Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 4136. e I, r‘ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4136 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 17 TIMESHAREI’HOTEL UNITS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ISLAND WAY AND SURFSIDE LANE lN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 22. CASE NAME: SEAPONTE RESORT EXPAWION CASE NO.: CT 97-06/CP 97-O4/CUP 93-04(E)/ CDP 97-07/SDP 94-04(B) WHEREAS, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc., “:Developer”, has filed a ver application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Seapointe Rt 11, L. P., “Owner”, described as That portion of Lot 2, Section 20, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Official Plat thereof, bounded on the west by the easterly line of the land described in Deed to the State of California recorded October 4, 1951, in Book 4253, Page 578 of Official Records as Document No. 121143, bounded on the east by the westerly line of that parcel of land conveyed in Deed to Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, recorded January 29, 1946 as Document No. 9749, in Book 2031, Page 277 of Official Records; bounded on the south by the northerly line of La Costa Downs, Unit No. 1 according to Map thereof No. 2013, and bounded on the north by the north line of the south 60 acres of Lots 1,2 and 3 and the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 20 and Lot 4 and the southwest quarter of southwest quarter of Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, excepting from said Lots 1 and 2, and portions thereof, now or here before lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of December l! hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and c 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 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testir and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff: considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fa1 relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plan Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plan Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibit "ND" d June 3, 1997, and "PII" dated May 29, 1997, attached hereto and made a hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed considered Negative Declaration dated, June 3,1997 , the environmental impacts the identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approving the pro. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on environment and thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration. 2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated June 3, l! reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbt 3. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures identifiec the MEIR 93-01 and EIR 93-01 addendum #1 which are appropriate to this Pro have been incorporated into this Project. 4. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project E have a significant impact on the environment. 5. The site has been previously disturbed and contains no native vegetation. 6. There are no sensitive resources located on the site so as to be significantly impac by this project. PC RES0 NO. 4136 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 e PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plar Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of December 1997, b following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Noble and Sava NOES: Chairperson Neilsen and Commissioner Welshons ABSENT: ABSTAIN: "-.' 8.q , '.i 1 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PC RES0 NO. 4136 -3- NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: Northeast corner of Island Way and Surfside Lane in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. Project Description: A request to add 17 timesharehotel units within two buildings to an existing timesharehotel facility. 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 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 4448. DATED: JUNE 3,1997 CASE NO: CT 97-06/CP 97-04/SDP 94-04(B)/CUP 93-04(E)/CDP 97-07 CASE NAME: SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 3,1997 i!h 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894 e a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II L (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 97-06, CP 97-04. SDP 94-04(B), CUP 93-04(E), CDP 97-07 DATE: May 29, 1997 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Seapointe Resort Expansion 2. APPLICANT: Grand Pacific Resorts c/o Timothy Stripe and David Brown 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200, Carlsbad, California 92008; (619) 431-8500 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 22,1996 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to add 17 timesharehotel units within two buildings to an existing timesharehotel facilitv. 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 Transportation/Circulation [7 Public Services Population and Housing B Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources rn Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 e a DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the L 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. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [7 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially Significant' effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. CAL tie? .\%7 Planner Signature Date u b 5'2?97 Date I 2 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmentammpact 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. 0 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. 0 “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. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant . effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 0 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. 0 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 e 0 0 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 m%asures 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. e 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 a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated L 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 fiom incompatible land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 [x] 0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or population projections? 0 0 0 [XI indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 0 [XI or extension of major infiastructure)? housing? 0 0 o w 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? o n c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? U 0 0 n f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? U conditions fiom excavation, grading, or fill? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [x] 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 Ixl o w o w 0 IXI 0 [x] 0 w 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 IXI 0 0 0 [x] 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 5 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact c 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 any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 0 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? 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 g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 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? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (eg marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO Impact Ixl Ixl [XI w w Ixl w w El w w Ixl w [XI w w w w (XI Ixl @ 6 Rev. 03/28/96 e, Issues (and Supporting Information 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? 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 cl cl 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 facilities? 0 d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 0 0 0 0 cl 7 LessThan No Significan Impact t Impact 0 (XI 0 (XI 0 IXI 0 Ix1 0 IxI 0 [x] 0 w 0 w 0 IXI 0 Ixl 0 (XI 0 [XI 0 (XI [XI 0 IXI 0 [x1 0 [xi Ixl 0 w cl El 0 El (XI Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). L 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? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 Bl cl cl 0 w .o 0 IXI a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c> Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which 0 Bl 0 0 0 [x1 0 0 El would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0 w e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“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 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 [x] 0 0 BJ 0 0 BJ 8 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: There are no known conditions on the site that would expose development to geologic hazards of any sort. Grading proposed will be in accordance with standard grading principals and practice which include erosion control and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. Although the site is near the Pacific Ocean, it is not contiguous and development of the property will not directly effect beach sand or modify a channel of free flowing waters. Development will not create a change to air flow, movement, or temperature and may not consume great quantities of natural resources, fuel or energy. Development will be required to obtain gas and/or electric service fiom San Diego Gas and Electric and will be charged the appropriate service fees. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT: The site is currently in a disturbed state as a result of previous grading and agriculture. There are no known sensitive species of plants or animals within the area of potential development of the site. There is also no evidence that there will be adverse impacts to the biological environment offsite as a result of development. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: All of the utility services required by development will be provided by standard methods. Development would introduce new levels of noise and light into the area. However, those levels are typically not considered significant. A California State campground is located across the street and may be impacted during the evening hours by ambient light. Mitigation for the potential impact could be shielding and landscaping. - Although the sight is visible from Carlsbad Boulevard, construction of a building within the height limits will not be an adverse visual impact because views of the site are from a distance to the east and predominantly fiom a higher elevation. The combination of height and distance allow the residents to the east of Interstate 5 horizon view of the Pacific Ocean. Analysis of the proposed project indicates that there will not be any adverse effects to the environment. Phasing or redesign will not contribute to a reduction of impacts when no significant impacts have been identified. 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 sulk, 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 9 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 0 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 thebpact 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. 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, and subsequently EIR 93-01 addendum #1, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review-of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 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 1) 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 certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, and subsequently EIR 93-01 addendum #1, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for 10 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 a 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. L 11 Rev. 03/28/96