Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 21CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TOe HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY.COUNCIL / REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FROM: KEVIN SHEAR,.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR: CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 23, 1993 DOWNTOWN LAND SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 HISTORIC _ USE,PLAN OWNER /APPLICANT The City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street. Lake Elsinore, California 92530 REQUESTED USE A General Plan Amendment (GPA 92-3) to implement the Historic Downtown Land Use Plan establishing General' Plan level land use designations for this area. SIZE AND LOCATION The area which makes up the historic Downtown Land use, Plan., encompasses approximately 486 acres and is located within the historic core of the City. The area is generally bounded to the north by Collier Avenue and Interstate 15, to the south by Lakeshore Drive, the west by Chaney Street, and the east by Grove- Avenue, Conklin Avenue and Rupard Street (Exhibit A). PROJECT DESCRIPTION A breakdown of the land use designations and the associated total acreage as initially proposed and as modified at the recommendation of the Planning Commission is listed in Table I. TABLE I •r nmr�n rn T1l1LT1.TTALTId T.aran TTCF. flRRTGNATION BREAKDOWN LAND USE ACREAGE (ORIGINAL PROPOSAL) ACREAGE, (RECOMMENDED CHANGES) 'Neighborhood Commercial NC 35.26 35.26 Tourist Commercial TC 37.60 37.60 ' Commercial Office CO 35.30 35.30 ' Public /Institutional P /I' 34.60. 34.60 Low Density Residential LD .- 6.68 6.68' .Low Medium Density Residential LMD 77.00 77.00 Medium Density Residential MD 122.90 205.50 Medium High Density Residential_ MHD 82.60 48.40 High Density Residential HD 48.40 0.00 Mixed Use MU 4.66 4.66 Parks (New) 1.30 1.30, TOTAL 486.30 486.30 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE C: 38; Public Hearing GPA 92 -3 March 23, 1993 Page 2 In November of 1990 when the City's General Plan Update was approved this area was designated "CBD Plan" and no specific land use designations were assigned. Since that time, the plan has gone through a number of revisions and has received conceptual approval from the Design Review Committee (DRC). When approved this plan will establish the General Plan level land use for this area. At the December 2, 1992 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council by a 3 -1 vote approval of GPA 92 -3 (minutes and staff report attached) with the following modifications: 1) All areas delineated High Density Residential (24 dwelling units (du's) per acre, maximum) be redesignated Medium High Density Residential (18 du's per acre, maximum); and 2) All areas delineated Medium High Density Residential (24 du's per acre, maximum) be redesignated Medium Density Residential (12 du' "s per acre, maximum): This project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been found not to have any significant impacts on the environment or that any impacts will mitigated. Mitigated Negative Declaration "92 -7 has been prepared. It is recommended that: City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration 92 -7; and City Council approve General Plan Amendment 92 -3 and adopt Resolution No. 93 -1'4* The Redevelopment Agency concur with the City Council. FINDINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 1. The approval of the requested designations permits development to the highest and best nature within mitigable means to insure maintenance of the general public health safety and welfare. 2. Granting of the requested designations will permit reasonable development of the property consistent with its constraints and more compatible with adjacent properties and proposed development. , 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment would establish a land use density and usage more in character with the subject property's location, access and constraints. 4. The proposed change will not result in any significant adverse impacts.on the environment. _ Prepared by: John De Gangs, Associate Planner Reviewed by: VI Approved by: P s Rog ss'stant City Manager Approved For Agenda Listing: Ron Molendyk City Manager 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. �. PAGE Z OF 39 MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED To ORDER AT 7:00 P.M- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Community Development Manager Shear. BOLL CALL: ' PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Bullard and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development', Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Associate Planner De_ Gangs and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Neff and carried by unanimous vote to approve Minutes of November 18, 1992, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, .Chairwoman _Brinley "closed t, he PUBLIC COMMENT Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 92 -3 and ''Zone Code Amendment 92 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore (Continued from October 21, 1992)° - Associate Planner De Gange requested that each 'item be considered separately as there have been various modifications made to the Historic Downtown Land Use 'Plan (GPA 92 -3), however, the Zone Code Amendment'is still in the process of being revised. General Plan Amendment 92 -3 - to implement the Historic Downtown :Land Use Plan establishing General Plan land use level designations for this area.` The area is generally bounded to the north by Collier Avenue and Interstate 15, to the south by Lakeshore Drive, the west by Chaney Street, and the east by Grove Avenue, Conklin Avenue and Rupard Street. Zone Code Amendment 92 -3 request this item be continued indefinitely. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Alex Bellehumeur, 6242 Napoli Court, Long Beach, owns the old hotel site, 6.6 acres bordered by the Outlet Channel, Limited, Lakeshore Drive and Spring. He gave a brief back- ground on the property highlighting the acquisition, design of a master plan and past discussions with members of the City. He then commented on the proposed Specific Plan designation for the general area and requested it be changed to Mixed Use, because of the importance of the area. City Planner Christen stated, as.a point of clarification, the Specific Plan designation is probably a broader category than Mixed Use. The Mixed Use category is limited to specific percentages of commercial or residential, and a Specific Plan _s not. ACcC:DA ITEM NO. F:aC? OF 38— Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 2 Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Bullard commented on the following: Requested the following changes: High Density areas, designated as HD on the map, downgraded to Medium -High Density and the Medium -High Density areas downgraded to Medium Density. My thoughts are, the High Density area would incorporate too many residents and dwelling units for the area, and would not enable future development as fast as a Medium - High Density or downgrading one area. By doing this, we would move the acreage to the Medium Density residential to 215.5 acres and the Medium -High Density would then become 48.4, leaving the High Density area as 0. We do not need to create another area like our Joy Street area in the future, 5 -10 years down the road. Outflow Channel, making sure there is no interference with this plan. It is my understanding that the Outflow Channel is not affected by this plan. Concern was, creating a historical area and what. the future would bring in upgrading the Outflow Channel. . Geothermal wells along Spring Street and future develop- ment with the historical background. This is a plan for future development and, at this time, would not affect those. Commissioner Neff stated he has no particular comments or questions, but was intrigued by Commissioner Bullard's suggestion on the change in density. . He commented on the density of the Joy Street area, 24 presently, maybe density is not the problem but quality of construction. Another major control that we might want to think about or implement is a thorough review of plot plan /site plans coming before the Commission. He then inquired whether this would have to go back before the Design Review Committee, because of the nature of the recommended changes. Discussion ensued on whether this would need to be returned to the Design Review Committee; the Design Review Committee being a recommending body and final action would be required by City Council. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he had no comment. Chairwoman Brinley, stated that she had. no problem with the changes and called for a motion, asking for separate motions. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH COMMISSIONER GILENSON CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO DOWNGRADE THE HIGH DENSITY AREAS TO MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY AND DOWNGRADE THE MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY AREAS TO MEDIUM DENSITY, WHICH IN TURN INCREASES THE MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE TO 215.5 ACRES AND DECREASES THE MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY TO 48.4, AND 0 OUT THE HIGH DENSITY, AND ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92 -7. ACSN'DA ITEM NO. �� RACE 4 OF 39 Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 3 MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 BASED ON. THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 92 -8. Commissioner Gilenson asked for discussion. Are you recommending the same change that was ;on the Negative Declaration, changing the High and Medium Densities? Chairwoman Brinley responded in the affirmative. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for the question. Approved 3 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) RESOLUTION NO. 92 -8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 TO IMPLEMENT THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN LAND USE PLAN ESTABLISHING GENERAL _ PLAN LAND USE LEVEL DESIGNATIONS FOR THIS AREA. THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 486 ACRES AND IS LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC CORE OF THE CITY. THE AREA IS GENERALLY BOUNDED TO THE NORTH BY COLLIER AVENUE AND INTERSTATE 15, TO THE SOUTH BY LAKESHORE DRIVE, THE WEST BY CHANEY STREET, AND THE EAST BY GROVE AVENUE, CONKLIN AVENUE AND RUPARD STREET. MOVED BY BULLARD, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY -AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -3 INDEFINITELY. 2. Annexation 64, General Plan Amendment 92 -2, and Zone. ChaKe' 92 -5 - William and Rosalyne Hall (Entec Consultants,. Inc Continued from October 21, 1992 _ Associate Planner De presented a request for annexation and prezoning.of 8 acres, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map chang' g a total of 33. acres_ from Business Park•and 15 acres om Freeway Business to General. Commercial. '�'The site is ocated at the northwest intersection of Tenth Street and exter and to the north and south of Cambern Avenue, eas of Central_ Avenue (State Highway 74)." Associate Planner De Gange,state he proposal was continued because the annexation as orig lly proposed would create a slender island between Dexte venue and Interstate 15. The application was revised t include all of the area and the associated environmenta document 'was re -done, re- circulated and re- reviewed. He e a history on the correspondence with Cal- Trans, highlig_ ng their request for a traffic study and for revision of a mitigation measure t6'3nclude a condition for a traffi study for the entire site "Trior to Design Review. He en stated that staff will alter,`the Mitigation Monitorin rogram on Mitigated Negative,Declarit on 92 -6;to repres the desires of Cal- Trans. C rwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:35 and ated she would like to have the correspondence from Cal.;� Trans entered for the record. t.05NDA ITEM NO...� e,< S Gr 39 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: KEVIN SHEAR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR: PLANNING'COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1992 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3, ZONE CODE AMENDMENT (ZCA) 92 -3 - HISTORIC DOWNTOWN LAND USE PLAN AND OVERLAY DISTRICT AND ASSOCIATED DESIGN STANDARDS OWNER /APPLICANT The City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 REQUESTED USE A General Plan Amendment (GPA 92 -3) to implement the Historic Downtown Land Use Plan establishing General Plan land use level designations for this area. SIZE AND LOCATION The Historic Downtown encompasses approximately 486 acres and is located in the historic core of the City. The area is generally bounded to the north by Collier Avenue and Interstate 15, to the south by Lakeshore Drive, the west by Chaney Street, and the east by Grove Avenue, Conklin Avenue and Rupard Street. BACKGROUND At the October 21, 1992 Planning Commission meeting this project and Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 