HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-017 - ResolutionRESOLUTION NO.2021-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE, MAKING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Central Park Master Plan
update to reVision the remaining available parks space and identify smaller, buildable sections
comprised of financially responsible amenities in the westerly 73.4 acres of undeveloped land at
Central Park, located at the north west corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue (the
"Project").
2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA guidelines, the City concluded that there was substantial
evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources.
3. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, on November 18, 2019, the City
published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the Project, and circulated the NOP
and initial study to the Office of Planning and Research, the County Clerk, responsible and trustee
agencies, governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the
application for a 30-day public review period.
4. The City received comments from two public agencies in response to the NOP.
5. The City also initiated consultation with two tribes in the area, the Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, in accordance with
the City's obligations under AB 52.
6. The City released the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period beginning October
13, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020. During the public review period the City received a
total of 4 comment letters on the Draft EIR, and the City has prepared responses to each
comment.
7. The EIR concludes that with the inclusion of mitigation measures, the Project will not
have a significant impact on any environmental resources.
8. The City prepared a Final EIR in accordance with CEQA, which contains the City's
responses to comments, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project,
the Draft EIR as modified by the Final EIR, and all appendices.
9. On April 7, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the Project and concluded the hearing on that date.
10. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Resolution No. 2021-017 - Page 1 of 6
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Findings. Based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR,
together with its appendices, and all other available evidence presented to the City Council during
the above -referenced public hearing on April 7, 2021, including written and oral staff reports and
public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample
notice and opportunity to comment on the EIR and the Project.
b. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving the Project, make one or more of the following written findings for each significant effect
identified in the Final EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR;
ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or
iii. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
These required findings are set forth in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by this reference.
C. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less
than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 3.2 of Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
d. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant,
but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Section 3.3
of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
e. No environmental impacts were identified in the Final EIR as significant and
unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, and a statement further
confirming this conclusion is provided in Section 3.4 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
f. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting
Resolution No. 2021-017 - Page 2 of 6
program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance
with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is
attached hereto as Exhibit B and is hereby incorporated herein by reference. Further, the
mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project.
g. Prior to taking action on the Final EIR and approving the Project, the City
Council specifically finds and certifies that: (1) the Final EIR was presented to the City Council;
(2) the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information and data in
the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and
hearings; (3) the Final EIR is adequate and has been completed in full compliance with CEQA;
and (4) the Final EIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis.
h. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have
produced any substantial new information requiring additional recirculation or additional
environmental review of the Project under CEQA.
3. Determination. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the
administrative record before it, the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR, adopts findings
pursuant to the CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached hereto
as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
4. Location of Record. The documents and other materials, including the staff
reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, and specifications, that constitute the record on
which this Resolution is based are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of
the Planning Director, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. All such
documents are incorporated herein by reference.
5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2021-017 - Page 3 of 6
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 71h day of April 2021.
F4P r � WWAJOV�: / N
KAIIM
C. r
ATTEST:
lti . Reynolds, City Cler
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of
April 2021.
AYES: Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael, Scott, Spagnolo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
Executed this 8th day of April, 2021, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
C. Reynolds, City
Resolution No. 2021-017 - Page 4 of 6
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
Resolution No. 2021-017 - Page 5 of 6
Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Resolution No. 2021-017 - Page 6 of 6
FINAL
CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN
RANCHO UPDATE REVISION
CUCAMONGA FINDINGS OF FACT
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION
CEQA Findings of Fact
State Clearinghouse No. 2019110342
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Contact: Jeff Benson
Prepared by:
OTETRA TECH
17885 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500
Irvine, California 92614
Contact: Paula Fell
March 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
CHAPTER 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW...........................................................................1-1
1.1
Introduction.........................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Project Location..................................................................................................1-1
1.3
Project Objectives..............................................................................................1-1
1.4
Project Description.............................................................................................1-2
1.5
Project Implementation Schedule.......................................................................1-2
1.6
Existing Setting...................................................................................................1-3
1.6.1 City of Rancho Cucamonga....................................................................1-3
1.6.2 Central Park Characteristics...................................................................1-3
1.6.3 Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning..........................................1-3
1.6.4 Surrounding Land Uses..........................................................................1-3
CHAPTER
2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS .................. .................. ........ ........... ... ................. ........... 2-1
2.1
Purpose of Public Review..................................................................................2-1
2.2
Public Review Period and Notifications..............................................................2-1
2.3
Custodian and Location of the Record...............................................................2-2
2.4
Independent Judgement.....................................................................................2-2
2.5
Findings on the Environmental Impact Report ...................................................2-3
2.6
General Findings on Mitigation Measures..........................................................2-3
CHAPTER
3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS...........................................3-1
3.1
Overview............................................................................................................3-1
3.2
Findings Regarding Impacts Identified in the EIR to be Less Than Significant
RequiringNo Mitigation......................................................................................3-1
3.2.1 Aesthetics...............................................................................................3-1
3.2.2 Agricultural Resources............................................................................3-2
3.2.3 Air Quality...............................................................................................3-3
3.2.4 Biological Resources..............................................................................3-3
3.2.5 Cultural Resources.................................................................................3-4
3.2.6 Energy....................................................................................................3-4
3.2.7 Geology and Soils...................................................................................3-5
3.2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.........................................................3-6
3.2.9 Hydrology and Water Resources............................................................3-7
3.2.10 Land Use and Planning..........................................................................3-8
3.2.11 Mineral Resources..................................................................................3-8
3.2.12 Noise......................................................................................................3-8
3.2.13 Population and Housing..........................................................................3-9
3.2.14 Public Services.......................................................................................3-9
3.2.15 Recreation..............................................................................................3-9
3.2.16 Transportation.......................................................................................3-10
3.2.17 Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................3-10
3.2.18 Wildfire..................................................................................................3-11
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 TOC-i
jt�rvcno
(1tranumc,A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.3 Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant ..................
3.3.1 Air Quality.........................................................................................
3.3.2 Biological Resources........................................................................
3.3.3 Cultural Resources...........................................................................
3.3.4 Geology and Soils.............................................................................
3.3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................
3.3.6 Noise................................................................................................
3.3.7 Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................
3.4 Findings Regarding Impacts Identified in the EIR to be Significant and
Unavoidable.................................................................................................
3.5 Growth Inducing Impacts..............................................................................
3.6 Irreversible Environmental Changes............................................................
..3-12
..3-13
..3-15
..3-20
..3-22
..3-23
..3-25
..3-26
3-28
3-28
3-29
CHAPTER 4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT.....................................................4-1
4.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected as Infeasible..........................................4-1
4.2 Selection of Alternatives Considered in the Program EIR..................................4-1
4.2.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative......................................................4-2
CHAPTER 5 CERTIFICATION OF THE PROGRAM EIR............................................5-1
CHAPTER 6 ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................... 6-1
CHAPTER7 REFERENCES.......................................................................................7-1
TABLES
Table 3.3-1. Localized Significance Analysis...........................................................................3-14
Program EIR Table 3.3-1. Acreage of Anticipated Direct Impacts on Jurisdictional Areas
within Project Site Element Areas......................................................................................3-17
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 TOC-ii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AB
Assembly Bill
BUOW
burrowing owl
CaIEEMod
California Emissions Estimator Model®
CDFW
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
City
City of Rancho Cucamonga
CVWD
Cucamonga Valley Water District
dBA
A -weighted sound level
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
HCP
Habitat Conservation Plan
MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
NOP
Notice of Preparation
PEIR
Program Environmental Impact Report
PM10
particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter
PM2.5
particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter
PRC
Public Resource Code
Project
Central Park Amphitheater Project
RCFD
Rancho Cucamonga Fire District
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC
South Central Coastal Information Center
SWPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
WDR
Waste Discharge Requirement
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 ACR-i
*.V
RA-1 o
CUCAMONGA
This page intentionally left blank
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 ACR-ii
CHAPTER 1
PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
In 1984, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) acquired approximately 103.4 gross acres of land
northwest of the corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road for a park that would serve the
whole City and become a major public resource on the order of other great parks in other major
cities. A Central Park Master Plan was developed in the late 1980s, however, no revenue was
available at the time for plan development. In the early 2000s, the Goldy S. Lewis Community
Center, the James L. Brulte Senior Center, and the Central Park Playground were developed.
Negative economic conditions had not allowed for the development of the remainder of the park.
In 2017, the City Council approved efforts for a Central Park Master Plan Update. As part of the
Central Park Master Plan Update, the City conducted an extensive community outreach and
public input process. This outreach process was intended to highlight the historical design and
development efforts to date on Central Park and to seek public input for its future and ultimate
development. A combination of local community workshops, online surveys, social networking,
and a live Facebook broadcast were conducted to develop the resulting Central Park Master Plan
Update reVISION. The Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION reflects the historical design
philosophy, is responsive to the past planning efforts, includes modern community inspired
recreation elements, and incorporates a phased approach providing for fiscally achievable project
segments ranging in size from 1 acre to 11 acres (proposed Project). Implementation of the
proposed Project requires the approval of the Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION, Final
Site Plans, and certification of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
1.2 Project Location
The City's Central Park is located approximately in the center of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
at 11200 Base Line Road, and is within Section 36 of Township 1 North, Range 7 West, on the
Guasti, Califomia, U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map (1980). Bounded on the
south by Base Line Road and on the east by Milliken Avenue, the park is approximately 2.5 miles
west of Interstate 15, 3.7 miles north of Interstate 10, and 0.7 miles south of the State Route 210
in Rancho Cucamonga.
1.3 Project Objectives
Throughout the last 30 years the vision for Central Park revolved around an Olmstedian
Philosophy. The idea that a design's psychology and the visual effects on people can be an
antidote to the stress and artificiality of urban life.
In order to ensure that the proposed Project is characterized by community inspired recreation
elements, functional integrity, dynamic economic responsiveness, environmental sensitivity, and
aesthetic quality, the following objectives have been identified for the proposed Project:
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 1-1
S
RA-10
CUC:AMONGA
1 — PROJECT OVERVIEW
1. To develop a comprehensive planning document that will establish the preliminary land
use development for the balance of the Central Park area.
2. To create a unique recreational facility in the City with a variety of active and passive
recreational opportunities and amenities accessible within the community and offering
multiple options for pedestrian mobility and non -vehicular access.
3. To identify a variety of recreational opportunities designed to be implemented in small
(1-11 acres) buildable sections in Central Park responsive to evolving, economic
conditions and City-wide recreational needs.
4. To implement a landscape concept that features drought -tolerant plant materials that
create an aesthetically pleasing, thematically coherent outdoor environment while
minimizing demand for water resources.
1.4 Project Description
The Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION is a comprehensive planning document which
defines the development of the remaining, undeveloped land located west of the existing Senior
and Community Centers at Central Park. It identifies smaller (1-11 acres), buildable sections
comprised of financially responsible amenities, so that when funding becomes available, park
development could continue within the framework of a comprehensive community inspired vision.
The proposed Project includes all the elements presented in the Central Park Master Plan Update
reVISION with the exception of the amphitheater element which has been analyzed under a
separate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document, see Section 2.1.
The proposed Project is composed of recreation areas and elements that relate to the existing
open drainage channel spine and is anchored by the Senior and Community Centers to the east
and the proposed Recreation Pool, Multi -Purpose Facility, and Tennis Courts to the west. The
park will provide a variety of both active and passive zones and uses for groups of all ages. The
Universal Accessible Playground will provide access and opportunity for people of all ages and
abilities to promote play, physical activity, sociability, and learning. The Adventure Area will
promote a unique outdoor experience for personal physical development, leadership, and team
building. The park also features the "Great Lawn", Viticulture Pavilion, a flexible park area for large
community event gatherings and celebrations. The smaller parcel sizes will allow the City flexibility
to develop portions of the park as funds become available.
1.5 Project Implementation Schedule
The proposed Project has been designed to allow the City flexibility to develop portions of the
park as funds become available. Several of the proposed Project elements have the potential to
be constructed in the relatively near future.
