Loading...
Res P-15-09RESOLUTION NO. P -15 -09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14 -019 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 317 - 223 -31 WHEREAS, the City Council considered Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 14 -019; a proposal to establish an approximately 47,000- square -foot indoor ice skating arena, training facility and offices within an existing industrial building at 12455 Kerran Street, in the Light Industrial (LI) Land Use Designation area of the South Poway Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing to receive testimony from the public, both for and against, relative to this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows: Section 1: In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Environmental Initial Study (EIS) and a proposed Negative Declaration (ND) have been prepared for CUP 14 -019. The City Council has considered the EIS and ND, and public comments received on the EIS and ND. The subject EIS and ND documentation are fully incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant impact on the environment. The City Council hereby adopts the ND attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway at a regular meeting this 17th day of March 2015. Steve Vaus, Mayor ATTEST: — -),\h o &� 'C&Arl — Sheila R. obian, CMC, City Clerk Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) I, Sheila R. Cobian, CIVIC, City Clerk, of the City of Poway, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. P -15 -09 was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the 17th day of March 2015, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: LEONARD, CUNNINGHAM, MULLIN, GROSCH, VAUS NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE DISQUALIFIED: NONE �& �_�N I-Li — eila . Cobian, CIVIC, City Clerk City of Poway EXHIBIT A CITY OF POWAY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 3 1. Name and Address of Applicant: Nish Mehta /Hattrick Ice, Inc 8152 Run of the Knolls, San Diego, CA 92127 Project Name and Brief Description of Project: Environmental Assessment, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 14 -019; Poway Ice Arena and Training Facility: a proposal to establish an approximately 47,000- square -foot indoor ice skating arena, training facility and offices within an existing industrial building located at 12455 Kerran Street, in the Light Industrial (LI) Land Use Designation area of the South Poway Specific Plan. 2. In accordance with Resolution 83 -084 of the City of Poway, implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the Poway City Council has found that the above - referenced project will not have a significant effect upon the environment and has approved a Negative Declaration. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. 3. This Negative Declaration is comprised of this form along with the Environmental Initial Study that includes the Initial Study and Checklist. 4. The decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final. Contact Person: Approved by: J. Manic, Dfr6o -for Attachment: Environmental Initial Study MAplanning \15 Reports \CUP \CUP14 -019 Hattrick Ice \nd.docx Phone: ( 858) 668 -4661 Date: opment Services CITY OF POWAY ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST A. INTRODUCTION Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 4 This Environmental Initial Study and Checklist, along with information contained in the public record, comprise the environmental documentation for the proposed project as described below pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the information contained herein and in the public record, the City of Poway has prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed project. B. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 14 -019, Poway Ice Arena and Training Facility 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Poway, Development Services 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Oda Audish. (858) 668 -4661 4. Project Location: 12455 Kerran Street, Poway, CA 92064 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Nish Mehta, Hattrick Ice, Inc, 8152 Run of the Knolls, San Diego, CA 92127 6. General Plan Designation: Planned Community, Light Industrial (LI) Land Use Designation 7. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or offsite features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary). The proposed project is the establishment of an indoor ice skating arena and training facility consisting of one rink, snack bar, private team offices, skate rental area, party rooms, locker rooms, storage, and an ancillary retail component for the sale of accessories. The 6.7 -acre project site is developed with an approximately 114,000- square -foot building, of which the proposed training facility would occupy approximately 47,000 square feet. A recycling center /warehouse will continue to operate within the remaining portion of the building. Minor exterior modifications to the portion of the building that would be occupied by the proposed training facility include an approximately 210- square- foot addition to enhance the front entry to the facility, elimination and addition of doors and windows, and filling in an existing loading dock ramp. Two small planter areas totaling 156 square feet would be eliminated and four trees removed. Nine additional trees would be planted and 462 square feet of new planter area would be created. The existing parking lot was originally planned for 236 parking spaces, but only 70 spaces are currently striped. The proposed project would add 153 parking spaces within the existing paved area of the site for a total of 223 parking spaces onsite, including a fenced in area with 25 spaces. Adequate onsite parking would be provided for the use. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located within a nearly built -out business /industrial park and all adjacent properties are developed with buildings that are occupied by office and /or industrial uses. 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g.: permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 5 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. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resource ❑ Utilities and Service ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Mineral Resources Systems ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Hazards /Hazardous Materials ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Agricultural /Forestry ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Recreation Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency): 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 as revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and /or mitigation has been agreed to. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an I n ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed 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 standards, 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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) 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. City of Poway Date EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 C. EIS and Checklist Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 6 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED a. Have a substantial adverse effect on X a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and X historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site X and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely X affect day or nighttime views in the area? 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 Department 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 state's 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 X the maps prepared_ pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring 3 EIS and Checklist Resolution No. P -15 -09 CUP 14 -019 Page 7 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as X 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 forest land to non - forest X land? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing X or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality X standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of eo le? X 1 0 ; o - ® - EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 8 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED 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 X 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 any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, X regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited X to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, 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 X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical X resource as defined in Section 15064.5? k EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 9 a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Zoning Map issued by the State IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT Geologist for the area or based on INCORPORATED b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an Geology Special Publication 42. X archaeological resource pursuant to X Section 15064.5? X c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or X unique geologic feature? X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal X cemeteries? a. Expose people or structures to 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 X 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? X iii) Seismic - related ground failure, X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or X 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 X potentially result in on- or offsite 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 X substantial risk to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not X available for the disposal of wastewater? : EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 10 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may X have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose X of reducing the emissions of greenhouse aases? a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and X 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 X 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 X Code Section 65962.5and, 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 X airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area f. For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a X safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 7 EIS and Checklist Resolution No. P -15 -09 CUP 14 -019 Page 11 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including X where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? E Elm a. Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table lever (e.g., the X production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level, which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a X manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide X substantial additional sources of pollute runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 12 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede X or redirect flood flows? i. Exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding X as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X mudflow? a. Physically divide an established X community? b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, X specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservation plan. a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be X of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan or other land use Ian? 9 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 13 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED a. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration X or ground borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project X vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 X airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in X the project area to excessive noise levels? a. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X 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 X elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction X of replacement housing elsewhere? a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated 10 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 14 a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? a. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit X and non - motorized travel, and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but X not limited to, level of service 11 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED 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. i. Fire protection? X ii. Police protection? X iii. Schools? X iv. Parks? X v. Other public facilities? X a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? a. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit X and non - motorized travel, and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but X not limited to, level of service 11 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 15 e. Result in inadequate emergency X access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or X otherwise decrease the performance or safetv of such facilities? a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of X the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, X or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 12 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase X in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.: sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g.: farm e. Result in inadequate emergency X access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or X otherwise decrease the performance or safetv of such facilities? a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of X the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, X or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 12 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 16 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED e. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate X the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to X solid waste? a. Does the project have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples or the major periods of California history or 1:1 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X 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 X either directly or indirectly? D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 13 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 17 Please refer to the Environmental Initial Study Checklist Form above when reading the following evaluation. AESTHETICS: a. No impact. The site is fully developed with an industrial /warehouse building and paved areas in the South Poway Specific Plan (SPSP) and is surrounded by properties developed with buildings that are occupied by office and /or industrial uses. Exterior site modifications include minor changes to the building exterior and creation of additional parking spaces within the existing paved area, some of which will be fenced. The modifications are in keeping with the surrounding development. The project would result in the net gain of 5 additional trees and 306 square feet of landscape planter on the site. Existing exterior lighting will be utilized. No impact would occur. b. No impact. See response I.a. c. No impact. See response I.a. d. No impact. See response I.a. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: a. No Impact. The project site is located within a business park, with no farmland uses in the vicinity. Thus, the project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farm -land of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural uses. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. The project site is not currently zoned for agricultural use and does not contain Williamson Act contract land. No impact would occur. c. No Impact. The project site does not contain, and is not zoned for, forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur. d. No Impact. As stated in response II.c, the project site is not located in an area containing forest land. Accordingly, project construction and operation would not convert any forest land to non - forest use, and no impact would occur. e. No Impact. The project would not directly impact agriculture nor forest lands, nor introduce new elements into the landscape that would contribute to future conversion of agricultural use to non - agricultural use or forest land to non - forest use. No impact would occur. Ill. AIR QUALITY: a. No Impact. The City of Poway is part of the San Diego Air Basin and air quality in the area is administered by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). An air quality management plan (AQMP) describes air pollution control strategies to be taken by a City, County or region classified as a non - attainment area to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and state air quality standards, and to coordinate regional and local governmental agencies to achieve air quality improvement goals. A San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategies Plan — 1994 (jointly developed by the Air Pollution Control District and the San Diego Association of Govern ments- SANDAG) exists for the San Diego area and provides strategies for pollution control to improve air quality in the region. Land use plans and build out projections of the General Plans of jurisdictions within the San Diego area were considered in establishing the strategies of the Regional Air Quality Strategies Plan. The Poway General Plan includes strategies that are directed toward reducing air emissions through land use patterns, transportation planning, regional agency cooperation, energy conservation, and construction. The South Poway Business Park, which is where the project is located, was established pursuant to the balanced land use 14 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 18 strategies in the General Plan and has established a sub - regional employment center in close proximity to residential uses; thereby helping to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and vehicle emissions, in the County. The project, which involves the establishment of a new business, would create jobs in the South Poway Business Park and is, therefore, consistent with the Poway General Plan strategies and San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategies Plan. The project will not have a significant adverse long -term impact on air quality in the area. In the short term during construction, the project will implement dust control measures, therefore, there will be no impacts b. No Impact. See response Il.a above. c. No Impact. See response Il.a above. Chillers and cooling units placed indoors will create the ice rink surface. The process includes discharge of steam to the exterior through a vent located in the ceiling. The steam does not contain pollutants in conflict with federal or state ambient air quality standard. No impact would occur. d. No Impact. The project would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and no impact will occur. e. No Impact. The project will result not create odor. No impact will occur. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: a. No Impact.. The site is fully developed with a building and paved areas. Two small planter areas containing ornamental plants only and totaling 156 square feet would be eliminated and 4 camphor trees removed. Nine additional trees would be planted and 462 square feet of new planter area would be created. No removal of natural vegetation will occur. Nine new trees would be added to the site. No impact will occur. b. No Impact. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, plans, policies, or regulations are located on the project site. Nor would the project propose any activity that could result in substantially adverse effects on such habitat or natural communities. No impact will occur. c. No impact. See response IV.b. The project site does not contain wetland habitat. d. Less than Significant Impact. Given the developed nature of the project site and absence of on -site native vegetation communities, the project site would not serve any meaningful wildlife corridor function, nor would it be likely to provide a native wildlife nursery site. The proposed project would result in the removal of four (4) camphor trees that were planted when the industrial site was developed approximately 25 years ago. Nine new trees would be added to the site within existing planter areas. The City Tree Removal Ordinance (Poway Municipal Code (PMC) Title 12, Chapter 12.32 Urban Forestry, Section 12.32.110 Tree Removal Permit) protects trees growing on public property, within public rights -of -way and on private properties (including commercial and industrial), and requires a permit and evaluation for tree removals. In accordance with the City's Tree Removal Ordinance, the tree removals shall be conducted in compliance with California State codes and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. As discussed in responses IV.a and b, the project is not impacting any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. As a result, impacts related to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, the use of native wildlife nursery sites, or established native resident migratory wildlife corridors are assessed as less than significant. e. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the removal of four (4) camphor trees, which as discussed in Response IVA, requires a tree removal. The plans calls for the planting of nine (9) new trees. The project site 15 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 19 does not contain any other biological resources that are protected by local policies. Consequently, impacts related to the implementation of the project in regards to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources are assessed as less than significant. f. No impact. See responses IV.a, IV.b, and IV.c. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: a. No Impact. According to the Natural Resources Element of the Poway General Plan, the project site is not located in an area with a high probability that historic sites are present. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. According to the Natural Resources Element of the Poway General Plan, the project site is located in an area with a high probability that archeological sites are present. A cultural resources records search and field survey was conducted in 1984 for the South Poway Planned Development Community Plan area, as detailed in the EIR prepared for the plan (Poway 1985b). The survey identified six archaeological sites in or near areas proposed for development or roadways that could have been impacted by grading and construction. The ice arena site was graded for development over 25 years ago and fully developed with a structure, paving and landscaping consistent. All new excavations for planting of trees and footings for fence posts and a minor building addition would occur within previously excavated areas. Therefore, no impact would occur. c. No Impact. See V.b. Prior construction of the existing business park would have modified any intact soils /potential formations on the project site. The current project does not propose any significant ground disturbing activities that could affect potentially present and unknown paleontological resources or unique geologic feature. No impact would occur. d. No Impact. Please see item V.b, above. Ground disturbance would be limited to areas that have been previously excavated. Therefore, there is no chance of disturbing human remains. No impact would occur. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: a.i Less than Significant Impact. . Less Than Significant Impact. No active known faults traverse the project site or are within 0.5 mile of the site. The nearest known fault is an unnamed fault located approximately three miles northwest of the project site. Murphy Canyon Fault is the nearest main southern California fault, located approximately nine miles southwest of the project site. Three major fault systems within the project vicinity include the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and Rose Canyon faults. The active Elsinore fault trends northwest and is about 22 miles northeast of Poway. The San Jacinto fault is also an active northwest - trending fault about 45 miles northeast of Poway. The Rose Canyon fault is located about 16 to 20 miles west of Poway in the Pacific Ocean and is considered potentially active. There is potential for some local damage in the event of a major earthquake along one of these fault systems, which could result in significant impacts to project facilities. While the potential for on -site rupture cannot be completely discounted (e.g., unmapped faults could conceivably underlie the site), the likelihood for such an occurrence is considered low due to the absence of known faulting within or adjacent to the site. As a result, impacts related to fault rupture are assessed as less than significant. a.ii Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in seismically active southern California and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any number of known active and potentially active faults in the region, including EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 20 several unnamed faults, larger faults such as Murphy Canyon Fault, and major fault systems such as Elsinore, San Jacinto, and Rose Canyon. An earthquake along any of these known active fault zones could result in severe ground shaking and consequently cause injury and /or property damage in the project vicinity. This could potentially result in significant impacts to project facilities. The building that houses the project was designed and constructed to incorporate measures to accommodate projected seismic loading, pursuant to existing guidelines such as the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and the International Building Code, formerly the Uniform Building Code. These guidelines are produced through joint efforts by industry groups to provide standard specifications for engineering and construction activities. They are widely accepted by regulatory authorities and are regularly included in related standards such as municipal building and grading codes, and they include measures to accommodate seismic loading parameters. The building proposed to be occupied by the ice area and training facility was designed and constructed to accommodate projected seismic loading, pursuant to these existing guidelines. Accordingly, potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. a.iii-No impact. See response VI.a.i. a.ivNo impact. See response VI.a.i. b. No impact. See response VI.a.i. c. No impact. See response VI.a.i. d. No impact. No Impact. Expansive soils change in volume (shrink or swell) due to changes in moisture content of the soil. The project site is underlain by Stadium Conglomerate and Stadium Conglomerate - derived fill soils, which have a low expansion index (Wyman Testing Laboratories 1996), and are not considered to have substantial expansive potential. No impact is identified.. e. No impact. The project will be connected to public sewer. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: a. Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHGs), allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities; and the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth's temperature. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed "global warming." The state of California's Climate Change Scoping Plan aims to reduce state and local GHG emissions by primarily targeting the largest emitters of GHGs: transportation, including emissions from vehicles, and energy sectors. Item XVI.a below concludes that the project is not anticipated to result in substantial numbers of new vehicle trips on roads, but is expected to simply re- distribute the local area vehicle trips within the air basin. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. b. No Impact. See response Vll.a above. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: a. No Impact. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 the subject property is not listed on the current listing (February 2012) of the Hazardous Materials Establishments and Sites as prepared by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. The project involves establishment of an ice arena training facility within an existing building that will not involve the use of hazardous materials or otherwise result in any public hazards. The Zamboni to 17 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 21 clean the ice will be electrical and therefore not result in any emissions. No impact will occur. b. No Impact. As the project does not propose the use of hazardous materials, it will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No impact will occur. c. No Impact. As the project does not propose the use of hazardous materials, it will not emit hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials into the environment. No impact will occur. d. No Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and as such would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No impact will occur. e. No Impact. The closest airports to the project site are Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site, and Gillespie Field, located approximately 8 miles southeast of the project site. The project does not currently contain, nor does it propose, habitable structures that would result in exposure of people to safety hazards from these airports. In addition, the project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of either of these airports. Thus, operation of the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area and no impact would occur. f. No Impact. See Item Vlll.e above. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area and no impact would occur. g. No Impact. The project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project would not interfere with people's ability to utilize roadways for evacuation purposes. Accordingly, no impact would occur. h. No Impact. According to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) map for Poway (CAL FIRE 2009), the project site is located within a non - VHFHSZ. In addition, the project site is within an urbanized and developed area, and not located adjacent to any large expanses of wildlands. Accordingly, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: a. No Impact. The project will comply with all stormwater quality regulations, which will be ensured as part of the project improvements plan review. Accordingly, it would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and no impacts would occur. b. No Impact. The project does not propose any construction activities that would directly affect groundwater, contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. No impact would occur. c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site has already been developed. The project would include the addition of 208 square feet of additional floor area, the elimination of 2 small planter areas and filling in a truck loading dock. These minor modifications would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area (including through alteration of the course of a stream or river) in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite. The project will comply with City stormwater regulations. Impacts will be less than significant. d. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Item IX.c above, the project would not result in changes to the existing drainage of the project site. Waste water from the ice maintenance process using the Zambonis would be discharged into the sewer system. No substantial increase in the rate or amount ic EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 22 of surface runoff would occur in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite. Impacts will be less than significant. e. Less Than Significant Impact. Two small landscape planters would be eliminated to make room for the addition and parking lot revisions. The amount of storm water runoff generated by this conversion from pervious to impervious surface will be negligible, particularly considering that the project would create new planter areas over existing non - pervious surfaces. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant. f. Less Than Significant Impact. Storm water runoff from the site will be treated to minimize pollutants in compliance City standards, therefore, the impact will be less than significant. g. No Impact. The project site is designated as "Zone X" on associated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs; Converse 2010). The Zone X designation is applied to areas that are outside of mapped 500- and 100 -year floodplain limits. Additionally, the project does not involve the construction of any housing. No impact would occur. h. No Impact. As stated in Item IX.g the project site is not located within a 100 - year flood hazard area, nor would the project entail the construction of structures which could impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur. i. No Impact. The project site is not located within or adjacent to any mapped dam inundation areas, with the closest such designated inundation areas (as opposed to specific reservoir locations) located approximately 4 miles to the southwest in association with the Miramar Reservoir and 6 miles southeast in association with the San Vicente Reservoir. Dam inundation areas are locations that would be flooded should a dam failure occur. The inundation areas are generally located downstream (i.e., south and /or west) of these two reservoirs, at a farther distance from the project than from the water bodies themselves. Based on the fact that this project site is located upstream of the inundation areas, no significant risk of loss, injury or death would result from project implementation. No impact would occur. j. No Impact. The project site is not near any water body, no impacts would occur. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: a. No Impact. The project is appropriately located within a business park. It is not located within an established residential community and does not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. The project site is zoned and designated by the City of Poway General Plan as Planned Community (PC) and has historically been used for light industrial uses. The project is located within the South Poway Specific Plan (SPSP) area and is designated as "Light Industrial' (LI; Poway 2011b, as amended). The LI category is intended to promote the development of attractive comprehensively planned industrial uses that help to provide the City with a sound and diverse industrial base. The SPSP incorporates major industrial employment areas to implement the Poway Comprehensive Plan goals for industrial development. As a planned community, the SPSP provides employment opportunities in Poway and provides a needed balance of uses within the City, which has primarily been developed with residential and commercial land uses. Within the LI designation, recreational uses are conditionally permitted. The building addition would match the architecture of the existing building. Thus, the project would not conflict with the SPSP, Poway General Plan, or any other identified land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 19 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 23 c. No Impact. As discussed in Items IV.a, IV.b, and IV.c, implementation of the project would not result in impacts to the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP) /Natural Community Conservation Plan because it is not located within a Poway Subarea HCP Mitigation Area. No impact would occur. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: a. No Impact. According to the Poway General Plan, the only known valuable mineral resource, as recognized by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, is construction quality sand and gravel located in the South Poway area of the City. Currently, one sand and gravel extraction operation is located south of the project site in Beeler Canyon. The project property is not currently utilized for mineral extraction and there are no future plans for mineral resource extraction at the site. The project would not result in any ground disturbance that could potentially affect unknown subsurface deposits. Accordingly, the project would not result in any impacts related to mineral resources. b. No Impact. See response to Item XI.a. XII. NOISE: a. No Impact. The project is the establishment of an indoor ice arena and training facility proposed within an existing industrial /office park. All activities will be conducted indoors except for the parking of cars which will occur within an existing paved space. Chillers would be located indoors in a mechanical room that contains sound panels and baffles. Based on these considerations, the project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Poway General Plan or noise ordinance, and no impact would occur. b. No Impact. The project does not include any components that would result in excessive groundborne vibration. No impact would occur. c. No Impact. The project is located within a business park and surrounded by other allowable (i.e., commercial /industrial) uses. Refer to Item Xll.a for a general description of project - related noise that will comply with City standards with mitigation. No impact would occur. d. No Impact. The project construction activities will result in temporary or periodic increases in noise typically related to construction. Per City standards, the noise generating construction activities are limited to certain times of the day and days of the week. No impact is identified. e. No Impact. The closest airports to the project site are Marine. Corps Air Station Miramar, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site, and Gillespie Field, located approximately 8 miles southeast of the project site. The project does not currently contain, nor does it propose, habitable structures that would result in people being exposed to noise from these airports. In addition, the project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of either of these airports. No impact would occur. f. No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: a. No Impact. The project is an indoor ice arena and training facility occupying approximate 47,000 square feet of an existing building. The employees and clients generally come from residences within the community /appropriate commuting distance (as they see it). While the facility would provide 011 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 24 opportunities for recreational activities, it would not induce substantial direct or indirect population growth in the surrounding area. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. The project site is located within an established business park. No housing would be displaced and no construction of replacement housing would be required. No impact would occur. c. No Impact. See Item Xlll.b. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: a.i. Less than significant impact. The project site and the surrounding business park are served by the City of Poway Fire Department. The closest fire station to the project site is Station 1, which is located at 13050 Community Road, approximately 1.2 miles north of the project site. Implementation of the project may result in an incremental increase in the demand for fire protection and emergency services. The site is already included within the Fire Department service area. Any specific service provided should there be an (unexpected) emergency call to this building is accounted for through property taxes paid. Because new or upgraded fire protection facilities would not be required as a result of establishment of this project and no physical impacts resulting from construction of new facilities are identified, the project impact to fire service would be less than significant. a.ii. Less than significant impact. The City of Poway contracts with the San Diego County Sheriffs Department for their services in law enforcement. The project site is currently served by the Poway Station, which is located at 13100 Bowron Road, approximately 1.4 miles north of the project site. Similar to discussion for Item XIV.a above, the site is included within the Sheriffs service area. Any specific service provided should there be an (unexpected) emergency call to this building is accounted for through property taxes paid on the property. Because no new or upgraded police protection facilities would be required as a result of establishment of this project and no physical impacts resulting from construction of new facilities are identified, project impacts to police service would be less than significant. a.iii.No Impact. The project does not include any residential uses and would not result in the addition of new residents to the City. As a result no project - related changes to school facilities would be required. No impact would occur. a.iv.No Impact. As stated above, the project would not include any residential uses and would not result in the addition of new residents to the City. Project implementation would not require new or physically altered park facilities (see also Item XV, below for discussion of use effects). No impact would occur. am. No Impact. As stated above, the project would not include any residential uses and would not result in the addition of new residents to the City. Therefore, no impact on other public facilities is identified. XV. RECREATION: a. No impact. The project involves the establishment of an ice arena and training facility business on a developed commercial site. The business will not result in a demand for park or recreation services. No impact