HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 00-03; Jack in the Box; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF INTENDED ACTION
REPLACEMENT OF LANDSCAPING AND ADDITION OF OUTDOOR EATING AREA
JACK IN THE BOX
901 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CA.
Date of Notice: June 22, 2000
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Director of the City of Carlsbad intends
to APPROVE an Administrative Redevelopment Permit (RP 00-03) for the replacement of landscaping and
the addition an outdoor eating area in conjunction with the Jack in the Box restaurant located at 901
Carlsbad Village Drive. The business is located at the southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and
Harding Street. Under the proposal, a maximum of 3 tables (2 with umbrellas) and 10 seats will be
added to the west side of the existing building. In addition, landscaping shall be added at grade and
within planters along the north and west sides of the property.
Those persons wishing to comment on the proposed project and intended action by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director are cordially invited to submit written comments or contact the Housing and
Redevelopment Department by 5:00pm on Monday, July 3, 2000. If you have comments on the
proposed project and intended action, please contact Lori Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department at (760) 434-2813 or (760) 434-2810. You may also provide your comments in writing to
the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
NOTICE IS HEREBY ALSO GIVEN that the Planning Department has determined that the project is exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15304 of the State
CEQA Guidelines and will not have an adverse significant impact on the e.ivironment. The City of Carlsbad
Planning Department will file appropriate documentation for the "exemption".
Case File: RP 00-03
Case Name: Jack in the Box Outdoor Eating Area
Assessor Parcel Number: 203-353-09
(For Site Map, See Reverse Side of this Notice)
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF RNAL ACTION
REPLACEMENT OF LANDSCAPING AND ADDITION OF OUTDOOR EATING AREA
JACK IN THE BOX
901 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CA.
Date of Notice: July 7, 2000
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Director of the City of Carlsbad has
made a final decision to conditionally APPROVE an Administrative Redevelopment Permit (RP 00-03) for
the replacement of landscaping and the addition an outdoor eating area in conjunction with the Jack in
the Box restaurant located at 901 Carlsbad Village Drive. The business is located at the southeast corner
of Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street. Under the proposal, a maximum of 3 tables (2 with
umbrellas) and 10 seats will be added to the west side of the existing building. In addition, landscaping
shall be added at grade and within planters along the north and west sides of the property.
If you wish to appeal the decision of the Housing and Redevelopment Director on this matter to the
Design Review Board, you must file a written appeal with the Housing and Redevelopment Department
within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this decision/notice. The written appeal must be submitted
no later than 5:00pm on July 17, 2000. Appeal forms are available at the Housing and Redevelopment
Department located at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B. If you have questions regarding this permit,
please contact Lori Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813 or
(760) 434-2810.
NOTICE IS HEREBY ALSO GIVEN that the Planning Department has determined that the project is exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15304 of the State
CEQA Guidelines and will not have an adverse significant impact on the environment. The City of Carlsbad
Planning Department will file appropriate documentation for the "exemption".
Case File: RP 00-03
Case Name: Jack in the Box Outdoor Eating Area
Assessor Parcel Number: 203-353-09
(For Site Map, See Reverse Side of this Notice)
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @
NOTICE OF E PTION FILE COPY
To: County Clerk
County of San Diego
Mailstop 833, Attn: Mita
PO Box 121750
SanDiego CA 92112-1750
From: CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
(760) 602-4600
Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in comphance with Section 21152b of the Public
Resources Code (Califomia Environmental Quality Act).
Project Title: RP 00-03 - Jack in the Box outdoor dining
Project Location - Specific: 901 Carlsbad Village Drive
Project Location - City: Carlsbad Project Location - County: SanDiego
Description of Project: Tables and chairs and landscaping modifications for outdoor dining
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: Citv of Carlsbad
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: John Emmannelli
Exempt Status: (Check One)
^ Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268);
^ Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c));
I Categorical Exemption - State type and section number:,
^ Statutory Exemptions - State code number: 15301(e)
Reasons why project is exempt: Expansion of existing facilities which does not exceed 50% of
the existing floor area or 2400 square feet.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Van Lvnch
If filed by applicant:
Telephone: (760)602-4613
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project?
MICH2^ J. JiOLZMILLER, Planning Director
Signed by Lead Agency
I I Signed by Applicant
Date
Revised October 1989
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to determine what type
of environmental documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will be required to be prepared for your
application, per the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Titie 19 of Carlsbad's
Municipal Code. The clarity and accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes
of quickly determining the specific environmental effects of your project.
Recent judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist," that is checklist that is merely
checked "yes" or "no," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the Califomia
Environmental Quality act. Each "yes" or "no" answer must be accompanied by a written
explanation justifying the "yes" or "no" answer. This is especially important when a Negative
Declaration is being sought. The more information provided in this form, the easier and quicker
it will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II.
RECEIVED
MAR 22 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED: 3/2-D/OD
(To be completed by staff)
BACKGROUND
CASENAME:
2. APPLICANT: /f^a/ t4/^ /^/A " /6^ cj^<\ 7^ (PX
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9^^2, /kj?y
4. PROJECT DEKRIPTION: A^^g^V^ (^i/^cx 7^
J/Zypl/e'cl^ ^jZJ^i^^t(7l/ f-^/^^
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
Q Land Use and Planning []] Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Q Population and Housing Q Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems
I I Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Q Aesthetics
• Water Q Hazards [^j Cultural Resources
• Air Quality • Noise Q Recreation
Q Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 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 Impacf 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 Impacf 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 Impacf 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 Supportmg Information Sources):
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)? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
•
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
•
•
•
•
•
0
0
2S
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 0
• m
• 0
III. 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
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
( )
Subsidence of the land? ( )
Expansive soils? ( )
g)
h)
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
( )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( )
• • • X
• • •
• • • K
• • •
• • • X'
• • •
• • • m • • •
• • •
• • •
• • • 0
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(SmM!&4Smimt§M^^ferrmto
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?( )
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?
( )
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal resuh 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 altemative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
( )
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts?
( )
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • •
No
Impact
0
• • • 0
• • •
• • •
• • • 0
• • • Kl
• • • 0
• • •
• • • 0
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
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, msects,
animals, and birds? ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
( )
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
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? ( )
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 resuh 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 govemment
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • 0
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • M
• • •
• • • 0
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources):
(Supplemental documenWmay. beYeferrec
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
( )
e) Other govemmental services? ( )
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
facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
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:
a) Disturb paieontological resources? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses withm 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?
( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• • • 0
• • •
• • • ^
• • • s • • • s
• • • s • • • 0
• • • E\
• • • 0
• • • 0
• • • E]
• • • 0
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • ,^
• • • 0
• • •
• • • m
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
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 Califomia 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
O
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
• ^
• ^
• ^
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 firom the above checklist
were wdthin 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
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact"
yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant
Impacf or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion ofthe impacts to these environmental factors.
AIR OUALITY:
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 altemative 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 Impacf. 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 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
9 Rev. 03/28/96
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 altemative 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
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.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
10 Rev. 03/28/96