Construction of Element A - Pacific Electric Trail Head, Element B - Terraced Gardens, and
Element C - Water Conservation/Demonstration Garden is expected to be completed in 2024,
subject to funding availability. Construction of Element J - Dog Park is expected to begin second
quarter 2021 and be completed in 2022. Element L - Recreation Pool is expected to be completed
in 2024, subject to funding availability.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 1-2
1 — PROJECT OVERVIEW
tZ�ncrio
(;i�csn�otice
The expected buildout of the remainder of the Project is not known at this time. For the purposes
of evaluation, it is assumed in the Final Program EIR, that the design and construction of all the
proposed Project's elements would occur over a 20- to 30-year period.
1.6 Existing Setting
1.6.1 City of Rancho Cucamonga
The City covers approximately 24,709 acres, with another 1,842 acres within the City's Sphere of
Influence. Existing land uses within the City include a range of residential, commercial, industrial,
open space, and institutional uses, with the majority of residential uses located north of Foothill
Boulevard and industrial uses largely located south of Foothill Boulevard. The estimated 2019
population of Rancho Cucamonga was 179,412 (DOF 2019).
The City has approximately 348 acres of parkland and recreational facilities. These include 25
neighborhood parks, three community parks, and eight special use facilities. In addition, the City's
Multi -Use Regional and Community Trails add approximately 295 acres of land for recreational
use. The trails provide a network of interconnecting off -road, urban, and wilderness trails that
allow horseback riding, hiking, jogging, running, bicycling, and walking into open space areas and
connect the residential areas to commercial activity centers.
1.6.2 Central Park Characteristics
The site is relatively flat and ranges in elevation from approximately 1,300 to 1,360 feet.
Approximately 30 acres on the east end of the park is currently developed. This includes a 57,000
square foot facility, home to the Goldy S. Lewis Community Center and James L. Brulte Senior
Center. The facility offers meeting rooms, event halls, and courtyard, and is the setting for many
programs, classes, and special events offered to the public year-round. Other attractions within
Central Park include the Central Park Playground with two children's play equipment areas, the
Central Park Pavilion, a shade pavilion with picnic tables and barbeques, access to the multi-
purpose Pacific Electric Trail, and Freedom Courtyard, a reflection site where families and friends
come to pay tribute and honor the service and sacrifices of veterans past, present and future. The
remaining acres of Central Park remains undeveloped due to funding constraints. This area is
comprised of disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat.
1.6.3 Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning
The Central Park site has a General Plan land use designation of Public Facilities - Parks and a
zoning designation of Terra Vista Planned Community (PC -TV).
1.6.4 Surrounding Land Uses
Uses surrounding the proposed Project site include existing Central Park facilities, residential
uses, Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, and commercial uses. The existing Central Park
facilities are located on the eastern third of the Central Park site. The majority of the surrounding
uses are single family residential uses found all around the Central Park boundaries. Deer Creek
Flood Control Channel is located on the western boundary of the Central Park site. Commercial
uses are located at the southeast and southwest corners of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road
and at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 1-3
4
tZ.a�rno
(;ca4n�onra
This page intentionally left blank
1 — PROJECT OVERVIEW
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 1-4
CHAPTER 2
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
2.1 Purpose of Public Review
CEQA Guidelines Section 15201 states: "Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA
process. Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public
involvement, formal and informal, consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in order to
receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to the agency's activities.
Such procedures should include, whenever possible, making environmental information available
in electronic format on the Internet, on a web site maintained or utilized by the public agency."
The City has invited public input during the EIR preparation process, including providing
opportunities to review and comment during the scoping process and during Draft Program EIR
circulation, as discussed further in Section 2.2, below.
CEQA (Public Resource Code [PRC] Section 21082.2(b)) explains that, "Statements in an
environmental impact report and comments concerning an environmental impact report shall not
be determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment."
According to CEQA, it is the responsibility of the lead agency decision makers to "determine
whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence
in the record." Substantial evidence is defined as facts, fact -related reasonable assumptions, and
expert opinion. "Substantial evidence" does not include arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated
opinion or narrative, clearly erroneous evidence, or socioeconomic impacts not related to the
physical environment (PRC Sections 21080(e), 21082.2(a), 21082.2(c), and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15384).
2.2 Public Review Period and Notifications
In accordance with both the specific requirements and the intent of CEQA, the environmental
review process for the proposed Project has included substantial opportunities for public and
agency review and comment on the environmental evaluations. The Draft Program EIR was
prepared following input from the public, responsible agencies, and affected agencies through the
EIR scoping process, which included the following:
• In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared
and distributed to responsible agencies, affected agencies, and other interested parties
on November 17, 2020.
• The NOP was posted in the County Clerk's office for 30 days. The NOP was submitted to
the State Clearinghouse to officially solicit participation from interested public agencies in
determining the scope of the Program EIR.
• Information requested and input provided during the 30-day public review period,
regarding the contents of the NOP and the scope of the Program EIR, were incorporated
in the Draft Program EIR.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 2_1
_s
R,vcno,.
2 — CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
• A Notice of Completion for the Draft Program EIR was filed with the State of California
Clearinghouse and an Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability was posted on the City's
internet website, and published in the local paper, and mailed to organizations and
agencies that previously expressed interest in the proposed Project during the public
scoping period.
• The Draft Program EIR was circulated for review and comment between October 7, 2020
and November 23, 2020.
• The Draft Program EIR was made available to download for public review from the
following sites:
o City of Rancho Cucamonga Website: https://www.cityofrc.us/current-projects
o CEQAnet Web Portal: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019110342/2
• Copies of the Draft Program EIR were provided, upon request, to responsible, trustee,
and other federal, state, and local agencies expected or known to have expertise or
interest in the resources that the proposed Project may affect.
• Copies of the Draft Program EIR or notices of the Draft Program EIR's availability were
sent to organizations and individuals with special expertise on environmental impacts
and/or who had previously expressed an interest in this proposed Project.
The Final Program EIR has been provided to commenting agencies, organizations, and
individuals prior to the proposed Project hearings before City decision -makers. Notice of the
availability of the Final Program EIR was also provided to agencies, organizations, and the public
who have previously expressed an interest in the proposed Project but did not comment on the
Draft Program EIR.
2.3 Custodian and Location of the Record
As provided under CEQA the lead agency, in this case the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is
designated as the Custodian of the environmental review document. The Custodian must provide
accessibility to the general public for the document and associated records prepared as part of
the review process and designate a location where these records are stored.
Findings: The documents and othermaterials, which constitute the record of proceedings for the
City's approval of this proposed Project, are located in the City Planning Directors Office within
the Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
2.4 Independent Judgement
The City retained Tetra Tech, Inc. of Irvine, California to prepare the Program EIR documents for
the proposed Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION Project. The Program EIR was prepared
under the supervision and direction of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services
Department staff and reflects the independent judgment of the City staff and the City Council.
Findings: The Program EIR reflects the City's independent judgment exercised in accordance
with CEQA Section 21082.1(c) by reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the
consultant; circulating the Draft Program EIR as a City document and certifying that the Program
EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 2-2
r
Rnctio l'
Cecanuucn
2 — CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
2.5 Findings on the Environmental Impact Report
In determining that an EIR was required for the City's consideration of the proposed Project, the
City determined that a Program EIR was the appropriate approach based on CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15168 (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15168). The City's significance
thresholds were used to assess the proposed Project impacts on individual resources. The
significance thresholds were provided for each resource area for which impacts were evaluated.
The impact analysis discusses potential impacts in the order of the thresholds presented for each
resource area.
Findings: The proposed Central Park Master Plan Update re VISION Project has the potential to
result in significant impacts on the environment and the proposed Project is anticipated to be
constructed in phases. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR is the required
environmental documentation for the City's consideration of the proposed Project.
2.6 General Findings on Mitigation Measures
The City will incorporate the mitigation measures from the Program EIR into the proposed Project
as it is built out.
Findings: The City Council adopted all mitigation measures recommended by the Program EIR
and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, the MMRP's mitigation
measures are intended to be the mitigation measures as worded in the Program EIR.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 2.3
l
RAN<:no
CI'{;AAtOft(iA
This page intentionally left blank
2 — CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 2-4
CHAPTER 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
3.1 Overview
The City's staff report, the Program EIR, written and oral testimony at public hearings, and these
facts, findings and other information in the administrative record serve as the basis for the City's
environmental determination. The Final Program EIR includes revisions to the Draft Program EIR,
public comments, the City's responses, and the MMRP. The detailed analyses of potential
environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the proposed Central Park Master
Plan Update reVISION Project are presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft Program EIR. Written
comments and the City's responses are provided in Chapter 4 of the Final Program EIR.
Presented below are the environmental findings made by this Council after its review of the
documents referenced above, as well as the written and oral comments on the proposed Central
Park Master Plan Update reVISION Project presented at the City Council public hearing. Factual
discussion in this document summarizes the information contained in the Program EIR and the
administrative record upon which this Council bases its decision to certify the Program EIR and
approve the proposed Project.
The Program EIR prepared for the proposed Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION Project
evaluated nine major environmental categories (air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials,
noise, transportation, and Tribal cultural resources) for potential significant adverse impacts. Both
project specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these nine major environmental
categories, the Council concurs with the conclusions in the Program EIR that the issues and sub -
issues discussed below can be mitigated below a significant impact threshold.
3.2 Findings Regarding Impacts Identified in the EIR to be Less
Than Significant Requiring No Mitigation
The following issues were identified by the City as having the potential to cause a significant
impact and were carried forward to the Program EIR for detailed evaluation. These issues were
found in the Program EIR as having no potential to cause significant impact and therefore require
no project -specific mitigation. In the following discussion, each resource issue is identified and
the potential for significant adverse environmental effects is discussed.
3.2.1 Aesthetics
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway?
Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-1
*s
RAM 110
CUCAMONGA
3 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - FINDINGS
Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
While the proposed Project would add development elements to foreground vistas, impacts to
local aesthetics are expected to be less than significant, or non-existent because:
• Background views of the San Gabriel Mountains would not be blocked,
• The proposed Project site is not in the "viewshed" of any designated or eligible State
scenic highway,
• The proposed Project site currently does not contain trees, rock outcroppings, or historic
buildings,
• The proposed Project will be consistent with the General Plan and the development
standards for Special Boulevards, and will be consistent with the currently developed
portion of Central Park,
• The proposed Project will be required to comply with site lighting standards (as defined in
the City's Development Code), thereby reducing any potential for light impacts on
neighboring properties, and
• No proposed structures will include reflective finishes, so it will not create any daytime
glare.
3.2.2 Agricultural Resources
Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
PRC Section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Govemment Code section 51104(g))?
Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or
nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
No Prime or Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance currently exists within the
proposed Project site or vicinity. The proposed Project site is not zoned for any agricultural uses
nor is it part of a Williamson Act contract, and the implementation of the proposed Project would
not result in any impacts to existing zoning for agricultural use or to Williamson Act land. The
proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -
forest use. Finally, there is no farmland or forest land located within or near the proposed Project
site, and the proposed Project would not involve any changes that could result in the loss or
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-2
1
jjsnceo
Cl<:jAfo!�GA
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
conversion of farmland or forest land to other uses. As a result of these factors, no impacts to
agricultural resources are expected occur because of the proposed Project.
3.2.3 Air Quality
Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The proposed Project would not conflict with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan, as it would not result in long-term regional impacts or
result in a change in dwelling units or occupants and is, therefore, considered consistent with the
SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan and no significant impact will occur.
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for
which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
The cumulative emissions associated with the proposed Project would not be considerable
because the emissions fall below significance thresholds for those pollutants. Unmitigated
construction emissions as well as operational emissions for the full development fall well below
SCAQMD Regional Significant Thresholds and no significant impact will occur.
Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
During proposed Project -related construction activities, various diesel -powered vehicles and
equipment could create minor odors. These odors are not likely to be noticeable beyond the
immediate vicinity and would be temporary and short-lived due to rapid dissipation. No long-term
odor impacts would occur with project implementation and project impact would be less than
significant.
