Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 96-14; Legoland Carlsbad; Site Development Plan (SDP) (5)SrWc OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AI^^AME ENVIRONMENTAL F^QG FEE CASH RECEIPT DFG 753.5a (6-91) Lead Agency: County/State Agej Project Title: Project Applicant N4pne: Project Applicant Address: Project Applicant (check appropriate box): Local Public Agency | | School District' fej' Other Special District State Agency I I Private Entity I I CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ( ) Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ $(j Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $ -q " ( ) Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $ ( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $ ( ) County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ \yj] Project that is exempt from fees TOTAL RECEIVED Signaturerand title of person receiving payment: "TIRST COPY-PROJECT APPLICANT SECOND COPY-DFG/FASB THIRD C IAD AGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: DATE: December 19. 1996 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: LEGOLAND Carlsbad APPLICANT: LEGOLAND Carlsbad. Inc. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5600 Avenida Encinas. Suite 130. Carlsbad. CA 92008: 438-5570 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 19.1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 128 Ac. LEGOLAND located between Armada Drive and Hidden Valley Road on the immediate north side of Palomar Airport Road. The project includes parking, theme park attractions, retail, food and beverage service, and associated support facilities. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. |^| Land Use and Planning | | Population and Housing | | Geological Problems M Water Air Quality |^| Transportation/Circulation |^| Public Services | | Biological Resources ^ Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics ^ Hazards ^ Cultural Resources | | Noise |^| Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance rf 1iL.ii j Rev. 03/28/96 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 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. 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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 Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A 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 adversely significant, 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 significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A 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. Rev. 03/28/96 • 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. • 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. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (1; pp. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1; pp. 5.4-5 through 5.4-13, 5.7-1 through 5.7-18, and 5.12 through 5.12-7) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1; pp. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (1; pp. 5.1-1 through 5.1-16) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1; 5.7-1 through 5.7-18) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1; pp. 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; pp. 7-8 and 7-9) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1; pp. 7-8 and 7-9) D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1; Appendix A) b) Seismic ground shaking? (1; Appendix A) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1; Appendix A) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1; Appendix A) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1; Appendix A) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1; Appendix A and pp. 5.12-6 and 5.12-7) Subsidence of the land? (1; Appendix A)g) h) i) Expansive soils? (1; Appendix A) Unique geologic or physical features? (1; Appendix A) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1; pp. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1; Appendix A) D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1; pp. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1; pp. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1; pp. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) f) 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; pp. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22, and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1; pp. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pp. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pp. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22) Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D D D V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1; pp. 5.2- 1 through 5.2-8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1; pp. 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) D D D D D D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1; pp. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (1; pp. 5.5-1 through 5.5- 29) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1; pp. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29, and 5.9-1 through 5.9-4) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1; pp. 5.5-25 and 5.5-26) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1; Appendix A) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; p 5.7-16) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pp. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18) D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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; pp. 5.4-1 through 5.4- 13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1; pp. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1; pp. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1; pp. 5.4- 1 through 5.4-13) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D D D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1; Appendix A) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1; Appendix A) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (1; Appendix A) D D D D D IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1; pp. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1; 5.9-1 through 5.9- 4) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (1; pp. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1; pp. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1; pp. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9) D D D D D D D D D D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; 5.8-1 through I i 5.8-7) "—' b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1; 5.8-1 I I through 5.8-7) "—' D D XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1; pp. 5.9-1 and 5.9-2) b) Police protection? (1; pp. 5.9-2 through 5.9-4) D D Dn n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Schools? (1; pp. 5.9-7 through 5.9-13) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1; pp. 5.7-2, 5.7-3, and 5.7-16) e) Other governmental services? (1; pp. 5.7-2 and 5.7- 16) Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D No Impact 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 facilities? (1; pp. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1; pp. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7) e) Storm water drainage? (1; pp. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) f) Solid waste disposal? (1; pp. 5.12-1 through 5.10-5) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1; pp. 5.9-13 and 5.9-22) D D D D D D D D D D D XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1; pp. 5.11-1 through 5.11-7) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1; pp. 5.11-1 through 5.11-7) c) Create light or glare? (1; Appendix A)D D D D XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1; pp. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1; pp. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) c) Affect historical resources? (1; pp. 5.3-1 through 5.3- 8) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1; pp. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1; pp. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)D D D D D D XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1; pp. 5.7-2 through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1; pp. 5.7- 2 through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)D XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Rev. 03/28/96 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D D D D Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION LEGOLAND Carlsbad will include approximately 100 structures of various types for provision of administration and service, guest support, retail and various attractions such as rides, play areas and displays on an initially-developed 37 acres in the "Inner Park". Approximately 26 acres will be held in reserve for future expansion. In the "Outer Park," the project will include parking for approximately 4100 cars, with expansion for approximately 1100 additional cars. There will also be parking for x buses and RV's. In conformance with the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan the design of the proposed structures will be compatible with a Mediterranean architectural character, although they will not be of that character. The structures are all within the heights proposed for LEGOLAND in the specific plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed project was evaluated in the "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, dated November 1995 (EIR 94-01)." EIR 94-01 evaluates the environmental effects of the development and operation of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan; improvements to the I-5/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 447.4 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 Carlsbad. 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 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. All mitigation measures applicable to the LEGOLAND Carlsbad project proposed for Planning Area 4 of the Carlsbad Ranch have been incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the project. 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 The project site includes land that was approved for tentative cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract. The analysis in EIR 94-01 concluded that no mitigation measures 10 Rev. 03/28/96 are necessary as project impacts will be reduced to level less than significant through the payment of fees consistent with the coastal program, the preservation of 53 acres on-site, 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. V. AIR QUALITY: a) violate standards/contribute to projected violation: 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. (EIR section 5.2) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: a): Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of 11 Rev. 03/28/96 Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. (EIR section 5.5) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: The EIR concluded that the specific plan project will result in impacts to Diegan coastal scrub and indirect impacts to sensitive resources immediately adjacent. LEGOLAND's development will not impact the former, and mitigation measures are being taken to minimize the latter, in the form of detention basins for drainage runoff, and noise and light control measures during construction to avoid disturbance to a nesting gnatcher pair. (EIR section 5.4) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS f) Solid waste disposal The generation of additional solid waste is a potentially significant impact. The mitigation measure identified in EIR 94-01 which has been applied to the project will reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measure requires 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. g) Local or regional water supplies The project will require the construction of onsite water lines. The impacts of buildout of the Carlsbad Ranch project to water supplies are potentially significant. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in EIR 94-01 will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. The mitigation includes utilizing reclaimed water for landscaping on the project site. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) potential to degrade the environment: The EIR identified potentials for disturbance of a nesting gnatcatcher pair and loss of archaeological and paleontological resources. Mitigation measures were prescribed which will be implemented with construction of LEGOLAND. (EIR sections 5.3 and 5.4) b) cumulatively considerable impacts: Areas of the specific plan contain archaeological resources and geological formations with a high potential for yielding significant paleontological and fossil resources. Mitigation measures requiring archeological and paleontological monitors are required for the project and will be implemented during the mass grading for LEGOLAND. (EIR section 5.3) 12 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES AIR QUALITY: Provision of preferential sparking spaces for carpools and vanpools and provide 7'2" minimum vertical clearance in parking facilities for van access unless surface parking is provided for vans. Implement on-site circulation plan in parking lots to reduce vehicle queuing. Provision of shade trees to reduce building heating/cooling needs. Use of energy efficient and automated controls for air conditioning. Use of energy-efficient low-sodium parking lot lights. Use of synchronization of traffic lights on streets impacted by development. Scheduling of truck deliveries and pickups for off-peak hours. Provision of on-site truck loading zones. Requiring employers to provide commuter information. Implementation of compressed work week schedules where weekly work hours are compressed into fewer than five days, such as 9/80, 4/40, or 3/36 schedules. Construction of bus turnouts, passenger benches, or shelters as deemed necessary by NCTD. Construction of off-site pedestrian facility improvements. Providing of shuttles to major rail transit centers, multi- modal stations, and other local destinations for all uses within the specific plan. This will be done at such time as warranted by park attendance. Contribution to regional transit systems. Bicycle parking facilities, and showers for bicycling employees' use. ARCHAEOLOGICAL: Data recovery and/or capping has been completed for sites within the project boundaries, in accordance with the city's "Cultural Resource Guidelines." Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence that a certified archaeologist has been retained, and shall be present at the pregrading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project proponent, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the 13 Rev. 03/28/96 applicant and to the City. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant for exploration and/or salvage. These actions as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the review of the City. Prior to issuance of a mass-grading permit, the developer shall present a letter to the City of Carlsbad indicating that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. The paleontologist should be an individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques. A qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of the Santiago Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. The paleontological monitor should be an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist or monitor shall recover them, n most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. If large fossil specimens are discovered, they may require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist or monitor shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of these remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances top set up a screen-washing operation on the site. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted and cataloged. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall be deposited as a donation in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the fossils shall be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage. A final summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected and significance of recovered fossils, if any. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: It is anticipated that the gnatcatcher pair located immediately off-site to the east of the project will be taken during construction of the municipal golf course being proposed by the City of Carlsbad. As a result, no mitigation for construction noise impacts that may occur to this pair are proposed. If through final design of the City-proposed gold course it is determined that this gnatcatcher pair is not taken, the following mitigation measure for noise impacts shall be implemented: During the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 through August 15), noise levels during grading shall not exceed 65 decibels, averaged over a one-hour period on an A- weighted decibel (dBA), measured at the edge of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat that is occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher. Grading could be initiated in areas adjacent to occupied gnatcatcher habitat prior to August 15 if the pair has successfully fledged young and 14 Rev. 03/28/96 *. - the fledglings are at least three weeks out of the nest. Grading will be allowed adjacent to habitat occupied by unpaired individual birds. Lighting should be selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from the areas listed above, in particular to avoid potential impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher(s) east of LEGOLAND and any that may occur in the proposed open space. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION: All traffic mitigation measures off the LEGOLAND site are being implemented by others. HAZARDOUS WASTE/PESTICIDE RESIDUE: During grading, observations shall be made by a qualified hazardous materials specialist for areas of possible contamination such as the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, stained soils, waste drums and tanks or odorous soils. Should such materials be encountered, further investigation and analysis shall be required to identify the significance of the potentially contaminated area. Soil remediation measures to address anypotentially contaminated areas shall be implemented based on the recommendations of the hazardous materials specialist. Randomly selected surface samples shall be collected after each phase of grading and chemically tested for pesticides to verify that toxaphene and DT plus its derivatives are below the established TTLC and STLC action levels. During site development, soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons shall be mitigated. Mitigation techniques shall include: Placing the affected soil beneath a proposed road/parking area as a base material Recycling the affected soil; or Bio-remediation of the affected soil on-site The applicant shall prepare a report documenting results of any future testing. This report shall indicate that measures taken to mitigate contamination, as appropriate. The report shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department. All recommendations contained in the report shall be complied with by the applicant. Compliance with these measures shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad in conjunction with the review and approval by the San Diego County Department of Health Services and the Regional Water Quality Control Board as applicable. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Prior to Site Development Plan approval, developers shall submit security plans for review and approval by the Carlsbad Police Department. The plans shall be submitted prior to Site Development Plan approval, and shall include information about internal security programs, security systems and devices and any other information required by the Police Department. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 Reclaimed water shall be utilized for all landscaping on the project site to the extent feasible, the reclaimed water facilities shall be installed in accordance with the conceptual reclaimed water facility plan as proposed in the specific plan, and City of Carlsbad requirements. Dual plumbing shall be required for LEGOLAND Carlsbad project as deemed feasible by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. SOLID WASTE: The applicant shall submit a solid waste management plan for review and approval by the City of Carlsbad. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619)438-1161) 1. "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City of Carlsbad, November 1995." ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 16 Rev. 03/28/96 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. Date Signature 17 Rev. 03/28/96