The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-01-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 65241 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6524 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO ADD 6 HOTEL AND ACCESSORY USES TO PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, TO REVISE THE 7 PARKING RATE FOR LEGOLAND AND GYMS WITHIN THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, AND CHANGE THE 8 STREET NAME FROM HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD TO THE o CROSSINGS DRIVE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SOUTH 10 OF CANNON ROAD, EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE AND WEST OF THE CROSSINGS DRIVE IN THE MELLO II 11 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 13. 12 CASE NAME: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA 13 CASE NO.: SP 2070D/LCPA 08-01 14 WHEREAS, Merlin Entertainment Group US Holdings, "Developer," and 15 "Owner," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described 16 as 17 Lots 18 and 19 of Carlsbad Tract Map 94-09 Units 2 and 3, in 18 the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 13408, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, April 1, 1997 as file number 20 1997-147754 21 ("the Property"); and 22 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and 23 Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 24 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 21, 2009, hold a duly 25 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and26 ~7 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 28 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 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 2 Program. 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning , Commission as follows: 6 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 7 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit 9 "MND," according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," attached hereto and made a part 10 hereof, based on the following findings: 11 Findings: 12 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 13 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Legoland Hotel California and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and 15 any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; 16 and 17 b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California 18 Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 20 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 21 d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the 22 project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 24 1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Legoland Hotel 25 California Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6524 -2- 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 January 21, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Douglas, Whitton, and Chairperson Montgomery ABSENT: Commissioners Boddy and Dominguez ABSTAIN: MARTELCT5. MONTGOMERY, C\ CARLSBAD PLANNINCTCOMMK ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6524 -3- City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Legoland Hotel California SP 207(HV LCPA 08-01/ SDP 96-14(CV CDP 96-16(C) North east corner of Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program to allow for hotel and accessory uses within Legoland, Planning Area 4, of the Specific Plan, revise the parking rate for Legoland and for gyms within the Specific Plan. The project also includes a Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a 250 room hotel within the parking lot of the Legoland theme park. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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 will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD December 12. 2008 - January 11. 2009 PUBLISH DATE December 12, 2008 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Legoland Hotel California CASE NO: SP 207CHV LCPA 08-017 SDP 96-14(CV CDP 96-16(C) PROJECT LOCATION: North east corner of Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive. Carlsbad, San Diego County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program to allow for hotel and accessory uses within Legoland, Planning Area 4, of the Specific Plan, revise the parking rate for Legoland and for gyms within the Specific Plan. The project also includes a Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a 250 room hotel within the parking lot of the Legoland theme park. DETERMINATION: 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, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: 1X1 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 the attached sheet have been added to the project. I I The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I | 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: , pursuant to City Council Ordinance Number ._ ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) DATE: December 1.2008 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch (160} 602-4613 4. PROJECT LOCATION: North East corner of Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive. Carlsbad. San Diego County 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Merlin Entertainment Group US Holdings. 1 Legoland Drive. Carlsbad CA 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Travel Recreation Commercial (T-IO 7. ZONING: Tourist Commercial-Qualified Overlay Zone (CT-Q) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: A request to allow hotel and accessory hotel uses within Planning Area 4 (Legoland California) of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The project consists of the construction (phase one and two) of a 250 room, three story hotel. 14.383 sq. ft. restaurant. 6,364 sq. ft. bar/lounge. 