 2
A. COMMENT LETTERS
This memorandum includes a reproduction of the comment letters received on the IS/MND, and
individual comments within the comment letters are numbered consecutively.
The comment letters listed below were submitted to the City regarding the IS/MND.
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER 1
General Partner for Dica Partners
Cecilia Tudor Rose
November 17, 2025
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER 2
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Kim Freeburn, Environmental Program Manager
November 17, 2025
Please note that text within the comment letters that has not been numbered or reproduced herein
does not raise environmental issues or relate to the adequacy of the information or analysis within
the IS/MND and, therefore, no comment is enumerated or response required, per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15132.
B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER 1
General Partner for Dica Partners
Cecilia Tudor Rose
November 17, 2025
Comment 1-1
The letter dated November 17, 2025 from Cecilia Tudor Rose, General Partner for Dica Partners
presents the property owners’ preference for a land use action for Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs)
0194-391-20 and 0256-131-16, totaling 56.1 acres, in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County.
The letter indicates the property owners’ preference of a rezone from Residential Planned
Community (R-PC; 3.0-6.4 du/ac) to Medium Density (R-2; 5.1-12 du/ac) instead of the proposed
Multi Family Medium/High Density Residential (R-4; 24.1-39 du/ac).
The letter states the property owners were not made aware of the proposed rezone action and is
not in line with the vision held by property ownership for these two parcels. The letter also states a
rezone to Medium Density (R-2; 5.1-12 du/ac) would help offset the loss of residential density
proposed by the project, would be consistent with the intent of the City’s General Plan and Housing
Element, and would be more appropriate for the subject parcels based on their location and
surrounding land uses. Finally, the letter indicates a reduced density on the subject parcels would be
more appropriate for residential development in a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ)
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to Public
Comments.docx) 3
because of the provision for more defensible space and reduced potential for the need to evacuate
a substantial number of people in the case of an emergency.
Response 1-1
This comment letter presents the property owners’ preference for a land use action for
Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0194-391-20 and 0256-131-16, collectively referred to in
the IS/MND as the “Upzone Properties,” based on existing land use and zoning of the
Upzone Properties, overcompensation of the proposed Multi Family Medium/High Density
Residential (R-4; 24.1-39 du/ac) zone for these parcels, and potential safety concerns for
development of multiple-family residences within a VHFHSZ. However, the comment letter
does not comment on the merits of the environmental analysis of the IS/MND for the
proposed upzone action from Residential Planned Community (R-PC; 3.0-6.4 du/ac) to Multi
Family Medium/High Density Residential (R-4; 24.1-39 du/ac). The IS/MND details potential
impacts to the environment from land use changes in Section 5.3 (Air Quality), Section 5.11
(Land Use and Planning), and Section 5.14 (Population and Housing). The IS/MND details
potential impacts to the environment from potential development within a VHFHSZ in
Section 5.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), Section 5.15 (Public Services), and Section
5.20 (Wildfire).
This comment letter does not provide specific comments on the adequacy of the analysis of
the proposed upzone action included in the IS/MND. Furthermore, the City has rescinded
the proposed land use actions proposed for the Upzone Properties (General Plan
Amendment No. 24-0007: To change the General Plan land use from R-PC (Residential
Planned Community) to (R-MFMH) for APNs 0194-391-20 and 0256-131-16 and Zone
Change 24-0006: To change zoning from R-PC to R-4 for APNs 0194-391-20 and 0256-131-
16). Accordingly, neither this comment nor the response constitutes new information
requiring recirculation of the IS/MND, and no change in the text of the IS/MND is required.
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER 2
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Kim Freeburn, Environmental Program Manager
November 17, 2025
Comment 2-1
The CDFW summarizes their role as a trustee agency and responsible agency under CEQA to hold
biological resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State and to exercise regulatory
authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. The CDFW also provides a summary of the
proposed project.
Response 2-1
This comment does not provide specific comments on the adequacy of the analysis included
in the IS/MND. Neither this comment nor the response constitutes new information
requiring recirculation of the IS/MND, and no change in the text of the IS/MND is required.
No further response is necessary.
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to Public
Comments.docx) 4
Comment 2-2
The CDFW expresses concern that the IS/MND does not sufficiently identify project impacts to
burrowing owl (BUOW), a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), nor
does it ensure that impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level.
The CDFW agrees with the analysis presented in the IS/MND that states burrowing owl has a high
potential for occurring on the Project site, but the CDFW claims the single reconnaissance survey on
October 5, 2023, between 7:35 – 9:45 am, did not adequately account for potential burrowing owl
on site and that the survey is outdated to reflect current potential occupancy. CDFW also claims that
the current Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (MM BIO-1) may not adequately reduce impacts to BUOW to
less than significant, given their new status as candidate species under CESA.
The CDFW explains that a significant impact to BUOW could occur due to potential occupation of the
site by this species, which was listed as a candidate species under the CESA on October 10, 2024,
and the fact that focused surveys for this species did not occur.
The CDFW then proposes the following revisions to MM BIO-1 (double underline indicates new text,
and strikeout represents deletion of original text):
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused
burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with
the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to
vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for all phases of Project
construction. The Designated Biologist shall provide CDFW a GIS or KMZ map of
BUOW burrow complex(es) and atypical burrows (e.g. culverts, buckled concrete,
etc.) The map shall be at a scale of 1:24,000 or finer to show details and shall show
locations of all BUOW sightings and labeled if sightings were potential burrows,
occupied burrows, satellite burrows, areas of concentrated burrows, and BUOW
sign. Locations documented by use of GPS coordinates must be collected in NAD83
datum. The map shall include an outline of the Project Area. The map shall include a
title, north arrow, scale bar, and legend.
Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted prior to vegetation
clearing or grading of the Residential Development Site and Upzone Properties. Two
surveys are required and shall follow the methods described in the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW’s) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
The first survey shall be conducted between 30 and 14 days before initial ground
disturbance (grading, grubbing, and construction), and the second survey shall be
conducted no more than 24 hours prior to initial ground disturbance. If burrowing
owls and/or suitable burrowing owl burrows are identified on the Residential
Development Site or Upzone Properties during the survey, the project Applicant(s)
shall consult with CDFW and follow the methods listed in the CDFW’s Staff Report
on Burrowing Owl Mitigation for avoidance and/or passive relocation.
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to Public
Comments.docx) 5
If burrowing owl occupancy is confirmed, and if Project activities may impact
burrowing owl, including burrow exclusion and closure, the Project Proponent shall
begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e.,
Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081) prior to
commencement of Project activities. The ITP application shall describe, at a
minimum, project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers, temporary
and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and
minimization and compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory mitigation
will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Permittee-responsible
mitigation land acquisition or 2) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if
available).
If burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl burrows with sign (e.g., whitewash,
pellets, feathers, prey remains) are identified on the Residential Development Site
or Upzone Properties during the survey(s), these features must be completely
avoided. If impacts to those features are unavoidable, then the project Applicant(s)
must develop a burrowing owl mitigation plan in consultation with CDFW.
Mitigation methods may include passive relocation conducted outside of the owl
breeding season (between September 1 and February 28). If an active owl burrow is
identified, and construction is to proceed, then a qualified biologist (with two or
more years of burrowing owl experience) must establish an initial disturbance-limit
buffer of 500 feet around the burrow using flagging or staking. The buffer distance
may be reduced in coordination with CDFW depending on time of year (i.e., in or
out of breeding season), level of construction activity, and observed behavior of the
burrowing owls. Construction activities shall not occur within any buffer zones until
the burrow is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Fontana Community Development
Director or designee.
Response 2-2
The commenter recommends modification to the proposed mitigation measure identified to
reduce impacts to burrowing owls, including the incorporation of focused surveys. CEQA
does not require that focused surveys be conducted for each environmental resource.
Section 15151 states that a CEQA document “should be prepared with a sufficient degree of
analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a
decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences…The courts have
looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full
disclosure”.
ECORP biologists determined potential impacts to burrowing owl without a focused survey.
The Residential Development Site is small (30.71 acres), very disturbed, completely
surrounded by development, and isolated from larger contiguous areas of suitable habitat.
Additionally, there was evidence of regular mechanical ground disturbance (e.g., discing),
likely done for weed abatement purposes, vehicle tracks through the property, and one
abandoned mobile building unit. The Residential Development Site was also adjacent to
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to Public
Comments.docx) 6
residential homes with dogs, and elevated avian predator perches (e.g., power pole and
ornamental trees) were abundant on a parcel adjacent to the site, which reduces the
likelihood of burrowing owl occupancy. The Residential Development Site was assessed for
its ability to support burrowing owl during the biological survey conducted in 2023. Suitable
habitat was present within the disturbed ruderal vegetation, and suitable California ground
squirrel burrows were present in low density on the site. Focused surveys will not provide
any additional information that will change the conclusion that there would be a potentially
significant impact requiring mitigation, and these surveys would not inform new or revised
mitigation to help in avoiding significant impacts (“take”) to burrowing owls. The two
preconstruction surveys proposed under MM BIO-1 would be sufficient to avoid take of
burrow owls.
The City has considered the commenter’s recommendations regarding modifications to
proposed Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and has revised the text accordingly. It should be noted
that the modified mitigation measure “is equivalent or more effective in mitigating or
avoiding potential significant effects and that it in itself will not cause any potentially
significant effect on the environment” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.1).
Accordingly, the following revised MM BIO-1 is proposed:
MM BIO-1: Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted prior to
vegetation clearing or grading of the Residential Development Site and Upzone
Properties. Two surveys are required and shall follow the methods described in
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW’s) Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation. The first survey shall be conducted between 30 and 14 days
before initial ground disturbance (grading, grubbing, and construction), and the
second survey shall be conducted no more than 24 hours prior to initial ground
disturbance.
If burrowing owl occupancy is confirmed during the preconstruction surveys, the
qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl
Management Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior
to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Management Plan shall
describe proposed avoidance, minimization, and monitoring actions. The
Burrowing Owl Management Plan shall include the number and location of
occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted,
details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance
measures if avoidance is proposed. If Project activities are unable to sufficiently
avoid impacts to burrowing owl, the Project Proponent shall begin early
coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take
Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081) prior to commencement of
Project activities. The ITP application shall describe, at a minimum, project
activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent
impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and
compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to Public
Comments.docx) 7
one or more of following options: 1) Permittee-responsible mitigation land
acquisition or 2) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available).
Pursuant to CEQA Section 15073.5(c), recirculation [of the IS/MND] is not required under
the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to
Section 15074.1.
(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the
project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new
avoidable significant effects.
(3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative
declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant
environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
(4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies,
or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.1(a), the City of Fontana, acting as Lead Agency
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, substitutes MM BIO-1 identified in the
IS/MND with the measure presented above in bold text as an equivalent or more effective
measure. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.1(b)(1) and (2), respectively, the City
held a public hearing on the matter on November 18, 2025 and adopted a written finding
that the new measure is equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential
significant effects and that it in itself would not cause any potentially significant effect on
the environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.1(c), no recirculation
of the proposed IS/MND pursuant to Section 15072 is required, as the new mitigation
measure is made a condition of, or is otherwise incorporated into, project approval in
accordance with Section 15074.1.
Comment 2-3
The CDFW expresses concern that the IS/MND does not sufficiently identify project impacts to
Crotch’s bumble bee and does not ensure that impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level.
The CDFW claims the single reconnaissance survey on October 5, 2023 did not adequately account
for potential Crotch’s bumble bee on site since focused surveys were not conducted. The CDFW
explains that a significant impact to Crotch’s bumble bee could occur due to potential occupation of
the site by this species, which is listed as a candidate species under the CESA.