3.2.4 Biological Resources
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
The proposed Project site is not located within the boundary of, nor does it contain undeveloped
natural lands subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), a natural community
conservation plan or other approved local, regional, or state HCP. As a result, the proposed
Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, natural community conservation
plan, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No sensitive vegetation communities or riparian habitats were observed within or adjacent to the
proposed Project site; therefore, no direct impacts on sensitive vegetation communities or riparian
habitats are anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed Project and mitigation is
not required.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-3
s
jj�nceo
Ci r,nn�once
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed Project site was determined not to function as a wildlife movement corridor;
therefore, no direct impacts on fish or wildlife movement are anticipated as a result of
implementation of the proposed Project. No native wildlife nursery sites, such as bird rookeries or
bat roosts, were observed within or adjacent to the proposed Project site; therefore, no direct or
indirect impacts on native wildlife nursery sites are anticipated as a result of implementation of
the proposed Project and mitigation is not required.
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No trees protected by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance were observed within or adjacent
to the proposed Project site; therefore, no direct or indirect impacts on protected trees are
anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed Project and mitigation is not required.
3.2.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
No human remains or cemeteries were identified as a result of the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) search and pedestrian field survey. Existing regulations found in
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, defined actions required that if unknown human remains
and/or cultural items are inadvertently discovered. By complying with the existing regulations,
impacts associated with disturbing any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries, will be less than significant.
3.2.6 Energy
Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Both construction and operation of the proposed Project would lead to the consumption of limited,
slowly renewable, and non-renewable resources, committing such resources to uses that future
generations would be unable to reverse. The proposed Project would require the commitment of
resources that include: (1) building materials; (2) fuel and operational materials/resources; and
(3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the proposed Project. However, the
proposed Project's energy consumption is expected to be reduced through the implementation of
all applicable regulations and codes, including the CALGreen code.
The proposed Project will comply with all applicable regulations and codes which require
achievement of various levels of energy efficiency in building construction, design and operation.
The consumption of such resources would represent a long-term commitment of those resources.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-4
1 i
jtnncno
Crr<:nnuman
3 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - FINDINGS
The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the proposed Project
would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life
of the proposed Project. However, use of such resources will be short-term and minimal during
construction and operation will not result in energy consumption requiring a significant increase
in energy production for the energy provider. In addition, the proposed Project will comply with all
applicable regulations and codes.
The proposed Project would not result in excessive long-term operational energy demand and
will not result in energy consumption requiring a significant increase in production by the energy
provider. The proposed Project is not expected to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency, so no impacts are expected. In addition, the energy
demand associated with the proposed Project will be relatively small and therefore presents a
less than significant impact.
3.2.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Is the project located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Is the project located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Would the project have soils that are incapable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Most of the resource issues related to geology and soils fall into less than significant or no impact
categories. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to substantial impacts
involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. The proposed Project site is not
located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, but small portions of Project Elements M
and O will be located in the City's Low Ground Rupture Potential Zone. No critical facilities are
proposed for these areas, however, in addition to design -level geotechnical recommendations
that will be prepared for the proposed Project, design and construction of the proposed Project
will comply with seismic safety requirements of the City's General Plan and the California Building
Code. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that potential hazards from earthquake
fault rupture or strong seismic shaking would be less than significant. The proposed Project
location is not a landslide -prone area since the land in the vicinity is relatively flat. The proposed
Project would be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program under the jurisdiction of the State Water
Resources Control Board. This would result in the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-5
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
ttnhc:�io
(;ccn,umcn
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address erosion and discharge impacts associated with the
proposed on -site grading. Although no concerns over unstable geologic units or soil series were
identified, compliance with the City's Building Regulations will ensure that a proper geotechnical
investigation is performed to rule out these issues. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater
systems will be constructed as part of the proposed Project. The conclusions of these evaluations
were that impacts due to geologic or soil factors would either be less than significant or non-
existent.
3.2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Is the project located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Would the project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Most of the resource issues related to hazards and hazardous materials were evaluated as having
no impact, or a less than significant impact. The proposed Project site is not included on the list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC
2019; CWRCB 2019). The proposed Project site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or
public use airport; therefore, it would not result in a safety hazard nor produce excessive noise
for people residing or working in the proposed Project area. Proposed Project construction
activities will not hinder any emergency evacuation that may become necessary within the
surrounding properties. At no time will any of the surrounding streets be completely closed to
traffic to accommodate construction equipment or activities. Plans would be reviewed by the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire District (RCFD) to ensure compliance with Fire Protection Standards,
Guidance Documents, and the California Fire Code. In addition, the existing vegetation fuel
management plan for Central Park will continue to be implemented for the undeveloped portions
of the Park. The proposed Project would not contribute to wildland fire hazards and is actually
expected to reduce such risks. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would involve
the transport, storage, use and/or disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials, such as
fuels, solvents, degreasers and paints, however, the proposed Project will comply with regulation
and documentation which address hazardous materials and potential effects due to use or
transport of hazardous materials would be less than significant. The proposed Project is within
0.25 miles of an existing school, Victoria Groves Elementary School located approximately
0.23 miles to the north, however, because substantial federal, state and local regulations
addressing the transport, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials are in place, the
potential for impacts and risks from hazardous emissions, including to schools, would be less than
significant.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-6
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
3.2.9 Hydrology and Water Resources
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that
would: (i).Result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site?; (ii). Substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site?;
(iii). Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
As noted under the Geology and Soils discussion above (Section 3.2.5), a SWPPP will be
prepared for the proposed Project, which, along with a required Water Quality Management Plan
will minimize short-term impacts to water quality during construction phase work. To address long-
term water quality concerns the proposed Project will use a combination of phased directional
flow conveyances (for collection and infiltration of surface water) and bioretention basins for
treatment of storm water runoff. Bioretention basins are designed to incorporate an engineered
soil media to assist in plant uptake of pollutants. The bioretention basin also allows infiltration into
on -site soils and engineered soil media. When the infiltration rate of the underlying soil is
exceeded, the treated flows are discharged through an underdrain system. Also, because the
bioretention basin may decrease site runoff in comparison to existing conditions, post -project
conditions would not contribute excessive runoff water that could exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems.
Construction of all the proposed Project elements will reduce existing impervious area in the
proposed Project site by approximately 25 percent, while the remaining 75 percent of the
impervious area will remain in place. The relatively small increase in impervious surface is not
expected to result in any significant change to groundwater recharge opportunity. In addition, the
proposed Project site is not within an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground.
The proposed Project will result in little, if any, reduction of groundwater recharge and will comply
with the water service requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) and RCFD,
impacts to groundwater supply would be less than significant.
The proposed Project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain, nor any flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones. Therefore, no impacts associated with these hazards would occur.
Adherence to the requirements of NPDES, SWPPP, and Best Management Practices would
reduce impacts related to the potential for erosion, siltation, or hazardous materials spills impacts
during construction to a less than significant level. The post -construction drainage pattern within
the proposed Project site will include both phased directional flow conveyances and bioretention
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3_7
r
S
ttnticc,o
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
basins for treatment of storm water runoff. When the infiltration rate of the underlying soil is
exceeded, the treated flows are discharged through an underdrain system. The proposed
Project's bioretention/water treatment basins would reduce impacts to surface water quality to
less than significant.
3.2.10 Land Use and Planning
Would the project physically divide an established community? Would the project cause a
significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Land uses surrounding the proposed Project site include residential uses, commercial uses, and
the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel. The proposed Project area is urbanized with park,
residential, and commercial land uses. Development of the proposed Project site would not hinder
pedestrians or travelers on the adjacent streets or sidewalks from accessing other areas in the
surrounding community. Therefore, the proposed Project would not divide an established
community and no impact would occur. The proposed Project would not conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed
Project; therefore, no impacts would occur.
3.2.11 Mineral Resources
Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
There are no oil, gas, or geothermal resources in Central Park or the surrounding area, and no
mineral recovery activities currently transpire in the proposed Project area, therefore, no impacts
would occur.
3.2.12 Noise
For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Would the project result in generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Two resource issues related to noise impacts were determined to result in less than significant
impacts, airport noise exposure, and ground borne noise and vibration exposure.
There is no public airport or public use airport located within 2 miles of the proposed Project site.
The proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the proposed Project area
to excessive noise levels associated with a public airport and no impact would occur.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-8
s
RAN( -
CUCAMONGA
3 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - FINDINGS
Project construction and site grading would require the use of equipment that could generate
ground borne vibration and noise, however, these levels will not result in significant impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors and impacts associated with construction vibration levels will be less
than significant. Project operations do not include any vibratory equipment and would not cause
a vibratory impact to sensitive receptors.
3.2.13 Population and Housing
Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g.,
by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure) ?
Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed Project would not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or other uses
that would result in direct population growth or infrastructure that indirectly results in population
growth. Construction of the proposed Project would not require the removal or obstruction of
existing housing and thus would not require the displacement of people or the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur.
3.2.14 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives
for any of the public services: i.) Fire Protection, ii.) Police Protection, iii.) Schools, iv.) Parks, v.)
Other Public Facilities.
Less than significant to no impacts are expected to public services required for the area because
of the proposed Project. As no population increases are associated with the proposed Project, no
associated increases in demands on public services are expected. Development plans would be
reviewed by the RCFD to ensure compliance with the RCFD's Fire Protection Standards,
Guidance Documents, and the California Fire Code. No significant impacts would occur.
3.2.15 Recreation
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
As no population increases are associated with the proposed Project, no associated increases in
demands on existing recreation facilities are expected. The environmental impacts associated
with the construction of the proposed Project will not result in any significant impacts.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-9
r
S -
]Z--10
CU AMONGA
3 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - FINDINGS
3.2.16 Transportation
Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
These environmental resource issues related to transportation requirements for the proposed
Project were assessed to have no or less than significant impacts.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable regulations, and thus will
(a) provide a safe and efficient circulation system; (b) appropriate locations and numbers of
parking spaces; and (c) compliance with the requirements of the proposed Project's
encroachment permit for construction activities. By complying with all applicable regulations, no
significant impacts associated with circulation systems or parking requirements are expected.
The proposed Project is expected to draw visitors from the local community because it will provide
amenities closer to many Rancho Cucamonga residents and thus is anticipated to shorten existing
trips. The proposed Project is estimated to generate fewer trips than the current average for the
City, which is the recommended threshold proposed in the Technical Advisory (OPR 2018).
Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact related to vehicle
miles traveled.
The proposed Project does not include the construction of any structure or feature that would
substantially increase hazards due to a design feature, and would be required to design,
construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities to allow for adequate emergency
access and evacuation routes. No impacts are expected.
3.2.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the providers existing commitments?
Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental impacts to, or from, utilities or service systems address concerns over various
conveyance systems (infrastructure), water supply, wastewater treatment capacity, solid waste
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-10
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
jt{vctio
(;rc.i�umcn
disposal capacity, and the regulated reduction in generating trash (solid waste). The proposed
Project is not expected to cause anything more than less than significant impacts to these
systems.
The proposed Project will obtain approvals for, and then construct connections to existing water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunications systems adjacent to the proposed Project site. Construction of these
connections would result in temporary and minor impacts to air quality (see Section 3.3.1), noise
(see Section 3.3.6), and traffic (see Section 3.2.16) during construction activities, but these will
be reduced to a less than significant level by following applicable rules, regulations, and
mitigations.
Currently there is sufficient water supply available to the City to serve this proposed Project. The
CVWD has established conditions that development projects in its service area must meet and
the RCFD has established standards to satisfy fire flow requirements. By complying with the water
service requirements of the CVWD and RCFD, impacts to water supply would be less than
significant.
CVWD collects and conveys wastewater generated within the CVD service area through the
sewer collection system which is conveyed to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA)
wastewater treatment facilities for treatment. Wastewater from the proposed Project would be
treated at the IEUA RP-4 treatment plant. The plant's average daily treatment flow of 10 million
gallons per day is below its treatment capacity of 14 million gallons per day. The wastewater
generated by the proposed Project would be expected to be well within the capacity of the RP-4
treatment plant and impacts to wastewater treatment systems would be less than significant.