11,051 sq ft of retail space and an outdoor swimming pool. The hotel is proposed to be built in two phases with 175 rooms in the first phase and 75 rooms in the second phase. Phase two also includes the buildout of the bar/lounge (2.150 sq. ft. and restaurant and restaurant support services of 3.021 sq. ft.) The hotel is proposed to be located within the existing parking lot at the existing pedestrian entry plaza to the Legoland theme park and will require modification to the entry plaza and existing parking lot. The existing parking lot is adequate to serve the proposed hotel use and no new parking lot area is required. Access for the hotel is proposed off The Crossings Drive via Palomar Airport Road. The project also includes a request to change the theme park parking rate from 94.2 parking spaces/acre to 80.08 spaces/acre and gym parking from 1/35 to 1/200. The project will require remedial grading and proposes a net export of 2.500 cu yds of material. The project site is surrounded by the Legoland theme park, a hotel/resort and Open Space beyond to the north. Palomar Airport Road and open space beyond to the south. The Crossings Drive and the Carlsbad municipal golf course to the east, and Grand Pacific Resort hotel/restaurant and a professional office business park to the west. SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA 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. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources [ | Air Quality Biological Resources X Cultural Resources XI Geology/Soils /\ Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials I—I Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality I Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources /\ Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Recreation I Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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. A 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. Planner Signature Date r- y- 08 Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 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 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. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "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. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse 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. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse 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 Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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. Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Initial Study 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 after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a - d) No Impact. The proposed project site is not identified as a scenic vista and no scenic resources are present on the previously developed site. The site is developed with the existing Legolarid theme park and the hotel would not substantially degrade the existing urbanizing visual character of the site. The hotel would not generate a significant new source of light since it is located within an existing illuminated parking lot. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? a - c) No Impact. The project site is presently a parking lot and pedestrian plaza for the entrance to the Legoland theme park. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural lands or operations will occur. Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during.trie process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9* through 10* in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. The proposed project is consistent with its applicable Travel Recreation/Commercial General Plan and has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project, and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) No impact. As noted above, the proposed would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. Potentially , - >• Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D IEI El a-f) No Impact. The site is located within a developed pedestrian and vehicular parking lot. There are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service onsite or within the adjoining properties. There is no riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service onsite. There are no federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on the property. The property is not known to be subject to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or be within established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or contain native wildlife nursery sites. Since the property is devoid of animal or plant species that could be considered as sensitive or protected, the development of the site will not conflict with the provisions of the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IEI Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a,b, and d) No Impact. The project site has been previously excavated and graded for the development of the Legoland theme park. Previous cultural resources identified with the development of the Legoland theme park EIR 94-01 have been mitigated. c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located on the Santiago Formation and is potentially fossiliferous almost everywhere it occurs. The project grading has the potential to disturb undisturbed soils which may contain fossils. The retaining of a paleontologist to be present during grading operations and to implement an appropriate mitigation program which includes the following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce the potential paleontological impact to a level of insignificance; A. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. B. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. C. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. D. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. E. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. F. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. > G. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant , Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 10 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D i: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located- on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a.i.-a.iii.) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A geote'chhical investigation of the project site was prepared by Leighton and Associates (July 22, 2008) to provide subsurface information and geotechnical recommendations specific to the proposed site. According to this report, the subject site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act, nor are there any known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults, with the nearest known active fault being the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located 4.7 miles west of the site. The project has been conditioned to implement the recommendations contained within the Leighton and Associates Geotechnical Investigation (July 22, 2008) to reduce the potential geotechnical impacts to a level of less than significant. a.iv.) No Impact. The topography of the site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 145 feet above mean sea level (msl) to approximately 153 feet msl. The geotechnical report prepared by Leighton and Associates.. (July 22, 2008) reports that there is no evidence of ancient landslides or slope instability existing on the subject site. 11 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA b) No Impact. The topography of the site is relatively flat. Regardless, the project's compliance with standards in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through pad and slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is proposed on artificial fill which is underlain with a 15 to 20 feet thick layer of agricultural debris approximately 20 feet below the finish grade surface. The on site soils generally pose a low to medium expansion potential and highly expansive soils from the Santiago Formation may be present. The project is also located over a cut/fill condition which will require mitigation by over excavation of the cut portions or the building will need to be designed with a deep foundation system. The hotel and pool are situated over buried agricultural debris that was not designed to support settlement sensitive structures. Removal of the agricultural debris and/or design of a deep foundation system will be needed to mitigate differential settling of the proposed improvements. The project has been conditioned to implement the recommendations contained within the Leighton and Associates Geotechnical Investigation (July 22, 2008) to reduce the potential impacts to a level of less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. A subsurface field investigation of the project site was coordinated and performed by others per the Leighton and Associates (July 22, 2008) Geotechnical Investigation. The soils are anticipated to be low to moderate expansion potential. e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D 12 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people resiHincr nr wnrlrino in tVif* nrnipr.t arpa? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a -h) No Impact. The project is a hotel/restaurant building. Other than common household hazardous materials like household cleaners, paint, and glues, etc. there will not be a significant presence of hazardous materials. Therefore the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The project site is not a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. The project site is within the airport influence area of the McClellan Palomar Airport, but is not located within the flight activity zone or runway protection zone. The property is not within close proximity of a private airstrip. An emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan has been adopted for the project site and the plan will be modified to include the hotel/restaurant. The project does not interfere with the adopted plan. The site is not adjacent or near an area where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 1) Increase pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 14 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff? p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? a) The subject property is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin." (WQCP) The WQCP contains specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit which includes the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require the project to develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during the construction phase as well as post-development. b) No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. c-d) No Impact. The Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared by Hofrnan Planning and Engineering (April 14, 2008), indicates that the site has been designed to mimic historic runoff patterns. Existing drainage generally surface flows from the site to the south to an existing private 36" storm drain. The post development pattern will also be to the existing storm drain. e) No Impact. Estimated pre and post flows for the 100 year storm were computed for the project site. The peak pre-development storm water runoff rate was computed at 72.9 cfs and post —development at 73.59 cfs. The minor increase will not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area, or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system, nor does the project propose uses that cause a substantial, additional source of polluted runoff. 