Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 4061.’ *e 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 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4061 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A RESTAURANT ON A 1.02 ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 925 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE IN THE COASTAL ZONE IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO DEVELOP A DRIVE-THRU CASE NAME: CARL’S JR./GREEN BURRITO DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT CASE NO. : SDP 96-05/CUP 96-07/CDP 96-06 WHEREAS, Carl Karcher Enterprises, “Developer”, has filed a vc application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Jung Tom/The Company, “Owner”, described as: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 195 as recorded on January 30, 1970 in San Diego County, File No. 18100; and a portion of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 17542 as recorded on June 27,1995 in San Diego County, File No. 1995-0267703 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of February the 5th day of March 1997, and the l9th day of March 1997, hold a duly noticed public hc as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all test; and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staf considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all f relating to the Negative Declaration. ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Pk Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 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 0 0 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pla Commission does hereby APPROVE the Negative Declaration accordi Exhibit "ND" dated November 8, 1996, and "PII" dated November 5, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findincs: - 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzec considered Negative Declaration dated November 8, 1996, the environmental in therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approvin project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commj finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect ( environmen't and thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration. 2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated Novemb 1996, reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the C Carlsbad. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla~ Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of March 1997, b following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, P and Savary NOES: Commissioners Monroy and Welshons ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A ATTEST: - MICHAEL J. HOLZMKLER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4061 -2- NEGATIW DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: 920 Palomar Airport Road. South side of Palomar Airport Road and east of Paseo del Norte, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Project Description: Demolition of existing nurseryland use and construction of a 3,064 square foot Carls Jr./Green Burrito drive thru restaurant with parking, landscaping and proposed playgound apparatus. 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, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (6 19) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 4441. DATED: NOVEMBER 8,1996 CASE NO: SDP 96-O5/CUP 96-071CDP 96-06 CASE NAME: CARLS JWGREEN BUWTO DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 8,1996 - MICHAEL J. HmMILHR Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 96-06/CUP 96-07/CDP 96-06 DATE: November 5, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Carls Jr/Green Burrito Restaurantillrive-Thru 2. APPLICANT: Nancy Patterson 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9315 First Street, Suite U-130, Encinitas, California; (6 19) 634- 1 122 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 25, 1996/ Complete Application as of 10-25-96 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proiect site has frontage onto Palomar Airport Road at 920 Palomar Airport Road and is currently the site of Nurseryland. Also involved is a portion of the lot adiacent to and east of the subiect site to be used for parking. This development proposal is for the construction of a 3,064 sauare foot combination Carl’s Jr./Green Burrito restaurant with 243 sa. ft. of outdoor patio seating, a 450 sq. ft. playground apparatus (15 feet max height) and a drive-thru lane accommodating uu to 10 queuindstacked cars. All required parking spaces, landscaping and other applicable standards are complied with. The site’s zoning designation is Commercial-Tourist with a Qualified Overlav Zone (CT-O Zone) and the General Plan designation is TravelRecreation Commercial (T/R). The uroposed conditional use permit is to allow the operation of the drive-thru component of the proposal; the site development plan is required by the Q overlay designation. The project site is existing and already developed with a nursery; the site will be redeveloped with the proposed Carls Jr./Green Burrito restauranddrive- thru. No environmental impacts are anticipated from auproval of this SDP/CUP reauest and the operation of a drive-thru Carl’s Jr./Green Burrito restaurant at the subiect proiect site. 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. 0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services [7 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems [7 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics Water Hazards Cultural Resources B Air Quality [I3 Noise Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 10 DETERMINATION. 0 (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [XI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 .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. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0' 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. & m,,, +-/? 6 Planner Signature 2 Date I I/ S/.ib Planning Directox Signddre Date I -- 2 Rev. 03/28/96 {I) a 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. e 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. e “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. e “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. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &I 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). e 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. e 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. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact’’ is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 0' 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 0 17 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) InducZ substantial growth in an area either directly or population projections? indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? housing? 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 o 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 0 0 0 0 5 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Impact [XI [x1 €3 [XI [XI w [XI [x1 (XI IXI [XI [x1 [XI [XI [XI [XI (XI 0 0 [XI 0 17 [XI 0 0 (XI 0 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 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? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 0 0 0 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause d) Create objectionable odors? existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #1) [xi 0 0 any change in climate? 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #1) IXI b) Hazards to safety from design features (eg sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses 0 (e.g. farm equipment)? - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significan t impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 No Impact w w [XI w !XI o w [XI [XI 0 w c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted. policies supporting alternative [xi 0 0 0 [xi 0 0 cl El transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 cl 0 [xi g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not lilmited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 [xi 0 0 0 [xi 0 0 (XI 0 0 0 [xi 6 Rev. 03/28/96 s a Issues (and Supporting Informxtion Sources). Potentially Significant Impact VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral proposal? o inefficient manner? 0 resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 the residents of the State? 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)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? o 0 0 0 0 XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 n facilities? 0 f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? U 0 0 7 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 0 w o [XI 0 [XI 0 Ixi 0 w 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI o w cl w 0 0 0 0 0 [XI IE3 w !XI !XI cl w 0 IXI 0 Ixi 0 Ixl cl w cl w 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant lmpact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 0 0 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 0 0 0 0 would affect unique ethic cultural values? potential impact area? 0 XV. RECREATIONAL. Woulcl the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? o 0 XVI. MANDATORY FINDKNGS 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? (“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? 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 0 [x1 0 IXI w 0 cl 0 0 0 w w [XI [x1 w 0 [x1 0 [x1 0 [x1 o [XI 0 [x1 8 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 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. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identifj 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. N/A 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. N/A 9 Rev. 03/28/96 6 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. LAND USE PLANNING: The project site currently accommodates a nursery, a parking area and landscaping. The proposal to develop a combination Carl’s Jr./Green Burrito drive-thru restaurant at this site will not create conflicts with existing land use designations, the provisions of the Mello I1 Local Coastal Program, or the City’s General Plan. The City’s Zoning Ordinance allows the drive-thru restaurants via a conditional use permit in commercial zones. 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING: This site is proposed for the operation of a drive-thru restaurant which will not create any significant impacts to population fluctuations or housing demandshssues in the City or the region. 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS: No geologic, seismic or topographic features or hazards are associated with this topographically flat, developed urban project site. IV. WATER: No impacts to water supplies, ground water resources, or surface run-off characteristics will result fi-om the proposed project. Engineering Department conditions on the project will ensure compliance with all applicable drainage and urban pollutant run-off controls and regulations. V. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 0’ a Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, 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 certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the Greneral Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no Mer environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. CIRCULATION: 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 irnpacts 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 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. VII. BIOLOGICAL RIESOURCES: No biological resources are associated with this developed, urban site. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES: No impacts to energy or mineral resources are involved with the proposed car storage use of this existing site. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 e e IX. HAZARDS: No abnormal or significant hazards are associated with the site or the proposed development for the site. X. NOISE: The proposed use will not generate excessive noise. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES: This project will not create extraordinary demands on public services or facilities. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: This project will not create the need for new or modified sewer systems, gas lines, storm water drainage or solid waster disposal systems. XIII. AESTHETICS: The building design and associated landscaping is designed to compliment the developing frontages along Palomar Airport Road and the potentially scenic highway qualities it retains. Final landscape plan details will incorporate a focused screening effort for the parking lot areas and drive-thru lane. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: No cultural resources are associated with this existing, developed urban site. XV. RECREATION: No recreational resources or opportunities are involved or required with this site or project; however, a playground apparatus is proposed for the children of customers eating at the restaurant. - -, - i, 12 Rev. 03/28/96