92 -3), which was originally being processed concurrently with this project, were continued to this date. Since that time, various modifications have been made to the Historic Downtown Land Use Plan (GPA 92 -3) and is ready for consideration. Zone Code Amendment 92 -3, however, is still in the process of being revised. As a result each item will be processed separately, with ZCA 92 -3 coming before you at a later date which has not yet been determined. In November of 1990 when City's General Plan Update was approved this area was designated "CBD Plan" and no specific land use designations were assigned. Since that time, the plan has gone through ,a number of revisions and has received conceptual from the Design Review Committee (DRC) . When approved this plan will establish the General Plan level land use for this area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment 92 -3 is implementation of the General Plan level land use designations for approximately 486 acres within the City's historic core. A breakdown of the land use designations and the associated total acreage is listed in Table I. h i T 2�� NO. PAC = (P OF 38 Public Hearing GPA 92 -3, ZCA 92 -3 December 2, 1992 Page 2 TABLE I ...,r., ev.crtmnreAr T AWn TIC-P. TRRTGNATION BREAKDOWN LAND UPE ACREAGE Neighborhood Commercial NC 35.26 Tourist Commercial TC 37.60 Commercial Office CO 35.30 Public /Institutional P/I 34.60 Low Density Residential LD 6.68 Low Medium Density Residential LMD 77.00 Medium Density Residential MD 122.90 Medium High Density Residential MHD 82.60 High Density Residential HD 48.40 Mixed Use MU 4.66 Parks (New) 1.30 TOTAL 486.30 ENVIRONMENTAL This project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been found not to have any significant impacts on the environment or that any impacts will mitigated. Subsequently, Mitigated Negative Declaration 92 -7 has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Planning Commission: Recommend to City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration 92 -7; Recommend to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 92 -3 and adopt Resolution No. 92 -8; and Continue Zone Code Amendment (ZCA) 92 -3, indefinitely. FINDINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 1. The approval of the requested designations permits development to the highest and best nature within mitigable means to insure maintenance of the general public health safety and welfare. 2. Granting of the requested designations will permit reasonable development of the property consistent with its constraints and more compatible with adjacent properties and proposed development. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment would establish a land use density and usage more in character with the subject property's location, access and constraints. 4. The proposed change will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment. I wK�F, i i EM Im. 2- �p PACT-7—OF 30 Public Hearing GPA 92 -3, ZCA 92 -3 December 2, 1992 Page 3 Prepared by: John De Gange, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Approved for Planning Commission: A Phyllis Rogers, Assistant City.Kanager AG ErO ITEM ['O. Exhibit A 0 oR m o N Z LVf� �I m m 3 al- M_ O z F� ^z y, m z nJ 1 E a■ a �� €aEEE X =� ji rl, N 0 a0000'aoo�� I P L AGENDA ITEM I.O. PAGE 9 OF 3g v IF L AGENDA ITEM I.O. PAGE 9 OF 3g NEGATIVE DECLARATION HISTORIC DOWNTOWN PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS PREPARED BY: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 August, 1992 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 PA GE /o 0 F 3� NEGATIVE DECLARATION HISTORIC DOWNTOWN PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PROJECT LOCATION The 486.30 -acre Historic Downtown Plan site is located within the historic core of the City of Lake Elsinore, just north of the lake. The irregularly shaped site is presently developed about 90 percent and is generally bordered by Collier Avenue to the north, Lakeshore Drive to the south, Chaney Street to the west, and Conklin Avenue to the east. The site is characterized by generally uniform topography and is developed with residential.and commercial uses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Negative Declaration evaluates impacts resulting from approval of the Historic Downtown Land Use Plan and Design Standards. The current General Plan does not show land uses for the Historic Downtown area. Therefore, the EIR that was prepared for the General Plan did not evaluate environmental impacts resulting from the proposed plan, as required by CEQA!Guidelines. This Negative Declaration satisfies CEQA requirements'. by evaluating environmental impacts resulting from the Historic Downtown Plan and Design Standards. The proposed plan is comprised of land uses that are similar with the City's General Plan. There are no specific projects being proposed at this time. Future development projects would be expected to be in compliance with the land uses shown on the Historic Downtown Plan. Future development designs must also conform with the proposed design standards in relationship to architecture and other treatments. The attached table presents those land uses proposed for the plan area and associated acreages. No specific development is presently being proposed. However, since this Negative Declaration evaluates impacts resulting from assumed buildout of the plan, a potential development scenario based on maximum density standards (from the General Plan) for each proposed land use category has been formulated for evaluation. The attached table presents the applicable General Plan standards and the maximum development assumed for each land use. In summary, assuming maximum buildout of the Historic Downtown Plan; approximately 2,011,296 sf. of office and commercial uses and 4,672 residential units could be built within the plan boundaries, though this scenario is unlikely.- i AGENDA ITEM NO. —2\ PAGE /1 OF m m 44 . m��� a� �m a E 8 O P 01 P Y1 O N V b rl P b P m V Ill b P1 rl eel rl . � b a 0 my M O C b N N b rl � rl O N O b W qr a N AGENDA ITEM NO, a' RAGE IZ OF 3g IP dP O O b aF m V V ai yy a \\\ L y w m m m v v v ►7Ga !'f b b V ' N 1-1 i 1-I rI N b I- pp�� 'ASR O. N V� r- p W a Z R I. W R a E O Ql b O O O OD O O O O b O b H IC m m m m C, N co V a � to H .I to IO M M y V G C rl d d �.v - rI- r, -� y m Q fa -H d d a � m c a ° � :° v .04 a m m C a W a ate+ D U A N O C to x to .4 4 7 Ap z E U s s go W b a 0 my M O C b N N b rl � rl O N O b W qr a N AGENDA ITEM NO, a' RAGE IZ OF 3g It should be noted that since much of the plan area is already developed, individual sites would require clearing and probable demolition to accommodate future development. PROPOSED ACTIONS Plan approval requires the following discretionary approvals by the City of Lake Elsinore. 