HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 47540 0
1 I/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4754
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM
BUILDING HEIGHT, PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF
EXPANSION AREAS 1 AND 3, AND PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE BATFLYER RIDE IN THE CASTLE
HILL CLUSTER OF LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD EAST
OF ARMADA DRIVE AND WEST OF HIDDEN VALLEY
ROAD WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE CARLSBAD
RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 13.
CASE NAME: LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA EXPANSION
CASE NO. : SDP 96-14(A)/CDP 96- 16(A)
AREAS 1 AND3
13 WHEREAS, LEGOLAND California, Inc. “Developer”, has filed a verif
14 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by LEGOLAND Estates, A
15 “Owner”, described as
16
17
18
19
Lots 18 and 19 of City of Carlsbad Tract No. 94-09, Carlsbad
Ranch Units 2 and 3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
13408, recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County on April 1,1997
20 (“the Property”); and
21 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigat
22
23
Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
24
25
26
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of April, 2000, hol
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimc
27 II and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, i
28 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fact
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plm
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plam
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Nega
Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progl
according to Exhibit "ND" dated February 1,2000, and "PII" dated January
2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
FindinPs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declarat:
Addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any corn(
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance \.T
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guideli
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evideI
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the LEGOLAI
California Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
.. .
. ..
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4754 -2-
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plm
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of April, 2000, by
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Nielsen
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Segall and Trigas
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4754 -3-
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl dr ION MONITORING CHECKLIST: a ge 1 of 1
c 4
(D 2
g
Q, n n
9
(i,
n n
d
7
Q,
v) Lie: Eiw
2:
ma =e
~a
0 k n z 0 0
w_r
LZ
.- m
E 0 If - 8
4
n z
0 c3 W -I
w+ w za an
t-a ks 8%
21
En yna
$ .v, = agm .Ec. x .- (u E €5 E
,o$$
a, .o a LZ 07
bg 0 .s -
.E 2 a,
.g $ 2
kE5
v) 5 -3 553
L .F g 2 .e
9 "0 '5 gmw ,a, $) asp
rc 5 'r 0, 0
E5 E oao
0
c.=Q "v)uY
.- .-
- €i
CLL
E%?
5 B -E
0 .&5
a,cna, SF5
,omv) .- a, E cu=
zs+
ggs E? o 0- 842 .- aj a, 2:$
a, 8E 3, E
a, ogz
.- os a, s +- (u mE.g
.- +- m,o E " a, €3 8m
S.E,O 00 sL3a, g gJ= 2
.5€$)2
pz gg '3 a, - - oue a,.On PgZ-
J= a,?=? a, C.GO
U
-3
+- Qu
sc
v) s .- 2.PU . 3 uI c- m.G (uc9
(ub
E- 0
C ?zz
.-
-(uCa,
(u na,m
cnw
CCSv) Cuocna, .= (u Cf
I-T Em
v) z 2
rY
0 .- ga Ea.: aE >a,
c
S
- e
:2 z sz 0
S
L a
mz .G .- c Q)
0
I- C tig *p q f LI:
=a w
a c .- 5%
SF 8 .=>,
2
CI
2 .-
'a
U)5= a,u--a,a L
.c.' a, c.s K sLG- cm 0 a,-ci-nz 0
u- zE! i 2 &.l.g &.,so5gIz
L m E a,:p a,-4
0 gh
qij 835 g 3 xi-
u) =I ssKzxibL x
Q % .P 3 x.f OKs mocoz OLcn
c " cnmmyj 0
'z; 0- mLGa,.Es2$$ .- .w rn rn a,.q5%*& 0-0 mz
a!? g= g.g m 0 (II $ SE Ezz $rg >=e gz g@g 0"" gm5.;5 F 5
a, E?% != E aa go-=
+22 m 3 a,.g.- vag
v] Cos a, 5 K*.o Losnz.sN E.z
2 0 a, Qxi 0 a, c g.5
.- -
.- L -res m a, xi a
g Q*a,EwKa,0o
m LK
g &E- .%eK+r
c L L-
2 EacO 05 Q og(Tp"E..-z
-=xiL 0a.GkLg.G .e mu- %0 m a, 0
f 5
d L. 9s
UQ
a,$ E
CE 2s 8%
gz
$0)
Ed 8
%!j:'ts 59 5
2% cn 3 :e .E
C2 v) 0-4
0
CL
-
.- Ea$
c .EJ
a, .r
.- 0-0 v)
Em-, C-z
ss II .- 5
B3L
._ -c3
.- "
gss; $5 gs 2;:; ;rzs
"E a- %.E
*a
-
- b
.- 3 0 x n
0)
m
C .- - b ._ C E
L P
P a,
v) c 0 n v)
-
P
5 c a, 0,
._ - 2;
Liz$$ g.g;i
2% E
% &%$
- m- =,z Ea,
,I on a,
0 .C
- g I;!; 'F a, 'E cnz
WFZ
-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: One LEGOLAND DRIVE/North side of Palomar Airport Road
east of Armada Drive and west of Hidden Valley Road.
Project Description: An Amendment to the Site Development Plan and Coastal
Development Permit for LEGOLAND California to: (1) Increase
the maximum building height limit to 45 feet as provided for in the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan; (2) Site Plan for Inner Park
Expansion Area 1; and (3) Site Plan for Inner Park Expansion Area
3 on the approximately 128 acre LEGOLAND California Theme
Park located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road east of
Armada Drive and west of Hidden Valley Road.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4612.
DATED: Febraury 1,2000
CASE NO: SDP 96-14(A)/CDP 96-16(A)
CASE NAME: LEGOLAND California Expansion Areas 1 & 3
PUBLISH DATE: February 1,2000
(
Planning Director
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 96-14(A)/CDP 96-16(A)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME:LEGOLAND California - Expansion Areas 1 & 3
2. APPLICANT: LEGOLAND California, Inc./ Mr. Jim Fend
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPICANT: One LEGOLAND Drive, Carlsbad. CA
92008 (760) 918-5300
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 20,2000
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTON: A Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit
Amendment to: (1) Increase the maximum building height limit to 45 feet as provided for in the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan; (2) Site Plan for Inner Park Expansion Area 1; and (3) Site Plan for
Inner Park Exuansion Area 3 at the apuroximatelv 128 acre LEGOLAND California Theme Park located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road east of Armada Drive and west of Hidden Valley
Road . The proiect includes theme park attractions, retail, food and beverage service, associated
support facilities, and parking. The initial phase of the LEGOLAND California Theme Park was
completed in March of 1999.
6. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning IXI TransportatiodCirculation B Public Services
c] Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems n Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
m Water e3 Hazards [XI Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise [7 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e DETERMINATION. 0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
/J I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant 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 Negative
declaration 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact
report (EIR) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
h L z /-ZG-OO
Planner Signature Date
I Iz?/OO
Date
0 e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “NO Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact’’ answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
0 e
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1; pg. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18) 17
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1; pg.5.4-5 through 5.4-13, 5.7-1 through 5.7-
18, and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses? (1; pg. 5.1-1 through 5.1-16)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1; 5.7-1 through 5.7-18)
0 la
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1; pg. 7-1 through 7-4)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0
0 9)
housing? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-9)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (1 ; Appendix A)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1; Appendix A)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1;
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1; Appendix A)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1 ; Appendix A)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1;
Appendix A and pg. 5.12-6 and 5.12-7)
0 0
o 0
o
Appendix A) 0
g) Subsidence of the land? (1 ; Appendix A)
h) Expansive soils? (1; Appendix A) n LI i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1; Appendix A)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (1; pg. 5.12-1
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (1 ; Appendix A)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
0
0
0
through 5.12-7)
5
a
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
17 0 0
0 0 0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
UEI
OB
OH no
OH
ON
OBI
OB
OH ON UIXI
OH OH om
OB OH OB
om
om
ON
Rev. 03/28/96
a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
r) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through 17
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (1; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22 and 5.12-1
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1 ;
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through
5.12-7)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pg.
through 5.12-7)
pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
5.9- 13 through 5.9-22)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (1; pg. 5.2-1
through 5.2-8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1; pg. 5.2-1,
5.2-4, 5.2-6, and 5.2-7)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (1; Appendix A)
d) Create objectionable odors? (1; Appendix A)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1; pg.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-30)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-30 and 5.9-1 through 5.9-4)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1; pg.
