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