Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 2C 1 TY © F� LAI*E ,I LS1110KE DREAM EXTREME TM REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: WARREN MORELION, AICP PLANNING MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2011 SUBJECT: 2011 COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE CITY GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED DOCUMENTS Project Description General Plan Update California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long -term general plan, which must cover the jurisdiction's entire planning area and address the broad range of issues associated with its future development. The 2011 Comprehensive General Plan Update will replace the existing 1990 Plan, change the format by the identification of sixteen (16) unique District Plans that are specific and geographically defined, and by organizing baseline conditions and the establishment of goals, policies and implementation programs into three (3) major Plan chapters: Community Form, Public Safety and Welfare, and Resource Protection and Preservation. Housing Element Update The Housing Element is one of the seven (7) mandatory elements of the General Plan. Through its policies, procedures, and incentives, the updated Housing Element will provide an action plan for maintaining and expanding the housing supply for all income levels in the City for the period of July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2014. Downtown Master Plan, "Key to Downtown" Implementation Plan, and Downtown Code The Downtown Master Plan is intended to set the vision of the downtown area. The Master Plan area is bounded by Interstate 15 to the north, the Lake waters to the south, PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 1 of 33 Comprehensive Update to the City General Plan November 15, 2011 Page 2 of 6 and Riley Street to the west, and Ellis, Chestnut, Bridge, and Olive Streets to the east, as shown in Exhibit 'A.' The Master Plan seeks to preserve historic assets within the downtown while evolving a vision and character of a "City of its Time." The Master Plan also focuses on implementation and incentives, land uses and codes, in order that this vision can come to fruition quickly and efficiently. Climate Action Plan The Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a long -range plan to reduce local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change. The CAP identifies activities in the City that generate (GHG) emissions, quantifies these emissions, and projects future trends. Additionally, the CAP provides targets for the years 2020 and 2030, and strategies and measures that ensure that the City meets the State's emissions reduction mandates (AB 32 and Executive Order S- 3 -05). Lastly, as requested by members of the City's development community, the CAP includes a "Project -Level CAP Consistency Worksheet" within its Appendices, to assist an applicant in meeting California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements by demonstrating a project's consistency with the City's General Plan. Chronology 2005 —2007 The City adopted its existing General Plan on November 27, 1990. Work on an updated General Plan began in January, 2005, with the formation and active participation of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) comprised of local residents and business owners. The GPAC met regularly a total of fourteen (14) times, providing crucial citizen input for the Plan formation. A visioning session held at the Diamond Stadium, three neighborhood workshops, a joint City Council /Planning Commission /GPAC study session, a focused survey, and public hearings were conducted. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and circulated in December, 2007. 2008-2009 Several hearings occurred in 2008 before both the Planning Commission and City Council, resulting in substantive changes to the proposed General Plan Land Use Map and modifications to the goals within the General Plan text. The City Council directed Staff to make specific land use changes throughout the City. These changes necessitated the preparation of a revised DEIR, including an updated Traffic Impact Analysis. Meanwhile, the Downtown Master Plan project was initiated with a consensus - building workshop on December 6, 2008. The City also sought approval by the State Department of Housing and Community Development of the City's Draft Housing Element Update, submitted in 2009. This process was stymied by the State's lack of confidence that the City could realistically meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 2 of 33 Comprehensive Update to the City General Plan November 15, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Lastly, the City was a recipient of a federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant in 2009 which allowed us to embark on the preparation of a Climate Action Plan to address greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements from the State. 2010-2011 A concerted effort by department staff from Planning, Geographic Information Systems, and Engineering completed the work begun by consultants to ensure consistency between all documents completed by outside consultants. The project progressed despite budget cuts and the loss of key personnel that occurred during this time period. In -house staff also completed the revised and recirculated environmental documents. Discussion & Analysis Significant Changes to the Dec 2009 Draft GPU Since the printing of the December 2009 General Plan Update, Staff completed the following tasks, at the request of the City Council, interested agencies, the development community, and property owners: 1. Streamlined the Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs. 2. Appendices added to provide pertinent information to facilitate development. 3. Land Use acreages recomputed as gross acres, and used throughout all accompanying documents. 4. Southeast Sphere District was removed as a result of the incorporation of the City of Wildomar and related boundary refinements effected by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ( "LAFCO "). 5. Alternative Land Use Maps were removed from the General Plan document and incorporated in the alternative analysis of the RDP -EIR. 6. Mineral Resources section added to Chapter 4; Housing section expanded in Chapter 2. 7. Roadway Classifications were updated based on Revised Traffic Impact Analysis. 8. Residential Mixed Use and Commercial Mixed Use descriptions were refined for clarity in lieu of an update to the Zoning Code. 9. Properties under ownership of the Regional Conservation Agency were redesignated as Open Space. Errata Changes to the 2011 Draft General Plan Update The following changes are included in the Errata Sheet for the GPU (See Exhibit 'B') as a result of comments received during the recirculation of the DEIR: 1. Parks & Recreation information and Open Space information have been updated at the request of Civic Partners and McMillian Summerly, LLC, in a PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 3 of 33 Comprehensive Update to the City General Plan November 15, 2011 Page 4 of 6 letter dated October 21, 2011 from RGP (Letter is in the Response to Comments section of the Final RP -EIR). 2. Cultural Resources Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs have been modified at the request of the Pechanga Tribe, in a letter dated October 19, 2011 (Letter is in the Response to Comments section of the Final RP -EIR). 