5.5-25 and 5.5-26)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1;
Appendix A)
r) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; pg.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pg. 5.7-1
proposal result in:
5.5-1 through 5.5-30)
5.7- 16)
through 5.7- 18)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1; pg.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-
5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
6
0
0
[XI
0
la
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
El
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No Significan Impact
t Impact
UEI om
UIXI
UIXI
DEI
UIXI
on
UBI
OBI
DIXI
no
OB
DEI Elm om
UIXI
om
ow
ow ow
Rev. 03/28/96
s
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1; pg. 5.4-1
(1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) 0
through 5.4- 13)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1;
Appendix A)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( 1 ; Appendix A)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [7
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (1; Appendix A)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1 ; 5.9- 1 through 5.9-4)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
0
0
0
0
17
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1 through
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1
5.8-7)
through 5.8-7) 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (1; pg. 5.9-1 and 5.9-2)
b) Police protection? (1; pg. 5.9-2 through 5.9-4) 0 0 0
0
C) Schools? (1; pg. 5.9-7 through 5.9-13)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1;
e) Other governmental services? (1; pg. 5.7-2 and 5.7-16)
pg. 5.7-2, 5.7-3, and 5.7-16) 0
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (1; Appendix A)
b) Communications systems? (1 ; Appendix A) n 0
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution i3
7
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 ow
0 OB
UBI ow
0 OM
0 OH
0 o[XI
0
[XI
ow on
0 UBI
0
0
la 0 0
I7
o 0 0 0
El
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
0 OH
0 om 0 OM ON
Rev. 03/28/96
a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
facilities? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
f) Solid waste disposal? (1; pg. 5.10-1 through 5.10-5)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13
0 0
through 5.9-22) El
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1; pg. 5.11-1
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1; pg.
c) Create light or glare? (1; Appendix A)
through 5.1 1 -7) 0
5.11-1 through 5.11-7) 0 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through
c) Affect historical resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
through 5.3-8) 0
5.3-8) 0 0
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1; pg. 5.3- 0
potential impact area? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
1 through 5.3-8)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1; pg. 5.7-2 q
through 5.7-3 and 5.7- 16)
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16) 0 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the El
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 of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? Ixl
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will 0
8
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0 I8 El
0
0
w
El
0 0
El
0
Ixl
0
!XI
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 0
5 !XI
0
OH ow ow
nu no
OH ON
OIxl
ow
OH
on
00
on
Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
@ 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The initial phase of the LEGOLAND California Theme Park was completed in March of 1999.
Approximately 113 acres of the 128 acre site were developed during the initial construction
including rides, attractions, food, retail, parking, landscaping, administration and support uses.
Approximately 15 acres of undeveloped land remain for future expansion of rides and attractions.
Four locations for future expansion are identified on the approved Site Development Plan as
“Expansion Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4”. No detailed plans were developed for the expansion areas
during the original approval of the Site Development Plan for the park. The project site is
located on the north side of Palornar Airport Road, east of Armada Drive and west of Hidden
Valley Road within Planning Area 4 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan.
This proposal to amend the LEGOLAND Site Development Plan and Coastal Development
Permit consists of the following three parts:
1) Increase the maximum building height from thirty-five (35) feet to forty-five (45) feet by
complying with provisions contained in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Allowed height
protrusions would be permitted to a height of fifty-five (55) feet from the present height
maximum of forty-five (45) feet.