would occur. b. No impact. See response XV.a. XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: a. No Impact. Trip generation rates are typically obtained from the SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, 2002 or the ITE Trip Generation, 2008 (8'h Edition) in cases where a specific land use is 21 EIS and Checklist Resolution No. P -15 -09 CUP 14 -019 Page 25 addressed. Neither the SANDAG or ITE manuals address ice arena uses. Since established data is not available, site - specific traffic volumes were calculated based on project - specific information. ITE identifies variables such as employees, deliveries, etc., that were used for determining project traffic volumes. Project traffic was calculated using the maximum projected number of participants, employees, and deliveries expected for the facility per day and is estimated at 600 average daily trips (ADTs). Spectator seating would not be provided at the facility. The trips would be evenly distributed throughout the day between 5 a.m. and into the late evening depending on the various skating activities being offered. The SPSP identifies permitted uses, and uses that are permitted subject to a CUP or Minor CUP, for properties in the LI land use designation area. Indoor ice skating uses are permitted with a CUP. The range of trips generated for the various allowable uses identified in the SPSP based on a building size of 47,000 square feet are shown in the following table. ALLOWABLE USES AND ADT FOR THE PROJECT SITE SANDAG Trips per 1,000 Building Average Daily Land Use Square Feet Square Feet Trips ADT Manufacturing 4 47,000 188 Warehousing 5 47,000 235 Research 8 47,000 376 Services Building Material /Lumb 30 47,000 1,410 er Yard Athletic and 30 47,000 1,410 Health Club As shown above, the range of ADT for uses associated with the project site ranges from 188 ADT to 1,410 ADT. The estimated 600 ADT for this project are within the ADT maximum for the other allowed uses per the SPSP. Thus, the project would be in compliance and no conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system would occur. No roadway or traffic improvements or land use changes that would conflict with adopted plans, ordinances or policies regarding other modes of transportation, including mass transit or pedestrian and bicycle paths, would occur. No Impact. The SANDAG Congestion Management Program (CMP) is intended to determine if a large project (greater than 2,400 ADT or more than 200 AM or PM peak hour trips) would adversely impact the CMP transportation system. A CMP analysis is not required for this project because the project is calculated to generate fewer than 2,400 ADT and fewer than 200 AM or PM peak hour trips. The CMP system includes Scripps Poway Parkway, which provides access to the 22 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 26 business park and the project; however, the project is calculated to generate less than the aforementioned thresholds, thus a CMP analysis is not required. No impact would occur. c. No Impact. The project site is not located within an Airport Influence Area. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks. No impact would occur. d. No Impact. The project would not include the modification of any roadways or intersections, and thus, would not result in a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. No impact would occur. e. No Impact. The project would not involve any roadway or traffic improvements, land use changes or changes to the existing facilities that would result in inadequate emergency access. All materials would be stored inside the building. Emergency access lanes within the parking area would be kept open and available for emergency vehicle use. No impact would occur. f. No Impact. As discussed in Item XVI.a no roadway or traffic improvements or land use changes that would conflict with adopted plans, policies or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities, are associated with the business. No impact would occur. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: a. Less than significant impact. The project site is within an existing business park, which is already approved for sewage treatment of its uses at build out. Adequate wastewater treatment facilities and services are in place to serve future uses at the project site. The project involves the establishment of an ice arena and training facility which would not generate significant amounts of sewage, in that only a minor portion of the melted water from the discarded ice will be discharged into the sewer. The majority of the discarded ice will be recycled and reused for the ice rink. The project would not require the construction or expansion of any wastewater facilities or exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements. Impacts to wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant b. Less than significant impact. See response XVll.a. c. Less than significant impact. See responses IX.d and XVll.a . d. No impact. The business park was designed and approved for a broad variety of uses. Water availability for that complete suite of uses was reviewed as part of the South Poway Planned Community Development Plan Final EIR (Poway 1985b) and Subsequent Final EIR (Poway 1988). Elements related to the provision of water service for the business park, including site - specific hook -ups, as well as availability of regional water facilities, were addressed in the Final EIR. The proposed ice arena and training facility is consistent with the range of uses incorporated into the water demand analyzed with the South Poway Planned Community Development Plan Final EIR (Poway 1985b) and Subsequent Final EIR (Poway 1988). Discarded and melted ice from the ice rink would be would to a great extend be reapplied to the ice rink. No new water entitlements would be required. No impact would occur. e. Less than significant impact. See response XVll.a. f. No impact. The project site is located within an existing business park that has been accounted for with regard to solid waste generation in the South Poway Planned Community Development Plan Final EIR (Poway 1985b) and Subsequent 23 EIS and Checklist CUP 14 -019 Resolution No. P -15 -09 Page 27 Final EIR (Poway 1988). Thus, the project would be served by an existing waste disposal facility with sufficient capacity and no impact would occur. No impact. The new business will appropriately separate its business waste so that recyclables and controlled wastes are separated from landfill trash in accordance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. The project would comply with all federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act. No impact would occur. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE: a. No impact. See responses IV.a and IV.b. b. Less than significant impact. See responses Ill.e, Vll.a, and Xll.a. c. Less than significant impact. See responses Ill.e and Vll.a M: \planning \15 Reports \CUP \CUP14 -019 Poway Ice Arena and Training Facility \EIS.docx M