3. Trails, hillside grading standards, and improvements to roadway connections to adjacent jurisdictions have been modified or added at the request of the City of Canyon Lake. Their letter, dated November 3, 2011, making such requests is attached to this Staff Report as Exhibit 'C.' 4. In a letter dated November 9, 2011, Carleton Waters of Urban Crossroads, re- analyzed their Traffic Impact Analysis and modified their recommended roadway classifications for two relatively minor "loop" roadways located west of Lincoln Street and south of the Interstate 15 Freeway. Their letter, dated November 9, 2011, is attached to this Staff Report as Exhibit'D.' Errata Changes to the Draft Housing Element Update On November 1, 2011, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a letter to the City (See Exhibit 'E'), indicating that the Draft Housing Element as revised at the request of HCD "addresses the statutory requirements" and "demonstrates adequate sites to accommodate the City's regional housing need." The requested revisions to Pages 130 through 133 of the Draft Housing Element is an attachment to this Staff Report and comprises the Errata Sheet for the Draft Housing Element Update (See Exhibit'F'). Correspondence Staff received a letter of support from Mr. Paul Reichert, of 3 Point Properties, Inc., dated October 25, 2011, in which he "strongly encourage(s) the Planning Commission to make its recommendation to the City Council ..." (See Exhibit 'G'). Staff also received a letter from Marinita Development Company dated November 8, 2011, thanking the City and Staff "for the exceptionally good job" on the General Plan Update (See Exhibit 'H'). Marinita also makes three requests to change the General Plan and Program EIR. Unfortunately, the request to change the Program EIR was not received during the 45 -day recirculation comment period which ended October 21, 2011, and could not be considered in the Response to Comments. Staff did not have sufficient time to research and respond to these requests before the printing of this Staff Report. However, Staff will present their analysis for discussion with the Commission at the public hearing. PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 4 of 33 Comprehensive Update to the City General Plan November 15, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Environmental Determination The City circulated a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report with approximately 180 individual comments received during the 45 -day comment period from December 5, 2007 to January 18, 2008. Comments were reviewed and considered for incorporation during the revision process necessitated by the substantial changes to the land use plan during the first round of public hearings. A Recirculated Draft Program EIR ( "RDP -EIR ") was circulated for another 45 -day comment period from September 7, 2011 to October 21, 2011. A total of twenty (20) comment letters were received, reviewed, considered and responses prepared. Responses to the comments are provided to the Commission in the Final Recirculated Program EIR document. Annexation No. 81 The revised RDP -EIR includes an analysis of the proposed Annexation No. 81, known as the "3rd Street Annexation," pending before the Local Agency Formation Commission. The Annexation is City- initiated and its processing will continue to completion following the City's adoption of the General Plan Update Land Use Map designating the proposed land use densities and intensities within the Annexation area and certification of the Final RP -EIR. Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The RP -EIR determined that the proposed project, as described above, will have no potentially significant impacts upon Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing and Utilities and Service Systems and no mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the proposed General Plan Update are required for these issue areas. Additionally, the RP -EIR determined that potentially significant environmental impacts upon Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use & Planning (including Agricultural Resources), Parks and Recreation and Public Services will be mitigated to below a level of significance through compliance with the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the proposed General Plan Update and compliance with the identified mitigation measures. However, the RP -EIR also determined that the proposed project will have significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Noise and Transportation and Circulation, which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is included in the Findings of Fact, which are a separately bound document that is incorporated by reference into the Planning Commission resolution recommending certification of the RP -EIR. PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 5 of 33 Comprehensive Update to the City General Plan November 15, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Recommend to the City Council certification of the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan Update, Downtown Master Plan, Key to Downtown Implementation Plan, Downtown Code, and Housing Element Update. Prepared by: Carole K. Donahoe, AICPa \, Project Planner Approved by: Warren Morelion, AICP \� Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Exhibit'A' — Downtown Master Plan Map 2. Exhibit'B' — Errata Changes to the 2011 General Plan Update, November 15, 2011. 3. Exhibit 'C' — Correspondence from the City of Canyon Lake, dated November 3, 2011, requesting changes to the General Plan Update. 4. Exhibit 'D' — Correspondence from Urban Crossroads, dated November 9, 2011, recommending the modification of two roadway classifications. 5. Exhibit 'E' - Correspondence from the State of California Department of Housing & Community Development, dated November 1, 2011, certifying compliance with State housing element law. 6. Exhibit 'F - Errata Sheet for the Draft Housing Element Update, titled "City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Technical Assistance September 2011," which revises Pages 130 thru 133. 7. Exhibit 'G'— Correspondence from Paul Reichert, Three Point Properties, Inc., dated October 25, 2011. 8. Exhibit 'H' — Correspondence from J. Scott Fawcett, Marinita Development Company, dated November 8, 2011. 9. Resolution No. PC- 2011 - recommending that the City Council certify the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update, Housing Element Update, Downtown Master Plan, Key to Downtown Implementation Plan, Downtown Code, and Annexation No. 81 a. Environmental Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update (Distributed under Separate Cover). 10. Resolution No. PC- 2011 -_ recommending that the City Council approve the 2011 Comprehensive Update of the General Plan, which includes the Housing Element Update, the Downtown Master Plan, Key to Downtown Implementation Plan and Downtown Code. PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 6 of 33 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN CITY LAKE 60HOU District Boundaries and downtowncode. Zones Dual 4tm[u: uaS,asrye' CAt EX - PC November 15, 201P1aIt Page em It of No. 2 Errata Changes to the 2011 General Plan Update - November 15, 2011 Chapter Page Change: Italics = Addition; Strikeout = Deletion 2 2 -20 Policy 3.1 Upon availability_of appropriate funding the City shall establish he of hillside grading standards that address unique natural features and encourage the sensitive treatment of hillsides in the site design and architecture of new construction. 2 2 -25 Figure 2.3- Roadway Classifications — Two minor roadway classifications have been modified upon re analysis by Urban Crossroads, the preparers of the GPU Traffic Impact Analysis. 2 2 -35 Figure 2.6- Trails Public /Quasi Public Lands designations are removed from the East Lake Specific Plan area, and SP designation prevails. Trail designation has been added at the east end of Greenwald, near the Canyon Lake city boundary. Riverside County Regional Trail System (adopted in 2003) has replaced the Trails Committee data previously shown. The following notation has been added: This graphic representation identifies general locations and classifications of existing and proposed trails. Precise alignment and improvements shall be determined through the City's Design Review process. 