HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-16; City Council; 15742; Legoland California Expansion Areas 1 & 3- 1 e
CITY OF CARLSBAO - AGENGA BILL
AB# 15, lq> m: \
DEPT. HD.
MTG. .L;-/d-a LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA EXPANSION AREAS 1& 3 CITY ATTY. 28 SDP 96-14(A)/CDP 96-16(A)
DEPT. PLN CITY MGRa
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2000-/5 3 APPROVING a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, SDP 96-14(A)
and CDP 96-16(A).
1 ITEM EXPLANATION:
On April 19, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval
5-O (Commissioners Segall & Trigas absent) of the LEGOLAND California Expansion Areas 1 & 3
project, which is proposed for property located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road east of
Armada Drive and west of Hidden Valley Road. The project site is Planning Area 4 of the Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan and is located in the Coastal Zone as well as Local Facilities Management Zone
13.
The initial phase of the LEGOLAND California Theme Park was completed in March of 1999.
Approximately 113 acres of the 128acre site were developed during the original construction including rides, attractions, food, retail, parking, landscaping, administration and support uses.
Approximately 15 acres of undeveloped Inner Park land remain for future expansion of rides and attractions. Four locations for future expansion are identified on the approved Site Development
Plan and Coastal Development Permit 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 and
Coastal Development Permit for the park.
This proposal to amend the LEGOLAND Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit
consists of the following four 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.
4) A Site Plan to replace an attraction called the Breath Taker which was never constructed with the
Bafflyer Ride that reaches a maximum height of forty-five (45) feet.
The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan requires that the City Council make the final decision to approve or disapprove the allowance for building height to exceed thirty-five (35) feet and provides that the
Planning Commission has the right to refer any substantial amendments of a controversial nature to
z i h
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. Is,74 2
the City Council. Since the proposed development relies on the increased height limit, the entire
proposal has been forwarded to the City Council for a final decision.
The project as designed complies with all applicable plans, ordinances and policies. More detailed information is included in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Development of the entire LEGOLAND project site was analyzed in the Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR 94-01) certified for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment and related applications on January 9, 1996, by the City Council. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was
adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality, agriculture, and traffic which cannot be fully mitigated.
The cumulative impacts are regional in nature and occur in areas outside the jurisdiction of the City.
All applicable mitigation measures from the EIR have been implemented with the initial construction
on the LEGOLAND site.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. 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 515162 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.
On April 4, 2000 the City Council repealed the moratorium due 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. An addendum has been prepared to the Mitigated Negative Declaration to
reflect the fact that the proposed mitigation measure is no longer necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All required improvements are to be funded by the developer. The Facility Financing Section of the
Zone 13 Local Facilities Management Plan lists the facility financing techniques being used to
guarantee the public facilities needed to serve development within Zone 13.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
Facilities Zone 13 7
Local Facilities Management Plan 13
Growth Control Point
Net Densitv
1 N/A
1 N/A
Special Facility Fees 1 Park Fee 40 cent&q. ft.
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 6 7qJ
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. doo~-/~
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No.4754,4755, and 4756
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 19, 2000
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 19, 2000.
3
t
i
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION N0.2ooo-153
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. SDP 96-14(A) AND
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT 96-16(A) TO
INCREASE THE 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 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
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 EXPANSION AREAS 1 AND 3
CASE NO.: SDP 96-l 4(AKDP 96-l 6(A)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2000 the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal
Development Permit Amendment to increase the building height, permit development of
Expansion Areas 1 and 3, and permit the construction of the Bafflyer Ride and adopted
Resolutions 4754, 4755 and 4756 recommending to the City Council that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Addendum, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site
Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment be approved;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 16th
day of May , 2000 held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , SDP 96-14(A) and CDP
96-l 6(A); and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the project and it was determined
that the project had complied with the mitigation measures of Program Environmental Impact I
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
applications, on January 9, 1996 by the City Council and that only one additional mitigation
measure was needed and was latter made inapplicable by the City Council’s repeal of the
moratorium related to the traffic impacts for the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar
Airport Road,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Site Development
Plan Amendment 96-14(A) and Coastal Development Permit Amendment 96-16(A) is approved
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4754, 4755 and 4756 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The Provisions of Chapter 1 .I6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be
filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth day following the
date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of proceedings
accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such
petition may be filed in court is extended to not latter than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or
mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed
with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.”
