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