2 2 -37 Figure 2.7- Airport Influence Areas A definition for "Airport Influence Areas" has been added as a footnote, as follows: *Airport Influence Areas are delineated by local Airport Land Use Commissions as specified by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics in their Airport Land Use 2002 Planning Handbook. It is the area in which current or future airport- related noise, overflight safety, and /or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. In most circumstances, the airport influence area is designated by the ALUC as its planning area boundary for the airport and the two terms can be considered synonymously," 2 2 -40 Policy 6.6 As appropriate, coordinate City improvements with the efforts of the County and adjacent cities that provide a circulation network which moves people and goods efficiently to and from the Ci . 2 2 -44 The number of additional parks has been updated to "13" in the text to match the updated Figure 2.8 — Parks. 2 2 -45 Figure 2.8 -Parks Public /Quasi Public Lands designations are removed from the East Lake Specific Plan area, and SP designation prevails. 4 4 -58 Goal 6 Preserve, protect, and promote the cultural heritage of the City and surrounding region for the education and enjoyment of all City residents and visitors, as well as for the advancement of historical and archeological knowled e. 4 4 -58 Policy 6.2 The City shall consult with the appropriate Native American tribes for projects identified under SB 18 (Traditional Tribal Cultural Places). 4 4.58 Policy 6.3 When significant cu ltural/archeological sites or artifacts are discovered on a site, coordination with professional archeologists, relevant state and If applicable, federal agencies, and senserned the appropriate Native American tribes regarding preservation of sites or professional retrieval and preservation of artifacts or by other means of protection, prior to development of the site shall be required. Because ceremonial items and items of cultural patrimony reflect traditional religious beliefs and practices, developers should shall waive any and all claims to ownership and agree to return all Native American ceremonial items and items of cultural patrimony that may be found on a project site to the appropriate tribe for treatment. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure re uirements of the California Public Records Act. 4 4 -59 Goal 7 Support state -of- the -art research designs and analytical approaches to archeological and cultural resource investigations while also acknowledging the traditional knowledge and experience of the Native American tribes regarding Native American culture. 4 4 -59 Policv 7.1 Consult with California Native American tribes prior to decision - making processes for the purpose of preserving cultural places located on land within the City's jurisdiction that may be affected by the proposed plan, in accordance with Id t e PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 8 of 33 4 4 -59 Policy 7.3 Continue to update a citywide inventory of cultural resources in conformance with state standards and procedures while maintaining the confidentiality of information as required by law. 4 4 -59 Policy 7.4 Support the permanent curation of archeological artifact collections by universities, museums or appropriate tribal facilities. 4 4 -59 Policy 7.5 Increase opportunities for cultural heritage tourism by promoting the history of Lake Elsinore by attract cultural heritage travelers while maintaining the confidentiality of Native American sites, places and other information as re uired b law. E a ,r�, r•h� ��� ��� PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 9 of 33 CITY OF CANYON LAKE a November 3, 2011 Carole Donahoe 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Re: General Plan Update Dear Ms. Donahoe: Following are comments from the City of Canyon Lake Planning Department regarding the City of Lake Elsinore's current draft of their General Plan Update. Trails The proposed bikeway and trails plans for the General Plan does not designate the trail planned for on the east side of the proposed Greenwald Shopping Center, as further detailed in a settlement agreement between the City of Lake Elsinore and City of Canyon Lake. However, the bikeway and trails plans do not conflict with the points of this specific agreement. We request that the existing trails and /or the trails designated in Riverside County's General Plan be included in the proposed Lake Elsinore bikeway and /or trails plan. At a minimum, we request that within the Community Form section or within the Meadowbrook District Plan a policy be included that requires development that occurs within this area (that is under the jurisdiction of Lake Elsinore) be required to preserve and improve existing trails and trails designated by the Riverside County General Plan. A policy should also be included within the Community Form section that requires the Lake Elsinore's trails plan and any implementation of it to coordinate with the trails plans of any adjacent jurisdiction. Roads Consistent with the City of Canyon Lake's comments on the Draft EIR, additional policies should be included to require coordination of roadway and intersection improvements with adjacent jurisdiction when such improvements impact traffic in the adjacent jurisdiction. These policies would also be beneficial to provide additional mitigation for cumulative traffic impacts on adjacent jurisdictions, despite the finding of significance for traffic impacts. To clarify also, the City of Canyon Lake is planning improvements to Railroad PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 10 of 33 Canyon Road that would increase it to 6 lanes total (similar to the existing Lake Elsinore improvements). Aesthetics / Grading The General Plan includes policies to preserve hillsides and ridgelines, in particular a policy (Community Form 3.1) that states, "Consider the establishment of hillside grading standards that address unique natural features and encourage the sensitive treatment of hillsides in the site design and architecture of new construction." We request that this policy in particular be modified to require the establishment of such standards to adequately preserve hillsides and ridgelines as well as identify sensitive, prominent, or unique hillsides or ridgelines that shall restrict or at least discourage grading in these areas. We appreciate your consideration of our comments on the draft General Plan. Please include these in the record for the scheduled November 15' Planning Commission hearing and provide notice to the City of Canyon Lake upon setting a hearing date for the General Plan before the City Council. Sincerely, ,47 Russell Brady City Planner CC: Lori Moss, Canyon Lake City Manager City of Canyon Lake Councilmembers PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 11 of 33 MIAL BAN 41 Corporate Plark I Suite 300 1 Irvine, CA 92606 ..0 FtClliSSFtQAD5 November 9, 2011 Ms. Carole Donohoe CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Subject: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Additional Roadway Classification Review Dear Mr. Donohoe: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this further review of selected roadway classification recommendations for the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update project. At the request of Mr. Warren Morelion (City of Lake Elsinore staff), additional review of the recommended roadway classifications for two relatively minor "loop" roadways located west of Lincoln Street and south of the I- 15 Freeway. Exhibit M of our letter report dated August 4, 2011 shows the two roadways in question with a recommended classification of Secondary Arterial. This is consistent with the previously recommended classification(s) for these roadways as shown on Exhibit A of the same report. Typically, our primary concern is for identifying roadways that may need to be upgraded based on new analysis results, and no change was recommended for these two roadways. Based on the future daily traffic volume forecasts presented on Exhibit L of the same letter report, the maximum daily traffic