The amount of solid waste generated by the proposed Project and disposed of in the nearby
landfill during its operation, is expected to be within the permitted capacity of this landfill. Given
these considerations, and with recycling required by the City implemented during all construction
phases of the proposed Project, potential impacts associated with solid waste capacity will not be
significant.
The City would develop a collection program for recyclables (e.g., paper, plastics, glass and
aluminum) similar to the current program for the existing Central Park facilities. The proposed
Project would comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act and City requirements for solid
waste generated during the construction process; therefore, no impact would occur.
3.2.18 Wildfire
Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-11
r
Rnrrlio
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Potential environmental impacts from the proposed Project exacerbating wildfire conditions would
result in less than significant to no impact.
The proposed Project would provide adequate vehicular access along public roads and Project
driveways (both during construction and after), thereby accommodating access for all emergency
vehicles. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and any
impacts would be less than significant.
Development plans would be reviewed by the RCFD to ensure compliance with the RCFD's Fire
Protection Standards, Guidance Documents, and the California Fire Code. In addition, the existing
vegetation fuel management plan for Central Park will continue to be implemented for the
undeveloped portions of the Park as long as needed. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
contribute to and would likely reduce fire hazard risk and no significant impact would occur.
3.3 Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant
This section includes findings for project impacts which are potentially significant but can be
mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures. The
Council finds that all potentially significant impacts of this proposed Project as listed below can
and will be mitigated, reduced or avoided by the implementation of mitigation measures. Specific
findings of this Council for each category of such impacts are set forth below in this section.
CEQA Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which
an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant
effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both
of the following occur:
(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each
significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a) the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social,
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-12
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
jtAvcFio
cc<.Anuaar;A
technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the
environment.
This City hereby finds, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081, that the following potential
environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance, based upon the
implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Program EIR.
Each proposed mitigation measure discussed in this section of the findings is assigned a code
letter correlating it with the environmental category used in the MMRP included in Chapter 5 of
the Final Program EIR.
3.3.1 Air Quality
Potentially Significant Impacts
IMPACT 4.1-2: Air Quality: Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Facts
The proposed Project is planned for incremental construction of individual "Elements" over a long-
term schedule that likely will not have multiple Elements under construction at any given time.
With that in mind, the worst -case Element construction and operation emissions were calculated
using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model. The analysis assumed that construction
activities would comply with applicable portions of SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding the control of
fugitive dust. Table 3.3-1 summarizes the on -site construction and operation emissions for the
worst -case study scenario with comparison to Localized Significance Thresholds. Table 3.3-1
shows that emissions from construction of each Element would fall below local emissions
thresholds with mitigation, resulting in a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is
based on SCAQMD Rule 403, and detailed below, would be applied and would reduce the
proposed Project's construction particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM,o) and
particulate matter 25 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5) levels below local emissions
thresholds. Emissions from operation of each Element, as well as the full park development,
would also result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the construction and operation local
criteria pollutant impacts would be less than significant levels and would not violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-13
_S _ I,
RANCFl0
CUCAMONGA
Table 3.3-1. Localized Significance Analysis
Construction
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
Unmitigated
40
21
20
12
Mitigated
40
21
10
6
Localized Significance Threshold (lbs/day)
270
2193
16
9
Exceeds Localized Significance Threshold?
No
No
I No
No
Operation
Area Sources — Worst -case Element (9.5-acre)
<1
<1
<1
<1
Area Sources — Full Development (61-acre)
<1
<1
<1
<1
Localized Significance Threshold (lbs/day)
270
2193
4
2
Exceed Localized Significance Threshold?
No
No
No
No
a. Compiled using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model, provided in Appendix B.
b. PM10 and PM2.e emissions estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression.
Mitigation Measure
AIR-1: Air Quality: Reducing Air Pollutant Emissions. The proposed Project will be
required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing air pollutant
emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best
available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain
visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In
addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementing dust suppression techniques
to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Implementing these dust
suppression techniques will reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10
component). Compliance with these rules will reduce impacts on nearby sensitive
receptors. Standard requirements and Best Management Practices include the
following:
• Equipment/vehicles shall not be left idling for periods in excess of five minutes.
• Engines shall be maintained in good working order to reduce emissions.
• On -site electrical power connections shall be made available where feasible.
• Low -sulfur diesel fuel shall be utilized.
• Electric and gasoline powered equipment shall be substituted for diesel
powered equipment where feasible.
• Exposed soils and haul roads shall be watered at a minimum of twice per day
to reduce fugitive dust during grading/construction activities, if necessary.
Findings
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with the implementation of mitigation measure
AIR-1, adverse effects associated air quality will be reduced, ensuring that no significant air quality
impacts occur with implementation of the proposed Project.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-14
i
nnjj4ncno
`'1'i:.1AfOM1GA
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
IMPACT 4.1-4: Air Quality: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Facts
The proposed Project site is adjacent to single family residential land to the north, south and west;
and the existing Community Center/Senior Center to the east. The proposed Project involves
construction of park facilities, during which time nearby sensitive receptors could potentially be
affected. The closest residence to the construction footprint is approximately 60 feet. The
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold look -up tables at a minimum receptor -source
distance of 25 meters (82 feet) were used for Source Receptor Area 32 Northwest San Bernardino
Valley for a five -acre maximum daily disturbance area. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
AIR-1, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in emissions of criteria
pollutants in excess of established thresholds. Because emissions of toxic air contaminants from
diesel -powered construction equipment are expected to be minimal, intermittent, and of short
duration, the proposed Project is not expected to substantially increase ambient concentrations
of toxic air contaminants regionally or locally. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As such, localized impacts to off -site
sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
See AIR-1: Air Quality: Reducing Air Pollutant Emissions, under Impact 4.1-2.
3.3.2 Biological Resources
Potentially Significant Impacts
IMPACT 4.2-1: Biological Resources: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Facts
No listed or sensitive plant species were observed within the proposed Project site and all special -
status plant species in the plant inventory do not have more than a low potential to exist; therefore,
no direct impacts on listed or sensitive plants are expected from implementing the proposed
Project. In addition, the developed lands bordering the proposed Project site are not expected to
support listed or sensitive plants; therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to have direct
or indirect impacts on listed plants and mitigation is not required. No listed wildlife species were
observed or detected within the proposed Project site and all the listed species in the wildlife
inventory have no potential to exist; therefore, no direct impacts on listed wildlife are anticipated
as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. In addition, the developed lands bordering
the proposed Project site are not anticipated to support listed wildlife; therefore, no indirect
impacts on listed wildlife are anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed Project.
The proposed Project is not anticipated to have direct or indirect impacts on listed wildlife and
mitigation is not required.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-15
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
R�tictio
(�iu:anu�u:a
The proposed Project site also supports shrub vegetation and other physical features that could
potentially provide foraging, nesting, and cover habitats to support bird species (year-round
residents, seasonal residents, and migrants). The proposed Project will permanently impact and
remove all habitats located within the proposed Project's footprints; therefore, breeding birds, their
nests, young, or eggs could potentially be directly and/or indirectly impacted by the proposed
Project should they exist within or adjacent to the proposed Project's footprints during construction
activities. Implementing Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 will help to avoid, eliminate and/or
reduce impacts on breeding birds, their nests, young, or eggs.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1: Biological Resources: Pre -Construction Burrowing Owls (BUOW) And
Breeding Bird Survey Within 14 Days Prior To Construction. A qualified
biologist shall conduct a 14-day pre -construction focused BUOW survey and
breeding bird survey. The pre -construction BUOW survey (Take Avoidance
Survey) shall be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (CDFG 2012) no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance
activities. The survey may detect changes in BUOW presence such as colonizing
BUOWs that have recently moved onto the site, migrating BUOWs, resident
BUOWs changing burrow use, or young of the year that are still present and have
not dispersed (CDFG 2012).
Following the completion of the survey, the biologist shall prepare a memo
summarizing the results of the survey. The memo shall be submitted to the City
and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFW) prior to initiating any ground
disturbance activities.
If no BUOWs, signs of BUOWs, or breeding birds are observed during the survey
and concurrence is received from CDFW, project activities may begin, and no
further mitigation would be required.
If BUOWs or signs of BUOWs are observed during the survey, the site shall be
considered occupied. The biologist shall contact the City and CDFW to assist in
the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, prior to
commencing project activities. If an active bird nest (not a BUOW nest) is located
during the pre -construction survey and potentially would be disturbed, a no -activity
buffer zone shall be delineated on maps and marked (flagging or other means) up
to 500 feet for special -status avian species and raptors, or 100 feet for non -special
status avian species. The limits of the buffer shall be demarcated to not provide a
specific indicator of the location of the nest to predators or people. Materials used
to demarcate the nests shall be removed as soon as work is complete, or the
fledglings have left the nest. The biologist shall determine the appropriate size of
the buffer zone based on the type of activities planned near the nest and bird
species because some bird species are more tolerant than others to noise and
other disturbances. Buffer zones shall not be disturbed until a qualified biologist
determines that the nest is inactive. Additionally, the area shall not be disturbed
until the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents,
the young have left the area, or the young would no longer be impacted by project
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-16
S
RAN( fl0
CUI AUONGA
BIO-2:
Findings
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
activities. The results of the 14-day pre -construction BUOW survey will be valid for
14 days.
If construction is delayed more than 14 days, then the 14-day pre -construction
BUOW survey must be repeated.
Biological Resources: Pre -Construction BUOW And Breeding Bird Survey
Within 24 Hours Prior To Construction. In addition to the 14-day pre -
construction BUOW survey, a 24-hour pre -construction BUOW survey and
breeding bird survey shall be conducted following the same measures described
above in Mitigation Measure 1310-1. The results of the 24-hour pre -construction
BUOW survey shall be valid for 24 hours. If construction is delayed more than 24
hours, then the 24-hour preconstruction BUOW survey shall be repeated.
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with the implementation of mitigation measures
B10-1 and B10-2, adverse effects on breeding birds, their nests, young, or eggs will be reduced,
ensuring that no significant impacts occur with implementation of the proposed Project.
IMPACT 4.2-3: Biological Resources: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Facts
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the loss and removal of all jurisdictional
areas located within Project Elements B, C, E, I, K, M, and 0 (Program EIR Table 3.3-1). These
direct impacts would trigger the need for permits. Direct impacts to jurisdictional areas will be
reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1310-3. There would
be no direct impacts to jurisdictional areas associated with the development of Project Elements
A, F, G, H, J, N. No mitigation would be required for development of these Project Elements.
Program EIR Table 3.3-1. Acreage of Anticipated Direct Impacts on Jurisdictional Areas
within Project Site Element Areas
A: Pacific Electric Trail Head
0
0
0
0
B: Terraced Gardens
0.005
136
0.005
136
C: Water Conservation/Demonstration Garden
0.008
240
0.008
240
E: Universal Accessible Playground
0.0002
4
0.0002
4
F: Viticulture Pavilion and Vineyards
0
0
0
0
G: Upper Picnic and Event Area
0
0
0
0
H: Event Parking Area
0
0
0
0
I: Adventure Area Parking and Event/Picnic Area
0.037
979
0.037
979
J: Dog Park
0
0
0
0
K: Multi -purpose Facility and Parking
0.002
40
0.002
40
L: Recreation Pool
0.005
198
0.029
198
M: Tennis Courts
0.010
257
0.010
257
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-17
it3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
Deer Creek is a jurisdictional channel located adjacent to the west of the proposed Project. Deer
Creek will not be directly impacted by the proposed Project; however, there is a potential for
indirect impacts on Deer Creek as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. Project
work crews shall be directed to use industry accepted and standard construction Best
Management Practices, where applicable, to avoid, eliminate, and/or reduce potential
construction -related impacts on biological resources. These Best Management Practices shall be
identified prior to construction and incorporated into the construction operations. Best
Management Practices shall be monitored and revamped if necessary, to ensure maximum
erosion, sediment, and pollution control. Indirect impacts to jurisdictional areas will be reduced to
less than significant with the implementation of industry accepted and standard construction Best
Management Practices.