The CDFW then proposes the following revisions to MM BIO-2 (double underline indicates new text,
and strikeout represents deletion of original text):
Mitigation Measure BIO-2/Residential Development Site only Both Sites: If the
Crotch bumble bee is no longer a Candidate or formally Listed species under the
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to Public
Comments.docx) 8
California Endangered Species Act (ESA) at the time ground-disturbing activities
occur, then no additional protection measures are proposed for the species.
Furthermore, if grading and all other initial ground disturbance are restricted to the
period of September-January, no survey or other measure for this species is
required.
If the Crotch bumble bee is legally protected under the California ESA as a Candidate
or Listed species at the time clearing of vegetation or grading are scheduled to
begin, and if vegetation clearing or initial grading is to occur during the period of
February-March (the queen flight season) or April-August (the colony active period),
a preconstruction survey for Crotch bumble bee at both sites shall be conducted in
accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW’s) Survey
Considerations for California ESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species. The survey shall be
conducted prior to ground disturbance and within the same queen flight season or
colony active period in which the ground disturbance is to occur. The survey shall
consist of a minimum of three survey visits, each at least two weeks apart. The
survey shall be completed by a biologist who holds a Memorandum of
Understanding to capture and handle Crotch bumble bee (if a netting and chilling
protocol is to be utilized) or by a CDFW-approved biologist experienced in
identifying native bumble bee species (if surveys are restricted to visual surveys with
photo documentation for species verification).
If Crotch bumble bee is detected, the biologist shall conduct a bumble bee nesting
survey in accordance with CDFW’s Survey Considerations for California ESA
Candidate Bumble Bee Species. If an active Crotch bumble bee nest is detected, the
biologist shall establish a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer (including foraging
resources and flight corridors essential for supporting the colony) around the nest,
which may be adjusted at the direction of the approved biologist in coordination
with CDFW based on behavior of the bees and their ability to continue foraging, to
reduce the risk of disturbance or accidental take. If an active Crotch bumble bee
nest is detected, the biologist shall also coordinate with CDFW to determine if an
Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081 of the California ESA would be required.
The nest avoidance buffer may be removed at the completion of the colony active
period or once the biologist deems the nesting colony is no longer active and CDFW
has provided concurrence of that determination.
If no nest is found but the species is present, a full-time biological monitor with the
qualifications described above or otherwise approved by CDFW shall be present
during ground disturbing activities that occur during the queen flight period or
colony active period. Because bumble bees move nest sites each year, this measure
shall be implemented during each subsequent year of construction, regardless of
the previous year’s findings, whenever ground disturbing activities are to occur and
nesting and foraging habitat are still present. This measure shall be implemented to
the satisfaction of the City of Fontana Community Development Director or
designee.
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to Public
Comments.docx) 9
Response 2-3
The CDFW’s proposed application of MM BIO-2 to both the Residential Development Site
and the Upzone Properties disregards Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO-9, which
require that all future project applicants proposing to develop any portion of the Upzone
Properties prepare a Biological Assessment in conjunction with a project-level analysis. Each
project-level Biological Assessment shall include an analysis of potential impacts to rare
plants and rare natural communities in accordance with the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife’s guidance for Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status
Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Any development that results in the
potential take or substantial loss of occupied habitat for any threatened or endangered
species shall conduct formal consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency and shall
implement required mitigation pursuant to applicable protocols.
Furthermore, the City has rescinded the proposed land use actions proposed for the Upzone
Properties (General Plan Amendment No. 24-0007: To change the General Plan land use
from R-PC (Residential Planned Community) to (R-MFMH) for APNs 0194-391-20 and 0256-
131-16 and Zone Change 24-0006: To change zoning from R-PC to R-4 for APNs 0194-391-20
and 0256-131-16). Accordingly, MM BIO-2 would not apply to the Upzone Properties, and
Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO-9 are rendered moot. Neither this comment nor the
response constitutes new information requiring recirculation of the IS/MND, and no change
in the text of the IS/MND is required.
Comment 2-4
The CDFW states artificial nighttime lighting often results in light pollution, which has the potential
to significantly and adversely affect fish and wildlife, and expresses concern that the IS/MND and
Biological Technical Report do not analyze the impacts of artificial light on biological resources and
include no mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
The CDFW then proposes the following new mitigation measure (double underline indicates new
text):
Mitigation Measure BIO-[3]: Artificial Nightime Light: During Project construction
and the lifetime operations of the Project, the City and Project proponent shall
eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the
use of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife
species are most active. The City and Project proponent shall ensure that temporary
lighting for Project activities is shielded, cast downward and directed away from
surrounding open-space and agricultural areas, reduced in intensity to the greatest
extent possible, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare into
surrounding areas or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky
Association standards at http://darksky.org/). The City and Project proponent shall
ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or
less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic
compounds with a qualified recycler.
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to
Public Comments.docx) 10
Response 2-4
The Residential Development Site is surrounded to the east, west, and south by existing
residential uses, and to the north by Highland Avenue and State Route 210, a major source
of existing nighttime lighting and noise. These adjacent land uses establish the baseline for
the site as an infill site. The surrounding area is already subject to substantial artificial
nighttime lighting from residential streetlights, security lighting, vehicle headlights, and the
freeway (State Route 210). Satellite imagery and ground-level photos confirm the site is
within an area of high existing light pollution and contains no natural habitats, waterways,
or known migration corridors that could attract or concentrate nocturnal/crepuscular
wildlife or migratory birds. Accordingly, development of the site with proposed residential
uses to a similar density as the existing adjacent residential uses would not result in a
substantial change to the baseline conditions of the site.
The IS/MND indicates under Standard Condition NOI-1 that construction shall be limited to
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and no
construction during nighttime hours or Sundays and holidays would be permitted unless it is
approved by the building inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as
defined in Section 18-63(7) of the Municipal Code. The IS/MND also states all lighting on the
Residential Development Site would comply with Section 30-471 (Light and Glare), 30-
476(g)(5) (Lighting), and 30-477(1) (Building Design) of the City Municipal Code, which
requires light shielding, functional and aesthetic design, and compatibility with surrounding
uses. The purpose of these lighting standards is to minimize light pollution, glare, and
spillover, conserve energy resources, and curtail the degradation of the nighttime visual
environment. Additionally, the City’s Design Review process includes consideration of
material composition and colors to reduce the potential for substantial glare from the
proposed development. Since the concept of efficient solar power is to absorb as much light
as possible, while reflecting as little light as possible, standard solar panels produce less
glare and reflection than standard window glass.1
The project is infill development that would introduce lighting typical of suburban
residential uses (streetlights, pathway lighting, recreational-area lighting, and low-level
security lighting) in an area where such lighting already predominately exists. No special-
status bat species, nocturnal mammals, or sensitive migratory bird concentration areas were
identified in the Biological Technical Report or during reconnaissance-level surveys. Given
the urbanized setting and absence of sensitive biological resources that could be
meaningfully affected by minor increases in ambient light, the incremental contribution of
project lighting to light pollution is considered de minimis and less than significant. No
mitigation is required. Neither this comment nor the response constitutes new information
requiring recirculation of the IS/MND, and no change in the text of the IS/MND is required.
1 Colton, Roger D. and Sheehan Fisher. Assessing Rooftop Solar PV Glare in Dense Urban Residential Neighborhoods:
Determining Whether and How Much of a Problem. November 2014. Website:
http://www.fsconline.com/downloads/Papers/2014%2011%20Solar_Glare.pdf. (accessed February 26, 2025).
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to
Public Comments.docx) 11
Comment 2-5
The CDFW requests reporting of any special status species and natural communities detected during
Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and to ensure CDFW fees are
payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency to help defray the cost of
environmental review by CDFW.
Response 2-5
This comment does not provide specific comments on the adequacy of the analysis included
in the IS/MND. Neither this comment nor the response constitutes new information
requiring recirculation of the IS/MND, and no change in the text of the IS/MND is required.
No further response is necessary.
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to
Public Comments.docx) 12
This page intentionally left blank
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to
Public Comments.docx) 13
ATTACHMENT A
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER 1
November 17, 2025
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson
City of Fontana Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Via Email diohnson@fontanaca.gov, rleunq@fontanaca.gov and Planninq@fontanaca.gov
Subject: Letter in Response to Master Case NO. 24-0060, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 24-
0004, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 24-0007, Zone Change Amendment (ZCA) 24-0004, Zone
Change Amendment (ZCA) 24-0006, Tentative Tract Map NO. 24-0009 (TTM 20712), Conditional
Use Permit (CUP), and 24-0023 Design Review Project (DRP) 24-0031
To the Planning Commission, City Council and Staff,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Fontana Walnut
Residential Project (FWRP), which is on the Planning Commission agenda for November 18, 2025.
The FWRP includes the residential development site located at the intersection of Knox Avenue
and S. Highland Avenue in the northern part of the City, and two upzone parcels (identified as
APNs 0194-391-20 and 0256-131-16; upzone properties/subject parcels) located in the
southeastern portion of City of Fontana. The subject parcels have been identified and analyzed
as part of the FWRP and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) as upzoned parcels to
accommodate the net loss of units associated with the proposed rezoning/downzoning of the
residential development site, as described further below.
The FWRP site (residential development site) is currently zoned R-4 (Multi-Family Medium/High
Density Residential), which is intended for higher density multi-family development of up to 39
units per acre. According to the IS/MND for FWRP, based on the current zoning, using the mid-
range density (31.55 du/ac), approximately 963 units could be developed on the 30.53 (net) acre
site. The FWRP proponent is proposing a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to rezone
the FWRP site from R-4 to R-3, which reduces the number of residential units that could be
developed on-site. The FWRP includes a request to approve a development of 393 units. Thus
reducing the mid-range development potential for the site by 570 units.
The subject parcels are identified as APNs 0194-391-20 and 0256-131-16. The parcels are located
in the southeastern portion of City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. They are
bounded by Jurupa Avenue to the north; Locust Avenue to the east; a utility easement to the
south; and a single-family residential community to the west.
Unbeknownst to the property ownership of the subject parcels, the City identified the two subject
parcels as Upzone Properties to accommodate the loss of the units associated with the FWRP.
Comment
LeƩ er
1
1-1
The request includes upzoning these two parcels, totaling 56.1 acres, from Residential Planned
Community (R-PC; 3.0-6.4 du/ac) to Multi Family Medium/High Density Residential (R-4; 24.1-
39.0 du/ac). The proposed upzone is required by the City to offset the proposed downzoning of
the 30.53-acre FWRP site from R-4 to R-3 in order to comply with Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis
Act of 2019) and to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) required by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development. The residential development
potential for the Upzone Properties would increase from a mid-range of 264 units under the
existing zone (R-PC) to a mid-range of 1,770 units under the proposed zone (R-4) which would
increase the residential development potential of the Upzone Properties by approximately 1,506
units.
Zoning DU Range/Acre DU Average/Acre Acres DUs
R-PC 3.0-6.4 4.7 56.1 264
R-4 24.1-39.0 31.55 56.1 1,770
Difference 1,506
The high level of residential density, attached residential unit type and zoning designation,
however, is not in line with the vision held by property ownership for the subject parcels.
Entitlement, development, and market experts, advised property ownership that an R-2 (5.1-12
units per acres) development is the most appropriate zoning designation for these two parcels
based on their location, lack of nearby amenities, development costs, and other key factors. For
the 56.1 acres comprising the two parcels, this would equate to a mid-range of 480 units under
the R-2 zone. Upzoning to the R-2 zoning would accommodate a portion of the required loss of
570 units not realized as part of the FWRP and would accommodate the required density of the
existing parcels. The R-2 zoning would meet the intent of the Housing Element requirement,
would be consistent with the General Plan, and would be acceptable to the property ownership.
Zoning DU Range/Acre DU Average/Acre Acres DUs
R-2 5.1-12 8.55 56.1 480
Furthermore, various data and factors support the ownership-favored zoning of R-2, or a
combination thereof.