1. Certification of Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Acceptance of environmental documentation in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City of Lake Elsinore requirements. This Negative Declaration is prepared for the proposed plan and design standards and requires certification with the final decision on the plan_. 2. general Plan Amendment. Approval of a General Plan Amendment to include the Historic Downtown-Plan in the General Plan. Presently, the land uses shown on :the Historic Downtown'Plan are not included on the General Plan Map. CONTACT PERSONS 1. The lead agency for preparing this Negative Declaration is' the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Department. John DeGange Associate Planner Planning Department City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED None consulted for preparation of this Negative Declaration. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The Historic Downtown Plan is a land use plan which does not currently propose any physical development. The plan merely presents those future land uses that would be permitted within the area. Future development is also expected to conform with the proposed design standards. Since physical development is not being proposed at this time, it is difficult to precisely ascertain what impacts would result. However, it is believed that significant impacts would not directly result with approval of the plan, since future development would be reviewed on a project -by- project basis and required to comply with applicable City environmental review and other jurisdictional processes and regulations. Furthermore, since the majority of the plan area is already urbanized and developed, it is believed that effects resulting from future 3 ACENDA !TEM. P,?AG= I3 c. development would be generally the same as is expected that most future development redevelop existing uses. No mitigation this time. CHECKLIST existing conditions. It would merely replace and measures are required at In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the following evaluates those issues and topics checked off as either "yes ", "no ", or "maybe" in the attached environmental checklist form which pertain to the proposed Historic Downtown Plan and Design Standards. As permitted in Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, environmental documents, including Negative Declarations, can incorporate by reference all or portions of other documents that are a matter of public .record. The information presented in this Negative Declaration is based, in part, upon another environmental document entitled "Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan ", prepared by PBR in 1990. Copies of this document is available for review at the Lake Elsinore City Hall; 130 S. Main Street; Lake Elsinore, California 92330; ph: (714) 674 -3124. ACEEOA 1-1 Em r o. --j2-L Pc -o 38 INITIAL BTUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CRECKLIBT FORM CITY OF LASE BLBINORE I. Background 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:, 30 south Main, e5ai1•. 171A%' 97d-2053 _ 3. Date of Checklist: Aucust 1992 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: II. Environmental Impacts Explanation of all "yes ", "no ", and "maybe" required on attached sheets. Yes 1. EARTH. will the proposal result in:- answers are Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? _ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind oriwater erosion of soils, either on.or off the site? X f.. •Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion 5 X_ X X X l:C =it7A ITci:9 F:O. � 1 PAC_ 15 C- �� D.C_-:MA t t Ehv1�f10. C= Yes Maybe No which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? �( . 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient, air quality? X _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ X 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ _ .X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate , and amount of surface runoff? _ _ X C. Alterations to the course or loss of flood waters? _ _ X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X 6 D.C_-:MA t t Ehv1�f10. C= Yes Kgybe No q. Change in the quantity of ground, unique, rare or endangered waters, either through direct species of plants? _ C. additions or withdrawals', or plants into an area, or in a through interception of an barrier to the normal aquifer by cuts or excavations ?. _ JL'. h. substantial reduction in the Reduction in acreage of any amount of water otherwise 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: available for public water change in the diversity of supplies? �.- i. Exposure of people or property land animals including reptiles, to water- related hazards such organisms or insects)? as flooding or tidal waves? _ �L Flood -Zone Designation: A & c 100 -Year Flood Level: 4S& 15 Feet 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a.- Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees,. shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _. d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any, species of animals` (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? 7 JL F,:e_ 17 c- 3g 1 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals ?_ d.. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? S. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an 8 Yes Maybe No X X _X_ X _.X_ t.GINDA I ZM NO. Yes Maybe No emergency evacuation plan? —. JL. 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? —� 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? -- 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION`. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _1L d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X .f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? C. Schools? �$_ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? AGEMMA ITEM NO. Pr. 19 C- 38 Fr_ -Z'N+A IT 00. KO.__2� F .es L0 u 0 Yes Maybe No e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? IS. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of., fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? �. 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the _following utilities: . a. Power or natural gas? _ , X b. Communications systems? C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? g_ g. Street lighting annexation and /or improvements? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? jam 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically 10 Fr_ -Z'N+A IT 00. KO.__2� F .es L0 u 0 Yes Naybe No offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon.the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeoiogicalsite? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? _ �L C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique . ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially seduce 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 oranimal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California, , history or prehistory? ' b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, 11 AGENDA ITZM NO.' F: z l OF 38 to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) C. Does the project have impacts . which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) iii. Discussion of Environmental svaluation Narrative description of potential environmental impacts is attached Iv. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: Yes Maybe No JL I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 12 A - "0A ITEM 140. Date Signature' For the City of Lake Elsinore P:;GE Z 7 p- 38 DISCU88ION OF ENVIEONKENTAL IKPACTs 1. a. b. C. d. e. EARTH The majority of the plan area is presently urbanized and has already been cleared and graded for development. Furthermore, the area is generally flat and not characterized by severe slopes. Therefore, any future development would not be expected to create unstable earth conditions. These conditions typically occur on ungraded and sloped areas. No significant impacts are anticipated. Likewise, since the plan area was previously graded and cleared, no significant disruptions or compaction of soils would result with any future development. No significant impacts are anticipated. The entire plan area is relatively flat with no significant ground surface relief features and is characterized by generally uniform topography. Therefore, development of any portion of the area would not have an opportunity to significantly alter the topography or surface relief features. No impacts are anticipated. Since the plan area is urbanized and developed, no significant unique geologic or physical features exist. Consequently, any future development would not have an opportunity to adversely affect these types of features. No impacts are anticipated. As with any development, soil erosion may result during the construction phase (a), as grading and construction activities may loosen surface soils and make soils susceptible to the effects of wind and water movement across the surface. Impacts, however, are not considered significant since all future development would be expected to control onsite soil erosion in accordance with City standards. Additional measures to control erosion are not required. Upon completion of any construction phase, the potential for onsite soil erosion would be eliminated since the developed area(s) would be either paved or landscaped. There would not be large areas of open soils. No significant impacts are anticipated. 14 AC-,7-.\:)A ITEM �RD. )A�/ F.' I -.- Dz -. f. No beaches, rivers, streams, oceans, bays, or inlets are located within the City of Lake Elsinore. Consequently, the proposed plan would not have any opportunity to affect these bodies of water. An unlined natural drainage `course, however, does traverse through the plan area to Lake Elsinore. Future development, however, would not be of land uses or intensities which would result in such extreme changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which could . modify the lake or channel. No significant impacts are anticipated. g• asoos 2. a. Future development would continue to be exposed to earthquakes to the same extent as existing development. Furthermore, the overall area is flat and is not subject to landslides or mudslides. Future residents and property would not be impacted by these hazards any more than existing conditions and uses. AIR Deterioration of Air ouality Changes in emission levels resulting from development of the plan area are related to short-term impacts associated with construction activities and long -term impacts created by increased motor vehicle emissions resulting "from future development. Short-term construction activities would result in the generation of two types of pollutants: fugitive dust and mobile source emissions from construction equipment. Since most of the plan area is already urbanized, it is anticipated that extensive grading is not required for. any future development. However, clearing, demolition and site preparation activities required for future development may create some short-term impacts. Since specific projects are not being proposed at this time, it is difficult to precisely determine these impacts. The City shall evaluate impacts resulting from future development . on a project -by- project basis to ensure that all impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. Future applicants are expected to comply with applicable City environmental review and other jurisdictional processes and regulations. significant long -term impacts are not expected.. Future development could be expected to be similar with existing land is l.CENDA 1T2M NO. - �L ` 38 w uses and intensities, consequently, long -term air emission levels would also be similar. If development occurs, the plan would only permit residential and commercial uses. These uses are not of land use types which could create objectionable odors._ C. Chances in Climate Climatic conditions in Riverside county -are the result of large scale air circulation patterns involving the sinking and warming of air within the semi - permanent high pressure center found over the Pacific Ocean. Any future development would not be of an intensity or use which could alter local or regional air movements, moisture, temperature, or climate. 3. WATER .. a. Chances in Rater Movement An unlined natural drainage course traverses through the plan area to Lake Elsinore. It is anticipated that any future development, though, would be similar with existing land uses and intensities and could not change currents or,direction of water movement of this channel. b. changes in Drainage patterns Given that the plan area is already urbanized and future development would be similar with existing uses, it is anticipated that drainage patterns would not be significantly altered. Since the same amount of impervious surfaces would continue to be provided, it is believed that there would not be any significant changes to .absorption rates and surface runoff patterns. C. Alteration of Flood waters Future development anticipated with the proposed land use plan and design standards would not be of an intensity or use that would significantly alter flood waters. It is expected that future drainage patterns would be similar with existing conditions. The existing natural drain course would continue to carry runoff to the lake. No significant impacts are anticipated. I since substantially more impervious surfaces would not be developed with the proposed plan, it is anticipated that the if hG_';DR ITEM NO. 9 1 amount of runoff discharged into the lake would be similar with existing conditions. The proposed plan would not result in significant changes in the amount of surface water. e. alteration of surface water Duality Since the amount of runoff is not',expected to significantly. increase. The amount of water discharged into and water quality of the lake should remain unaffected. No significant impacts are anticipated. f. Alteration of Groundwater Direction Future development would be similar with existing uses. It is not expected that the direction or rate of flow of groundwater would be affected. g. Chance in Groundwater Quantity Likewise, since future - development would be similar with existing uses and intensities,'S significant changes to groundwaters are not expected. h. Reduction is Public water Likewise, it is expected that the amount of public water used as a result of the proposed plan l; would also be the same as existing conditions. i. Exposure to water - Related Hazards. According to the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map, the majority of the plan area is located. within Zone C designated land. The areas along the existing natural drain course are designated Zone A15, Zone A4, and Zone B. Zone C are areas of minimal flooding. Zones A4 and A15 are areas of the 100 -year flood. Zone B are areas between limits of the 100 -year flood and 500- year.flood. As indicated by these designations those areas along the existing drain course are located within a floodplain. Significant impacts, however, are not anticipated. The U.S. Corps of Engineers plan to concrete and-improve the drain course by Fall 1993. These improvements to the channel would eliminate flooding problems :'within the plan area. It should also be noted that all future proposals would be evaluated on a project -by- project basis by the City; all developments would be required to comply with applicable standards and regulations pertaining to flood - control. People or property would not be exposed to, flood hazards. Significant impacts are.not anticipated. 17 R %121: 7,7 o. 4. a. b. C. d. PLANT LIFE Chance in Plant species The plan area is highly urbanized; plant life has already been disturbed. The proposed plan would not change the diversity or number of any significant plant species. No unique, rare, or endangered plant species are known to exist within the plan area. No unique plant species would be affected or reduced. Introduction of New Plant species Landscaping provided by future development would probably be similar with_ existing plant species found within the plan area. New unique plant species would probably not be introduced. Furthermore, since the plan would result in similar development as presently found, it is expected that barriers that could adversely affect the normal replenishment of existing species would not be formed anymore than existing conditions. No impacts are anticipated.. Reduction of Agricultural Crop The plan area is urbanized and crops exist onsite. Agricultural with plan implementation. S. ANIMAL LIFE A. b. C. Chance in Animal species developed; no agricultural crops would not be reduced Given that the plan area is already urbanized; animal habitat has already been disturbed. The proposed plan would not change the diversity or number of any significant animal species. Only common urban animals traverse the area. No unique, rare or endangered animals are known to exist within the plan area. No impacts are anticipated. Introduction of New Animal species. Future development would not be of uses that would introduce new animal species. Additionally, the plan area is not known to be part of a migration corridor for animals. As such, the plan does not represent a potential barrier to the migration is l.G�i:DA IT.:.M NO. l F: i or movement of animals. d. Deterioration of Habitat The plan area is not a habitat for fish or wildlife. The proposed plan would not deteriorate any habitat. 6. X0ISE a. Increases in Noise It is anticipated that °long -term ambient noise levels would not be increased over.existing levels, since the plan would result in development similar in uses and intensities with existing conditions. However, there would be disturbances created by short-term construction activities. Noise °generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, and concrete mixers could reach high levels. Given the temporary nature of the noise disturbances, however, these impacts are not. considered significant. b. People would not be subjected to long -term noise levels any greater than under existing conditions. However, there would be disturbances created by short-term construction activities. Given the temporary nature of the noise disturbances, however, these impacts are not considered significant. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE The plan would not generate any more' light and glare than presently found within the - vicinity. No significant impacts are anticipated. a. LAND USE The proposed plan could replace existing residential. and commercial uses with similar uses.; Therefore, the plan would not result in substantial alteration of the area. No significant impacts are anticipated. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES a. Increase of Natural Resources Any future development would not increase the rate of use of any natural resources. Most future development would merely replace existing uses, therefore, the same amount of natural resources would be ,used. No significant impacts are 19 AC_%DA ITENI h0. ; 1 anticipated. b. Depletion of Natural Resources Since most future development would replace existing uses, it is anticipated that natural resources would not be substantially depleted. 10. RISK OF VPSST a. Risk of Mmlosion or Releass of Hazardous substances Only residential or commercial uses would be permitted with the plan. It is anticipated that any development would not be of a use that could create a risk of upset or release hazardous substances. No significant impacts are anticipated. b. Interference of Emeresncv plans Any future. development would not be of an intensity 'or use which could interfere with emergency response plans or..' emergency evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated. 11. POPULATION Since most future development would only replace existing uses, it is assumed that the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of any human. population would remain unaffected. 12. HOUSING Likewise, since most future development would only replace existing uses, it is, assumed that the plan would not significantly affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION a. Generation of vehicular Movement. Since most future development would only replace existing uses, it is assumed that the plan would not generate additional vehicular movements. No significant impacts are anticipated. b. Effects on Parkins Future commercial development could require additional parking. However, since a development plan has not been proposed, it is difficult to precisely determine effects on parking. As previously discussed, the City shall review all 20 AG =.':OA ITZM CVO. p1._= 30 07 38 future commercial developments within these areas on a project -by- project basis to ensure that all parking impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. 1111 future developments would be expected to comply with City parking requirements. C. Impact on Transportation systems Since substantially more vehicular movements are not expected,, impacts on transportation systems are hot anticipated. d. Alterations to circulation or Movement Likewise, significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods are not anticipated. e. Alterations to waterborne. Rail or f►ir Traffic Any future residential and /or commercial development would not be of an intensity or use which could alter air, waterborne or rail traffic. f. Hazards to Motorists. Bicyclists or Pedestrians Since substantially more vehicular movements are not expected, impacts to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians relating to hazards, are not anticipated. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Fire Protection Since most future development would only replace existing uses, it is assumed that the plan would not require significantly more fire protection services. No impacts are anticipated. b. Police Protection Likewise, the plan would not require significantly more police protection services. No impacts are anticipated. c. schools Likewise, the plan would not require significantly more school service. No impacts are anticipated. d. Parks and Recreation The plan would not require significantly more parks and recreation services. No impacts are anticipated. 21 Fr.c = 31 C= 3X e. Ilaintenanoe Additional maintenance burden on the City would not be created. No impacts are anticipated. Additional burden on other governmental services would not be created. No impacts are anticipated. I5. ENERGY since most future development would only replace existing uses, it is assumed that the plan would not require substantially more amounts of fuel or energy. No impacts are. anticipated. - Any future development would not be of an intensity or use which would substantially increase energy demands or require development of new sources of energy. 16. UTILITIES a. Power or Natural gas Since most future development would only replace existing uses, it is assumed that the plan would not require more power or natural gas utilities. No impacts are anticipated. b. communication systems Likewise, the plan would not require significantly more communication utilities. No impacts are anticipated. C. Water Likewise, the plan would not require significantly more water utilities. No impacts are anticipated. b. sewer Likewise, the plan would not require significantly more sewer utilities. No impacts are anticipated. e. Storm Water Drainace The plan would not require significantly more drainage utilities. No impacts are anticipated. 22 :C:)A IT_M ?l•o. F: ^.c =37�C7 3X f. solid waste and Disposal The plan would not require significantly more solid waste and disposal services. No impacts are anticipated. g. street Lighting Annexation The plan area does not require annexation into the City's Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. 17. HUBAN HEALTH a. Creation of Health Hasarfls Any future development would not be of an intensity or use that could create health hazards. No impacts are anticipated. b. Exposure of People to Health Hazards , Since no potential health hazards would be created, there would be no exposure,of people to, potential health hazards. No impacts are anticipated. 18. AESTHETICS 19. The proposed design standards ensures that future development would be designed in an aesthetically and visually pleasing manner, consistent with the City and downtown area. The proposed design standards are considered a benefit to the plan area. The plan would not require significantly more parks and recreation services. No impacts are anticipated. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Alteration -of Archaeological Sites The proposed plan would not alter or destroy any prehistoric or historic archaeological site. No known sites exist. b. Effects to structures No prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object is known to exist within the plan area. No impacts are anticipated. MEW s - Y Any future development would not be of an intensity or use 23 t.0 =i40A ITEM NO-.-2L 3 �- 3g 3 - -�, that could change or affect any ethnic cultural values. No impacts are anticipated. d. Restriction of sacred yses Any future development would not be of an intensity or use that could restrict existing religious or sacred uses.. No impacts are anticipated. 21. KRNDATORY FINDINGS OF sIGNIFICANCB a. The project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce fish habitat or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop, threaten plant or animal communities, reduce or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important cultural resources. b. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. C. The project will not have impacts which are individually - limited but cumulatively considerable. 0 2{ AGENDA ITEM NO. _2 \ r­_3 1- -..3g_ RESOLUTION NO. 92 -8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 TO IMPLEMENT THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN LAND' -USE PLAN ESTABLISHING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE LEVEL DESIGNATIONS FOR. THIS AREA. THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 486 ACRES AND IS LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC CORE OF THE CITY. THE AREA IS GENERALLY BOUNDED TO THE NORTH BY COLLIER AVENUE AND INTERSTATE 15, TO THE SOUTH BY LAKESHORE DRIVE, THE WEST" BY CHANEY STREET, AND THE EAST BY GROVE AVENUE, CONKLIN AVENUE AND RUPARD STREET. WHEREAS, the General Plan must be periodically updated to meet new conditions and from time to time be revised or amplified to respond to unforeseen changes or needs; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated the responsibilities of making recommendations for changes in the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held necessary hearings in accordance with State Planning Law for the adoption of General Plan Amendments t the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered Mitigated Negative Declaration 92 -7 to the proposed General Plan Amendment 92 -3, prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the 1990 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. The Planning Commission finds and determines that Mitigated Negative Declaration 92 -7 is adequate under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to analyze the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment 92 -3, and recommends City Council approval, based upon the following findings and determinations: 1. The approval of the requested designations permits development to the highest and best nature within mitigable means to insure maintenance of the general public health safety and welfare. 2. Granting of the requested designations will permit reasonable development of the property consistent with its constraints and more compatible with adjacent properties and proposed development. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment would establish a land use density and usage more in character with the subject property's location, access and constraints. The proposed change will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore approve General Plan Amendment 92 -3. AGENDA ITsm 6:0. PACE 3S OF iii Resolution No. 92 -8 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on December 2, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Neff, Bullard and Brinley NOES: Commissioners: Gilenson ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None Lake Elsinore Plar ATTEST: Kevin Shear, Secretary to the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission AGENDA ITEM N0. � 1 P G_ NO OF_ 3 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -L A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY.COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE . ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, MAKING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE FIRST CYCLE OF THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 1993 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Section 65361(a) of the Government Code provides that no mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended more frequently than four times during any calendar year; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this General Plan Amendment on December 2, 1992 and March 3, 1993, and that these public hearings were advertised as required by law. The Planning Commission made recommendations to the City Council concerning these General Plan Amendments and has filed with the City Council copies of maps and reports; and WHEREAS, notice was duly given of the public hearing on the Amendment, which public. hearing was held before the City Council on the 23 day of March, 1993 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., with testimony received being made a part-of the public record; and WHEREAS, all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met for the consideration of whether the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the evidence received at the hearing, and for the reasons discussed by the Council members at said hearing, the City Council now finds that the Lake Elsinore General Plan be amended as follows: APPLICANT /PROPERTY OWNER: City of Lake Elsinore LOCATION: THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 486 ACRES AND IS LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC CORE OF THE CITY. THE AREA IS GENERALLY BOUNDED TO THE NORTH' BY COLLIER AVENUE AND INTERSTATE. 15, TO THE SOUTH BY LAKESHORE DRIVE, THE WEST BY CHANEY STREET, AND THE EAST BY GROVE AVENUE, CONKLIN AVENUE AND RUPARD STREET. Approval is based on the following: 1. The approval of the requested designations permits development to the highest and best nature within mitigable means to insure maintenance of the general public health safety and welfare. 2. Granting of the requested designations will permit reasonable development of the property consistent with its constraints and more compatible with adjacent properties and proposed development. 3. The proposed General Plan. Amendment would establish a land use density and usage more in character with the subject property's location, access and constraints. The proposed change will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment. AGENDA ITEM 140. PAGE S � OF M Page 2 Resolution No. APPLICANT /PROPERTY OWNER: Halloran and Associates LOCATION: NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 15 AND LAKE STREET. Approval is based on the following: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment would permit mining and reclamation operations as an interim use prior to development and will not alter the allowed uses under the current General Plan Land Use designation for the particular area. 2. Surface mining and reclamation operations will prepare the site for future development of the site. Mining and reclamation practices are currently permitted adjacent to the site to the south and southwest. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 4. This request will not result in any significant adverse impact on the environment because it is only policy action and will not grant development approval. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, that the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan be amended for the first time in calendar year 1993 to reflect General Plan Amendment 92 -3 and 92 -5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23 day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: Vicki Lynne Kasad, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: John R. Harper, City Attorney City of Lake Elsinore (SEAL) Gary Washburn, Mayor City of Lake Elsinore AGENDA ITEM NO. '� PAGE 2 OF-