There are no United States Army Corps of Engineers defined wetlands based on the absence of
hydric soil indicators, hydrophytic vegetation and/or wetland hydrology. The proposed Project
would have no adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Mitigation Measure
BIO-3 Permits for Impacts on Jurisdictional Areas. Impacts on jurisdictional areas will
require permits; therefore, the City shall need to obtain the following permits for
the development of Project Elements B, C, E, I, K, M, and O:
• Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB).
• Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFW.
To follow Porter -Cologne and the California Fish and Game Code, the City shall
obtain these permits prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the
Project Elements B, C, E, I, K, M, and O, and prior to any impacts on jurisdictional
areas. These permits and approvals would mandate Best Management Practices,
avoidance and protection measures, and/or compensatory mitigation measures for
impacts on sensitive biological resources and jurisdictional areas. The amount of
mitigation required, and specific mitigation details would be determined through
the permitting process with the regulatory agencies. All measures to protect
waters, water quality, fish, and wildlife resources would be incorporated into the
proposed Project design as appropriate. Compliance with the requirements of the
regulatory agency programs and implementation of the mitigation measures
required by the permits would offset the loss of jurisdictional areas and mitigate
the proposed Project's impacts to less than significant levels. Copies of permits
including any extensions and amendments, approvals, and biological reports and
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-18
s
(js�ccio
(;i�cenuma
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
plans shall be available to all persons who will be working on the proposed Project.
These documents shall be available at the work site during periods of work and
shall be presented upon request by any resource agency personnel with a
reasonable reason for making such a request. Resource agency personnel may
enter the proposed Project site at any time to verify compliance with the permits,
approvals, reports, and plans.
Central Park is in an area of San Bernardino County that is under the jurisdiction
of the following resource agencies' field offices:
• CDFW: Inland Desert Region 6.
• RWQCB: Regional Board 8 - Santa Ana Region.
Waste Discharge Requirements
Project Elements B, C, E, I, K, M, and O contain Waters of the State that will be
unavoidably impacted by the proposed Project; therefore, the City will need to
obtain authorization from the RWQCB. The City will need to apply for and obtain
WDRs from the RWQCB prior to impacting the drainages.
Section 13260 of the California Water Code states that persons discharging or
proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of Waters of the State,
other than into a community sewer system, will file a Report of Waste Discharge
with RWQCB. The City will prepare and submit an application permit package to
the RWQCB. The application permit package constitutes a Report of Waste
Discharge pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260. The permit package
will be used to start the application process for all WDRs. Prior to any impacts on
jurisdictional Waters of the State, the City would obtain WDRs from the RWQCB
pursuant to Porter -Cologne. The permit will mandate Best Management Practices,
avoidance and protection measures, and/or compensatory mitigation measures for
impacts on jurisdictional Waters of the State. Compliance with the RWQCB's
WDRs and implementation of the measures required by the permit would offset
the loss of jurisdictional Waters of the State and mitigate the proposed Project's
impacts to less than significant levels.
Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
Project Elements B, C, E, I, K, M, and O contain CDFW jurisdictional areas that
will be unavoidably impacted by the proposed Project; therefore, the proposed
Project shall require a permit from CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600-1616 of the
California Fish and Game Code. CDFW generally regulates waters, wetlands, and
riparian areas through its Lake and Streambed Alteration Program that requires
execution of an agreement with CDFW before any activity substantially modifies a
river, stream or lake. It is not legal to alter the bed or bank of a stream or lake or
their natural water flow without a CDFW Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.
The California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires an entity to notify
CDFW of any proposed activity that may substantially modify a perennial,
intermittent, and ephemeral river, stream, or lake in the state. The notification
requirement applies to any work undertaken in or near a river, stream, or lake that
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-19
_S 1
R.,nciin
Cc<:nn��nca
Findings
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
flows at least intermittently through a bed or channel. This includes ephemeral
streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow. It may also
apply to work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water. It is anticipated
that the City will need a standard Streambed Alteration Agreement for the
proposed Project.
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with the implementation of mitigation measure
BI0-3, adverse effects on jurisdictional areas will be reduced, ensuring that no significant impacts
occur with implementation of the proposed Project.
3.3.3 Cultural Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
IMPACT 4.3-1: Cultural Resources: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Facts
No historic resources were identified in the proposed Project area as a result of the SCCIC records
search. The intensive pedestrian survey identified one historic archaeological resource RCCP-01.
This resource did not possess any significant qualities or provided information that would qualify
it as eligible for listing in the California Inventory of Historical Resources under any significance
criteria. If construction ground disturbance depths extend to native soils (approximately 1 foot or
more in depth), there would be a potential to impact previously unrecorded subsurface cultural
resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3, impacts to
previously unrecorded subsurface cultural resources will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
CUL-1: Worker Education/Training: Prior to construction of the proposed Project, the City
will retain a qualified archaeologist who will provide a cultural resource briefing that
includes all applicable laws and penalties pertaining to disturbing cultural
resources, a brief discussion of the prehistoric and historic regional context and
archaeological sensitivity of the area, types of cultural resources found in the area,
instruction that Project workers will halt construction if a cultural resource is
inadvertently discovered during construction, and procedures to follow in the event
an inadvertent discovery (Inadvertent Discovery Plan discussed below) is
encountered, including appropriate treatment and respectful behavior of a
discovery (e.g., no posting to social media or photographs). The consulting tribes
will provide a representative to participate in the environmental training to discuss
or provide input from a tribal cultural perspective regarding the potential cultural
resources within the region. After the training, all personnel will be given a worker
education/training brochure regarding identification of cultural resources and
protocols for reporting finds. Any employee beginning work following the initial
worker education/training secession must also receive commensurate cultural and
archaeological resources sensitivity training and be provided the brochure.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-20
L 1� 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
_I
R4N(;FI()
CI't:AMo\G4
CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources During Construction: A
qualified archaeologist shall be retained to prepare a Monitoring and Inadvertent
Discovery Plan for the proposed Project which includes appropriate Monitoring and
Inadvertent Discovery Procedures. The Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan
shall include, but not be limited to, the duration of monitoring based on grading
plans, locations of areas to be monitored, procedures to stop and redirect work in
the event of a find (see below), procedures for daily monitoring reporting and final
reporting, etc. The draft Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan shall be
developed and reviewed by the City and interested tribes. During Project -level
construction, should subsurface archaeological resources be discovered, all
activity in the vicinity of the find (and within a 60-foot buffer) shall stop and the
qualified archaeologist (who also will be kept under contract in an on -call basis)
shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 and/or National Register of Historic Places criteria (as
applicable). In addition, the lead representative for the consulting tribes (i.e. San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians and San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians) will be
notified. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall
determine, in consultation with the implementing agencies and any local Native
American groups expressing interest (e.g. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians),
appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.
Should any significant resource and/or tribal cultural resource not be a candidate
for avoidance or preservation in place, and the removal of the resource(s) is
necessary to mitigate impacts, the Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan shall
include a comprehensive discussion of sampling strategies, resource processing,
analysis, and reporting protocols/obligations. Removal of any cultural resource(s)
shall be conducted with the presence of tribal monitors representing the consulting
tribes, if the consulting tribes elect to have a tribal monitor present. All plans for
analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the applicant and the consulting tribes
prior to implementation, and all removed material shall be temporarily curated in a
secure location on -site. If avoidance, preservation in place, and on -site reburial are
not options, the City shall relinquish all ownership and rights to this material and
confer with consulting tribes to identify an American Association of Museums -
accredited facility within the County, as appropriate. All draft records and reports
containing the significance and treatment findings and data recovery results shall
be prepared by the archaeologist and submitted to the City and the consulting
tribes for their review and comment. After review by all parties, the final reports
and site/isolate records (as appropriate) are to be submitted to the local SCCIC,
the City, and the consulting tribes.
CUL-3: Monitors: An archaeological and tribal monitor shall be present during ground
disturbing activities below 1 foot in depth, as described in the Monitoring and
Inadvertent Discovery Plan (see CUL-2) and as appropriate. The monitors will
observe ground disturbing activities for signs of cultural resources and will have
the authority to stop and redirect ground disturbing activities in the event of an
inadvertent discovery. The monitors shall follow the protocols set forth in the
Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-21
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
jj4ncfao
Ct� en+a�.ce
Findings
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with the implementation of mitigation measures
CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3, adverse effects on historical resources will be reduced, ensuring that
no significant impacts occur with implementation of the proposed Project.
IMPACT 4.3-2: Cultural Resources: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Facts
No archaeological resources were identified in the proposed Project area as a result of the SCCIC
records search. The intensive pedestrian survey identified one historic archaeological resource
RCCP-01. This resource did not possess any significant qualities or information that would qualify
it as eligible for listing in the California Inventory of Historical Resources under any significance
criteria. If construction ground disturbance depths extend to native soils (approximately 1 foot or
more in depth), there would be a potential to impact previously unrecorded subsurface cultural
resources. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3,
impacts to previously unrecorded subsurface cultural resources will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
See CULA: Worker Education/Training, under Impact 4.3-1.
See CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources Durinq Construction, under
Impact 4.3-1.
See CUL-3: Monitors, under Impact 4.3-1.
Findings
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with the implementation of mitigation measures
CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3, adverse effects on cultural resources will be reduced, ensuring that
no significant impacts occur with implementation of the proposed Project.
3.3.4 Geology and Soils
Potentially Significant Impact
IMPACT 4.4-2: Geology and Soils: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Facts
A records search for this environmental assessment identified no paleontological sites, and no
paleontological resources have been recorded within the Central Park area. Even though no
paleontological resources have been observed on the proposed Project site, ground -disturbing
activities expected as part of the proposed Project, such as grading and excavation, could unearth
undocumented paleontological resources or unique geologic features by disturbing native soils.
The incorporation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce the potential impact on
paleontological resources to less than significant.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-22
t 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
R�ncno
(,i c;eniou;n
Mitigation Measure
GEO-1: Inadvertent Discoveries of Paleontological Resources: If the construction staff or
others observe previously unidentified paleontological resources during ground
disturbing activities, they will halt work within a 200-foot radius of the find(s),
delineate the area of the find with flagging tape or rope, and immediately notify a
qualified Paleontologist. Construction will halt within the flagged or roped -off area.
A qualified Paleontologist will assess the resource as soon as possible and
establish appropriate next steps in coordination with the City. Such finds will be
formally recorded and evaluated. The resource will be protected from further
disturbance or looting pending evaluation.
Findings
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with the implementation of mitigation measure
GEO-1, adverse effects on paleontological resources will be reduced, ensuring that no significant
impacts occur with implementation of the proposed Project.
3.3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially Significant Impact
IMPACT 4.6-2: Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Would the project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Facts
During construction, there is a potential for accidental release of hazardous substances such as
petroleum -based fuels or hydraulic fluid used by construction equipment. The level of risk
associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered
significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during
construction. The construction contractor will be required to use standard construction controls
and safety procedures to avoid and minimize potential accidental releases of such substances
into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials
released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, state, and federal law.
All chemical and fuel storage and usage would comply with existing federal, state, and local
requirements (including chemical hygiene requirements administered by the California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration).
Agricultural activities took place on the proposed Project site (mostly grape vineyards) from 1938
to at least the 1960s. Since the proposed Project site was previously used for agriculture, there
is the potential for presence of pesticide residue, such as arsenic compounds, organochlorine
pesticides, chlorinated herbicides or organophosphate pesticides. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 will reduce any potential impact associated with pesticide residue to
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1: Site Assessment. Before issuance of a grading permit for the proposed Project
the following will take place:
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-23
*S' 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
Investigation of the proposed Project site to determine whether it or
immediately adjacent areas have a record of hazardous material contamination
via the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. If
contamination is found to be likely, the City shall require a Phase II
Environmental Investigation be conducted to characterize the nature and
extent of contamination present at the site before development activities can
proceed. Even if the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment does not identify
other contamination, a Phase II Environmental Investigation will be conducted
to at least check for pesticide residue.