Fontana 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029)
o Page 3-152: the subject parcels were not identified as R-4, R-4 Overlay or R-5
Rezone sites.
1-1
cont.
N
il .............-·
i I I• I • • -------·
LEGEND j.
Rvtono
Figure 3-37: Map of Sites for Rezone (South)
JI1
,. .. ,,...
According to the HEU, the City has identified 138 parcels for re-zone to the R-4
residential district in order to accommodate additional low and very low-income
housing units. The identified parcels are vacant or underutilized or are within
neighborhoods where the R-4 zone is appropriate. In total the proposed up-zoned
parcels can accommodate 5,000 units, of which 3,019 are estimated to be
affordable to Low and Very Low-income households.
o Page 3-156: in the inventory of sites, the subject parcels were identified as
Candidate Sites.
1-1
cont.
LECEND CJ Dip4lini) ·:>1oj · ,_.fli:3 CJ C tld1d;, c-Srtc ln nlO!")'
-• Cit;,• Oout".c.;1y
Ao 04 085 17Mlol
Figure 3-39: lrwentory of Sites (Sauth)
ti ,o
<I I I!
.•
• ID
I II ,-' " [1
er '
o Page B-77: the subject parcels are identified as Candidate Sites 334 and 353.
LECEND
"'
Ao 0.225 o..s
1-1
cont.
Gener ldentrfied
Unique PlMI Are.i Si.ze ln .i Max Expected Existing ViilQnt zone/ Rerone Net Net Net Net
10 APN APN JOIN Property Owner Land Zone FBC Sub-Zone Sp-edflc Pl.in (AC) Criteria Previous Density 0-ensity Re0 tb:I (Yes/No) Op :ity Density ( ;t ) Affordable Moderate :.::te
OJCA PARTNERS
Use Cyde
Not Mid Existing Use Updated
334 019439120 019439120 HAL R-PC R-PC 23.73 NA 6.4 3.5 o Yes No re:one 82 0 0 82 Vacant
HAWKE, TIMOTHY
353 025613116 025613116 N R-PC R-PC 32.44 NA 6.4
Source: Table B-16; https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37230/Certified-Housing-Element?bidld=
3.S O Yes No rezone 112 0 0 112 Vacant
1-1
cont.
As indicated above, neither parcel was identified for upzoning in the City's HEU.
•CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer
(https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6a9cb66bb1824cd98756812af41292a0 )
--•'·---_,.... ·---
,._ "'
As indicated in the above graphic, the subject parcels are located within a very high fire hazard
severity zone (VHFHSZ) within a local responsibility area. The R-2 zone allows for single-family
detached dwelling units. While not fact based, several single-family detached dwelling units
would realize more defensible space than multiple dwelling units within a single multi-family
residential building. The separation provided by a single-family home's lot and defensible
space helps mitigate the "home-to-home ignition" threat more effectively than attached
homes where flames can go horizontal in high winds. Access/egress from a single-family home
may also be safer in case of an emergency versus that of a high-density development. The R-
4 zone does not allow for new single-family construction (detached or attached) nor is a
subdivision permitted for the purpose of development of single-family residential lots. It
permits multiple-family dwelling units.
Overall, given that the City's HEU did not identify the subject parcels for upzoning to the R-4 zone;
the HEU did identify numerous other adequate sites for potential R-4 upzoning that could have
been considered for the FWRP; the overcompensation of units elicited by the R-4 upzone by the
FWRP; potential safety concerns for development of multiple-family residences within a VHFHSZ;
and the deviation from ownership's vision for the subject parcels, ownership kindly requests that
the Planning Commission reconsider the upzoning of the subject parcels to the R-4 zone as part
of the FWRP, and instead consider R-2 zoning to better align with the ownership's and the City's
vision (based on the HEU) for the subject parcels.
Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further prior to tomorrow's scheduled
meeting, I may be reached at 828-329-6348 or via email at Cecilia@flavorlst.com. I would
appreciate confirmation that you received this letter and that it will be entered into the record
for discussion in tomorrow's planning meeting.
General Partner for Dica Partners
, .. , ,,
ii•-·
1-1
cont.
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to
Public Comments.docx) 14
This page intentionally left blank
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to
Public Comments.docx) 15
ATTACHMENT B
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER 2
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Blvd C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
November 17, 2025
Sent via email
Alexia Barberena
Associate Planner
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
abarberena@fontanaca.gov
Fontana Walnut Residential Project (PROJECT)
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)
SCH# 2025100627
Dear Alexia Barberena:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to
Adopt an MND from the City of Fontana (Lead Agency) for the Project pursuant the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those
activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of th e Project that
CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own
regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those
resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7,
subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).)
CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and
management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically
sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA,
CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency
environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that
have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need
to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for
example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory
authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the
Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protec ted
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.),
the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and
Game Code.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Diversified Pacific
Objective: The proposed Project includes development of a 393-unit residential project
and associated landscaping, utilities, and site amenities on approximately 30.99 gross
acres (30.53 net acres), known as the Residential Development Site. The proposed
residential units would consist of two-story cluster homes, motor court homes, and
townhomes. The Project also includes the upzone of two parcels (Upzone Properties),
1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines”
are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
Comment
LeƩ er
2
2-1
Alexia Barberena, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
November 17, 2025
Page 2
totaling 56.1 acres, from Residential Planned Community (R-PC) to Multi-Family
Medium/High Density Residential (R-4) and a corresponding General Plan land use
amendment from R-PC to R-MFMH. No development action is proposed on the Upzone
Properties at this time.
