Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8059RESOLUTION NO. 8059 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR STATEWIDE PARK DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 7990 WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility by the Legislature of the State of California for the admi iistration of the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Grant Program, setting up necessary procedures governing the application; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant to certify by resolution the approval of the application before submission of said application to the State; and C_ WHEREAS, the City Council is requesting the submittal of a grant application package attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and includes the Negative Declarations for the Community Center and Texonia Park Renovation projects; and WHEREAS, successful Applicants will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete the Conununity Center and Texonia Park Renovation projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands as follows: Section 1. The City Council fords, on the basis of the whole record associated with the proposed projects that there is no substantial evidence that the Community Center and Texonia Park Renovation projects will have a significant effect on the environment, including >nitigation measures and any project design features, and hereby adopts the Negative Declarations in the forms attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and `B," for the Community Center and Texonia Park Renovation projects. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the filing of an application package for the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program Grant Funds and adoption of the Negative Declarations for the Community Center and Texonia Park Renovation projects. Section 3. The City Council hereby certifies that the City of Redlands has, or will have available, prior to commencement of any work on the project included in this application package, the sufficient funds to complete the project. Section 4. The City Council hereby certifies that if the project is awarded, the City of Redlands has, or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project. 1 1:1ResolutionslRes 5000-8099\8059 Parks Grant Resoiution.doex Section 5. The City Council hereby certifies that the City of Redlands has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Grant Administration Guide. Section 6. The City Council hereby delegates to the City Manager and his or her authorized designee the authority to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the Community Center and Texonia Park Renovation projects. Section 7. The City Council hereby agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines. Section 8. The City Council will consider promoting inclusion per Public Resources Code 80001(b)(8 A-G). Section 9. Rescission of Prior Policy. Resolution No. 7990 of the City Council of the City of Redlands is hereby rescinded. ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 21 st day of January, 2020 ATTEST: Je e Donaldson, City Clerk 2 L\Resolutions\Res 9000-8099\8059 Parks Grant Resolution.doex I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution number was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 1 " day of January, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Barich, Tejeda, Momberger, Davis; Mayor Foster NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None , le Donaldson, City Clerk I \Resolutions\Res 8000-8099\9059 Parks Grant Resolution.doex EXHIBIT "A" REDLANDS COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ATTACHED] I:1Resolutions\Res 8000-8099\8059 Parks Grant Resolution.doex CITY of REDLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM AND INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Redlands Community Center Renovation Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Redlands, Facilities and Community Services Department 35 Cajon Street, Suite 222, Redlands, CA 92373 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tabitha Kevari, Senior Manager Telephone: (909) 798-7566 4. Project Location: Redlands Community Center 111 Lugonia Avenue in the City of Redlands (refer to Figure 1: Location Map; and Figure 2: Aerial Photo). 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Redlands 6. General Plan Designation: Public/institutional 7. Zoning: Open Space 8. Project Description: The proposed project will include renovations to the City's existing Community Center located at 111 Lugonia Avenue. The entire center will undergo improvements for ADA upgrades, energy efficiency, and new finishes. The multi -purpose room will undergo new energy efficient lighting, new flooring, paint, operable wall and ceiling; the game room will involve energy efficient lighting, new flooring and paint; the kitchen area will be renovated to include new energy efficient lighting, new flooring, paint and appliances; the restrooms will be remodeled to include new energy efficient lighting, ADA upgrades, new flooring, fixtures, and paint; the gymnasium will include new energy efficient lighting, skylights, floor resurfacing, and paint; the tennis courts and pickle ball area will be resurfaced and repainted; the activity rooms 1 & 2 will include new energy efficient lighting, flooring, and new paint; the existing outdoor area will be re -purposed with amphitheater type seating for approximately 30-40 individuals, a gazebo structure, and new pavers; the lobby and reception area will include ADA upgrades, new flooring, and paint; the racquetball courts 1 & 2 will undergo new energy efficiency lighting, floor resurfacing, and paint; the corridors, hallways, offices and conference room will be renovated with new energy efficiency lighting, new floors and paint; and exterior improvements to the center will also involve ADA upgrades, new landscaping, lighting and parking lot resurfacing. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods and other public and institutional uses such as the Redlands Unified School Districts Administrative Offices and the Boys and Girls Club of the Inland Empire. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: NIA Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 2 11. Related Technical Reports (incorporated by reference): The following reports referenced herein and listed in the References section at the end of this Initial Study have been used to analyze the project. All reports are hereby incorporated by reference, and are available for review at the City of Redlands Facilities and Community Services Department during regular business hours and online at the City's website. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 3 Figure 1: Location Map —WE �r E L�11— I W WE-E-N M'E EWESTEANAVE 7� m rr a U M .Q L n C 0 M 7 0 C O N C Q} U .E E E 0 U C v 0 T -a U) C C6 L N a) L LL Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Paae 5 Figure 3 — Site Plan waOMA AvilNE s •M .OW L4 PROJECT INFORMATION MU FEDLAHDSCOMMURTITYCENTER MOK0WAW;4ADUPf,RAW TO EXISINGFACILITY ADORMT IT1 W LUGONAAYE,REDLAN05, CA;2r4 PLAN KEYNOTES AREA # RFAOYA�ICYAI CONSTRUCT" ✓• MULTIPURPOSER3CM GAMEROGH �1 T,I' THEN AESTRUUTMS GYNRIA.SIUM TEMFNS CCURT5.FIU:LE WILL ACTIYRY ROC#1S 192 .�. NEW MIPLTIAM I H7NEATER N,15C.AW71CfIAL FAOLITS' LFGRFDES -LCBBYIRECEPTICH - RAUUE??ALL LCURIS IB_' -CORRIOORS, HAULS -3fFKE%C0NF. ROOM -CLASSROM -EXTERIOR ADA UPGRADES L49W-kPING PARRNG LOT Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Geology & Soils ❑ Air Quality ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Noise ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Wildfire DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Agriculture & Forestry Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance (✓) I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required. Signature: Date: Tabitha Kevari, Senior Manager Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Im act lm act I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? () () () (✓) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but () () () (✓) not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the (} (} () (✓ } existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point), If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which (} () (✓) ( } would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: alb) No Impact. The Project Site is within the vicinity of a state highway, Route 38 and portions of this highway are included on the Caltrans list of eligible scenic highways. However, the proposed project involves the renovation of the existing center and will not result in impact to any notable geological features, historic resources, or State Scenic Highways within the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not result in a significant impact to the State Scenic Highway. c) No Impact. Currently the Project Site is developed with an existing community center and senior center building, a parking lot, and accessory structures. The surrounding area adjacent to the project site consists of residential neighborhoods and institutional uses such as the Boys and Girls Club and the Redlands Unified School District offices. Implementation of the Proposed Project for renovation of the existing Community center would not degrade the visual character of the area; therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would include renovation and upgrade of existing lighting on the exterior of the building and within the parking lot area however new lighting would be required to comply with City lighting standards. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 8 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Import II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In —Impact determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the states inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or O {) {) (✓ } 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, (} (} (} (✓) or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause (} () (} (✓) rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of O O {) (✓) forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment {) (} { } (✓) which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 9 Discussion: a) No Impact. The Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, identifies the Project Site as "Urban and Built -Up Land". As stated on the map legend, urban and built-up land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. No prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance occurs at the Project Site. Development of the Project Site would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. The Project Site is not under a Williamson Act Contract as identified in the San Bernardino County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016 Sheet 2 of 2 prepared by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. The City of Redlands General Plan does not designate any of the land within the Project Site or in its immediate vicinity for agricultural use. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The Project Site occurs in the land use designation Publicllnstitutional and is within a region identified as being "Urban and Built -Up Land". Forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. No timberland exists in the vicinity and therefore no rezoning from timberland to a non - timberland designation would result. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d, e) No Impact. The Project Site does not support forest land nor does the Project Site support farmland. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not convert forest land to non -forest use or farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Paqe 10 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant lm act With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Im act Ill. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the () () () (✓) applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net O {) O (✓ ) increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial {) (} { } (✓) pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading {) () (} (✓) to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion: (a,b,c,d) No Impact. The Proposed Project location is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the SCAB. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the basin establishes a program of rules and regulations administered by SCAQMD to obtain attainment of the state and federal air quality standards. The most recent AQMP (AQMP 2016) was adopted by the SCAQMD on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including transportation control measures developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) from the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The proposed project is located within the Public/institutional zone of the City of Redlands as shown by the Official City Zoning Map and renovation of the existing center would be consistent with the Redlands Municipal Code permitted uses for this zone, as demonstrated in Section 18.100.040. The proposed project includes the renovation of the existing community center with such improvements as new energy efficiency lighting, new floors, paint, ADA upgrades, new landscaping, and parking lot resurfacing. The proposed project will not result in the ground disturbing activities or construction of any new buildings or facilities. All work performed will be within the existing footprint of the center. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict or obstruct the implementation of applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criterial pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or result in emission of objectionable odors. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 11 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impart With Mitigation Incor oratad Significant Impart No lm act IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly O 0 O {✓) 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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian {) O {) (✓) habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) 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? d) 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances () () (} (✓ ) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat (} 0 0 {✓ } Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Discussion: a, 0 No Impact. The project site consists entirely of developed land and will include the renovation of the existing Community Center. Therefore, no sensitive habitats, and no native plant communities exists on -site. Given the property's existing development, the Project Site does not provide any habitat suitable for use by any special status species known to occur in the region. No mitigation is required. b) No Impact. The Project Site does not support riparian habitat or a sensitive natural community. The Project Site is not identified in local plans, policies, and regulations of the USFWS or CDFW. The proposed project would not result in impacts to riparian vegetation or to a sensitive natural community because these resources do not occur on Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 12 the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The Project Site does not support waters or wetlands habitat that would come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; does not support waters or riparian habitat that would come under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and does not support streams, creeks, washes, or similar waterways, or any riparian habitat what would come under the jurisdiction of CDFW. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. Wildlife corridors represent areas where wildlife movement is concentrated due to natural or anthropogenic constraints. Local corridors provide access to resources such as food, water, and shelter. Animals use these corridors, which are often hillsides or riparian areas, to move between different habitats. Regional corridors provide these functions and link two or more large habitat areas. They provide avenues for wildlife dispersal, migration, and contact between otherwise distinct populations. The Project Site is not located within a designated wildlife corridor or linkage. The Project Site is on an already developed parcel with existing facilities and is surrounded by development. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. e) No Impact. The Proposed Project will renovate the existing facilities on site and will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 13 Less Than Less Potentially Significant Than Significant WO Mitigaitcn Significant No Irract Incorporated Impact Import V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () {) () (✓) significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the {) O O (✓ ) significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those O (} { } (✓) interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: a, b) No Impact. The proposed project will include renovations to the existing Community Center facility that will not involve ground disturbing activities. Renovations includes energy efficient lighting, ADA improvements and new finishes. Therefore, no impact will occur to cultural resources and no mitigation measure are necessary. c) No impact. Construction activities, particularly grading, could potentially disturb human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery. As mentioned previously the proposed project will include renovations to the existing Community Center and no ground disturbing activities will occur. Therefore, no impacts to cultural resources will occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. Potentially Signifcant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. ENERGY. Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environment () () Q (✓) impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for (} (} () (✓) renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion: a, b) No Impact. The State's Title 24 energy efficiency standards are widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards. These standards help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. Policies 8-A.8 and 8-A.39 of the City of Redland's General Plan reinforce the implementation and enforcement of the California Building Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 14 and Energy codes to promote energy efficient building design and construction. Additionally, General Plan Policy 8-A.9 encourages the use of construction, roofing materials, and paving surfaces with solar reflectance and thermal emittance values per the California Green Building Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11) to minimize heat island effects. The Proposed Project would be required by State law to comply with the Title 24 energy efficiency standards. In addition, the renovation will involve upgrades to the facility that will reduce the use of energy such as energy efficiency lighting, water conserving fixtures, drought tolerant landscaping. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Paqe 15 Potentially Less Than Signifiranl Less Than Significant Im act With Mitigation Incorporated significant Impact No Impact VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as { } (} (✓) ( } delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? O O (✓) { ) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including O (} O (✓) liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (} O O {✓) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of () {) {✓) ( ) topsoil? c) Be 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 on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be 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? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting () () (} (✓) the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion: a) i, ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not located in an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as shown in Figure 7-5 of the City's General Plan. The Proposed Project and any renovations would adhere to California Building Code, Chapter 16 Structural Design (Section 1604A.3), and local regulations. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. iii) No Impact. The Project Site is currently developed and as shown in Figure 7-6 of the City's General Plan, is not within an area designated with a susceptibility to Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Paae 16 liquefaction. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. iv) No Impact. As shown in Figure 7-6 of the City's General Plan, the Project Site does not occur within an area susceptible to landslides. The Project Site is generally flat and no hills occur within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a Community Center facility, parking lot and associated landscaping. The proposed project would renovate the existing center and would not result in the removal of any top soil or erosion since the site is already currently developed. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located on the valley floor and topography at the site and in the vicinity is relatively level, sloping gently to the west. The Project Site elevation ranges between 1,200 and 1,250 feet above mean sea level. According to the County of San Bernardino General Plan Hazard Overlay Maps (2010) and Figure 7-6 of the City of Redlands General Plan), the Project Site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for slope instability. There are no known areas susceptible to landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. Expansive soils are composed of fine-grained silts and clays which are subject to swelling and contracting. The amount of swelling and contracting is subject to the amount of fine-grained clay materials present in the soils and the amount of moisture either introduced or extracted from the soils. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal. City sewer collection lines are currently used for the existing development and are available at the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 17 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Vlll. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either () {) (✓) ( } directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or {) {) () (✓) regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion: a) Less than Significant Impact. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are generally thought to be contributing factors to long-term global warming and global climate change. With the exception of vehicular trips generated by the current users of the community center the implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to emit greenhouse gas during operation. The proposed project will renovate the existing facility and will not include expansion of the center existing square footage. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. b) No Impact. Approval of the proposed project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The proposed project is to allow for the renovation of an existing community center which is consistent with the General plan land use designation of Public/Institutional. In addition, the proposed project does not involve the expansion of the existing center nor any additional permanent structures or additions. The proposed project will not conflict or obstruct implementation of AB 32 or policies relating to greenhouse reductions in the General Plan. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 98 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Signircant Irract With Mitigation Incorporated Significant lm act No impact IX. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: {) {) (✓) { } a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () (✓) ( ) environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous () () () (✓ ) or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of () () () (✓) hazardous materials 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? e) For a project located within an airport land use () () () (✓) plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two 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? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere () () () (✓) with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or () () () (✓) indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Discussion: a, b) Less than Significant. Hazardous or toxic materials transported in association with construction of the Proposed Project may include items such as oils, paints, and fuels. All materials required during construction would be kept in compliance with State and local regulations. With implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and compliance with all applicable regulations, potential impacts from the use of hazardous materials during construction and operation are considered less than significant. The proposed project will renovate the existing Community Center and would not involve the long-term storage or disposal of hazardous materials; therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated to occur. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 19 c) No Impact. The nearest school is Lugonia Elementary School which is northeast of the project site; however, as discussed previously the proposed project will renovate the existing center and will not result in handling, storage or emissions of hazardous waste. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d, e) No Impact. The Project Site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites per the EnviroStor interactive database map. The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport to the Project Site is the Redlands Municipal Airport, located approximately 5 miles northeast of the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) No Impact. The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor do streets adjacent to the site serve as emergency evacuation routes. The Proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, no impacts are identified or are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. g) No Impact. As shown in Figure 7-4: Fire Hazards, of the City of Redlands' General Plan, the Project Site does not occur in an area associated with the risk of wildland fire. The Project Site occurs in a predominantly developed area and no wildlands are located on or adjacent to the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts are identified or are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 20 Potenlially Significant Less Than Significant With Miggalon Less Than Significant No IM13arl Incorporated Impact Impact X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, Would the project: { } (} (} (✓) a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or {) () {) (✓) interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 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 which would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- { } (} (} (✓ ) site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of O {) {) (✓) surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would () {) {) (✓) exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? (} O O {✓ } d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk () () () (✓ } release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a { } O O (✓} water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Discussion: a, e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not require any earthwork activities that could potentially allow runoff to convey on -site sediments and pollutants off -site, thereby potentially affecting local downstream waterways by degrading water quality. The proposed project will renovate the existing center; therefore no impact will occur. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 21 b) No Impact. As previously discussed the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially impact groundwater supplies or to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge as it will only involve the renovation of the existing center. The Proposed Project does not include groundwater wells that would impact the production rate of any nearby pre-existing wells. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The Project Site is currently developed with an existing community center facility. The Proposed Project poses no substantial change in the existing flows on- or off -site. No impacts are anticipated. i-iv) No impact. Erosion is the process by which material is removed from the Earth's surface most commonly by wind or water. Erosion is more likely if soils are left unprotected. The Proposed Project includes the renovation of the existing building and landscaping. The Project Site is currently developed with existing structures, landscaping and paved surfaces (i.e., parking lot, drive aisles and walkways). There is no hazard of soil erosion that is anticipated as the project will only involve the renovation of the existing structures on -site. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. The Project Site is not located in a Dam Inundation Area or within a 100- year flood plain according to Figure 7-3 of the City's General Plan and Flood Insurance Rate Map 06071C8711H prepared by FEMA. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? O ( ) { } (✓) b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to () {) () (✓ ) a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Discussion: a) No Impact. The Proposed Project will include the renovation of the existing Community Center and will not result in any construction of any roadway, flood control channel, or other structure that would physically divide any portion of the community. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. The Project Site is designated Public/institutional by the City's General Plan and is zoned Open Space (0). Uses permitted in this designation include public facilities and utilities, public parks, playgrounds, wildlife preserves, and other public uses. The Proposed Project complies with the City's land use goals for the Project Site and does Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 22 not conflict with any other policies or regulations. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 23 Potentially Significant Im ac1 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known (} O O (✓} mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- O O O (✓) important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: a, b) No Impact. The Project Site does not occur in an area identified as Mineral Resource Zone as shown in Figure 6-4 of the City's General Plan. In addition, the Project Site is currently developed and has no known mineral resources. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region; therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Paae 24 Potentia€€y Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With MiBgation Incorporated Significant trract No im act XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) 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? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or () (} (✓) ( } groundborne noise levels? c) 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 two 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? Discussion: a) Less than Significant Impact. Noise is measured in the form of a decibel (dB), which is a unit for describing the amplitude of sound. The predominant rating scales for noise in the State of California are the Equivalent -Continuous Sound Level (Leq), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which are both based on the A -weighted decibel (dBA). The Leq is defined as the total sound energy of time -varying noise over a sample period. The CNEL is defined as time -varying noise over a 24-hour period with a weighted factor of 5 dBA applied to the hourly Leq for noise occurring form 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA applied to events occurring between (10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. defined as sleeping hours). The State of California's Office of Noise Control has established standards and guidelines for acceptable community noise levels based on the CNEL and Ldn rating scales. The purpose of these standards and guidelines is to provide a framework for setting local standards for human exposure to noise. According to the City of Redlands General Plan, the most significant noise levels in the City occur near transportation corridors including roadways, the airport, and railways. Acceptable noise ranges are provided in City's General Plan Table 7-10, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Interpretation, and are listed by land use category. Normally acceptable noise ranges for Institutional land uses range from 65 dBA CNEL to 70 dBA CNEL. Noise associated with the Proposed Project is required to comply with Chapter 8.06.070 and 8.06.080 of the Redlands Municipal Code. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 25 b) Less Than Significant Impact. It is expected that groundbourne vibration from project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. In addition, construction activities would be short-term and would occur within the daytime hours permitted by the City per Chapter 8.06.120 of the Municipal Code. Permitted construction hours in the City are identified in Subsection 8.06.120(G) of the Municipal Code and summarized in Table 6 below: c) No Impact. The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport to the Project Site is the Redlands Municipal Airport, located approximately 5 miles northeast of the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 26 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant With Mitgation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, () () (✓) ( ) either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, () {) () (✓) necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities at the site would be short-term and would likely use employees from the existing pool of construction labor in the region. The employees for the Proposed Project would also likely come from the local community. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require new homes or infrastructure to be built in order to serve Project needs. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with the City's existing Community Center building and associated uses and implementation of the proposed project to renovate the existing center will not result in displacement of existing housing. Therefore, no impact will occur and no mitigation is necessary. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 27 Potenlially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation &gnificant No Im act Inca orated Impact Im act XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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: Fire protection? () {) (✓) ( ) Police protection? {) () (✓) ( ) Schools? {} (} (✓) (} Parks? (} (} {✓} () Other public facilities? O O O {✓) Discussion: a) Fire Protection: Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and existing facilities are currently provided adequate services for fire protection and emergency medical services. The nearest fire station is located on Pennsylvania Street approximately 0.4 miles northeast. Furthermore, although renovation of the City's Community Center may increase the utilization of the facility, this would not be expected to substantially increase calls for service as the users of the facility would be local residents and, thus represent existing demand. For these reasons, the proposed project would not require the construction of new or the expansion of existing fire facilities. Impacts are considered less than significant. Police Protection: Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and existing facilities are provided police services by the City of Redlands Police Department. The existing facility is within an urbanized portion of the city patrolled by the Police Department. Although, the proposed project would renovate the existing center and may increase the utilization of the facility, this would not be expected to substantially increase calls for service as users would primarily be local residents and thus, represents existing demand. For these reasons, the proposed project would not require the construction of new or the expansion of existing police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Schools: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not facilitate direct or indirect population growth, as no residential or permanent employment -generating lands uses would be developed. As such, the project would not increase enrollment in K-12 schools such that new or expanded facilities would be required. No impact would occur. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 28 Parks: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the renovation of the Community Center, the environmental impacts of which are evaluated in this ISIMND. The renovation would occur within the existing footprint of the current building and would not increase the size of the facility. The proposed project may increase utilization of the center and thus, would not contribute to a need for a new or expanded park facilities elsewhere. Impacts would be less than significant. Other Public Facilities: No Impact. The proposed project will renovate the existing center and would not facilitate direct or indirect population growth, as no residential or permanent employment -generating land uses would be developed. Thus, the project would not increase the patronage of public facilities such that new or expanded facilities would be required. No impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 29 Potenlially Signiftcant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incor oraled Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. RECREATION. a) 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? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or () () (✓) () require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the renovation of the City's Community Center which would occur within the existing footprint of the facility and would not increase the building square footage. The proposed project may contribute to an increase in the utilization of the center due to the renovation; however, it will not result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities elsewhere. Impacts would be less than significant. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 30 Poteffaliy Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Na Impact XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy (} (} (✓) ( ) addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with () () (✓) { ) CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a O {) {✓) ( ) geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (} (} (✓) ( ) Discussion: A, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project may result in an increase of use due to the renovation of the center; however, this increase is anticipated from the surrounding neighbors within walking distance of the facility. An increase is daily trips generated by vehicles is not anticipated to occur. The center is located on Lugonia Avenue with adequate facilities to accommodate anticipated daily trips to the center. In addition, the proposed project includes the renovation and repaving of the existing parking lot which is currently underutilized. As such the proposed project would not contribute to unacceptable traffic operations, impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would maintain the location of the existing driveway to the City's Community Center on Washington Street. The access point conforms to acceptable standards of safety (e.g., provision of turn pockets, sight distance, spacing from other intersections, etc.). Although the proposed project may increase the use of the center it would not create any roadway safety hazards because the facility is adequate to accommodate any potential additional trips. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed would continue to take vehicular access at the existing driveway located on Washington Street. This access point, as discussed previously, allows for full turning movements into and out of the parking lot and meets the emergency access requirements of the California Fire Code. As such, adequate emergency access would continue to be provided to and from the City's Community Center. Impacts would be less than significant. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 31 Fetentialiy Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21704 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: i) 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), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its {) {) {) (✓ ) discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Discussion: a) i, ii) No Impact. The proposed project includes the renovation of the existing Community Center and will not include any ground disturbing activities. Renovation of the center will include improvements for ADA upgrades, energy efficiency, and new finishes such as new energy efficient lighting, new flooring, and paint. Additional improvements include repaving of the parking lot and upgrades to the outdoor area. The existing community center is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or Historical Resources local register as an historic resource. Therefore, renovation of the center will not result in an impact. In addition, since the proposed project will not include ground disturbing activities significant impacts to tribal cultural resources is not anticipated; thus no impact will occur. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Paae 32 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact Wth Mifrgation Incorporated Significant Impart No XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the —impact project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction () () V) ( ) 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? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve {) () {✓) ( ) the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater { } O {✓) ( ) treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) 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? e) Comply with Federal, State, and local () () (✓) ( } management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: a, b, c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include the renovation of the City's Community Center which will not result in the expansion of the facility or require additional utility services. The improvements proposed for the facility will include energy efficiency fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping; thus, resulting in less use of services due to improved measures and technology. The Proposed Project would not require the construction of new wastewater facilities, exceed wastewater treatment requirements, or exceed wastewater treatment capacities. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated related to wastewater and water facilities, and no mitigation measures are required. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed project would not 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 (Refer to Section VI of this report) as the project involves the renovation of the existing center. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 33 d, e) Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste from Redlands is primarily disposed of at the California Street Landfill operated by the City, and the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill operated by the County. With continued recycling efforts, there is sufficient capacity at the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill to accommodate growth for the next 20 years and beyond. (San Timoteo: permitted until 2026 or California Street: permitted until 2042). The proposed project will not increase the current generation of solid waste by the Community Center as the square footage of the building will not be modified. The solid waste collection system would not be affected by the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact XX. Wildfire — If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency () () () (✓) response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) 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? c) 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? d) 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? Discussion: a) No Impact. According to Figure 7-4 of the City's General Plan, the Project Site is not located within a high fire hazard severity zone. The 2007 San Bernardino County General Plan designates potential evacuation routes in the event of wildland fires and other natural disasters, and to ensure adequate access of emergency vehicles to all communities. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not impair any emergency response plans or counter any emergency evacuation routes or plans. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b, d) No impact. As shown in Figure 7-4 of the City's General Plan, the Project Site occurs in an area considered to have a moderate fire level threat. In the Planning Area, the highest fire risk areas are in San Timoteo and Live Oak canyons. The Project Site is Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 34 generally flat and within an urbanized/developed area. The Project Site has no known susceptibility to landslides and would not have downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff:, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The Proposed Project is currently developed and is currently serviced by existing infrastructure including roadways, power lines, natural gas lines, water, sewer and telephone). The Proposed Project does not include the installation or maintenance of infrastructure; therefore, the risk of fire from these activities is not anticipated. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Paqe 35 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to (} () () (✓) substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are (} (} () (✓) individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects () () (✓) ( ) which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed and includes a Community Center and associated parking lot. The Project Site is not located in an area identified as Critical Habitat. The Project Site does not provide potential for any special status species habitat given the level of disturbance which has occurred throughout the Project Site. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the renovation of the existing center and will not include alteration or development of a vacant parcel involving ground disturbing activities. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual affects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, developments taking place over a period. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a) and 15130(b) state: (a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 36 (b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Impacts associated with the Proposed Project would not be considered individually adverse or unfavorable. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The incorporation of design measures, City of Redlands policies, standards, and guidelines for implementation of the proposed project would ensure that the project would have no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly on an individual or cumulative basis. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Redlands Community Center Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 37 REFERENCES CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.govfWasteCharacterization/General/Rates California Important Farmland Finder, California Department of Conservation. City of Redlands, 2035 General Plan, December 2017. City of Redlands, General Plan Update EIR, December 2017. City of Redlands, Redlands Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted February 18, 1997. Revised May 6, 2003. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Map Service Center: 06071C from https:/Imsc.fema.gov/portai/search?AddressQuerv=rediands%20california- #search results anchor Regional Urban Water Management Plan- San Bernardino Valley 2015 from http://www.sbvmwd,com/home/showdocument?id=4196 San Bernardino County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016 Sheet 2 fo 2. Accessed 4/11/2019 Soil Survey of San Bernardino County Southwest Part, California, United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1980, Solid Waste Information System Facility Detail California Street Landfill (36-AA-0017), CalRecycle. Accessed 7/1/2019 from hfps://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Director-y136- AA-0017/Detail/ Web Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed 04/11/2019 from https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/appMlebSoilSurvey.- aspx EXHIBIT "B" REDLANDS TEXONIA PARK RENOVATION PROJECT NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ATTACHED] L:Ica\Reso18059 Parks Grant Resolutien.docx CITY OF REDLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM AND INITIAL STUDY Project Title: Redlands Texonia Park Renovation Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Redlands, Facilities and Community Services Department 35 Cajon Street, Suite 222, Redlands, CA 92373 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tabitha Kevari, Senior Manager Telephone: (909) 798-7566 4. Project Location: The City's Texonia Park is an existing 11 acre park located on the northwest corner of Lugonia Avenue and Texas Street. (refer to Figure 1: Location Map; and Figure 2: Aerial Photo). 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Redlands 6. General Plan Designation: Parks 7. Zoning: Open Space 8. Project Description: The City's Texonia Park is an existing 11 acre park located on the northwest corner of Lugonia Avenue and Texas Street. The area is surrounded by single family residential development on all sides. The existing facility is composed entirely of 3 multi -use fields that are utilized for football, soccer, and baseball youth organizations. As the City has grown in size, there has been an increased demand on all city parks for additional amenities. The proposed project helps address the needs of the surrounding community by providing additional amenities within the existing facility while not expanding on the use of the park. The proposed project includes the following renovations and amenities; relocation and renovation of the patio area with the addition of BBQ amenities, renovation of the existing playground area, a new playground area, renovation of the existing field areas to include two mini soccer fields and a baseball diamond with backstop and dugouts, replacement of the existing basketball court, renovated restrooms, updated field lighting, public art sculptures and a small accessory parking lot of approximately 40 spaces. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: NIA 11. Related Technical Reports (incorporated by reference): The following reports referenced herein and listed in the References section at the end of this Initial Study have been used to Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 2 analyze the project. All reports are hereby incorporated by reference, and are available for review at the City of Redlands Facilities and Community Services Department during regular business hours and online at the City's website. Draft initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project Figure V Location Map wmnwowem City of Redlands Paqe 3 r- U) C �c m ry 4.... 0 a i a L.L Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 5 Figure 3 -- Site Plan Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED City of Redlands Page 6 The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Geology & Soils ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Utilities & Service Systems DETERMINATION ❑ Air Quality ❑ Agriculture & Forestry Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Energy ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Transportation ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Wildfire ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: {✓) I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. {) I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. {) I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. { } I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. { } I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required. Signature: Tabitha Kevari, Senior Manager Date: Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? () (} () (✓) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but () (} () (✓) not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the {) () () (✓ ) existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point), If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which () () (✓} ( ) would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: alb) No Impact. The Project Site is not within the vicinity of a state highway or State Scenic Highway. In addition, the Proposed Project involves the renovation of the existing park City park known as Texonia Park and will not result in impact to any notable geological features, historic resources, or State Scenic Highways. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not result in an impact and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. Currently the Project Site is developed with an existing City park and accessory structures (i.e., playground equipment, restrooms, and patio structures) with adjacent properties developed with residential neighborhoods. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not degrade the visual character of the area; therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would include renovation of existing facilities such as the sports lighting; however, the new lighting standards would be required to comply with City lighting standards and would be required to be shielded from adjacent properties. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 8 Potentially Less Than SignTficant Less Than SignTficant Impact Nth Mitigation Inver prated Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the states inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, () (} () (✓) or a Williamson Act contract? c} Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause { } (} (} (✓) rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of O O O (✓} forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment () () (} (✓} which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 9 Discussion: a) No Impact. The Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, identifies the Project Site as "Urban and Built - Up Land". As stated on the map legend, urban and built-up land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. No prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance occurs at the Project Site. Implementation of the proposed project would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. The Project Site is not under a Williamson Act Contract as identified in the San Bernardino County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016 Sheet 2 of 2 prepared by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. The City of Redlands General Plan does not designate any of the land within the Project Site or in its immediate vicinity for agricultural use. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The Project Site occurs in the land use designation Parks and is within a region identified as being "Urban and Built -Up Land". Forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. No timberland exists in the vicinity and therefore no rezoning from timberland to a non -timberland designation would result. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d, e) No Impact. The Project Site does not support forest land nor does the Project Site support farmland. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not convert forest land to non -forest use or farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 10 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incor prated Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the () {) (✓) ( ) applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net O {) (✓) ( ) increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial () {) (✓) ( ) pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading {) {) (✓) ( ) to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion: a-d) No Impact. The Proposed Project location is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the SCAB. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the basin establishes a program of rules and regulations administered by SCAQMD to obtain attainment of the state and federal air quality standards. The most recent AQMP (AQMP 2016) was adopted by the SCAQMD on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including transportation control measures developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) from the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The proposed project is located within the Parks zone of the City of Redlands as shown by the Official City Zoning Map and renovation of the parkland would be consistent with the Redlands Municipal Code permitted uses for this zone. The proposed project includes the renovation of the existing use with such improvements as new playground, renovation of existing sports field, renovation of existing bathroom facilities, new playground and parking lot area. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict or obstruct the implementation of applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criterial pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or result in emission of objectionable odors. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands 11 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Sm act With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Im act No Impact IV. E31OLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) 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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian () {) () (✓) habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) 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? d) 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances O {) {) {✓ ) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat () () () (✓ } Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Discussion: a, f) No Impact. The project site consists entirely of developed parkland and will include the renovation of the existing use. There are no sensitive habitats, and no native plant communities that exist on -site. Given the property's existing development and surrounded uses of residential development, the Project Site does not provide any habitat suitable for use by any special status species known to occur in the region. No mitigation is required. b) No Impact. The Project Site does not support riparian habitat or a sensitive natural community. The Project Site is not identified in local plans, policies, and regulations of the USFWS or CDFW. The proposed project would not result in impacts to riparian vegetation or Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 12 to a sensitive natural community because these resources do not occur on the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The Project Site does not support waters or wetlands habitat that would come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; does not support waters or riparian habitat that would come under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and does not support streams, creeks, washes, or similar waterways, or any riparian habitat what would come under the jurisdiction of CDFW. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. Wildlife corridors represent areas where wildlife movement is concentrated due to natural or anthropogenic constraints. Local corridors provide access to resources such as food, water, and shelter. Animals use these corridors, which are often hillsides or riparian areas, to move between different habitats. Regional corridors provide these functions and link two or more large habitat areas. They provide avenues for wildlife dispersal, migration, and contact between otherwise distinct populations. The Project Site is not located within a designated wildlife corridor or linkage. The Project Site is on an already developed parcel with existing facilities and is surrounded by residential development. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. e) No Impact. The Proposed Project will renovate the existing facilities on site and will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 13 Less Than Less Potentially Significant Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () () () (✓) significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the {) {) O (✓ } significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those {) {) () {✓} interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: a, b) No Impact. Figure 2.1 of the City of Redlands 2035 General Plan indicates the location and type of historic resources, local historic landmarks, and eight historic and scenic districts within the City. The project site is currently developed as a park. There is no record of any historic structures or archaeological resources on the project site. The proposed project involves minimal top soil disturbance of 3°-5° for the parking lot area only. Therefore, the proposed project will not cause substantial adverse change in the significance of any historic or archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The site and vicinity are not known to have historically contained known human remains, and no conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found on the project site. It is not anticipated that implementation of the project would disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In addition, ground disturbing activities associated with this project is limited to only up to 3"-5" of top soil disturbance for the parking lot area for the purposed of paving. Therefore there is no impact anticipated. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant th Mittgation Incorporated Less Thangnifi Sicant Im act No Impact VI. ENERGY. Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environment () () () (✓ ) impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for (} (} { } (✓ ) renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion: Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 14 a, b) No Impact. Based on the small scale and scope of the proposed project, energy consumption anticipated is minimal and associated with park lighting and restroom facilities. The project is not anticipated to result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources both during project construction and operation. Further, the project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy efficiency. No impact is anticipated. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 15 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact Nth Mitigation Incer orated Significant Impact No Impart VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as () (} (✓) ( ) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (} () (✓} ( ) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including O {) O {✓) liquefaction? iv) Landslides? O (} O (✓) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of (} (} (✓) ( } topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is O (} (✓) ( } unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table O O O {✓) 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting O (} (} (✓) the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion: a) i, ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as shown in Figure 7-5 of the City's General Plan. The Proposed Project and any renovations would adhere to California Building Code, Chapter 16 Structural Design (Section 1604A.3), and local regulations. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. iii) No impact. The Project Site is currently developed and as shown in Figure 7-6 of the City's General Plan, is not within an area designated with a susceptibility to Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 16 liquefaction. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. iv) No Impact, As shown in Figure 7-6 of the City's General Plan, the Project Site does not occur within an area susceptible to landslides. The Project Site is generally flat and no hills occur within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a park and associated landscaping. The proposed project would renovate the existing use and would not result in the removal of any top soil or erosion since the site is already currently developed with the exception of the proposed parking lot area that is less than Y-5" of disturbance. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located on the valley floor and topography at the site and in the vicinity is relatively level, sloping gently to the west. The Project Site elevation ranges between 1,200 and 1,250 feet above mean sea level. According to the County of San Bernardino General Plan Hazard Overlay Maps (2010) and Figure 7-6 of the City of Redlands General Plan), the Project Site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for slope instability. There are no known areas susceptible to landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. Expansive soils are composed of fine-grained silts and clays which are subject to swelling and contracting. The amount of swelling and contracting is subject to the amount of fine-grained clay materials present in the soils and the amount of moisture either introduced or extracted from the soils. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal. City sewer collection lines are currently used for the existing park and are available at the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 17 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No impact Vill. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either () {) (✓) ( ) directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or () (} (✓) { ) regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion: a) Less than Significant Impact. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are generally thought to be contributing factors to long-term global warming and global climate change. With the exception of vehicular trips generated by the current users of the park the implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to emit greenhouse gas during operation. The proposed project will renovate the existing use. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. b) No Impact. Approval of the proposed project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The proposed project is to allow for the renovation of an existing park which is consistent with the General plan land use designation of Pub] icllnstitutional. The proposed project will not conflict or obstruct implementation of AB 32 or policies relating to greenhouse reductions in the General Plan. Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IX. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: () (} (✓) ( ) a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the (} () (✓) ( } environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous O (} (} (✓ ) or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Paae 18 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Mcor crated Significant Im act No Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of O O { } (✓} hazardous materials 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? e) For a project located within an airport land use () {) {) (✓) plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two 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? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere () {) () (✓) with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or {) {) {) (✓) indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Discussion: a, b) Less than Significant. Hazardous or toxic materials transported in association with construction of the Proposed Project may include items such as oils, paints, and fuels. All materials required during construction would be kept in compliance with State and local regulations. With implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and compliance with all applicable regulations, potential impacts from the use of hazardous materials during construction are considered less than significant. The proposed project will renovate the existing park and would not involve the long-term storage or disposal of hazardous materials; therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated to occur. c) No Impact. The nearest school is Lugonia Elementary School which is east of the project site; however, as discussed previously the proposed project will include the renovation of the existing park and will not result in handling, storage or emissions of hazardous waste. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required, d, e) No Impact. The Project Site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites per the EnviroStor interactive database map. The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport to the Project Site is the Redlands Municipal Airport, located approximately 5 miles northeast of the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f} No Impact. The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor do streets adjacent to the site serve as emergency evacuation routes. The Proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, no impacts are identified or are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 19 g) No Impact. As shown in Figure 7-4: Fire Hazards, of the City of Redlands' General Plan, the Project Site does not occur in an area associated with the risk of wildland fire. The Project Site occurs in a predominantly developed area and no wildlands are located on or adjacent to the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts are identified or are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 20 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Signi{cant Impact With Mitigation Into prated significant Impact No Impact X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: () () (✓ } (} a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or (} {) () {✓} interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 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 which would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- () (} (} (✓ } site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of () (} () {✓) surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would () () (} (✓) exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? {) O O (✓ ) d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk (} {) {) (✓ ) release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a { } () () (✓) water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Discussion: a, e) Less than Significant. The Proposed Project would not require any earthwork activities that could potentially allow runoff to convey on -site sediments and pollutants off -site, thereby potentially affecting local downstream waterways by degrading water quality. The proposed project will renovate the existing park; therefore no impact will occur. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 21 b) No Impact. As previously discussed the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially impact groundwater supplies or to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge as it will only involve the renovation of the existing park. The Proposed Project does not include groundwater wells that would impact the production rate of any nearby pre-existing wells. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The Project Site is currently developed with an existing park and associated facilities. The Proposed Project poses no substantial change in the existing flows on- or off - site. No impacts are anticipated. i-iv) No Impact. Erosion is the process by which material is removed from the Earth's surface most commonly by wind or water. Erosion is more likely if soils are left unprotected. The Proposed Project would include the renovation of the existing park. The Project Site is currently developed with existing structures and landscaping. There is no hazard of soil erosion that is anticipated as the project will only involve the renovation of the existing use. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. The Project Site is not located in a Dam Inundation Area or within a 100-year flood plain according to Figure 7-3 of the City's General Plan and Flood Insurance Rate Map 06071C8711H prepared by FEMA. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Patenfialiy Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mifigafon Incorporated Less Than Significant Im act No Impact XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? () () () {✓) b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to (} { } () (✓ ) a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Discussion: a) No Impact. The Proposed Project will include the renovation of the existing park and will not result in any construction of any roadway, flood control channel, or other structure that would physically divide any portion of the community. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. The Project Site is designated Park by the City's General Plan and is zoned Open Space (0). Uses permitted in this designation include public facilities, public parks, playgrounds, wildlife preserves, and other public uses. The Proposed Project complies with the City's land use goals for the Project Site and does not conflict with any other policies or regulations. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Pape 22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI1. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) 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? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- O O O (✓) important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: a, b) No Impact. The Project Site does not occur in an area identified as Mineral Resource Zone as shown in Figure 6-4 of the City's General Plan. In addition, the Project Site is currently developed and has no known mineral resources. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region; therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 23 Potentially Less Than Significant less Than Significant Impact VVilh Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) 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? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or () (} (✓) ( } groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a O O O (✓) private airstrip or -an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two 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? Discussion: a) Less than Significant Impact. Noise is measured in the form of a decibel (dB), which is a unit for describing the amplitude of sound. The predominant rating scales for noise in the State of California are the Equivalent -Continuous Sound Level (Leq), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which are both based on the A -weighted decibel (dBA). The Leo is defined as the total sound energy of time -varying noise over a sample period. The CNEL is defined as time -varying noise over a 24-hour period with a weighted factor of 5 dBA applied to the hourly Lea for noise occurring form 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA applied to events occurring between (10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. defined as sleeping hours). The State of California's Office of Noise Control has established standards and guidelines for acceptable community noise levels based on the CNEL and Ldn rating scales. The purpose of these standards and guidelines is to provide a framework for setting local standards for human exposure to noise. According to the City of Redlands General Plan, the most significant noise levels in the City occur near transportation corridors including roadways, the airport, and railways. Acceptable noise ranges are provided in City's General Plan Table 7-10, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Interpretation, and are listed by land use category. Normally acceptable noise ranges for park uses range from 65 dBA CNEL to 70 dBA CNEL. Noise associated with the Proposed Project is required to comply with Chapter 8.06.070 and 8.06.080 of the Redlands Municipal Code. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. It is expected that groundbourne vibration from project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. In addition, Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 24 construction activities would be short-term and would occur within the daytime hours permitted by the City per Chapter 8.06.120 of the Municipal Code. Permitted construction hours in the City are identified in Subsection 8.06.120(G) of the Municipal Code and summarized in Table 6 below: c) No Impact. The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport to the Project Site is the Redlands Municipal Airport, located approximately 5 miles northeast of the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 25 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, { } { } (✓} ( } either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, (} {) () (✓) necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities at the site would be short-term and would likely use employees from the existing pool of construction labor in the region. The employees for the Proposed Project would also likely come from the local community. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require new homes or infrastructure to be built in order to serve Project needs. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with the City's existing park and implementation of the proposed project to renovate the existing use will not result in displacement of existing housing. Therefore, no impact will occur and no mitigation is necessary. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 26 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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: Fire protection? {) () (✓) ( } Police protection? () () (✓) ( ) Schools? () �) (✓) () Parks? O (} (✓) {) Other public facilities? () {) {) {✓) Discussion: a) Fire Protection: Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and existing facilities are currently provided adequate services for fire protection and emergency medical services. The nearest fire station is located on Pennsylvania Street approximately 2 miles east. Furthermore, although renovation of the park may increase the utilization of the facility, this would not be expected to substantially increase calls for service as the users of the facility would be local residents and, thus represent existing demand. For these reasons, the proposed project would not require the construction of new or the expansion of existing fire facilities. Impacts are considered less than significant. Police Protection: Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and existing facilities are provided police services by the City of Redlands Police Department. The existing facility is within an urbanized portion of the city patrolled by the Police Department. Although, the proposed project would renovate the existing park and may increase the utilization of the facility, this would not be expected to substantially increase calls for service as users would primarily be local residents and thus, represents existing demand. For these reasons, the proposed project would not require the construction of new or the expansion of existing police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Schools: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not facilitate direct or indirect population growth, as no residential or permanent employment -generating lands uses would be developed. As such, the project would not increase enrollment in K-12 schools such that new or expanded facilities would be required. No impact would occur. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Paqe 27 Parks: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the renovation of the existing park, the environmental impacts of which are evaluated in this ISIMND. The renovation would occur within the existing footprint of the parkland and would not increase the current size. The proposed project may increase utilization of the parkland and thus, would not contribute to a need for a new or expanded park facilities elsewhere. Impacts would be less than significant. Other Public Facilities: No Impact. The proposed project will renovate the existing park and would not facilitate direct or indirect population growth, as no residential or permanent employment - generating land uses would be developed. Thus, the project would not increase the patronage of public facilities such that new or expanded facilities would be required. No impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 28 Potentially Significant Im act Less Than significant With MilgaGon Incorporated Less Than Significant Im act No Impact XVI. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing () () (VI, () neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or () () (✓) () require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the renovation of the City's park which would occur within the existing footprint of the parkland. The proposed project may contribute to an increase in the utilization of the use due to the renovation; however, it will not result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities elsewhere. Impacts would be less than significant. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 29 Less Than Less Potentially Significant Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Im act im act XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy { } 0 (✓) ( } addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with O { } (✓) ( ) CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a () (} (✓) { ) geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? () () (✓} ( } Discussion: a-d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project may result in an increase of use due to the renovation of the park; however, this increase is anticipated from the surrounding neighbors within walking distance of the facility. The park is located on Texas Street with adequate facilities to accommodate anticipated daily trips to the center. In addition, the proposed project includes the construction of a parking lot to accommodate parking on site instead of street parking. Development of a parking area on site will alleviate any current potential hazardous or unsafety conditions from entering and exiting the park facilities. As such the proposed project would not contribute to unacceptable traffic operations, impacts would be less than significant. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 30 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact VAih Mitigation Incorporated Signifcant Im act No Impact XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21704 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; i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California O O O (✓) Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its () () () (✓ ) discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Discussion: a) i, ii) No Impact. The proposed project includes the renovation of the existing park and will not include any significant ground disturbing activities. The only ground disturbing activities proposed would be for the parking lot area of which will disturb approximately Y-5' of top soil. The parkland is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or Historical Resources local register as an historic resource. Therefore, renovation of the park will not result in an impact. In addition, since the proposed project will not include significant ground disturbing activities impacts to tribal cultural resources is not anticipated; thus no impact will occur. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 31 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Im act XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) 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? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve () () (✓} ( } the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater { } {) (✓) ( ) treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) 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? e) Comply with Federal, State, and local { } () (✓) ( } management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: a, b, c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include the renovation of the City's park which will not result in the expansion of the facility or require additional utility services. The Proposed Project would not require the construction of new wastewater facilities, exceed wastewater treatment requirements, or exceed wastewater treatment capacities. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated related to wastewater and water facilities, and no mitigation measures are required. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed project would not 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 (Refer to Section VI of this report) as the project involves the renovation of the existing park. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d, e) Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste from Redlands is primarily disposed of at the California Street Landfill operated by the City, and the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill operated Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Pane 32 by the County. With continued recycling efforts, there is sufficient capacity at the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill to accommodate growth for the next 20 years and beyond. (San Timoteo: permitted until 2026 or California Street: permitted until 2042). The proposed project will not increase the current generation of solid waste by the park users. The solid waste collection system would not be affected by the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Wi act XX. Wildfire — If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency {) {) () (✓) response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) 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? c) 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? d) 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? Discussion: a) No Impact. According to Figure 7-4 of the City's General Plan, the Project Site is not located within a high fire hazard severity zone. The 2007 San Bernardino County General Plan designates potential evacuation routes in the event of wildland fires and other natural disasters, and to ensure adequate access of emergency vehicles to all communities. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not impair any emergency response plans or counter any emergency evacuation routes or plans. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b, d) No impact. As shown in Figure 7-4 of the City's General Plan, the Project Site occurs in an area considered to have a moderate fire level threat. In the Planning Area, the highest fire risk areas are in San Timoteo and Live Oak canyons. The Project Site is generally flat and within an urbanized/developed area. The Project Site has no known susceptibility to landslides and would not have downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post - fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 33 c) No Impact. The Proposed Project is currently developed and is currently serviced by existing infrastructure including roadways, power lines, natural gas lines, water, sewer and telephone). The Proposed Project does not include the installation or maintenance of infrastructure; therefore, the risk of fire from these activities is not anticipated. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Paae 34 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant impact With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to () () (} {✓) substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are {) (} (} (✓) individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects (} (} (✓} ( ) which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed and includes the City's park and associated facilities. The Project Site is not located in an area identified as Critical Habitat. The Project Site does not provide potential for any special status species habitat given the level of disturbance which has occurred throughout the Project Site. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the renovation of the use and will not include alteration or development of a vacant parcel involving significant ground disturbing activities. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual affects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, developments taking place over a period. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a) and 15130(b) state: (a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Page 35 (b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Impacts associated with the Proposed Project would not be considered individually adverse or unfavorable. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The incorporation of design measures, City of Redlands policies, standards, and guidelines for implementation of the proposed project would ensure that the project would have no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly on an individual or cumulative basis. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Initial Study for Texonia Park Renovation Project City of Redlands Paae 36 REFERENCES CalRecycie. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates from https:/1www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/VVasteCharacterization/General/Rates California Important Farmland Finder, California Department of Conservation. City of Redlands, 2035 General Plan, December 2017. City of Redlands, General Plan Update EIR, December 2017. City of Redlands, Redlands Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted February 18, 1997. Revised May 6, 2003. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Map Service Center: 06071C from hft s:/fmsc.fema. ovl ortal/search?AddressQue =redlands°/fl20california-#searchresultsanchor Regional Urban Water Management Plan- San Bernardino Valley 2015 from http://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showdocument?id=4196 San Bernardino County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016 Sheet 2 fo 2. Accessed 4/11/2019 Soil Survey of San Bernardino County Southwest Part, California, United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1980. Solid Waste Information System Facility Detail California Street Landfill (36-AA-0017), CalRecycle. Accessed 7/1/2019 from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Director-y/36-AA-0017/Detail/ Web Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed 04/11/2019 from https:l/websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.-aspx