2) A Site Plan for “Expansion Area 1” to permit the construction of the Duplo Junior Coaster
with related improvements including, grading, utilities, walkways, and landscaping on a 0.6
acre area.
3) A Site Plan for “Expansion Area 3” to permit the construction of six proposed rides and
attractions to include the Technic Track Ride, Aviator, Caterpillar, Spinning Cups, Typhoon,
and Aqua Drag, a 3,200 square foot retail shop building, a 5,510 square foot restaurant
building, relocation of the existing nursery shade structure, grading, utilities, walkways, and
landscaping on an approximately 3.8 acre area. Also proposed are minor modifications to the
parking lot to relocate spaces to accommodate increased landscape setbacks required to
adjust the building height for the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The LEGOLAND project was evaluated in the “Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final
Program Environmental Impact Report, dated November 1995 (EIR 94-01).” EIR 94-01
evaluates the environmental effects of the development and operation of: The Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan; improvements to the I-S/Cannon Road Interchange; and the development of a 24.2
acre parcel immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the specific plan site. The Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan is a planning document which will guide the development of a 447.40 acre
area through the provision of a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and implementation
programs. The proposed land uses for the Specific Plan include office, research and
development, related light manufacturing, commercial, hotel, destination resort, golf course,
agriculture, a vocational school campus, and LEGOLAND California. The 24.2 acre parcel
adjacent to the northern boundary is proposed as a continuation of the Specific Plan golf course.
EIR 94-01 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agricultural Resources, Air
Quality, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, Biological Resources,
Traffic/Circulation, Hazardous Wastepesticide Residue, Land Use Compatibility; Noise, Public
10 Rev. 03/28/96
_o e
Services and Utilities, Solid Waste, Visual AestheticdGrading, and Water Quality. The Initial
Study prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment is contained in Appendix A of EIR 94-01 and
analyzed additional issues which were determined not to have a significant environmental
impact. EIR 94-01 was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on January 9, 1996. At that time
Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation and
Monitoring Program were approved.
Environmental analysis for LEGOLAND California in EIR 94-01 was based on project buildout,
including the future development of the expansion areas within the park. All mitigation
measures applicable to the LEGOLAND California project have been incorporated into the
project design or are required as conditions of approval. Many of the mitigation measures are
now completed, others are on-going or are in progress.
References to the applicable section of EIR 94-01 are provided next to each item on this
environmental impact assessment form. A brief explanation is provided in the following section
for each item checked as having a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigation incorporated”:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
d) Agricultural Resources
The project site includes approximately 93.35 acres that were approved for tentative and
later final cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract. The analysis in
EIR 94-01 concluded that no mitigation measures are necessary as project impacts will be
reduced to a level less than significant through the payment of fees consistent with the
coastal program, the preservation of 53 acres within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan
area, and through the implementation of policies contained in the specific plan.
The EIR analysis concluded that the conversion of the existing agricultural lands on the
Carlsbad Ranch and cumulative areas to urban uses will result in a significant incremental
impact to agricultural resources. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted
for this cumulative impact.
The expansion areas are currently vacant. Agricultural operations formerly existing on
the site were removed during the original development of the park and were mitigated as
described above. Implementation of the proposed expansion site plans and increase in
building height will have no further impact on agricultural resources or operation.
V. AIR QUALITY
a) Air Quality
No significant impacts as a result of construction activity are anticipated. Implementation
of the air quality mitigation measures will lessen long-term operation air quality impacts
to a level less than significant. It was concluded in the analysis for EIR 94-01 that the
development anticipated under the proposed specific plan amendment together with the
development of other related projects will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact on the region’s air quality. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted
for this cumulative impact.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
s 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a) Increased Vehicle Trips
A series of circulation system improvements were required as part of the development of
the Carlsbad Ranch property. With the implementation of the improvements identified in
EIR 94-01 all of the analyzed intersections and street segments are projected to operate at
acceptable levels of service. It was determined that the Carlsbad Ranch project in
conjunction with cumulative build-out forecasts, will result in a significant cumulative
impact to the 1-5 freeway and SR-78. A statement of overriding considerations was
adopted for this cumulative impact.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to 8 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent
EIR’ if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements,” thereby
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
1. The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El
Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior the issuance of a building permit.