The Residential Development Site is proposed to be a gated community with ingress and
egress off Knox Avenue and Walnut Street. The entries would lead to the recreational and
common areas located throughout the Project. The proposed amenities would include a
recreational center with a pool, spa, barbeque and lounging areas. The Project proposes a
park on the northeastern edge of the Residential Project Site, large open grass areas,
including one such area adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, shaded sitting
areas, play areas, and a paseo with playground equipment
Location: The Residential Development Site is located between South Highland Avenue
and Walnut Street, approximately 700 feet south of Interstate 210 in the City of Fontana,
San Bernardino County, California. The Residential Development Site (34.131003, -
117.461867) is comprised of 35 parcels of land including Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
(APNs) 0228-051-01, 0228-051-14 through -17, 0228-051-19 through -21, 0228-052-01,
0228-052-25 through -27, 0228-061-02 through -14, 0228-061-16 through -18, 0228-061-
20 through -25, and 0228-331-05.
The Upzone Properties (APNs 0194-391-20 and 0256-131-16) are located in the
southeastern corner of the City of Fontana. These properties are bounded by Jurupa
Avenue to the north, Locust Avenue to the east, existing unimproved roads and the Jurupa
Hills to the south, and single-family residential uses to the west. The Upzone Properties
are bisected by an unpaved segment of Alder Avenue.
Timeframe: Anticipated 26-month period.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Fontana in
adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant,
direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.
COMMENT 1: Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
IS/MND Section 5.4.1, Page 5-33
Issue: CDFW is concerned that the MND does not sufficiently identify Project impacts
to burrowing owl (BUOW), a candidate species under the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA), nor does it ensure that impacts are mitigated to a level less than
significant. The Project site has the potential to provide suitable foraging
and/or nesting habitat for burrowing owl and thus, project activities may result in the
take of the species as defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 .
Specific impact: CDFW agrees with the MND analysis that burrowing owl has a high
potential for occurring on the Project site. However, CDFW is concerned that the single
reconnaissance survey on October 5, 2023, between 7:35 – 9:45 am, did not
adequately account for potential burrowing owl on site and that the survey is outdated
to reflect current potential occupancy. A focused survey for the species following a
CDFW approved guideline, or similar approach, was not conducted.
Additionally, as noted in the MND and Biological Technical Report, because of
burrowing owls’ high mobility, their occupancy at a site can vary annually . Burrowing
owls have a high potential to move into disturbed areas prior to and during construction
activities. Burrowing owls frequently move into disturbed areas since they are adaptive
2-1 cont.
2-2
Alexia Barberena, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
November 17, 2025
Page 3
to highly modified habitats.2,3 Project activities could result in the take of burrowing
owls, their nests or eggs or could destroy their nesting, foraging, or over-wintering
habitat thereby impacting burrowing owl populations. These specific project activities
include vegetation removal, existing structure removal, grading, soil compaction, heavy
equipment use, and trenching. As noted in the MND, Indirect impacts to BUOW may
also occur due to increased human activity, noise, dust, nighttime lighting, and ground
vibrations.
Lastly, CDFW is concerned that the current Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (MM Bio-1)
would not adequately reduce impacts to BUOW to less than significant, given their new
status as candidate species under CESA. Because of the lack of surrounding
burrowing owl habitat immediately adjacent to the Residential Development Site, and
the high-density project activities that are anticipated to occur on site, BUOW features
may not be avoidable enough fully avoid take.
Why impact would occur: According to the Project’s Biological Technical Report,
focused burrowing owl surveys were not conducted on the Project site. Burrowing owls
have been known to use highly degraded and marginal habitat where existing burrows
are available. As noted in the Biological Technical Report, burrowing owls are well-
adapted to open, relatively flat expanses and vacant lots and prefer habitats with
generally short sparse vegetation with few shrubs such as those occurring on the
Project site. If BUOW burrows are not properly detected (during both the breeding and
non-breeding season), prior to ground disturbance, site preparation , grading, and other
Project Activities could destroy habitat and result in the take of burrowing owl.
Occupied site or occupancy means a site that is assumed occupied if at least one
burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow within the last three years.
Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat may also be indicated by owl sign
including its molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or
excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site.
Evidence impact would be significant: On October 10, 2024, the California Fish and
Game Commission accepted a petition to list Western Burrowing Owl as endangered
under CESA, determining the listing “may be warranted” and advancing the species to
the candidacy stage of the CESA listing process. As a candidate species, Western
Burrowing Owl is granted full protection of a threatened species under CESA. If Project
activities could result in take, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take
Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081) should be obtained prior to
commencement of Project activities. Take of any endangered, threatened, or candidate
species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law
(Fish & G. Code, §§ 86, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §
786.9). Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game
Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Inadequate
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to sensitive or special
status species could result in the Project having a substantial adverse direct, indirect,
and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species by CDFW.
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure to reduce impacts to less
than significant: CDFW recommends that prior to commencing Project, focused and
preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl be conducted by a qualified biologist in
accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.4 If burrowing owls are found
to occupy the Project site and avoidance is not possible, it is important to note that
according to the 2012 Staff Report, passive relocation (also known as exclusion) is not a
take avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and is considered a potentially
significant impact under CEQA. Because appropriate focused surveys were not conducted
prior to circulation of the MND, the MND may not adequately identify potentially significant
2 Chipman, E. D., N. E. McIntyre, R. E. Strauss, M. C. Wallace, J. D. Ray, and C. W. Boal. 2008. Effects of human land use on w estern
burrowing owl foraging and activity budgets. Journal of Raptor Research 42(2): 87-98.
3 Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of
California. Condor 73:162–176
4 California Department of Fish and Game (2012). Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resourc es
Agency. Available for download at:https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline=true
2-2
cont.
Alexia Barberena, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
November 17, 2025
Page 4
impacts. CDFW recommends the IS/MND be revised and recirculated following completion
of surveys so that results and appropriate specific avoidance and minimization measures
can be included, to ensure that impacts to burrowing owls are reduced to less than
significant. However, if the City chooses not to follow this path, CDFW recommends the
following revisions to MM-BIO-1 (edits are in strikethrough and bold) to ensure an
adequate assessment is completed and CESA authorization is obtained, if needed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1/Both sites:
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore,
focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in
accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most
recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground -disturbing activities for all
phases of Project construction. The Designated Biologist shall provide CDFW a
GIS or KMZ map of BUOW burrow complex(es) and atypical burrows (e.g.
culverts, buckled concrete, etc.) The map shall be at a scale of 1:24,000 or finer
to show details and shall show locations of all BUOW sightings and labeled if
sightings were potential burrows, occupied burrows, satellite burrows, areas of
concentrated burrows, and BUOW sign. Locations documented by use of GPS
coordinates must be collected in NAD83 datum. The map shall include an outline
of the Project Area. The map shall include a title, north arrow, scale bar, and
legend.
Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted prior to vegetation
clearing or grading of the Residential Development Site and Upzone Properties. Two
surveys are required and shall follow the methods described in the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW’s) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
The first survey shall be conducted between 30 and 14 days before initial ground
disturbance (grading, grubbing, and construction), and the second survey shall be
conducted no more than 24 hours prior to initial ground disturbance. If burrowing owls
and/or suitable burrowing owl burrows are identified on the Residential Development
Site or Upzone Properties during the survey, the project Applicant(s) shall consult with
CDFW and follow the methods listed in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation for avoidance and/or passive relocation.
If burrowing owl occupancy is confirmed, and if Project activities may impact
burrowing owl, including burrow exclusion and closure, the Project Proponent
shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization
(i.e., Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081) prior
to commencement of Project activities. The ITP application shall describe, at a
minimum, project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers,
temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation,
and minimization and compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory
mitigation will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Permittee-
responsible mitigation land acquisition or 2) Conservation or Mitigation Bank
credits (if available).
If burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl burrows with sign (e.g., whitewash, pellets,
feathers, prey remains) are identified on the Residential Development Site or Upzone
Properties during the survey(s), these features must be completely avoided. If impacts
to those features are unavoidable, then the project Applicant(s) must develop a
burrowing owl mitigation plan in consultation with CDFW. Mitigation methods may
include passive relocation conducted outside of the owl breeding season (between
September 1 and February 28). If an active owl burrow is identified, and construction is
to proceed, then a qualified biologist (with two or more years of burrowing owl
experience) must establish an initial disturbance -limit buffer of 500 feet around the
burrow using flagging or staking. The buffer distance may be reduced in coordination
with CDFW depending on time of year (i.e., in or out of breeding season), level of
construction activity, and observed behavior of the burrowing owls. Construction
activities shall not occur within any buffer zones until the burrow is deemed inactive by
2-2
cont.
Alexia Barberena, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
November 17, 2025
Page 5
the qualified biologist. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
of Fontana Community Development Director or designee.
COMMENT 2: Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii)
IS/MND Section 5.4.1, Page 5-33
Issue: CDFW is concerned that the MND did not sufficiently identify potential Project
impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee and did not provide appropriate measures to fully
mitigate impacts to less than significant. The Project has the potential to result in take
of Crotch’s bumble bee and has the potential to cause permanent or temporary loss of
Crotch’s bumble bee habitat.
Specific impact: The MND and Biological Technical Report note that the species has
a low potential to occur on the Residential Development Site but does state that the site
contains suitable friable soils, suitable burrow habitat, suitable burrows, and nectar
sources found within and adjacent to the Project Area. CDFW is concerned that the
Biological Technical Report’s assumptions for low occurrence without a proper timing
Reconnaissance survey (Oct 5, 2023) and overall lack of focused surveys for the
species, has improperly identified the site as having low potential for occurrence.
Why impact would occur: Crotch’s bumble bee occurs primarily in California,
including the Mediterranean region, Pacific Coast, Western Desert, Great Valley and
adjacent to foothills through most of southwestern California.5 Crotch’s bumble bee are
generalist foragers and have been reported visiting a wide variety of flower plants. The
plant families most commonly associated with Crotch’s bumble bee observations or
collections from California include Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, As teraceae, Lamiaceae,
Boraginaceae and Asclepiadaceae. This is not a comprehensive list, and the species
has been observed foraging and utilizing areas with high levels of disturbance and non-
native plant species. Ground disturbance (e.g., trenching, grading, soil compaction, and
earth-moving activities) and vegetation removal have the potential to destroy Crotch’s
bumble bee burrows. Additionally, these activities create elevated levels of noise,
human activity, dust, ground vibrations, and vegetation disturbance
Evidence impact would be significant : Crotch’s bumble bee is a candidate species
for listing under CESA; therefore, it receives the same legal protection afforded to
endangered or threatened species under CESA pursuant to Fish & G. Code §§ 2074.2
& 2085. If found on-site, the Project could result in crushing or killing Crotch’s bumble
bees, reduction in sufficient food resources such as nectar and pollen, and/or removal
of nesting and overwintering sites. Many bumble bee species, once common in the
western United States, have undergone a dramatic decline in both distribution and
abundance and are now extirpated from much of their historic ranges.6 Many bumble
bees are threatened with extinction due primarily to reductions in habitat from
urbanization, intensive agriculture, and invasive species introductions7. If Crotch’s
bumble bee occurs at the Project site and Project impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee
occur, this could result in a substantial reduction in the species’ population, which could
be a significant impact.
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure to reduce impacts to less
than significant: CDFW recommends the following revisions to MM-BIO-2 (edits are in
strikethrough and bold) to ensure an adequate assessment is completed and CESA
authorization is obtained, if needed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2/Residential Development Site onlyBoth Sites:
5 Williams, P. H., et al. 2014. The Bumble Bees of North America: An Identification Guide. Princeton
University Press, Princeton
6 Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Foltz Jordan, S., Blackburn, M., Code, Aimee. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game
Commission to List Four Species of Bumblebees as Endangered Species.
7 ibid
2-2
cont.
2-3
Alexia Barberena, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
November 17, 2025
Page 6
If the Crotch bumble bee is no longer a Candidate or formally Listed species under the
California Endangered Species Act (ESA) at the time ground -disturbing activities occur,
then no additional protection measures are proposed for the species. Furthermore, if
grading and all other initial ground disturbance are restricted to the period of
September-January, no survey or other measure for this species is required.