• Phase II Environmental Investigation will be conducted to check for pesticide
residue. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determines there is a
potential for any other contamination, the Phase II Environmental Investigation
must characterize the site according to the nature and extent of contamination
that is present before development activities precede at that site.
If the Phase II Environmental Investigation determines that contamination is
present on -site, the City, in accordance with appropriate agency requirements,
shall require remediation of the soil and/groundwater contamination on the site.
If remediation is determined to be required, it must be accomplished in a
manner that reduces risk to below applicable standards and must be
completed prior to issuance of any occupancy permits. Soil remediation
methods that could be employed include, but are not limited to, one or more of
the following: excavation and on -site treatment, such as above ground
bioremediation, soil washing, soil stabilization, soil vapor extraction, or high -
temperature soil thermal desorption. Groundwater remediation methods that
could be employed include, but are not limited to, pumping water to surface,
treating, and returning to aquifer; treating groundwater in place by injecting
oxidizing agents; and placing membrane in aquifer and using natural flows to
trap contaminants.
• Closure reports or other reports acceptable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Fire Protection District that document the successful completion of required
remediation activities, if any, for contaminated media, must be submitted and
approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits for site
development.
HAZ-2: Newly Identified Contamination: If previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or
groundwater contamination presenting a threat to human health or the
environment is encountered during construction within the proposed Project site,
construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination must cease
immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan must be
prepared and implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the
potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment
during construction and post -development, and (2) describes measures to be
taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site hazards.
Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies must be
notified (e.g., Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and San Bernardino
County Environmental Health Division). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan
that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements must be
prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-24
r
Rncnoll
(1i�:.anumcn
Findings
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with the implementation of mitigation measures
HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, adverse effects associated with hazards and hazardous materials will be
reduced, ensuring that no significant impacts occur with implementation of the proposed Project.
3.3.6 Noise
Potentially Significant Impact
IMPACT 4.7-1: Noise Effects: Would the project result in generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Facts
The dominant noise source in the vicinity of the proposed Project site is from traffic both along
Base Line Road (south of the proposed Project Site) and along Milliken Avenue (east of the
proposed Project Site). Based on existing traffic volumes, noise impacts to adjacent residences
range from 57 A -weighted sound level (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level to 67 dBA
Community Noise Equivalent Level. The proposed Project would result in a maximum increase of
traffic noise of less than 2 dBA at the residences adjacent to the proposed Project. It is widely
accepted that an increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible (Caltrans 2020). Therefore, an increase
in the overall ambient community noise level of less than 2 dBA is considered to be a less than
significant impact.
Construction activities would require use of a variety of equipment types for each different
element. Typical construction equipment would not be expected to generate noise levels above
90 dBA at 50 feet, and most equipment types would typically generate noise levels of less than
85 dBA at 50 feet. Using noise emission levels published by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, construction levels were calculated from the border of each project element
to the closest noise sensitive area in each cardinal direction. During construction of the Project
Elements there will frequently be phases of work that could be out of compliance with the 65 dBA
limit. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, Project construction will be in
compliance with this limit and construction noise impacts will be less than significant.
Potential noise effects of the proposed Project during the operations of all the rooftop mechanical
equipment would range from 51 dBA Leq to 59 dBA Leq in the residential areas adjacent to the
Project. The noise impacts from the rooftop mechanical equipment is within compliance of local
noise regulation. Noise impacts associated with operation of the proposed Project would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure
NOISE-1: Noise Mitigation: Construction noise levels fluctuate depending on the construction
phase, equipment type, and duration of use; distance between noise source and
sensitive receptor; and the presence or absence of barriers between noise source
and receptors. Therefore, construction activities shall be limited as follows:
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-25
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
• Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall utilize the
best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment
redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically
attenuating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible. In addition, the time allowed
for equipment and trucks to idle will be limited to the extent practicable.
• Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as
possible and shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds,
incorporate insulation barriers or other measures to the extent feasible.
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for
proposed Project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered
wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatically powered
tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall
be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to 10 dBA.
External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible. This
could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used such as
drilling rather that impact equipment whenever feasible.
• When heavy construction activities are located within 800 feet of a residential
structure, a temporary portable sound barrier will be deployed between the
construction activities and nearest sensitive receptor.
Findings
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with the implementation of mitigation measure
NOISE-1, adverse effects associated with noise will be reduced, ensuring that no significant
impacts occur with implementation of the proposed Project.
3.3.7 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
IMPACT 4.9-1: Tribal Cultural Resources: Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American Tribe, and that is:
iii) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Facts
The combined SCCIC record search, Native American Heritage Commission sacred land files
search, and pedestrian field survey did not identify any existing historic resources within the
proposed Project area. As a result, it is believed the proposed Project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a known historic resource as defined in PRC
5020.1 (k).
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-26
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
If construction ground disturbance depths range within native soils (at least 1 foot or more below
the ground surface), there would be a potential to impact previously unrecorded subsurface tribal
cultural resources. With Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 incorporated, a less than
significant impact is anticipated.
As specified in Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City provided written notification on November 2, 2019
regarding the proposed Project to the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.
The following responses and comments were received:
• The Morongo Band of Mission Indians indicated on November 12, 2019 that the tribe had
no comments regarding the proposed Project.
• The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians stated on November 14, 2019 that the proposed
Project is within Serrano ancestral territory, is of interest to the tribe, and requested
consultation. They asked that ethnographic information previously provided by Alexandra
McCleary, Tribal Archaeologist, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for the Central Park
Amphitheater Project be incorporated in the Program EIR. On December 3, 2019, the City
and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians had a conference call to discuss the proposed
Project and any concerns. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians responded to the City
on December 13, 2019 and requested Any and all content regarding the City's tribal history
as it relates to Central Park planning (such as interpretive panels and public art) shall be
subject to review and approval by consulting tribes. The City agreed to consult with the
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians regarding Central Park interpretive panels or public
art as it relates tribal history of the region. The City will provide the San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians (and other known local tribes, as applicable) the opportunity to review and
comment on tribal history interpretive panels or art installations.
The City has completed consultation with local tribes as part of the AB 52 process. Based on the
combined SCCIC record search, Native American Heritage Commission sacred land files search,
pedestrian field survey, and City's AB 52 consultation with California Native American tribes (as
discussed above), the proposed Project is determined to have less than significant impacts
related to tribal cultural resources with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through
CUL-3.
Mitigation Measure
See CUL-1: Worker Education/Training, in Section 3.3.3.
See CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources During Construction, in Section
3.3.3.
See CUL-3: Monitors, in Section 3.3.3.
Findings
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with the implementation of mitigation measures
CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3, adverse effects on tribal cultural resources will be reduced, ensuring
that no significant impacts occur with implementation of the proposed Project.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-27
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
jZaNCH�
3.4 Findings Regarding Impacts Identified in the EIR to be
Significant and Unavoidable
Based on the EIR and all available evidence, there are no findings for proposed Project impacts
which are potentially significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Council finds that there are no
significant and unavoidable impacts that will result from this Project.
3.5 Growth Inducing Impacts
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2(d)): an EIR must address whether a project
will directly, or indirectly foster growth as follows:
[An EIR shall] discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population
growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a
major expansion of wastewater treatment plant, might, for example, allow for more construction
in service areas). Increases in the population may further tax existing community service facilities
so consideration must be given to this impact. Also, discuss the characteristic of some projects,
which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment,
either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily
beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.]
As discussed below, this analysis evaluates whether the approval of the proposed Project would
directly, or indirectly, induce economic, population, or housing growth in the surrounding
environment.
Direct Growth -Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment
Direct growth -inducing impacts occur when the development of a project induces population
growth or the construction of additional developments in the same area of a proposed project and
produces related growth -associated impacts. Growth -inducing projects remove physical
obstacles to population growth, such as the construction of a new road into an undeveloped area,
a wastewater treatment plant expansion, and projects that allow new development in the service
area. Construction of such infrastructure projects are considered in relation to the potential
development and the potential environmental impacts.
The proposed Project would not directly induce growth as it does not involve residential
development. The proposed Project site has been designated for park uses and is contemplated
and provided for within the City's adopted General Plan. In addition, the proposed Project would
not remove obstacles to regional growth and related development.
Although the proposed Project site is currently undeveloped, its surrounding areas are currently
developed with urban land uses. Buildout of the Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION would
include infrastructure improvements and extensions, including roadways, storm drains, retention
basins, wastewater, potable water, and dry utilities (e.g., natural gas, electric, telephone, and
cable). These infrastructure improvements would connect to existing facilities within and adjacent
to the proposed Project site to support the proposed recreational uses. No significant impacts
related to growth inducement would occur.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-28
-1
R.4M1CHn
CUCAMONGA
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
Indirect Growth -Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment
The proposed Project would not indirectly induce growth through substantial increase in
employment opportunities or an employment -related increase in population. Construction workers
for the proposed Project are expected to be drawn from the local labor pool. It is expected that
during operation of the proposed Project, most of proposed Project employment opportunities
would be filled by residents of communities adjacent to the proposed Project site. The proposed
Project could indirectly result in a minimal growth in population of the immediate area. This
minimal growth would not represent unplanned population growth in the community or result in
economic growth that exceeds levels anticipated in plans adopted by the City. Therefore, no
significant impacts related to growth inducement would occur.
3.6 Irreversible Environmental Changes
According to the CEQA Guidelines, "[u]ses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and
continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources
makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary
impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area)
generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from
environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources
should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified." Therefore, the purpose
of this analysis is to identify any significant irreversible environmental effects of project
implementation that cannot be avoided.
Both construction and operation of the development of the proposed Project would lead to the
consumption of limited, slowly renewable, and non-renewable resources, committing such
resources to uses that future generations would be unable to reverse. The new development
would require the commitment of resources that include: (1) building materials; (2) fuel and
operational materials/resources; and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from
Central Park.
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code regulates the amount of energy consumed by new
development. Nevertheless, the consumption of such resources would represent a long-term
commitment of those resources. The commitment of resources required for the construction and
operation of the proposed Project would limit the availability of such resources for future
generations or for other uses during the life of the proposed Project. However, continued use of
such resources is consistent with the planned changes on the proposed Project site and within
the general vicinity.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-29
3 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — FINDINGS
RA-10
(;11ANIONGA
This page intentionally left blank
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 3-30
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
4.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected as Infeasible
In determining whether an alternative scenario could meet the proposed Project goals and reduce
impacts, the following objectives were considered:
1. To develop a comprehensive planning document that will establish the preliminary land
use development for the balance of the Central Park area.
2. To create a unique recreational facility in the City with a variety of active and passive
recreational opportunities and amenities accessible within the community and offering
multiple options for pedestrian mobility and non -vehicular access.
3. To identify a variety of recreational opportunities designed to be implemented in small
(1-11 acres) buildable sections in Central Park responsive to evolving, economic
conditions and City-wide recreational needs.
4. To implement a landscape concept that features drought -tolerant plant materials that
create an aesthetically pleasing, thematically coherent outdoor environment while
minimizing demand for water resources.
Based on this this type of evaluation, relative to these specific objectives, the following alternatives
were considered infeasible:
Different Site Location Alternative.
Because the primary objective of the proposed Project is to establish the preliminary land use
development for the balance of the Central Park area, a different site location would not be
appropriate as an alternative to the proposed Project. A different site location would not meet
the specific objective of developing the balance of the Central Park area.
Different Use Alternative.
Any alternative involving development of non -park uses of the proposed Project site were also
eliminated from consideration because most of the established objectives would not be met.
4.2 Selection of Alternatives Considered in the Program EIR
Based on project goals, and the objectives listed above in Section 4.1, the mandatory No Project
Alternative and the Buckwheat Scrub Habitat Border Alternative were given further evaluation.