volume on the southern loop roadway ranges between 3,000 and 6,000 vehicles per day (VPD). This traffic volume should be accommodated by the Divided Collector cross - section. The volume on the northernmost roadway segment of the two loops is 10,000 VPD, higher than the other two segments under consideration. Therefore, additional detailed data available from the traffic 07545 -11 Additional Roadway Classification Review.doc PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 12 of 33 Ms. Carole Donohoe CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE November 9, 2011 Page 2 study prepared for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, September, 2010) has been reviewed. The peak hour traffic volume on this roadway reaches a maximum of between 300 and 400 vehicles per hour (VPH), which again should be reasonably accommodated by a Divided Collector cross - section. The peak hour operations analysis from the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan traffic study report for the. intersection of the northernmost roadway under consideration with Lincoln Street / Temescal Canyon Road was also reviewed. The analysis indicated that LOS "D" with delays of 49 seconds per vehicle and an overall intersection volume to capacity (V /C) ratio of 0.94 is expected during the PM peak hour. Given that the more recent General Plan update analysis suggests an increase in daily traffic volumes in the vicinity of this intersection, it is recommended that consideration be given to designating this intersection as a special study location to ensure that appropriate and adequate intersection geometry is provided in the future. CLOSING Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this additional roadway classification review for your use. Please feel free to call me at (949) 660 -1994 x210 if you have any questions or wish to discuss the suggested response. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Carleton Waters. P. E. Principal CW: JN:07545 -11 Additional Roadway Classification Review.doc xc: Mr. Richard MacHott, CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Mr. Warren Morelion, CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update: Proposed Land Use Plan City of Lake Elsinore, CA (JN:07545 -11 Additional Roadway Classification Reviewdoc) ■vim► / q q PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 13 of 33 I � • • � ■ • � I ' 11 _ � MMUNIP DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800 Third Street, Suite 430 P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252 -2053 (916) 323 -31771 FAX (916) 327 -2643 w hcd.ca.00v November 1, 2011 Mr. Warren Morelion Planning Manager Planning Department City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street City of Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Mr. Morelion: RE: Review of the City of Lake Elsinore's Revised Draft Housing Element �O Y O �£ C'1LfFVAA�F Thank you for submitting Lake Elsinore's revised draft housing element received for review on October 13, 2011 along with additional revisions on November 1, 2011. The Department is required to review draft housing elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). Communications with you, Ms. Carole Donohoe, Planning Consultant, and Ms. Barbara Leibold, City Attorney, facilitated the review. The revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements described in the Department's May 20, 2011 review. The element now includes an analysis of zoning to encourage the development of housing affordable to lower- income households and demonstrates adequate sites to accommodate the City's regional housing need. The revised draft element will comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) when adopted and submitted to the Department, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g). The Department appreciates the effort and cooperation provided by you, Ms. Donohoe and Ms. Leibold throughout the course of the review and looks forward to receiving Lake Elsinore's adopted housing element. If you have any additional questions, please contact Paul McDougall, of our staff, at (916) 322 -7995. Sincerely, Glen A. Campora Assistant Deputy Director u��L' t F, �,_✓ u PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 14 of 33 Formatted: Left: 1 ", Right: 1" City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Technical Assistance September 2011 Analysis of Zoning to Encourage and Facilitate the Development of Housing for Lower Income Households (pages 130 to 133 — Suggested Revisions in Red) INLAND EMPIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS State housing element law utilizes a density to correlate affordability and income groups (RHNA) with zoning and residential capacity (sites inventory). The Sal #era a_ Deleted: State H96ising and (;Grnm nity n,,..,,1,.,,ment turn) leas deter.., ..a tt,.,t - Deleted: 9epaxmeei a#er ability '° GeFrelated wkh density To demonstrate densities to encourage the Deleted: have deemed development of housing affordable to lower income households, the statute has always Deleted: as provided the ability to analyze the appropriate density. Recent amendments to the statute added a default density standard as an option to streamline the analysis requirements where the Department of Housing and Community Development must accept specific density standards. For jurisdictions with a_ population _greater 25,000_ - Deleted: Consequently, Han hae the statute establishesd "default and located within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with a population of more than densities "that by definition are two million, the default density is 30 dwelling units per acre (or higher). Lake Elsinore market-based sufficient provide adcet -basetl incentiveves for the has a population greater than 25,000 and is within the Riverside -San Bernardino -MSA development of housing for lower. income households. with over four million people. Thus, per State law, Lake Elsinore's default density is 30 dwelling units per acre. Density is a critical factor in the development of affordable housing. In theory, maintaining low densities typically increases the cost of construction and land per unit and increases the amount of subsidy needed to ensure affordabilitv_while higher density_ Deleted:,_ development can lowecper -unit land cost and_ facilitator construction in an economy_ - -- oeletedos scale. The highest residential density permitted by the City's General Plan is 24 units Deleted: the per acre. (see Table 32). Density bonuses allow for a density of up to 35 units per acre Deleted: s in the High Density Residential and residential Mixed Use categories. These density ranges sheuId encourage the development_ of housing_fo_r_low- and very-low income_, Deleted: facilitate households given factors such as that land values and construction costs in Lake PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 15 of 33 Elsinore and the surrounding area are substantially lower than in other MBAs, such as Deleted:, to which the 30 units per Los Angeles County,_ To demonstrate that a density of 24_units per acre can encourage , -' acre default density applies. Whereby the default density may be the development of housing affordable to lower income households, �a_ three_ part 30 units per acre, in—AF daflsaiea analysis was prepared based on market demand, financial feasibility, and project density of can pprperacre in Lake y y p � Elsinore can appropriately, encourage experience within the zone(s). construction of affordable housing Deleted: Lake Elsinore must prepare Deletetl: ' Deleted: are Market Demand y A Deleted: For example, o Market Rents for newer (less than five years oldlapartments in Lake E_I_s_inore awn be Deleted:7o0 generally affordable o e upper range of income households. Deleted: l g ll y ffdbl t the f l i h hld ne bedroom �---- - -- - -� � / Ass Deleted; Assuming one to hvo rents generally range from 75_t_o__ 95 with an average_rent_of $773, For a one peoplefor bedroom apartment, this