If the Crotch bumble bee is legally protected under the California ESA as a Candidate
or Listed species at the time clearing of vegetation or grading are scheduled to begin,
and if vegetation clearing or initial grading is to occur during the period of February-
March (the queen flight season) or April-August (the colony active period), a
preconstruction survey for Crotch bumble bee at both sites shall be conducted in
accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW’s) Survey
Considerations for California ESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species. The survey shall be
conducted prior to ground disturbance and within the same queen flight season or
colony active period in which the ground disturbance is to occur. The survey shall
consist of a minimum of three survey visits, each at least two weeks apart. The survey
shall be completed by a biologist who holds a Memorandum of Understanding to
capture and handle Crotch bumble bee (if a netting and chilling protocol is to be
utilized) or by a CDFW-approved biologist experienced in identifying native bumble bee
species (if surveys are restricted to visual surveys with photo documentation for
species verification).
If Crotch bumble bee is detected, the biologist shall conduct a bumble bee nesting
survey in accordance with CDFW’s Survey Considerations for California ESA
Candidate Bumble Bee Species. If an active Crotch bumble bee nest is detected, the
biologist shall establish a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer (including foraging resources
and flight corridors essential for supporting the colony) around the nest, which may be
adjusted at the direction of the approved biologist in coordination with CDFW based on
behavior of the bees and their ability to continue foraging, to reduce the risk of
disturbance or accidental take. If an active Crotch bumble bee nest is detected, the
biologist shall also coordinate with CDFW to determine if an Incidental Take Permit
under Section 2081 of the California ESA would be required. The nest avoidance buffer
may be removed at the completion of the colony active period or once the biologist
deems the nesting colony is no longer active and CDFW has provided concurrence of
that determination.
If no nest is found but the species is present, a full-time biological monitor with the
qualifications described above or otherwise approved by CDFW shall be present during
ground disturbing activities that occur during the queen flight period or colony active
period. Because bumble bees move nest sites each year, this measure shall be
implemented during each subsequent year of construction, regardless of the previous
year’s findings, whenever ground disturbing activities are to occur and nesting and
foraging habitat are still present. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction
of the City of Fontana Community Development Director or designee.
COMMENT 3: Artificial Nighttime Light
Section 2.3, Page 2-7 – 2-10
Issue: The MND’s Project Description, Section 2, describes that lighting installation will
be included in Project Activities. However, CDFW is concerned that the MND and
Biological Technical Report do not analyze the impacts of artificial light on biological
resources and includes no mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than
significant.
Specific impact: The proposed Project will result in new sources of artificial nighttime
lighting. Impacts to biological resources resulting from the use of temporary artificial
nighttime lighting during construction and permanent installation of artificial lighting are
not analyzed, and no mitigation measures are proposed. Designs for temporary lighting
to be used during Project Activities should be included in a revised MND, along with
details of the permanent artificial nighttime lighting to be used post-construction. The
2-3
cont.
2-4
Alexia Barberena, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
November 17, 2025
Page 7
direct and indirect impacts of temporary and permanent artificial nighttime lighting on
biological resources, including migratory birds that fly at night, bats, and other nocturnal
and crepuscular wildlife, should be analyzed, and appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures to reduce impacts to less than significant should be included in
a revised MND.
Evidence impact would be significant: Artificial nighttime lighting often results in light
pollution, which has the potential to significantly and adversely affect fish and wildlife.
Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal
niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement
of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal
cycles; the detection of resources and natural enemies; and navigat ion.8 Many species
use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song9), determining when to begin
foraging,10 behavior thermoregulation,11 and migration.12 Phototaxis, a phenomenon
which results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and
temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it .13 Conversely, other species may
have reduced foraging success or reduced nighttime activity in artificially illuminated
environments.14
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure : Because of the potential
for artificial nighttime light to negatively impact wildlife, CDFW recommends the MND
be revised to include direct and indirect impacts of temporary artificial nighttime lighting
proposed for construction and direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of permanent
installation of artificial nighttime lighting. The MND should also include specific
avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that impacts to wildlife are reduced to
less than significant. Absent an analysis, CDFW recommends the City include the
following mitigation measure in a revised MND:
MM BIO-[3]: Artificial Nighttime Light
During Project construction and the lifetime operations of the Project, the C ity
and Project proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the
Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light at night during the hours
of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The C ity and
Project proponent shall ensure that temporary lighting for Project activities is
shielded, cast downward and directed away from surrounding open -space and
agricultural areas, reduced in intens ity to the greatest extent possible, and does
not result in lighting trespass including glare into surrounding areas or upward
into the night sky (see the International Dark -Sky Association standards at
http://darksky.org/). The City and Project proponent shall ensure use of LED
lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper
disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic
compounds with a qualified recycler.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative
declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or
supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).)
Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected
during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB
8 Gatson, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T., Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic a ppraisal.
Biological Reviews
9 Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor
108:130–139
10 Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19:1123–1127. Elsevier Ltd.
11 Beiswenger, R. E. 1977. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temper ature.
Ecology 58:98–108.
12 Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution – Review. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191 –198.
13 Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution
14 Gatson, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T., Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution
2-4
cont.
2-5
Alexia Barberena, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
November 17, 2025
Page 8
field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to
CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-
and-Animals.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of
environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the
Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of
environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is
required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal.
Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City of Fontana in
identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.
Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Amelia Viera,
Environmental Scientist at (909) 544-2528 or Amelia.Viera@wildlife.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager
ec: Eric Kawamura-Chan
Senior Environmental Scientist, Supervisor
Eric.Chan@wildlife.ca.gov
Office of Planning and Research
State Clearing House, Sacramento
state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov
Attachments
Attachment A: MMRP for CDFW – Proposed Mitigation Measures
2-5
cont.
11/18/25 (P:\2024\20241904_Walnut Residential Project\IS-MND\Public Review Draft\PUBLIC COMMENTS\Fontana Walnut Residential Project_Responses to
Public Comments.docx) 16
This page intentionally left blank