No Project Alternative.
The No Project Alternative assumes that improvements described for the proposed Project
would not be implemented. Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Project would not
be implemented and approximately 61 acres of the Central Park site would remain
undeveloped. There would be a continuation of the existing disturbed coastal sage scrub
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 4-1
6 — ALTERNATIVES
nnR1Nl:fIO
41�:.1MONGA
habitat. This alternative is not expected to cause impacts related to any of the evaluated
resource considerations.
Buckwheat Scrub Habitat Border Alternative.
Under this alternative, Element O: Deer Creek Channel Trail, on the west side of Central Park,
would not be developed. This element involves landscaping and improvements to 4.1 acres
of the Deer Creek Channel Trail. Instead of developing this element, the area would retain
approximately 2.51 acres of buckwheat scrub vegetation, and the jurisdictional area within
Element O (approximately 0.6 acre of non -wetlands Waters of the States) would not be
removed or disturbed. This element also includes approximately 0.15 acre of CDFW
jurisdictional area. The potential to attain the basic Project objectives, and to lessen or avoid
significant environmental effects (which are primarily biological resources), resulting from
implementation of the proposed Project qualified this alternative for further evaluation.
Potential impacts for the Buckwheat Scrub Habitat Border Alternative are expected to be
essentially the same as those for the proposed Project, with possibly slight reductions of
impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources.
Somewhat more substantial reductions of impacts to Biological Resources could be realized
with the implementation of this Alternative.
The Buckwheat Scrub Habitat Border Alternative would disturb a slightly smaller area than the
proposed Project (about 57 acres compared to 61 acres). Therefore, the area experiencing
environmental impacts would be slightly smaller than the proposed Project. Nevertheless, most
impacts under the Buckwheat Scrub Habitat Border Alternative would be substantially similar to
those expected under the proposed Project.
This Buckwheat Scrub Habitat Border Alternative would achieve most of the objectives of the
proposed Project. However, the number of recreational amenities (the second project objective)
would be less than expected for the proposed Project. As noted above, this alternative either does
not reduce impacts or does not substantially reduce impacts as compared to the proposed
Project. While there would be a reduction of impacts to biological resources, the buckwheat scrub
vegetation that would be retained through the elimination of Element O is currently low quality,
degraded, and disturbed California buckwheat scrub habitat that is surrounded by development
and continues to be disturbed by ongoing anthropogenic influences. The wildlife occurring in the
proposed Project site would be tolerant of urban disturbances. With the amount of landscaping
provided by the proposed Project, it is expected to be used by urban tolerant wildlife species and
therefore provide a place for park patrons to view and hear wildlife.
4.2.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of
reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. This would ideally be the alternative that results in
fewer (or no) significant and unavoidable impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2) states
that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also
identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.
Table 4.2-1, Summary of Project Alternatives, provides a comparison of each alternative. The No
Project Alternative would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts to any of the issue
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 4-2
_s
RANCfTO
CI V AMONCA
6 — ALTERNATIVES
areas. The Buckwheat Scrub Habitat Border Project Alternative would slightly reduce potential
impacts to the proposed Project. The No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior
alternative but would not meet any of the Project objectives. The environmentally superior
development alternative would be the Buckwheat Scrub Habitat Border Alternative since this
alternative would result in slightly fewer impacts due to a decrease of development on the
proposed Project site.
Table 4.2-1. Summary of Project Alternatives
Area
Air Quality
Proposed Project
LTS
No Project
NI
Buckwheat Scrub
BorderIssue
Habitat
LTS
Biological Resources
LTS/M
NI
LTS/M
Cultural Resources
LTS/M
NI
LTS/M
Geology and Soils
LTS/M
NI
LTS/M
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
LTS
NI
LTS
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
LTS/M
NI
LTS/M
Noise
LTS/M
NI
LTS/M
Transportation
LTS
NI
LTS
Tribal Cultural Resources
LTS/M
NI
LTS/M
N1= No impact
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation
S = Significant and Unavoidable
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 4-3
6 — ALTERNATIVES
RANf.FIO
CI{:AAif)NGA
This page intentionally left blank
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 4-4
CHAPTER 5
CERTIFICATION OF THE PROGRAM EIR
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final Program EIR in evaluating
the proposed Project, and that the Final Program EIR is an accurate and objective statement that
fully complies with CEQA and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final Program EIR
reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no new significant information as defined by State CEQA
Guidelines, section 15088.5 has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft Program
EIR that would require recirculation.
The City Council certifies the Program EIR, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, based on the following findings and conclusions:
Conclusions:
1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed Project
have been identified in the Program EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation
measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of less than significant.
2. Other alternatives to the proposed Project, which could potentially achieve the basic
objectives of the proposed Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the
proposed Central Park Master Plan Update re VISION Project
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 5-1
5 — CERTIFICATION OF THE PROGRAM EIR
jZnnceo
(;crenfo!�cn
This page intentionally left blank
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 5-2
CHAPTER 6
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081.6 of the PRC requires the Council adopt a monitoring or reporting program
regarding the changes in the Project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid
significant effects on the environment. The MMRP, included in the Final EIR, is adopted because
it fulfills the CEQA mitigation monitoring requirements:
a) The MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the proposed Project
and mitigation measures imposed on the proposed Project during Project implementation;
and
b) Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements or other measures.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 6-1
*16.
R-110
U(:AMONGA
This page intentionally left blank
6 - ADOPTION OF MMRP FOR THE CEQA MM
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 6-2
CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
California Department of Finance (DOF)
2019 Demographic Research Unit, Report E-1, Population Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, January 1, 2018 and 2019. May 1, 2019.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources
Agency, Department of Fish and Game. March 7, 2012.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2020 Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. For New Highway Construction, Reconstruction,
and Retrofit Barrier Projects. April 2020.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
2018 Online CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (8th Edition). Query of
the Cucamonga Peak and Guasti California Topographic Quadrangles. Website:
http://www.rareplants.cni)s.org/advanced.html. Accessed on July 12, 2019.
California State Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB)
2019 Geotracker.
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=11200+
Base+Line+ Road %2C+ranch o+cucamonga%2C+ca. Accessed June 15, 2019.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
2019 "EnviroStor" mapping tool, database of hazardous substance release sites,
Government Code Section 65962.5.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=11200+Base+Line+
Road %2C+rancho+cucamonga%2C+ca Accessed June 15, 2019.
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA,
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743 Technical Advisory.pdf, December 2018.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 7_1
J
WNCHo
CUCAMONGA
This page intentionally left blank
7 — REFERENCES
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION CEQA Findings
March 2021 7-2
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-017
CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS
April 7, 2021
Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6 (Assembly Bill 3180) requires that mitigation measures
identified in environmental review documents prepared in accordance with CEQA are
implemented after a project is approved; therefore, this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures adopted
for the Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION Project. Rancho Cucamonga is the CEQA
Lead Agency and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department will be
responsible for implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Draft Program EIR.
This MMRP provides the Community Services Department with a convenient mechanism for
quickly reviewing all the mitigation measures including the ability to focus on select information
such as timing. The MMRP includes the following information for each mitigation measure:
• The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be
implemented;
• The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be monitored;
and
• The responsible/monitoring agency.
Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. Reporting generally
consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision -making body or
authorized staff person. The MMRP includes a checklist to be used during the mitigation
monitoring period. The checklist will verify the name of the monitor, the date of the monitoring
activity, and any related remarks for each mitigation measure.
As discussed in Chapter 4 of the Draft Program EIR, environmental issue areas requiring
mitigation include the following listed below. These environmental issue areas are included within
the MMRP.
• Air quality.
• Biological resources.
• Cultural resources.
• Geology and soils.
• Hazards and hazardous materials.
• Noise.
• Tribal Cultural Resources.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION Program EIR
March 2021 5-1
s
RAN-()
CIx:.Anar.cA
5 — MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As described within Section 5.1 of the Draft Program EIR, environmental effects found not to be
significant include the following listed below. These environmental issue areas are not included
within the MMRP.
• Aesthetics.
• Agriculture resources.
• Energy.
• Greenhouse gas emissions.
• Hydrology and water quality.
• Land use and planning.
• Mineral resources.
• Population and housing.
• Public services.
• Recreation.
• Transportation.
• Utilities and service systems.
• Wildfire.
5.2 RESPONSIBILITIES, AUTHORITY, AND MONITORING
PERSONNEL
The City is responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures in this Final Program EIR are
implemented. The City reserves the right to hire technical experts and professionals to help in
evaluating compliance. These may include but are not limited to biologists, archaeologists and
planning professionals.
For impacts related to construction of the proposed Project, the project planner or responsible
City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with
any aspects of the MMRP are not occurring after written notification has been issued.
5.3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The MMRP is shown below in Table 5-1.
Central Park Master Plan Update reVISION Program EIR
March 2021 5-2
I?
0
W 0
yE
cu
3C)
E
\
7
3
M » - R = o
n£ �- � O c a# 2 E
77�g�a'a� _ƒ/U& �En� 7 %
�a0�2/f ?_ ®J�E� 2JC)C0
_ C' c: � _ — m Q � ® _ G) (v G = o
§ E= k S K o m ¥ £ f m a $ ƒ ± � : 2 / / /
0 0 7 _ =� E m �
2 o�=coW�0-£0330—C—cn 2�2»§a—
a a)0 oE2»7G, gm/»: _� _
& QO±]maec&t m-0 a®¥_
w» a« o o G§*® 7 y o a) a) cn
�Q—C;5a)—»—�»-0cu3 �/Z3»tea
5 7 0 U)= E o=» @% te a m o»
a « — — � c o _(D E e - a
a a) cn > / k »= k ¥ 2= = -c-- x 0
m c n-- m _ c E m
a 2/ f R 0£% 0 e 5 &— 0§± p IC / J \§ J
= k m 2_® m ch� ®5 — Ca a- g U 2 2 2 y 0 En 0 2 m
k m r E% 3� cn= 0-= E cn�— cu 2 c 0 ��-
�\y= cu002@0�_a)£C�: E2SF72q
a'—£23aS#Mcpen2 °°�®�°° 9
@Jo >C EgPb S0g%0&± \ i
CL _. m= a � o � o u o
2 °�fg07&a%k$§m%E2/) ®± O a
Ix b e � � e -0 a: a ± ( - £ 0 E m a-
- 2 «
T U
L
f4
> U
L
UE U
a)
Q
a)
L -a c0.)
d
3 a
N (n
N
N a—
u
U
`t m
co a) -n
3
a`� c
a
a�i oU
aUi
Z E
En Q 3
o
o
a) Q
U '~
C 'C
(a (d a)
E O-
N N L
W C
c
cn — Co
N
!n U En
U a
'a
co
cn 3
-
N U
a) cn cn rn
O
_
a)
L
_-0
"d
T a)
(a
'p
a)
30
0 ._� •�
a) C O
M j
a) C
W o_
O N�
C Q 7
L XO N
U- `p to
� ca
O
U O�
O
ca cn -0
'p C 0
C U
O C
N
-=
L
C O
C w
in O
L O
C6 •C6
3
-0(MC O
O
`�
U C N
C-6 O C
o
.�
U U
0
a
a) 0
•2 3-
3 caca N
c
a) n
-a � 3
o n3 c
cUa -0 =
cu
N �, Y
cma >
a)
n a
—
cu E
-
)i 3 L
cO
:=
aa)
o
a`
cn
U
�
U
a)
U
t5U
Y y
L Q§
N
L
U a)
L L E
Q)
U N () C
U
U cn
a)
U L O T
7
i 0
a)
U L
rn N
cu
�, U a
()
a) -•-
U Q
a)
O a) 7 'a
a (`
U L a) to
`
Ca _ U C
U—
w i
-pCo
•C ca
— a)
d O
L
W U a)
cz
W 3
U V O-
cn '>
t -�
cn Fn
O
U Q
CD
L O
Q
7 •O 2
0 3
O L X
O O a) O
C� E
rn
ca U
cn O
cn t
ca
L <n N
o U
�av
U
of
W
m
6
O
a
Z
O
D
f6
C
n
a
§
0
(D
�
2
■
0
\
0
9
ƒ
0
/
0
9
�
§
�« EkE �?