average market rent is near the upper_ range_ for a_I_ower_ Deleted: ets well within the income household Asa result, arket rate apartments constructed under existin affordability °__ _ >m_ _ p__g_..._.. Deleted: and would almost be zoning of 24 units per acre can nearly be affordable to lower income households; " affordable to the upper range fora without financial subsidies. very low income household , Deleted: of two persons ($668). Table 49A Affordable Rent to Market Rent Comparison Deleted: while market rents are not generally affordable to very low currently Bedroom Affordability Affordability_ for _Market Rent - Range,_ _Market � ` income households, - - - - - - - - - �. Type for Very Low Lower Income Average - - - - v Deleted: are Income Household" Rent Deleted: Table XXXX¶ Household_ • Deleted: Persons per 1 Bedroom 625 50 �_ - $�7 $675- $995 - - - - - - - - - $773 - - - - - - - ", Deleted: Range �` Deleted: (Average 2 Bedroom IL03 _ 44 _ $800 -$ 1,300 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $990 Formatted liable Deleted: 1 to 2 Person 3Bedroom 3781 _________ 38 ___ ______$1,050_$1,450______$1,182 ______ We -$1,067 ; Deleted: 24 Person `Affordability - calculated pursuant to,f_iealth &Safety Code Section 50053 Deleted: 1,os7- $1,334 Sources: 2011 State Income Limits; September 2011 Rent Survey: Apartmenthunterz.com, Apartment Guide, ForRent.com Deleted: 3.5 Person Deleted: 1,201-$1.441 Deleted: range represents up Land Prices: As noted above, land prices in ,Lake Elsinore and Western Riverside Deleted: 80 percent of area median .Count _Y_generally _ - - ------ -------- . -- income are much less ex nive n nycnties: Los Angeles, Deleted: the Orange and San Diego due to the availability_of land and other factors. Based on_ a sampling of jesidential land sales in 2008, per acreprices were found to generally range 1 Deleted: area are - - - - - - - - , Deleted: which have the same between $570,000 and $720,000 per acre, (see Table 28). More recent surveys of ` "default density" of 30 units per acre. For example, Iandt-ower prices in vacant residential land sales demonstrate a decline in 2008 land prices ranging from Orangethe Lake ElsinoreNVestem $305,000 to $610,000 per acre. Based on information with multifamily developers, Riverside County can range from xxxxxxxxxx to XxxxxxxxXXX. recent land prices were consistent with this range. These lower pricesarea are Deleted: recent Deleted:. Further, based PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 16 of 33 Financial Feasibility Given the availability and land prices in the Western Riverside area, densities of 24 units per acre encourage the development of housing affordable to lower income household This assumption is further su orted b conversations with non- roflt - Deleted: and do not significantly �"'-""'-" p"---------- pp - - -- y--- ------ ------ - -p - - -- differfrom Ore "default density" of 30 developers. Based on conversations with several developers of housing affordable to an per anre lower income households, the_ availability_of land, sizeable_ parcels je.g, an acre Or_- Deleted: who mention more) and subsequent economies of scale and construction costs for garden style apartments contributing factors to the cost effectiveness of 24 units_ per acre. This - Deleted: without "podium parking' _ ________ _______ _ - as cost effectiveness of 24,units_per acre, in simple terms can be expressed In terms Of _ Deleted: To demonstrate the land costs per unit at various densities. For example. She followin g table uses an difference between - - average land price of 457 500. _ _ Based_ on a_ typical_ total_ development_ cost of `, Deleted: and 30 approximately $225,000 per unit, the table shows a significant difference between lower Deleted:, densities (e.g., 15 units per acre) and higher densities such as 24 and 30 units per acre. Deleted: 524,901 (See Tame 28), Specifically, land costs per unit at 24 units per are less than 20,000 per unit and represent only 8.5 percent of total development cost representing_ less_ than_ 10_- percent of total development costs„ a density_of_24_ units ,per acre encourages the _ cost _ effectiveness of housing affordable to lower income households. Table 49B : Land Costs per Unit_ - - - - - - - - Units per Acre Land Costs per Unit Percent of Total Development Costs 10 units er acre $45,750 20.3% 15 units per acre 0 500 13.5% 20 units per acre 2 875 10.2% 24 units per acre 19 063 8.5% 30 units per acre 15 250 P.8% Assumptions: Average land price of .457,500 per acre- and total development costs _o_f $225,000 er unit. Facilitating higher density developments can benefit both the housing developer and low- income families if units are constructed. The City can encourage developers by offering incentives, in an effort to assist in the development of higher density projects., _ Information based on Project Experience The development of projects with densities below 24 dwelling units per acre may be explained by the development history of the City. Lake Elsinore only recently Y P U Deleted: difference, in terms of land costs per unit, between 24 and 30 units per acre was found to be approximately $4,3743,813 or aboutless than two percent of total development costs. As a result, in terms of land costs per unit, there is not a significant difference between 24 and 30 units per acre. Deleted: and a minimal difference in terms of land costs per unit from a default density of 30 units per acre Deleted: 34,993 Deleted: 15.6 Deleted: 26,245 Deleted: 11.7 Deleted: 21,871 Deleted: 9.7 Deleted: 17,497 Deleted: 7 Deleted: 524,901 Deleted: However, low- income residential projects in the Riverside and San Bernardino MSA are typically developed at a far lower density than the established by law default density of 30 units per acre.¶ PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 17 of 33 experienced a surge in its population and is still transitioning from a rural to a suburban community. Unlike many existing, older jurisdictions in more densely populated areas, Lake Elsinore still has significant vacant land available that is relatively inexpensive. While the City has continued to plan for the future by encouraging developers to utilize the existing density bonus ordinance and per acre (High Density Residential and Residential Mixed Use) to be considered in order to accommodate the remaining v- ery _ -- Delete' °Oer low and low- income RHNA allocation. Appendix E includes a letter provided by an experienced affordable housing developer in California and is extremely familiar with developing affordable housing in different jurisdictions throughout the state. The developer has reviewed the housing element and has found that the City "has an abundance of sites which are suitable for affordable housing." Table 50 below provided a listing of several known affordable housing and development projects within the Riverside -San Bernardino MSA that have been approved and /or constructed at a density of 18 dwelling units or fewer per acre, well below the City of Lake Elsinore's maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre in the High Density and Residential Mixed Use designations. TA PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 18 of 33 P.O. Box 8958, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Ph. 858.759.1137 Fax 858.756.1683 October 25 ', 2011 Carole Donahoe Lake Elsinore City Hall 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Ms. Donahoe, MINIMMM CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING DIVISION I would like to express my support for the City's General Plan Update. It's clear to me that the guidance this provides is of great benefit to current and future residents, business owners and visitors. Lake Elsinore is in desperate need of responsible growth that encourages new jobs and a thriving civic center. I believe this update supports such growth and represents a brighter future for the City and its inhabitants. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to make its recommendation to the City Council at the next hearing when the GPU is on the agenda. Sincerely, Paul Reichert h lI � r' y �r�g PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 -� V IS L a r f1 °,�= =n • Page 19 of 33 rnammita DEVELOPMENT COMPANY November 8, 2011 Mr. Warren Morelian Planning Department Manager City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Re: General Plan and EIR comments on APN 389- 03 -11 -18 and 28 and 29 NWC Lake Street and Mountain Street, Marinita Development Dear Mr. Morelian: On behalf of Marinita Development Company, I want to thank the City of Lake Elsinore for the opportunity to comment on the 2011 General Plan Update. I also want to thank the staff for the exceptionally good job they have conducted in correcting and modifying past deficient areas of the General Plan and Climate Action Plan with the positive corrections noted in the current drafts. The former drafts posed significant problems for us and others in the land owner and development community. We wish to endorse the current drafts for Planning Commission and City Council approval subject to the following comments and request for minor changes to the EIR and General Plan. We thank the City Council for taking the additional time with staff to perfect the current General Plan and associated drafts. Draft EIR We ask the Planning Commission and City Council to add our proposed commercial project at Lake Street and Mountain Street to the Alberhill District, in lieu of the Lake View District as it is currently shown on all General Plan land use maps. We have specific comments on the current language within the EIR evaluation of General Plan Goals and Policies as stated in the Lake View District that are detrimental to our proposed project as as shown on page 3.1- 33. The EIR impact statement is: "Existing vacant land would be converted to residential and commercial uses or preserved as open space. Existing residential and commercial areas would remain with emphasis placed on redevelopment and rehabilitation structures. " These impacts are at odds with the General Plan Goals and Policies which states "Also policies include promotion of a neighborhood commercial district on existing vacant lands within the District. " We offer the following suggestion for the EIR impact statement, in lieu of the current statement quoted above: "Existing vacant land would be converted to residential and commercial uses or preserved as open space. The vacant converted land to residential and commercial land uses will provide the necessary needed residential land uses for the Lake Elsinore growing population and 3835 BIRCH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 • (949) 756 -8677 • FAX (949) 7568436 er ovem . "r ply PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 ✓� ��,L a Page 20 of 33 needed local.services provided to the existing and proposed laud uses. Ncw commercial services would provide the needed proximate shopping to local residential land use areas mitigating long automobile trips./rom residential areas to commercial service areas, that exist today. " General Plan Update Page 2 -19 Goal 1 -1.2 notes the following: "Discourages strip centers ". And 1.3 "discourages Drive thru and fast food ". These General Plan goals are not consistent for or with the type of neighborhood commercial development envisioned by the developer as evidenced by the Cities prior land use approvals given the Planning Commission and City Council endorsement for the Lake Street Marketplace on NWC of Lake and Mountain. Our commercial project envisions a drive thru coffee and possible fast / convenient food operator(s) including the type of neighborhood services normally developed in a planned, pocket Commercial development and has been previously approved by the City. We recommend that the General Plan policy be rewritten as follows: "Discourages strip centers unless associated with or near to a planned development or specific plan area. " And 13 "discourages Drive thru and fast food in strip centers but permit drive thru and fast food centers in planned commercial projects or centers where multiple commercial and service land uses are located ". Without the above noted changes, our previously approved project could be considered inconsistent with the proposed General Plan and invite further unnecessary land use and CEQA litigation There are ten (10) commercial parcels associated with our project, located across Lake Street from the very successful Alberhill Ranch project and these commercial parcels more closely identify and relate to the Alberhill Ranch due to proximity, traffic, and topography. We feel that the Goals and Policies of Alberhill District are more in tune with new construction of the Alberhill Ranch and not with the existing commercial Goals and Policies of the Lake View district. All of the existing commercially developed projects in the Lake view District are some 2 miles plus away from the Lake and Mountain commercial location. As developers of Commercial land during these troubled recessionary times our community needs to look to position our communities needed commercial projects to be as successful as possible. We request the City to view the Alberhill District as the newest master planned community for The City of Lake Elsinore to which we are identified with directly across from Lake Street. Our future commercial project is going to be required by the City to coordinate all of our street improvements on Lake Street with the Alberhill Ranch project because of the massive amount of costs sharing in relocation of all underground and above ground utilities and Lake Street roadway improvements. Marinita Development Company will also be coordinating our construction design and materials to identify directly with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan development standards. Please be aware, that when the first General Plan Land Use Maps were developed, several years ago, our commercial project was included in the Alberhill District. For an unknown reason, the latest General Plan documents depict our project in the Lake View District. Our suggested PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 21 of 33 change to stay within the Alberhill District, as formally proposed, does not require significant effort on the City's part in either document, other than a few changes on the Land Use Maps. For these reasons noted above, we respectfully request that the properties indentified as APN 389 -03 -11 thru 18 and 28 and 29 be included in the Alberhill District, not the Lake View District and the respective Land Use Maps reflect this request in the final EIR and GPU documents. We also suggest the EIR and General Plan policy comments noted above be modified. Respectfully submitted, Lake Street Marketplace, LLC J. Scott Fawcett Managing Member CC: Planning Commission City Council Attachments: Assessor Parcel Maps and Commercial Site Plan /I 1 ::! ✓ tea* PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 22 of 33 71 uo 17" g dE2: To OW 90 Uer E/V G a C November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 23 of 33 o�° vLLiy�o a0 �g i� fEd O� ✓°�IN�o O p� __ _ � NN �^ ND NH�� N iq �... �P�ProW -O �-mb d m W bP Mr �C`m YO It � � ^m N m NN �•° 41 tS j[F a `^ `` -a b V V 4 pt a oro E '0 0 < < _ P E 4t rod m ° v b iy gg a dpP i N y as %p,A_ x3 'H s b $ ° z O c 4k m is p0p QNN'r�m wrn _ _D �.t _ tI 9� / ,1 _ E gig SSy33g5 y_CS pax y -jai 0bpgCLK Kam- ^W 160. m� 6y°. mbo[ . _C•yySS i��S L"'iSxi E mm Ud Ua °O u�i g'OO vii co mm ■O \:1� -.i ._Z He h.. ". # "� E c o �__ @6 MM O a'91 `b ° 6 'va v °y /_M .., !d xs f.E[a a'° a N C Y O « Q rR Or � 1° C._ C �' C._ c : H °�°. ` 6g 1 li S g >p f= y I I Yy� agd IN 'Wei df { R t P yy 1 It i l Sd?HS "o° Cbgg 5 caw f -t t'V\� _fi r'=1Je a @. to x{ ... M4 N� O 3; DWI ' 21 � Z;� h og H V J' 'nvwaaalsaw AlIHVd 21 15) IN yU u. pOpW f , N M_ Z CL W H -- N LUQ Z w M. q gg t W W N UW 0.p F— Z< W QZ C2, INQ ZU LLI a Lu t.