0 No Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations. As mentioned above, the project includes a Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan and temporary impacts associated with the construction operation have been incorporated into the planxresulting in no impact. g-j) No Impact. The project site is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area, and based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and given the elevation of the site with respect to sea level (145 to 153 feet above mean sea level), the possibility of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is considered to be low. k) No Impact. The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion. However, as a result of the NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the project. Standard construction water control methods will be implemented including a stabilized construction entrance; storm inlet protection; material delivery and storage specifications; concrete waste management specifications; and sanitary waste specifications. Standard conditions require compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase and implementation of the post construction BMPs for the project 1-m) No Impact. The Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) indicates that the project shall be designed to remove pollutants of concern through storm water conveyance systems to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) through the incorporation of treatment control BMPs. As proposed, subject to compliance with the proposed BMPs, 15 Rev. 12/13/07 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01 /SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA the project will not result in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, and no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. Post construction BMPs will further ensure that the project does not change the receiving water quality following construction activities. n) No Impact. The project does not drain to an impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. o) No Impact. The net increase in impervious surface from the existing development of a hotel project is not significant. The associated runoff increases discussed in paragraph "e" above are minor and less than significant. p) No Impact. Runoff from the proposed project will not impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitats, as none of these habitats exist on site or in the vicinity of the site. q) No Impact. The project will not result in the excedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial use. Please refer to the preceding responses. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a) No Impact. The project site is a single parcel of land on the site of the existing Legoland theme park. Given the project's location and size, it is clear that it will not divide an established community. b) No Impact. There is an application for the amendment to the Carlsbad Ranch Specific plan to allow hotel uses within Planning Area 4 (Lego theme park) for the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is the Implementing Ordinance for the Local Coastal Program. The Zoning of the property is Commercial Tourist, which would allow hotels with the processing of a Site Development Plan. There is no applicable land use/plan, policy, regulation, or habitat conservation plan which includes this property that is adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The parking rate for gyms (1/35) within the Specific Planis being changed to meet the parking rate established within the Zoning ordinance of 1/200. c) No Impact. The project is not subject to the habitat preservation and mitigation measures of the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. 16 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a-b) No Impact. There is no indication that the subject property contains any known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region or the residents of the State. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact IEI XL NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a, c and e) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is located within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport (ALUCP) and will subject persons on the exterior of the buildings to noise levels up to 68 CNEL. While noise impacts are identified, the ALUCP requires that the interior noise levels would need to be attenuated to 45 CNEL for the hotel use and 50 CNEL for the restaurant and retail uses. Exterior noise levels are determined to be acceptable by the ACLUP for the proposed hotel land use. 17 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA Mitigation measures have been added to the Project to require interior noise level compliance prior to building permit issuance to ensure the noise levels are attenuated. As a result noise will be less than significant. b and d)Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the development of the proposed project would result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels. Following the conclusion of the grading, the ambient noise level and vibrations are expected to return to pre-existing levels. 0 No Impact. The project is not located within two miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Potentially Significant •- Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?. a - c): No Impact. The project does not propose residential development or the extension of existing roads or infrastructure which would induce growth. The project is not removing or displacing existing residential units or persons. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? 18 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D a.i.-a.v.) No Impact. The proposed project will not effect the provision and/or availability of public facilities (i.e., fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, etc.). The proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13, including a 40cents per sq ft of non-residential development fee to be collected at building permit issuance, therefore no significant public service impacts will occur. The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan EIR 94-01 included a mitigation measure for projects to submit security plans for review and approval by the Carlsbad Police Department. The Legoland theme park has on record an Emergency Action plan. The project includes conditions to revise the Emergency Action plan, to include the hotel, which shall be submitted for review and approval by the Police department prior to building permit issuance. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a and b) No Impact. As part of the City's Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The project site is located within Park District #1 (Northwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMF standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #1 has been achieved; therefore recreational facilities are adequate to accommodate the project. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project. a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 19 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project will generate 1800 Average Daily Trips (ADT) (90 AM and 126 PM peak hour trips). A majority of this traffic will utilize Palomar Airport Road (PAR) to access the proposed hotel. At the build-out Year 2030 volumes, the project's peak hour traffic will contribute to a Level of Service (LOS) E at the intersection of PAR and Paseo del Norte (PDN), which is higher than the city's requirement of LOS D or better. In order to mitigate for this potential impact, a dedicated right-turn lane needs to be constructed from eastbound PAR to southbound PDN. The project will be required to pay a proportional fair share contribution towards the construction of the right-turn lane. b) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and one highway segment in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The existing LOS on these designated roads and highway in Carlsbad is: Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR78 LOS "A-D" "A-D" "A-D" "T7" The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highway 78 is currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highway and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. 20 Rev. 12/13/07 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) No Impact. The project is served by the North County Transit District (NCTD) and a bus stop is accommodated with the project design. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a-g) No Impact. The proposed project will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. The existing project wastewater demand capacity is 21.3 million gpd (gallons per day) and the proposed project demand is 55,000gpd. The increase is not considered significant and will not have an effect on the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility's capacity. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed through the Local Facilities Management 21 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01 /SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA Ordinance and the individual Zone Plans to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The project site is located in Zone 13 which is an infill zone that and has not been developed to its capacity. There is adequate wastewater, water, and storm water drainage capacity to accommodate the project as designed and or conditioned. The project therefore does not result in development that will require expansion or construction of new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) No Impact. The project does not 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 in that the site is infill, is developed, and is not adjacent to any habitat preserves or wildlife corridors. The retaining of a paleontologist to be present during grading operations and to implement an appropriate mitigation program which includes the following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce the potential paleontological impact to a level of insignificance; H. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. I. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. J. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. K. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. L. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. M. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. 22 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan Land Use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, the air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA had determined, based on the City's growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City's growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impacts from the project to the regional circulation system are less than significant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. Cumulative impacts related to increased vehicle traffic through the Palomar Airport Road and Paseo del Norte intersection area considered to be cumulatively significant and mitigation is proposed in the form of monetary contributions for roadway improvements which will reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation has been incorporated into the project and made conditions of approval to attenuate interior noise levels of the hotel and restaurant/retail to 45 CNEL and 50 dB(A) CNEL respectively. The project will therefore not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. The project has been conditioned to implement the recommendations contained within the Leighton and Associates Geotechnical Investigation (July 22, 2008) to reduce the potential geotechnical impacts to a level of less than significant. XVIII. 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. 23 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, as updated. 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City- of Carlsbad Planning Department, final approval dated November 2004. 5. City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program. Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 13, October 1995. 6. Final Program Environmental Impact report for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment SCH# 95051001, EIR 04-01, November 1995, Cotton Beland Associates, Inc. 7. Preliminary Drainage Study for Legoland Hotel California, April 14, 2008, Hofman Planning and Engineering. 8. Storm Water management Plan for Legoland Hotel California, April 14, 2008, Hofman Planning and Engineering. 9. Geotechnical Investigation, proposed Legoland Hotel, Carlsbad, CA dated July 22, 2008, Leighton and Associates, Inc, San Diego, CA. 10. Legoland Resort Hotel Traffic Impact Report, RBF Consulting, September 2, 2008. 11. Legoland Hotel project - Supplemental Synchro Traffic Analysis - Near Term (2010), RBF Consulting, September 2, 2008. 