The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council,
including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased
or new Zone 13 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation
into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
IX. HAZARDS
d) Exposure to existing sources of potential health hazards
The EIR concluded that the potential for undetected soil contamination does exist due to
the fact that the project site had been historically used for agricultural production.
Additionally, surface soil contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons was detected on
the LEGOLAND site. The EIR concluded that implementation of mitigation measures
will reduce this potential impact to a level less than significant. During grading of the
site, the recommended mitigation measures were implemented which included
monitoring by a qualified hazardous materials specialist, soil sampling and testing, soil
remediation when hazardous materials were found and burial of contaminated soils below
parking areas. A report was prepared and submitted documenting the results of the
monitoring and remediation program (Leighton & Associates). No mher soil
12 Rev. 03/28/96
ID 0
contamination is anticipated in the proposed expansion areas, as these sites have already
been mass graded and remediated during the initial project construction.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
b) Police protection
The EIR analysis concluded that the conversion of an agricultural area to an urban area
which will attract visitors will require additional law enforcement and crime prevention
This demand for police protection will be reduced through implementation of a
mitigation measure requiring security measures to be incorporated into the proposed
developments. The applicant prepared a security plan which was submitted to the
Carlsbad Police Department for review and approval. LEGOLAND has security staff
onsite.
serrices. The potential increase in demand on police services is a significant impact.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
f) Solid waste disposal
The generation of additional solid waste is a potentially significant impact. The
mitigation measure identified in EIR 94-01 which was applied to the project will reduce
this impact to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measure required the
submittal of a solid waste management plan to address the project’s needs for recycling
facilities and diversion programs/measures which can be implemented. A solid waste
handling and recycling program is being implemented onsite.
g) Local or regional water supplies
The project required the construction of onsite water lines. The impacts from buildout of
the Carlsbad Ranch project to water supplies was identified as potentially significant.
Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in EIR 94-01 will reduce impacts to
a level of less than significant. The mitigation included utilizing reclaimed water for
landscaping on the project site. Reclaimed water will also be used for landscape
irrigation in the proposed expansion areas. The LEGOLAND project will not have
impacts which would cause the EIR 94-01 established threshold for determining
significance of water supply/reclaimed water to be exceeded.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Paleontological resources
Areas of the Carlsbad Ranch contain geologic formations with a high potential for
yielding significant paleontological resources. Mitigation measures requiring a
paleontological monitor were required for the project and were implemented during the
mass grading for Tentative Map 94-09.
b) Archaeological resources
A data recovery program was completed for sites which were impacted by the grading of
the LEGOLAND Planning Area. Mitigation measures requiring an archaeologist to
13 Rev. 03/28/96
3 @
monitor the grading operation were implemented during the mass grading for Tentative
Map 94-09.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
3 - LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
0
1. The Developer shall pay their fair share for the ‘‘short-term improvements” to the El
Camino Reall Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by
Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an
increased or new Zone 13 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or
incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
- ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
0
u
,s e - APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
- a7/- I I
Datu .
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department
located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008, Phone (760) 602-4612
1. “Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City of
Carlsbad, November 1995 .”
”. e
ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SDP 96-14(A!/
- CDP 96-1 6(A)
The LEGOLAND California Expansion Areas 1 & 3 project included a proposed
mitigation measure requiring the developer to pay their fair share for the “Short-term
improvements” to the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to the
issuance of a building permit. On April 4, 2000 the City Council repealed the
moratorium related to the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino
Real. As a result the mitigation measure related to this intersection is no longer
applicable. The purpose of this addendum is to document this change and clarify that
the originally proposed mitigation measure is not to be applied to the proposed project.