Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Project Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds Planning Commission on 163-unit mixed-use project; environmental concerns raised by appellant
Summary
The council denied an appeal and upheld Planning Commission approval of a mixed-use project (163 housing units and 5,000 sq ft retail) at Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue, rejecting claims by SAFER that the site requires more extensive environmental review.
The Fontana City Council denied an appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's August 2025 approval of a mixed-use development that will include 163 multifamily units and about 5,000 square feet of commercial space on roughly 3.5 acres at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue.
Salvador Quintanilla, the project planner, reviewed the site and the record: staff and the applicant prepared a suite of environmental memos and a general biological assessment and concluded the site does not provide suitable habitat for special-status species and meets the Class 32 infill categorical exemption criteria under CEQA. He said the project's health-risk assessment considered air-quality thresholds and indoor-air-quality standards and found impacts would be below significance thresholds when compliance measures are applied.
Haley Uno, speaking for SAFER (Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility), asked the council to grant the appeal and require a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report, citing outside expert reports that alleged the site supports at least eight special-status species and that construction would produce diesel particulate emissions placing nearby sensitive receptors at heightened cancer risk. Uno summarized the appellant's evidence, saying construction DPM emissions could exceed regional thresholds and that indoor formaldehyde risk estimates were concerning.
A resident speaker then urged approval, saying the project provides needed housing and was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. After closing the public hearing, Council member John Roberts moved to deny the appeal and uphold the commission; the motion passed with a recorded vote of 3 in favor and 1 nay (Council member Sandoval).
The council's decision preserves the planning commission's approvals (conditional use permit and design review) and the project will proceed with the conditions and monitoring required by planning staff. The appellant's environmental concerns are now in the record and may be used in any subsequent judicial or administrative review; staff and the applicant asserted that the existing studies meet CEQA standards for a Class 32 infill exemption.