c±E
c 2
7
m mZ:0 E b2
/k\«
0-00
»
a u
�%
f R k/ @: b®& e a �
/m 0CU 6
Co a 1
&%���
m CUCl
co
a)
co 0- En 0kE�\
aE0m0
fit«
k 2
2 K ± B) t J 2 7
G 2§ E/®
°% h
i
�e
�o�M MO�sm� c,
-0
\
wCm#Coc2c§=o/Ea)
c m' - 9 -M � �
E « \ a
± E
E
5
2
G 0 2 0 0 a C 2 0® o c® O
¥ 2/ U*/
R k
/
G
7§ 2 0 2 2 2 F E- % h
3
o°� 2 h»
M»
IL
cu
£ �e 3¥ g$= G a
% e 2¥�\
_0
0
n
m
c�
cmm om
7 I c m a -
*SE*a2°°°-2
y®ufe
_
=-0o
m
2
2 §o
J% R» 2� m k E
C/ m� 2=
>
k
An
tk
~
t Ĥ
o2em�o�ca�� �m
§ a�®
® =2
f
a
m ��
5 = 2 y 2§ °+/ƒ
0-0 o 5 a
3
2°
0 2
t
=
q\
2
o e
t G t c E\§ k s:
G 7) k
R e 2
±
<
/
��
U 05->-
_±
.2 m
- ^ 2 � O f / D R
_/
§ ƒ k &
_
2 /
§
■ U
r% O a o 3 a>
E*
0 c
E
« S S m a 7 2 2 E e fƒ
2/ 2 5§
/± S
£
--
(
` ®
a
'
o
) _
2®
-°Q
r
a) Co
z�-
6'.
c
O
C N .N p O N
m
uj
a) o v `�
CD
cn >, . c6 O ca O c d N 'w
co N 'N p p c
p)
•E
-� a) C C
w O a)
N _> cn -p p -p p a) cn E a) -�
o N L C L" C L
°' C -M d o "' c`u
C to a Q
Ca)
a)
-0 O
O U
d
N C ma- N fU4
c d N O -� ~ Q
S
t
.UO-O
O cB O O
Co
O .0 N N
!/) 'O Q
p .�-. .L--� O
E N C6 L N >,
j
— O> E
co O U N O Q to
O U C Q N Q (B C d ..6
N "0 N w
LL
O
cn
N -0 C
En E.>.
m� N 7 as �
.L--�
Mn - N
m
C
C
O L a) a)
C p 'a) .CD a) .n
� C w a
c` co O L a)
NCo
N L
a) .p -0 C ca L C71
O
C
cn N r.., E
Vi O c
O 0 CL_. "> —cna) O N O O M
U -p -E
d
_m !n C = E
CM
N L_ N
�C.. _ >O c CZ C 'p
p O N �_
C
�. 7
N
Z
C
-�
O
cn C6 V
N -y
N Q N p a a) N> m(
O N @ c
o a) T
a)
O
-�
a) cD_C"(D-0-
.N p
a) � cO a) L a)
_� g N �� ��
cn —
s fin _
_N
>
rn Z c p
�� o N
O O> m� N w
O
p C O-� O
N
Q
O L O Q
L � N OOi -U O a) O N O c9
E O N C O
N
E
N a) ~ a) (n
_�
>� >+ C w a H ca a) -p N C
p m`
tpn a) C Q Q)
a)
16
N
0 L.L U a) N
1- � N
—U O cn N U a) N
U -p .� "C uj N ` a) w fn `,� "0
p
N N aj a) c6
-a
>>:
O rn d U -p N +�
c9
_N
ca a) rn °�
a) C 4) O M a) a) c
C a) ` O d— O L
cn O > a�
m O O c
cu
C
f0
U p
-� .>
m 0-0 o o
7 U C > U
CD w
m � m� Q a) E o is c
O a) N
", cu �
N O c0 in
a
ca 3
o o co ca E co
O a) .� a) L
o n_6 E 4 Com cn o o - cn o n
w O
L L m � .S o >,
a�
ca(6
Y
___.- "
•
m �
d O
T
N
CCc L
W7
OW
C
Co
U 2
M
/ k
K
Q� o
af o
¥ 2
± k
§
g
OQ
gQ
/ /
k /
cn
/ 0
ƒ /
2
k cn
0
9 9
/ ƒ
ƒ n o C 2 k¥
$mE 2k§*Em@« d—k2�—
Qo2t/%2%
\k§/0
« E §kkM
2 cac - k/\—2E =�
2� ICDCU a—y ®®�7�
e C® o b-o e 2 § 2 m»
/ J =- m E En
= � =: a Ld
o rG3��£ fkk §C ¥
= a o/)v
*a» ._
22 m�22'a)ƒf�Umd/k2
a 2± 3 .U) o m c
f§ 2/& 2± t� 2 f k\ E
— U)? 0 4 2 2 c/ c
u)u)S2g3f�� o�'e
�
$_
5-0
k t k R R§ k R§ E§ B § f
��Q�mm��wmoaC/3 —CL
cm 0 6
m In
�
2
/
f
2
»
E
/2
E
ƒ
«
�
m
B
k
E
2
7ƒ
o
£�
_3
\
ff« a/b202mo7 % //fk
« o_m-m)2 22S3» m 0ta)>
E a m c�= E m» w m� g e- u 2° m 2
m o c a c .--
32&E£=\m§og��2 m @£
%°»)>, m cu§E%E=7o'CD0cu
%ƒ§- E§ m o E S o k/ E g Eco cD a\ fƒ
£ CU 2& f\ c f£_ E= 9 2 3 0 5\ G=
_ = o W � 2 � = 0 k � % _ Ecn
o » o- o o- =/ 5 2 c
§Q@�'5�%'E%mL=&� ear=£
�±gm ��� 0m ��CL-_�%-
c_£ a 2® m c E 2 a) E-_= o c-� m
o a o 0m k 2� / 0 olicm / E >,
��kk2\�kkkmCD 0 ƒ��/ƒ
CD m E G 7 7.-== P y- k® 7¥% 2
t E m m c o m m M -®�
03/2�-§:cuE k�k5Lm 5§m" E
k/ S 2-- E` a$ f¥ E S»
0 a2 2> m_o_ E mF
0 2\ 5 e t a§ o c cu= m t
y�ERw-\CLcu-0-�3o:�&m
2ƒ/o(§yCL%£: E±7\&\/a-E/
k 0 a ) ±:
/ f r cn § E >
r 2 2 k » § /
°. E$ m m c= a E
o
» g U - m »
77aca
m - - m m
c m 0 2 c e� 2 CO
Co
e� 2 CL a= En c C.)
kom= 0 \§s
CLW=ta\mƒ-
kCL -00= y U .�
� % c 7 U) cn
Ef£�277-§/$®�Cmo=RC? E& E
$f� 2ER2E a)
3kk%k-0/�/E
n
7
U N p
O = O
O
0)
o
a�
O
c
c
•C
`
0 3 Cc
o
T
0 c __
p m ocu
o+
E
a)o
N
C- L
�n U
Oc _ U
a
U 0-
ai
E U N
OQ
O1 N
UcOn
ca
O.—
Nm
�
� a)O
OO@
0"
W n � a)>
QN
-'
0
CO
f
— O N L d
C9 - O
ca -0 �' w 4? O—
CO
Q
U
w
2 O co O
CD =••' .3
.0
c°
m N
-o
O
0)
ap
"0
c
(4 m
Y fl O U ?�
@ CT O C
c c cu
`� '0 C
= o O o
c
co
N
d
N
_ N
CT M
cu U N cn15
m
w
cu
� N O
N
d c
co a>
o
cn
a
) L c� C06
O cn
U
U tun o f
_ U
a U O
' __ cYi v iu M "
U
0 0
�
p
co
c
so � '3 c 0 �
m o p>> `v
-c- m
cn, 3 a n � c
t
� 3
C-
c N
c`
a
c
.�
N
N
>,
O d.. v
c w
O O N
.Tw
O E E c i6
U>
L
N
a
.0-�
c U o o a�
V) A
3 U
QU
3�
L N
C
m
cu
a)o`
E °D T- Q- C O
CV o- 3
Cl) L C2 Q` N Q
w
U
c
m C6 d
CL :F;
2i
U c
h
O
N C6 Q- a) c
W 3i (6 C6 (a E •U
� .�
u� O
H- c c" Cl) (d
O Q �
T
C
m�
cm
•�
p
.0
N
U -C O .N O (a
C N
C m .O
C-% p c
O 15
EO
U
�' a'
5
C m t N Er E
O LcD
E -Q -Q •�
Cn
o0
Q
2
O O—
m
o a� o
o� = m e o
" is cU_n @
in
o O o m
cu of
-� a�
U U o
•
•
d
U m cn
LO
w
W
E
O
d
z
O
U)
w
m
a
D
c
m
d
N
f6
Y �
co CV
d N
f�6 L
C 2
U 2
0
L6
U)
•�
o
2 � :
E
O o
:� O
cu
t am
p
N
c 3 0
c
3 a�
-0
cu
o �,
_�
E >, �
cn
a� o
E i
m
E
U a)
u ` E
cu a
Cn
cu `o m
U> �.-
o M o cu E .Q
(� E Q
`
(D
ai U
C C
c
O
p
C U a) O-
N
cu U O
vi
'0 -6
X E O
= c
O Y O
3 c
_>
o
E
nz E
o ai E
a
_
c •o � ' U
CU @
� o � @
3 � cu aa) � _— cu
cu
w
•-2o
O O
O
W
U CO -p w -N
Q
2 d E 'O
a) w
c O in
aa)
O ) C O E
cu
E
U cu
"
p
C° v5 c >, �° "
d (u C a)
o
Y m a> a� cfl O
— a I U
3
5 - o
W
� Q� CU '> - a
y C
W
c
w
.— = V) O OL
C6 =
W O >+ (u O a)
J
`
cr
'" N
m N -- a) CU6 N 6
O
O
0
cu
o— p �—' d
o
a CD E
a� —
LL cu -a
3 E 5 o .- a
c
a`
0 00
(
n N� Q m
Q
U N a�i 6 u,
3 0>
u aa'i Lo°-
cL cu � a) u) Co i g,
O
a
s a> cn a� o>
m .` a a
N o
E_ w
� U c14 n w
U)
CU
C6 -0
cn
N m cn p N
U
•= Q — "� cu
"
Cu
3 O
0 CEO O "00 "` U
0-
i
7 c
cu
Cu a> m e
E
cri
E cu t
N
rn E `°
o
t E in
a
E
__
E
E is ccn No .E U
�
E >, h N
a> i�
a
a) >, �
E
L� o ~ o c >, a) oC
cu c "� cu is E
n
p'
o
m 3
-�
o a�i a> v
O C
E
c j
i
LJJ U -00 -O c •� cu
>' cu
0 0 •c 0)
o
O J O p O L s
C
i
n
p
U
a) w
U (u -
O
O 0 0
cu
cu
N d
cu�L
E u) Co H
p
O
D L.r T N 0
Y
d E2 O
"p C ccu
C co
d (u
LN L�L
T
d
a)
.� _�
w`
E 3
co
O c 0 0 �u
a) d—
C 7
0) O c
`o
c
a
.? 0 0 U)
J
d U 0 Q U
0)'C
Q cu cn .N
U Q U U u) (u N
cu
caf0
/
L N
0 cD
L
a
A/
cc
U �
�
k �p
/a00
k%okƒE
— ±
8
o # $
E
pmm
%
o� &
=«
m
+ p
a
a
S - / 2
£fca
7
at2a3
0cu
/37f2�a
�
%wm
cn
a)
n»
a R
»
t
4: -o
2£ g E
£GE2\\k
�-2k
±2�kfJ.
=
m = a
m
e
� 2 % Co a)
o m
7=
7 a
Of
3