-2- 5
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 16th dayof May , 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYESCouncil Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard and Kulchin
NOES%‘=
(SEAL)
-3-
EXHIBIT 2
LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA
SDP 9644jAKDP 96-l 6(A)
7
- -
EXHIBIT 3 . I 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4754
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
AREASlAND
CASE NO.: SDP 96- 14(A)/CDP 96-16(A)
WHEREAS, LEGOLAND California, Inc. “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by LEGOLAND Estates, AG,
“Owner”, described as
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
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of April, 2000, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
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 Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
according to Exhibit “ND” dated February 1,2000, and “PII” dated January 26,
2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the LEGOLAND
California Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
. . .
. . *
. . .
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4754 -2- 9
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of April, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Nielsen
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Segall and Trigas
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairlkson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4754 -3-
I .I
1
i i c
L ; I
z 1 I
ENVIRONMENTAL MI7 .-XTION MONITORING CHECKLIS,-&e 1 of 1
City 0
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: 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 1,200O
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
SDP 96- 14(A)/CDP 96-16(A)
LEGOLAND California Expansion Areas 1 & 3
PUBLISH DATE: February 1,200O
Planning Director
/a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 96- 14(A)/CDP 96-l 6(A)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME:LEGOLAND California - Exnansion 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 Develonment Plan Amendment and Coastal Develonment Permit
Amendment to: (1) Increase the maximum building height limit to 45 feet as orovided for in the
Carlsbad Ranch Snecific Plan: (2) Site Plan for Inner Park Exnansion Area 1: and (3) Site Plan for
Inner Park Exnansion Area 3 at the annroximatelv 128 acre LEGOLAND California Theme Park
located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road east of Armada Drive and west of Hidden Vallev
Road . The nroiect includes theme nark attractions, retail. food and beverage service. associated
SUDDOI? facilities. and narkine. The initial chase of the LEGOLAND California Theme Park was
comnleted 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.
lxl Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation lxl Public Services
El Population and Housing Cl Biological Resources Ix] Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
lxl Water Ia Hazards El Cultural Resources
q Air Quality El Noise 0 Recreation
cl Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196 /3
n DETEl$MINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
IXI
cl
El
0
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.
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.
Planner Signature Date
Date
0 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.
l 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.
l “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.
l “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.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EL4-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l 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).
l 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.
l 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.
l 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 II 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. .
-
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a>
b)
4
4
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1; pg. 5.7-l through 5.7-18)
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-l through 5.7-
18, and 5.12-l through 5.12-7)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incomnatible
* land uses? (1; pg. 5.1-l through 5.1-16)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
established community (including a low-income
minority community)? (1; 5.7-l through 5.7-18)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
an
or
II. 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-
9) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-9)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
4
4
e>
f)
9)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (1; Appendix A)
Seismic ground shaking? ( 1; Appendix A)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1;
Appendix A)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1; Appendix A)
Landslides or mudflows? (1; Appendix A)
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)
Subsidence of the land? (1; Appendix A)
Expansive soils? (1; Appendix A)
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 runoff7 (1; pg. 5.12- 1
through 5.12-7) 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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
lxl
q
q
q
q
q q q
q q q
q q q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q q q
q q q
q
q
q
Less Than Significan
t Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q q q
0 q q
cl q 0
q
q
0
No Impact
Ix1
IXI
lz
q
lxl
El
El
Ix1
IXI (XI El
El Ix) Ix1
El IXI IXI
Ix]
ia
IXI
5 Rev. 03128196
-
’ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e)
f-l
!a
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
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
through 5.12-7)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1;
pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through
5.12-7) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pg.
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-l
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/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
‘4
4
d)
e)
9
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1; pg.
5.5-l through 5.5-30) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (1; pg. 5.5-l through 5.5-30) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(1; pg. 5.5-l through 5.5-30 and 5.9-l through 5.9-4)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1; pg.
5.5-25 and 5.5-26)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1;
Appendix A)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; pg. 5.7-16) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pg. 5.7-l
through 5.7-l 8)
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-l through 5.4-13)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1; pg. 5.4-l through 5.4-13)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; pg. 5.4-l through 5.4-
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
(XI
q
q
q
lxl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Less Than Significant ‘Significan Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
t Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
‘I
q
No Impact
Ia
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
q
Ix]
IXI
ISI
q
(XI
IXI
lxl
lxl
Ia
Ix1
(XI
lxl
tzl
6 Rev. 03/28/96
’ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
d
VIII.
4
b)
4
13) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(1; pg. 5.4-l through 5.4-13)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1; pg. 5.4-l
through 5.4-13)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1;
Appendix A) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (1; Appendix A)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
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:
4
b)
d
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (1; pg. 5.6-l through 5.6-7)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1; 5.9-l through 5.9-4)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-l through 5.6-7)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-l through 5.6-7) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8- 1 through 5.8-7)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-l
through 5.8-7)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
a)
W
cl
4
4
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (1; pg. 5.9-l and 5.9-2)
Police protection? (1; pg. 5.9-2 through 5.9-4)
Schools? (1; pg. 5.9-7 through 5.9-13)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1;
pg. 5.7-2, 5.7-3, and 5.7-16)
Other govermnental services? (1; pg. 5.7-2 and 5.7-16)
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)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
Potentially Significant Impact
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
q q q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q lxl q q
q
q q q
Less Than Significan
t Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
*
q
q
q q q q
q
q q q
No
Impact
lxl
lxl
El
lzl
IXI
El
Ia
lxl
q
Ix1
lizI
Ix1
lxl q •l IXI
El
IXI (XI El
7 Rev. 03128196 /9
’ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
e)
fl
g>
XIII.
4
b)
cl
XIV.
4
b)
c)
4
e)
facilities? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
Storm water drainage? (1; pg. 5.12-I through 5.12-7)
Solid waste disposal? (1; pg. 5.10-l through 5.10-5)
Local or regional water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13
through 5.9-22)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1; pg. 5.1 l-l
through 5.11-7)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1; pg.
5.11-l through 5.11-7)
Create light or glare? ( 1; Appendix A)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-l
through 5.3-8) Disturb archaeological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-l through
5.3-8) Affect historical resources? (1; pg. 5.3-l through 5.3-8)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1; pg. 5.3-
1 through 5.3-8) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1; pg. 5.3-l through 5.3-8)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
4
b)
XVI.
a)
b)
a
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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 of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
8
Potentially
Significant Impact
0 q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q cl
q
q
q
q
lxl
q
.-
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
q q IXI Ix1
q
q
q
El
El
q q
q
q
q
lx’
q
Ix1
Less Than Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
Rev. 03/28/96
q q q q
q
q
q
q
0
q q
q
q
q
q
lzl
El q q
Ix]
lxl
l.xl
q
q
El Ix1
IXI
Ix1
lxl
q
q
q
q
q
IssueS (and Supporting Information Sources).
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Signifkan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated
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)@). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
4 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.
4 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.
Rev. 03128196
’ 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 Palomar 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 5,5 10 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-Ol).” 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 Waste/Pesticide Residue, Land Use Compatibility; Noise, Public
10 Rev. 03/28/96 aa
Services and Utilities, Solid Waste, Visual Aesthetics/Grading, 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
4 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. 03128196
* 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 I-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 9 15162 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 sh.all 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 further soil
12 Rev. 03128196 aq
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
W 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
services. The potential increase in demand on police services is a significant impact.
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.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
0 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.
9 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. 03/28/96 675
monitor the grading operation were implemented during the mass grading for Tentative
Map 94-09.
14 Rev. 03/28/96 %
a LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE‘1
1. The Developer shall 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. 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)
27
#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.
QL a7/-
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.”
-
ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SDP 96-14(A)/
CDP 96-l 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 ReallPalomar 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.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.O
11
,2
.3
.4
15
86
.7
.8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4755
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SDP 96-14(A) 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 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
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 THE
COASTAL ZONE AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 13.
CASE NAME: LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA EXPANSION
AREASlAND
CASE NO.: SDP 96-14(A)
WHEREAS, LEGOLAND California, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by LEGOLAND Estates, AG,
“Owner”, described as
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
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibits “A” - “T” dated April 19,2000, on file in the Planning
Department, LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA EXPANSION AREAS 1 AND 3, SDP 96-14(A) as
provided by Chapter 21.06/Section 21.06.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of April, 2000, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Site Development Plan Amendment.
WHEREAS, on May 20, 1997, the City Council approved, SDP 96-14, as
described and conditioned in City Council Resolution No. 97-670 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA
EXPANSION AREAS 1 AND 3, SDP 96-14(A) based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the project design complies with the requirements of the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Development of the proposed expansion areas will
not encroach into required building and landscape setbacks established for the
perimeter of the site. The required landscaped setbacks provide an appropriate
buffer between the LEGOLAND Park and existing as well as future development.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that all applicable code requirements have been met. Total building coverage on the
site is only 3.4 percent and total landscape coverage is 49 percent of the total site
area. All required parking has been constructed and the infrastructure needs of the
expansion areas were planned for with the initial park construction.
3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that screen walls, berming and landscaping have been
constructed to screen service areas for the park. The project design includes
additional berming and landscaping in the areas of proposed development adjacent
to the service road to screen views from within the visitor areas of the Inner Park to
necessary park facilities and infrastructure not intended to be viewed by guests.
Adequate vehicle circulation has been provided to accommodate vehicle, truck,
recreational vehicle and bus turning movements on-site with the construction of
existing improvements. A service road was constructed around the perimeter of the
Inner Park for operational needs and emergency vehicle access. Several access
PC RESO NO’. 4755 -2- 3/
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
points were provided to the service road for emergency vehicles. Pedestrian
connections were also constructed to the overall pedestrian circulation system of the
Carlsbad Ranch.
4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that with the addition of a mitigation measure
requiring payment of the project’s fair share for the “short-term improvements” to
the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of a
building permit all new trafftc impacts are mitigated. The proposed expansion
areas were included in the original circulation analysis prepared for Program EIR
94-01 for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The circulation analysis considered the
buildout of the park and the corresponding attendance levels with park buildout.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan and the Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated April 19,200O.
6. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof fi-om the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
B. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
7. A growth management park fee of 40 cents per square foot of non-residential
development will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. This fee will
be used to construct recreational facilities to offset the demand created by employees
within Zone 13. ‘T
8. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994, in that a Notice Concerning Aircraft
Environmental Impacts was previously required as a condition of approval and was
recorded on August 14,1997. The project is compatible with the projected noise levels
of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix of the CLUP, the
proposed land use is compatible with the airport, in that areas of the site are within the
60 and 65 CNEL noise contours and is a compatible land use at these noise levels as
determined by staff of the San Diego Association of Governments in their review of
the project for consistency with the CLUP.
9. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
PC PESO NO. 4755 -3- 32
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. The project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (SP 207(A)) and the Development Agreement (DA 94-
01).
11. The following findings are made to permit the building height on the project site to
exceed a height of 35 feet as provided for in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan:
A. Buildings do not contain more than three levels as shown on the project
exhibits.
B. All required setbacks have been increased at a ratio of one horizontal foot for
every one foot of vertical construction beyond thirty-five feet.’ The additional
setback area will be maintained as landscaped open space, except where the
existing service/emergency vehicle access road encroaches into the increased
setback area.
C. The buildings and attractions conform to the requirements of Section
18.04.170 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
D. The allowed height protrusions as described in Section 21.46.020 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code do not exceed 45 feet with the exception of
architectural features and exhibits which are permitted to and do not exceed
a maximum height of 55 feet.
12. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are. imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Site Development Plan Amendment.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan Amendment documents, as necessary
to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
PC PESO NO. 4755 33
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
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan
Amendment, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
6. The Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar
copy of the amended Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 13 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits, including, but not limited to the
following:
A. A growth management park fee of 40 cents per square foot of non-residential
development will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. This
fee will be used to construct recreational facilities to offset the demand
created by employees within Zone 13.
9. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
10. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CDP 96-16(A) and is subject to all
conditions contained in the Planning Commission Resolution 4756 for those other
approvals.
PC RESO NO. 4755 -5- 3s/
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
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
-_
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the LEGOLAND
California Expansion Areas 1 and 3 Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
The Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee
(linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is
further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have
to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution
and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or
resolution, then the Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the
linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits,
except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned development for an
existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map,
parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD,
whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this
project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will
become null and void.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall
show all landscaping and irrigation for the increased setbacks areas depicted on the
Site Development Plan Amendment exhibits required to allow the greater building
height. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the
approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition,
free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Required modifications to the parking lot and landscape areas shown on the project
plans shall be constructed prior to the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy
permit for any improvements shown on the Site Development Plan Amendment.
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot
high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
Building permits for at least one of the buildings or attractions shown on this site
development plan amendment must be issued within 24 months of the date on which
PC RESO NO. 4755 35
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
this Site Development Plan Amendment receives City Council approval or this
approval shall expire. Building permits for any remaining buildings or attractions
shown on the Site Development Plan Amendment must be issued within 5 years of
the date on which the Site Development Plan Amendment received City Council
approval or the Site Development Plan Amendment will expire as it pertains to any
buildings or attractions not constructed.
19. Approval of SDP 96-14(A) supplements the approval of SDP 96-14. All conditions
of approval found in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4083 dated April 16,
1997 remain in full force and effect except as modified herein.
EnrJineerine:
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
Develop shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start
of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an “ as-graded” geologic plan with the
City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading
operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on
a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be
signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on
a 24” x 36” mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
If a Grading Permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be
completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April
1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th
upon written approval of the City Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all erosion
control measures a.re in place by October 1 st.
Developer shall provide the design of all drainage systems to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay
standard improvement plancheck and inspection fees.
Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements
constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm
Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an
csl PC RESO NO. 4755 -7- ;5lp
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
acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall
be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include
but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrogen compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze,
solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not
be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water
conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal,
State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements,
Fire:
28. All buildings and enclosed accessory structures shall be protected throughout by
automatic fire sprinklers, including, but not limited to restaurants, retail stores, trash
enclosures, and attached shade structures having solid roof systems.
29. Buildings shall be identified on their exteriors in accordance with requirements of Phase
number 1.
Water:
30. The Developer shall show all existing fire hydrants and all proposed fire hydrants and the
water lines that supply water to them. If the developer has not already done so, they shall
coordinate with the Fire Marshal to determine location of hydrants and sprinkler systems.
31. Any landscaping shall be designed to be irrigated with reclaimed water in accordance
with CMWD requirements.
Standard Code Reminders:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
32. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
33. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
34. The project shall comply with the littest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
PC PESO NO:4755 -8- 37
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
35. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
36. Any signs proposed for the Outer Park shall, at a minimum, be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and shall require
review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. Inner
Park signage shall not be subject to City review unless such signs exceed 20 feet in
height.
37. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PC RESO NO. 4755 -9- 38
- -.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of April, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Nielsen
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Segall and Trigas
ABSTAIN:
d&b
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING C-OMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILHR Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4755 -lO- 39
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4756
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
AMENDMENT CDP 96-16(A) 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 ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD EAST OF ARMANDA
DRIVE AND WEST OF HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 13.
CASE NAME: LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA EXPANSION
AREASlAND
CASE NO.: CDP 96-16(A)
WHEREAS, LEGOLAND California, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by LEGOLAND Estates, AG,
“Owner”, described as
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 Offke of the County Recorder of San
Diego County on April 1,1997
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit Amendment as shown on Exhibits “A” - “T” dated April 19,2000, on file
in the Planning Department, LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA EXPANSION AREAS 1 AND 3,
CDP 96-16(A) as provided by Chapter 2 1.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of April, 2000, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CDP.
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 Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B)
FindinPs:
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA
EXPANSION AREAS 1 AND 3, CDP 96-16(A) based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and’ all applicable policies in that the project is in compliance with the
relevant policies of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan which serves as partial implementation for the Mello
II Segment for the project site, and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
because the agricultural conversion policy has been satisfied, the only area of
sensitive vegetation on the property has been preserved and is subject to a Coastal
Deed Restriction, and necessary drainage detention facilities are in place.
2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that pedestrian walkway connections to the Carlsbad Ranch
Trail System have been constructed with the initial construction and no existing
public accessways are affected by development of the expansion areas.
3. The project complies with the requirements of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone as the site has been previously graded and contains no steep slopes
with sensitive vegetation. The area at the northeast corner of Palomar Airport Road
and Armada Drive which is subject to a Coastal Deed Restriction has been
preserved and will not be impacted by the proposed site improvements. Major
drainage improvements were completed with the initial park construction including
detention basins so that there is no increase in the peak runoff rate from the
developed site over the greatest discharge expected from the undeveloped site as a
result of the lo-year frequency storm.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
PC RESO NO. 4756 -2- 41
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
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Coastal Development Permit Amendment.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit Amendment documents, as
necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on
the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits.
Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to
this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit
Amendment, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar
copy of the amended Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 13 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits, including, but not limited to the
following:
A. A growth management park fee of 40 cents per square foot of non-residential
development will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. This
fee will be used to construct recreational facilities to offset the demand
created by employees within Zone 13.
PC RESO NO. 4756 -3- Yd
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
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of SDP 96-14(A) and is subject to all
conditions contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for those other approvals
Building permits for at least one of the buildings or attractions shown on this coastal
development permit amendment must be issued within 24 months of the date on
which this Coastal Development Permit receives City Council approval or this
approval shall expire. Building permits for any remaining buildings or attractions
shown on this Coastal Development Permit Amendment must be issued within 5
years of the date on which the Coastal Development Permit Amendment received
City Council approval or the Coastal Development Permit Amendment will expire
as it pertains to any buildings or attractions not constructed.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
If a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be
completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April
1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th
upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion control measures are in
place by October 1st.
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the LEGOLAND
California Expansion Areas 1 and 3 Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Approval of CDP 96-16(A) supplements the approval of CDP 96-16. All conditions
of approval found in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4084 dated April 16,
1997 remain in full force and effect except as modified herein.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
PC RESO NO. 4756 -4- +3
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
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of April, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Nielsen
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Segall and Trigas
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chaiberson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO.‘4756 -5-