— �z N O v) Lu YvY :5 Z:5 PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 24 of 33 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTIFY RECIRCULATED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN AND ANNEXATION NO. 81 (SCH NO. 2005121019) WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore initiated a comprehensive update of its General Plan, a Housing Element update, a Downtown Master Plan (consisting of the Downtown Master Plan, Downtown Code and Key to Downtown Implementation Plan), a Climate Action Plan and Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the 3rd Street Annexation) (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore (the "City ") has prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019: the "PEIR ") to be prepared on the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.: "CEQA "), the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.: the "State CEQA Guidelines "), and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines and its other procedures relating to environmental evaluation of public and private projects; and WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Preparation of the Draft PEIR on November 15, 2005 in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, forwarded the Draft PEIR to the State Clearinghouse again on December 5, 2005 for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082(c)(1), on November 30, 2005, the City held a duly noticed scoping meeting in order to expedite consultation regarding the scope and content of the environmental information in the Draft PEIR; and WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft PEIR and thereafter, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, forwarded the Draft PEIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 25 of 33 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-_ PAGE 2OF5 WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft PEIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the State Clearinghouse posted the Draft PEIR for a 45 -day public comment period which ran from December 5, 2007 to January 18, 2008; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the City began work on a substantive revision of the Project, which included revisions to the Land Use Element and Land Use Map, an updated Housing Element, a Lake Elsinore Downtown Master Plan, and a Climate Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the combined changes to the General Plan Update made between 2008 and 2011 triggered the need to update, revise, and where necessary expand upon the analysis of General Plan Update impacts presented in the PEIR; and WHEREAS, due to the combined changes made to the proposed project, the City determined that it was appropriate to reissue the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on or about May 26, 2011, the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Reissued) and a revised description of potential adverse impacts were distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Availability /Notice of Completion of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the RDP -EIR to the State Clearinghouse, for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the RDP -EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and posted at the Office of the County Clerk of Riverside County on September 7, 2011; and WHEREAS, all actions required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation, circulation, and review of the Draft PEIR and the RDP -EIR have been taken; and WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR prepared for the Project was sent to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission held public hearings to PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 26 of 33 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-_ PAGE 3OF5 receive public input on the adequacy of the Draft PEIR on April 15, 2008, April 29, 2008, May 6, 2008, May 20, 2008, and September 16, 2008; and WHEREAS, the RDP -EIR was sent to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public input on the adequacy of the RDP -EIR on November 15, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered and evaluated all written and oral staff reports and comments received from persons who have reviewed the RDP -EIR, public testimony and such other matters as are reflected in the record of the public hearing on the Project and the RDP -EIR. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Recirculated Program EIR for the Project is adequate and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Recirculated Draft Program EIR and finds that the Recirculated Draft Program EIR represents the independent judgment of the City. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates herein as its "findings of fact' regarding the potential environmental impacts of the Project, the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Recirculated Program EIR (including, without limitation, the mitigation measures therein set forth); the following summarizes those conclusions: a. The Recirculated Program EIR determined that the Project will have no potentially significant impacts upon Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing and Utilities and Service Systems and as a result, no mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the proposed General Plan Update are required for these issue areas. b. The Recirculated Program EIR also determined that the Project will have potentially significant environmental impacts upon Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use & Planning (including Agricultural Resources), Parks and Recreation and Public Services; but that these impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance through compliance with the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the proposed General Plan Update and compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in the Recirculated Program EIR. PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 27 of 33 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 PAGE 4 OF 5 C. The Recirculated Program EIR also determined that the Project will have significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Noise and Transportation and Circulation, which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. d. All feasible mitigation measures, which are within the jurisdiction of the City, as identified in the Recirculated Program EIR have been incorporated into the Project and represent the fullest extent to which the Project - related impacts can be reasonably avoided and /or substantially lessened. e. The Recirculated Program EIR did not identify alternatives to the Project which would reduce environmental impacts while still substantially achieving Project objectives, and as such, the proposed Project was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. SECTION 4. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP ") for the Project has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA, and the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the MMRP. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under CEQA Section 21081(a)(3), that each of the social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is attached hereto as Exhibit A (Findings of Fact) and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. Based upon all of the evidence presented and the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore certify the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for the Project with Errata and Responses to Comments, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 28 of 33 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011- PAGE 5 OF 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Shelly Jordan, Chairperson City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 29 of 33 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN, THE KEY TO DOWNTOWN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, AND THE DOWNTOWN CODE. WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore adopted its existing General Plan on November 27, 1990 and has undertaken a comprehensive update of its General Plan in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section(s) 65300 et seq.; and WHEREAS, a General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was formed, which was comprised of local residents, business owners and developers who provided needed citizen input for the plan formation; and WHEREAS, the GPAC met a total of fourteen (14) times between March 2005 and October 2006 and also participated in the public workshops and Joint City Council /Planning Commission /GPAC study sessions; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element is one of the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan and has been updated in accordance with State Housing and Community Development guidelines. Through its policies, procedures, and incentives, the updated Housing Element provides an action plan for maintaining and expanding the housing supply for all income levels in the City. The proposed City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element is for the planning period of July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2014; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update includes the Downtown Master Plan, a vision and strategic framework to guide the future development of the City's downtown historic core. The purpose of the Downtown Master Plan is to identify the goals, objectives and desires of the community and offer approaches to implement them; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update includes the "Key to Downtown" Implementation Plan, which provides design guidelines and standards for the public and private realms, as the first part of the Downtown Master Plan implementation; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update includes the Downtown Code, that establishes land use and development regulations, and the second part of the Downtown Master Plan implementation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for General Plan Updates; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing to be conducted by the Planning Commission on November 15, 2011 to consider the General Plan Update and related PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 30 of 33 PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2011 PAGE 2OF4 Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (RDP -EIR) was published and mailed to persons and agencies in accordance with applicable laws; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted the noticed public hearing to consider the RDP -EIR and General Plan Update and has considered and evaluated all written reports and comments and oral testimony presented by the Community Development Department and other City departments, property owners, residents and other interested parties and such other matters as are reflected in the record. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. On November 15, 2011, after consideration and evaluation of all written reports and comments and oral testimony presented by the Community Development Department and other City departments, property owners, residents and other interested parties and such other matters as are reflected in the record of the noticed public hearing on the RDP -EIR and proposed General Plan Update, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011- finding and determining that that the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2005121019) is adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); that a 45 -day public review period ran from September 7, 2011 to October 21, 2011; that responses to comments received during the public review period were prepared and incorporated into the Final PEIR and that the Final PEIR represents the City's independent judgment. Based upon those findings and determinations, the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 2011 - recommended that the City Council certify the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report. SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning law and the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of the General Plan Update, which includes the Housing Element Update and the Downtown Master Plan, Key to Downtown Implementation Plan, and the Downtown Code: 1. The proposed comprehensive General Plan Update will not be: a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the City, or b) injurious to the neighborhoods or properties within the City. The proposed General Plan Update will promote the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the City, its residents, businesses and visitors though the goals, policies and implementation programs. Potential detrimental effects of the proposed General Plan Update have been thoroughly analyzed in the Recirculated Program EIR which concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would result in significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Noise and Transportation and Circulation. All other potentially significant environmental impacts will be PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 31 of 33 PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2011 PAGE 3 OF 4 mitigated to below a level of significance. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which "balances" the proposed project against the unavoidable environmental effects. 2. The proposed General Plan Update will permit reasonable and logical development of the City consistent with its constraints. The proposed Land Use Plan will provide flexibility and opportunity in the development of residential, industrial, commercial, open space and recreational uses within the City's corporate boundaries, while anticipating land uses within its Sphere of Influence Areas. In addition, the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report analyzed three alternatives and it has been determined that the proposed General Plan Update is the environmentally superior alternative. 3. The proposed General Plan Update would establish land use densities and usage more in character with the City's location, access, and constraints. The General Plan Update establishes neighborhoods or "Districts" (See District Plans section) which will provide an integration and identification of cooperative land uses throughout the City of Lake Elsinore. Additionally, the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report analyzed three alternatives and analyzed, negotiated and provided a Circulation Plan which will provide safe and efficient circulation throughout the City. 4. The proposed General Plan Update ( "Project ") will have some significant effects on the environment and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared therefor. The Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report which was prepared in accordance with Section 15084 (Preparing the Draft EIR) of the State CEQA Guidelines, provides the necessary environmental clearances and analyses for the proposed project. It concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would result in significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Noise and Transportation and Circulation. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which "balances" the proposed project against these unavoidable environmental effects. SECTION 3. Based upon all all written reports and comments and oral testimony presented by the Community Development Department and other City departments, property owners, residents and other interested parties and such other matters as are reflected in the record, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore approve the General Plan Update. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 32 of 33 PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2011 PAGE 4 OF 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Shelly Jordan, Chairperson City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission PC November 15, 2011 Item No. 2 Page 33 of 33