24 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA UST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed hotel design would limit interior noise to the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard and that the restaurant/retail uses design would limit interior noise to the City's 50 CNEL interior noise standard. 2. The project design shall incorporate the recommendations contained within the Leighton and Associates Geotechnical Investigation dated July 22, 2008. 3. The following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented; N. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. O. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. P. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to •perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. Q. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. R. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. S. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. T. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. 4. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the developer shall pay a proportional fair share contribution towards the construction of a dedicated right-turn lane from eastbound Palomar Airport Road to southbound Paseo del Norte. The fair share contribution shall be determined based on Caltrans methodology to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If construction of the right-turn lane is incorporated into the city's Traffic Impact Fee (TIP) program, the payment ofthe.TIF will satisfy this condition. 25 Rev. 12/13/07 SP 207(H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES TfflS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature /I 26 Rev. 12/13/07 o toT-•too>a.Qo 6 (Oo>a.o COo < Q. O o C"4 LU ZULo o_i HI O1 Q Z < OoLU_1 2 << Q OJ Z _j ° £ £^- LU O 0>a: ~ to -^ro _c JQTO— E5 w 0'c 0 tofc ro 2o o < ~ TJ O^- C **0 •- ^ "O m Oo £ 0QUO. ,_ W t/>.£ ro 0 *-o0 a> ro •£.52 TO 5£ ;ti c ^ 0 °-*- '£< ~ °«- :* 'c0 5r? ° m£ E § ° « ~ T3 >^ 0 « E W TO O T3 ooc c: Q.ro co .E .y ro CD •£~S 0 _ -O CN E SJ J cC 0 Q..2 O m E O•^: ro o 0 TO .2 ° w P j2 0-0E "o 0 o_ ro -Q o c E<u — to.cuo « a> o E.o O)'? C -Qc c 2 ,? 5 <" rot O T3 D) o =S .® S ro en O o_ns rr a. LX Q. < <h. ^ . . i;;:-;ro ".-•:•••:'•&•;•,:;:0--; • &;• illilJE, 0•'teXE>o>'— i- Q. ,:;.:;ii C":.~'-. i:g! »'ig-Q. CO: ":.:, • ^ ^»*cn cC#0'£•£2 t;E*| o,;iO. ^ ;0• ;-P. .cn;*•jc is 1^— '•;.>, :;CiU •'0?rV^- S'>H ; j .••;.:";•!' ';:;•. -ftj Wi's-l??i "••. ;••'-'. •. .; :.-: il•''?w;i:-,H«:lli;.;-o> • •i'S'S •JS••.'-•*-l""5'>:w*iKO)';. ::*3-'»•<:i:l""i.'-1- .-„;:- : •--.:"•• -. • "• cnc 'ccro Q! a—*00's1 rx 0(^Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, aninterior noise analysis compliant with City standards will Irequired to demonstrate that the proposed hotel designwould limit interior noise to the City's 45 CNEL interiornoise standard and that the restaurant/retail uses designwould limit interior noise to the City's 50 CNEL interiornoise standard.D) (C 0 0 C cnc LU •4—f00 '£? 0. to toc 0 The project design shall incorporate the recommendatiocontained within the Leighton and AssociatGeotechnical Investigation dated July 22, 2008.cnc 'cdro Q_ •*-»o0 '£To_ 0 ro ro 0 T3 00.a _c 0 xi -~The following paleontological mitigation measures shallimplemented;A. Prior to any grading of the project -site,paleontologist shall be retained to performwalkover survey of the site and to review tgrading plans to determine if the proposgrading will impact fossil resources.B. A copy of the paleontologist's report shallprovided to the Planning Director priorissuance of a grading permit.•60) ro. 13 o> la "0^ 3 c= ro ro ro ^ -o(D T3 0)E r- ~zim .3 •c c ° "S '•£ -B %3& i •ti 'c = oE ™ 5 £*- m -^ C ™-° F te"= = C OJ13 -r- ^5 r~Explanation of Headings:Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particShown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column wVerified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this collRemarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for ottRD -Appendix P. CM ts CM 0)en 03D_ w co E0)C£ 2 !> cs= 0|E "o.E o- C c 5 TO CO :..-,• . CO) 'RE.•2 t 0 g- S'.'Q O) :.c-; !' 1c 1—0 Mitigation Measure ;C. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained toperform periodic inspections of the site and tosalvage exposed fossils. Due to the small0-*— » c "c0(/}2 Q. _(/> 'wWa0.c i4—O 0 0w M—o £_2"roc geologic strata, it may be necessary to collectmatrix samples for laboratory processingthrough fine screens.iD;,," The paleontologist shall make periodic reportsto the Planning Director during the gradingprocess.o w ~ .2" t: 8 - 5CD M- -a 5.> -D £ °-XJ Q) ro CD o 8 o.*-• tj £_ ^_* T3 X 0 T3<u 55 -4= 0 5 C § «o E — c= CO CO 0CD n- > -o 0 42 0ja co o .a = £ _£;£ >,CO CO CO "C CO w 0 = ro E^ x: o 0 -Qw *-' 40 en <u '%>•- > oO ^07^ D) O CO =ii c •*-• w o11** 1co v>~p w wO Jr y) W O ° 0 O00 0 "- 1— "5 .S c < ui LL non-profit institution with a research interest inthe materials, such as the San Diego NaturalHistory Museum.0 0 O)JC -C C"1°»l,(U °- !i*'-•- o *-CO1?^ '"S ~° •D) 5 ^ £.E D)| ^ ^ 0 W .ECO -C 0 D)o>-~ "- cg -o uj C 0 >,CO -Q XT s-l^S 0= S5 JZ C C 5 W CO S-l^o-5 o *iO fl) O ^•^•5-S< §.£LQ O D).E o><uc 'enc LU "o •9^ ct rior to Building Permit issuance, the developer shall payproportional fair share contribution towards theQ. co instruction of a dedicated right-turn lane from eastboundalomar Airport Road to southbound Paseo del Norte. Thelir share contribution shall be determined based on0 CL 42 altrans methodology to the satisfaction of the Cityngineer. If construction of the right-turn lane isO LJJ c:o T3CiT ott 0 t w0 £ if >> iSo -sCO COQ. W 12 COI-h-_£ (/) i= "^•o '° cu 0 £ E o ^-^ CO.£ Q- T3 0«£ °lQ. CO 0 0)o o .E oL CD . TJ E S« dC _-•"= =.Q IS .E -273 ro "> 5.S>S -0 i | -E | £fc Q) > Cpiso 5|£ t|»£ro "o 5 *- •— .!2 1 £ C to" mlife* °- § =•2 = 0-2_Qj jj roJ3 E x> .g> R' O Cft c OC TO C **-0) 0) O O5>E'i " <u o .2 ~ £ - ra E ^itlSilif,E - D- <" r-^ sSf.itora0 w ,X «•' •o "' cO Q- c c <ur^ ro S j?D 51 •?; < § ra CL S 2 xJJ <r S 0) Q. Jo:-5.pl§lre II 2 | £ 03 ^ x & o ji fc a) Duj H 2 w > re a: