Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 22CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: RON MOLENDYR, CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 23, 1993 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92 -5 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 92 -4 FOR THE NORTH ALBERHILL RANCH AREA. -40�11.1 *1+H At its regular meeting of March 3, 19938 the Planning Commission approved by unanimous vote the above referenced request to amend the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan (Specific Plan Area "D" Text) and Change the Zoning to incorporate the Resource Conservation (RC) Overlay District from Specific Plan Area (SPA) Zoning to SPA(RC). (Exhibit A and B. Staff Report and Minutes included) The proposed GPA would add verbiage to the already defined text and will not change any defined densities. The Zone Change to overlay the Resource Conservation Zoning District on the SPA Zone at the site is necessary to permit mining operations under the Municipal Zoning Code. Once the (RC) Overlay District is established, any surface mining will be allowed subject to Conditional Use Permit and Surface Mining Permit approval by the Planning.. Commission (scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on April 7, 1993) according to Ordinance No. 897 Section 8 (An Ordinance of the City of Lake Elsinore implementing the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975). Being that the proposed project is action policy.and does not grant development approvals, the Planning Commission did not have any major concerns and recommended approval of the project by a unanimous vote. The Planning Commission agreed to hold a workshop to discuss the upcoming Surface Mining and Reclamation Permit request and related Environmental Documentation. An Initial Study was prepared for the above referenced project and it identified no significant environmental impacts because the project is only policy action and does not approve physical development. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff prepared Negative Declaration No. 93 -2 which states that the action is not expected tc have a significant adverse impact on the environment. It is recommended that the City Council: Adopt Negative Declaration No. 93 -2; Approve General Plan Amendment No. 92 -5 and adopt Resolution No. 93 -13 ; and Zone Change No. 92 -4 and adopt Ordinance No. 951 based on the following Findings. 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. AGENDA ITEM NO. P%1 PAGE= / OF- REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE TWO SUB33CT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92 -5 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 92 -4 FOR THE NORTH ALBERHILL RANCH AREA. 2. Surface mining and reclamation operations will stabilize 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 consistent with the surrounding land use designations. Granting the requested amendment will permit development that would otherwise be cost prohibited. 4. This request will not result in any significant adverse impact on the environment. 1. This project. is consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the General Plan. 2. The requested overlay zoning requirements will bring future mining request into conformance with the established zoning for the project area and into conformance with the General Plan. 3. This Zone Change establishes the necessary zoning to conduct mining operation necessary to prepare the site for future development. 4. This request will not result in any significant adverse impact on the environment. PREPARED BY: Armando G. Villa, Assistant Planner REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED FOR AGENDA LISTING: AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE a? OF 3S Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 3 M D BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSO AND IED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COU L ADOPTI OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92 -7 AND A OVAL OF ZONE E AMENDMENT 92 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS STED IN THE .STAFF RT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDME Section 17.1`1.t030.A, delete in total, Section 17.11.06 , delete the rds "conduct a new or changed us or cons ct" page 18, third parag provide clarifi- cation for infill p ing irements. Page 26, Bui ng,Height, Is paragraph, ,provide gui Ines. Page and 58, remove Section per 'ping to High De ty., Staff to prepare summary of discussion and include in City Council Report. f 2. General Plan Amendment 92 -5 and Zone Change 92 -4 - Halloran & Associates - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to amend the Land Use Element.of the General Plan to modify the text to allow mining and reclamation uses within Specific Plan Area "D" (North .Alberhill Ranch),- and a change of Zone to incorporate the Resource Conservation (!'RC") Overlay District. The project is located north.of the intersection of Interstate 15 and Lake Street. Assistant Planner Villa them informed the Commission of a letter received from Elsinore Valley Municipal'Water District expressing their concern over the environmental. documentation prepared for the site. He then explained the reason for separate environmental documentation. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:45 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. Jon Friedman, Long Beach Equities, stated he is the property owner and Mr. Halloran and his staff are also present. He then stated.that they are in agreement with the Staff Report. Mr. Friedman stated "that they were unaware of the letter from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. But agrees with staff, if their concerns are with the project, the mining it would like an opportunity to meet with them and address their concerns prior to the mining permit coming before this board. Also, we have asked staff to set -up ?a workshop prior to the April 7th hearing. Mr. Friedman then gave a brief `background on the existing mining operation at Lake Street. 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 7:46 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO.' PAGE .1— OF 3S Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 4 Commissioner Gilenson stated that he spoke with Mr. Friedman on this project and voiced his concerns. Basically, no problem with the policy action to be .taken, concern is with the mining operation. He then commented on the environmental documentation he expects to see. Commissioner Neff stated he spoke with Mr. Friedman about the project and has no particular problems. He commented on the timing of the letter received from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and encouraged timely correspondence in the future. Does not believe their concerns are directly affected by the action tonight. Commissioner Bullard stated that he concurs with Commissioners Gilenson and Neff. At this time, this is policy action only. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -2 AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -5 AND ZONE CHANGE 92 -4 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 93- 1, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION 93 -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ,LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -5 TO MODIFY THE TEXT WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT ALLOWING MINING AND RECLAMATION USES WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA "D" (NORTH ALBERHILL RANCH) 3. ecific Plan 92 -1, Tentative Tract Map 27223 - Friendly Gr VI (K. S. Chen) - Associate Planner De Gange presents he Cape. f Good Hope Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 223; the pr osed project is a 40 acre gated single -fan resi- dential velopment subdivided into 67 custom lots, orated at the easte terminus of Mountain Street no at of the intersection f Robb Road and Lakeshore Drive. Chairwoman Brinl referred to the written. unication (fax) dated March 3, 1 3, from Bowie, Arn on', Kadi, Wiles & Giannone, law firm epresenting the ke Elsinore Unified School District, requ ting the pr act be conditioned to require the applicant d the strict to enter into a mitigation agreement prior o ap oval of the project by City Council. Chairwoman Brinley opened a lic hearing at 8:00 p.m., asking for anyone wishin to spea n favor. Xto ed Crowe, T Keith Compan s, representing the nt, stated heir firm prepare the Specific Plan t and the entative map. •He stated he guidelines andndatio contained within the docume will establish a sh case type of development, and tha concerns have equ ely addressed and mitigated. He the stated that re n agreement with the Staff Report and" 11 answer tions that may arise.oman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to spa in Receiving no response, she asked for those oppose AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGS-1--OF 3s CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: PLANNING FROM: KEVIN SHEAR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1993 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) -NO. 92 -5 . AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC) NO. 92 -4 Mr. Jonathan Friedman - Mr. Robert W. Snodgrass'' Long Beach Equities William Halloran and Assoc. 2042 Armacost Ave. P.O. Box.1239 West Los Angeles, Ca. 90025 Vista, Ca. 92085 Amendment of the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan (Specific Plan Area "D" Text) , and change the zoning to incorporate the Resource Conservation (RC) Overlay District from Specific Plan Area (SPA) to SPA(RC). Exhibit "B" SIZE AND LOCATION The site consists of approximately 423 acres within Section 15 T.5S R.5W S.B.M. It is located on the north side of the intersection of Interstate 15 and Lake Street. AP# 390 -110 -002, 390 -120 -006, 004. Exhibit "A" BACKGROUND The applicant has filed an application to conduct surface mining operations to create developable pads and prepare the site for future residential and commercial development at the above referenced site (Surface Mining Permit.No. 92 -1, and Reclamation Plan No. 92 -1). Exhibits - "A" and "B" The topography and geology of this property render it economically infeasible to grade it for development in today's market. The property does, however have significant rock /gravel resources that allows it to be economically feasible by performing surface mining techniques to extract gravel resources. This project attempts to combine the. three "uses ", residential /commercial development and surface mining,. by grading the site (for mining) to the rough grade residential /commercial elevations and configurations (future development). The proposed surface mining techniques will be conducted in three (3) phases over a period of thirty (30) years and will create developable pads and prepare the site for future residential and commercial development. Since the site's land use and zoning designation do not presently allow or address such use, it will be necessary to consider the following requests /applications which have been tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission consideration as follows: March 3. 1993 1 April 7. 1993 General Plan Amend. 92 -5 I Surface Mining Permit 92 -1 Zone Change 92 -4 Reclamation Plan 92 -1 Conditional Use Permit 92 -7 Although, surface mining operations occur in the vicinity (County) and adjacent to,the site (Planning Commission approval of RP 90 -1)`, this specific site is not designated or zoned.for this type of AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE .J OF 3S REPORT TO THE PLANNING MARCH 3, 1993 PAGE TWO RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92 -5 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 92 -4 request in the City's General Plan. it is therefore required of the applicant to file applications such as a General Plan Amendment and Zone Chance to allow this type of use (mining). Once these two actions are considered and approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, findings can be made that the surface mining use will be in conformance with the General Plan's Goals, Policies, and Objectives. The approval of these two actions (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) do not constitute development approval. Before development approvals (approval to conduct mining operations) are granted, the applicant would still be required to undergo discretionary review and approval by the Planning Commission. This review will be done when Surface Mining Permit No. 92 -1, Reclamation Plan No. 92 -1, and Conditional Use Permit No. 92 -7 are considered on April 7, 1993:, The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will modify the text of the General Plan Land Use Element for Specific Plan Area "D" (North Alberhill Ranch), to allow surface mining uses and reclamation practices as an interim use prior to the development and implementation of a specific plan. The text with modifications will read as follows (underlined verbiage represents the added text, the rest remains the same): PROPOSED TEXT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA "D" NORTH ALBERHILL RANCH This proposed Specific Plan Area is located within the project area of the approved Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. While the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan has been adopted, an adjacent 925 -acre area, herein referred to as North Alberhill Ranch, has not received approval. Due to Plan. The North Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan should address such issues as the reclamation of mining sites adjacent to or for development; visual impacts of hillside grading; and the impact of development on the biological resources along Temescal Wash. Residential development may be permitted at a density of 3 du /ac maximum. Nonresidential uses should be limited to neighborhood commercial if supported by a market study, open space, recreational uses, and any public facilities necessary to support the project. AG00A ITEM NO pAGE.!�.OF 35" EXX9TING LAND US ZONING Project Site Vacant C -SP, SPA Specific Plan Area "D" North Vacant SPA Specific Plan (County) Area "R" East Vacant SPA Specific Plan Area "D" South Vacant /Mining Commercial/ Specific Plan Residential Alberhill Ranch West Batch Block Plant County Low Density Residential The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will modify the text of the General Plan Land Use Element for Specific Plan Area "D" (North Alberhill Ranch), to allow surface mining uses and reclamation practices as an interim use prior to the development and implementation of a specific plan. The text with modifications will read as follows (underlined verbiage represents the added text, the rest remains the same): PROPOSED TEXT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA "D" NORTH ALBERHILL RANCH This proposed Specific Plan Area is located within the project area of the approved Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. While the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan has been adopted, an adjacent 925 -acre area, herein referred to as North Alberhill Ranch, has not received approval. Due to Plan. The North Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan should address such issues as the reclamation of mining sites adjacent to or for development; visual impacts of hillside grading; and the impact of development on the biological resources along Temescal Wash. Residential development may be permitted at a density of 3 du /ac maximum. Nonresidential uses should be limited to neighborhood commercial if supported by a market study, open space, recreational uses, and any public facilities necessary to support the project. AG00A ITEM NO pAGE.!�.OF 35" REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH; 3, 1993 PAGE THREE RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92 -5 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 92 -4 The Zone Change (ZC) will be to incorporate the Resource Conservation (RC) Overlay District regulations over the subject site (Exhibit "B ") to permit surface mining subject to a Conditional Use Permit (Section 17.06.030.8.6 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code). PROJECT CONCERNS Staff has preliminarily identified visual, and aesthetic concerns as a result of the mining operations. At this point, staff has not fully evaluated the effects therefore these concerns will be addressed and evaluated during the Surface Mining Permit No. 92 -1 analysis. ANALYSIS GPA and ZC approval will allow the applicant to seek Surface Mining Permit approval to physically prepare the site for future residential and commercial development. Presently, the current zoning and land use do not address mining operations. The topographical and geologic conditions of the site prohibits feasible development. The proposed GPA would merely add verbiage to the already defined text and will not change any defined densities as indicated above. The Zone Change to overlay the Resource Conservation District on the SPA zone at the site is necessary to permit mining operations under the Municipal Zoning Code. Once the (RC) Overlay district is established, any surface mining will be allowed subject to Conditional Use Permit and /or Surface Mining Permit approval by the Planning Commission according to Ordinance No. 897 Section 8 (An Ordinance of the City of Lake Elsinore implementing the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975). ; An Initial Study was prepared for the above referenced project and it identified no significant environmental impacts because the project is only policy action and does not approve physical development. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff prepared Negative Declaration No. 93 -2, which states that the policy action approval is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 93 -2; Recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 92 -5 and adopt Resolution No. 93 -1; and Zone Change No. 92 -4 based on the following Findings. 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 nn AGENDA ITEM NO. 126 0' PAGE OFD_ REPORT TO THE PLANNING MARCH 3, 1993 PAGE FOUR RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92 -5 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 92 -4 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. to _ - -- Project approval will be consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the General Plan. 2. The requested overlay zoning requirements will bring future mining request into conformance with the established zoning for the project area and into conformance with the General Plan. 3. This Zone Change establishes the necessary zoning to conduct mining operation necessary to physically prepare the site for future residential and commercial development. 4. This request will not result in any significant adverse impact on the environment because it is only action policy and will not grant development approval. Prepared by: Armando G. Villa, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Approved for Planning Commission: : \GPA92 -S.RPT city el- AGENDA ITEM NO. °` PAG_ g OF VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1993 GENERAL PLAN AMEND. 92 =5 ZONE CHANGE NO, 92=4 NORTH ALBERHILL RANCH AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGES g OF *js NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92 -5 ZONE CHANGE NO. 92 -4 PREPARED FOR: William J. Holloran and Associates P O Box 1239 Vista, California 92085 PREPARED BY: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 January, 1993 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE /G OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -5 ZONE CHANGE 92 -4 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE AFFECTED AREA The site is located in the northwesterly portion of the City and.it is within Section 15 of Township 5, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The site is approximately 450 acres of vacant land and largely in an undisturbed state. The interstate 15 Freeway forms the southwestern border of the subject site. The Lake Street interchange with Interstate 15 provides access to the site. The project's location is displayed is the vicinity map attached. OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS The proposed actions shall amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Change the Zone at the above referenced site. The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will modify the text of the General Plan Land Use Element for Specific Plan Area "D" (North Alberhill Ranch) to allow mining and reclamation uses prior to the development and implementation of a Specific Plan. The Zone Change (ZC) will incorporate the Resour6e Conservation "RC" Overlay District regulations to allow mining and quarrying (Section 17.06 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code). 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 actions and requires certification with the final decision on the proposed actions. 3. General Plan Amendment No. 92 -5. Amendment of General Plan designation SPA "D" to include and allow mining and natural resource extraction as an interim use prior to the development and implementation of a Specific Plan. 4. Zone Change No. 92 -4. Change of Zoning SPA, and C -SPA to include the Resourse Conservation "RC" Overlay District. 1 e�d2 AGENDA ITEM NO..�.�� PAGE 3S CONTACT PERSONS The lead agency for preparing this Negative Declaration is the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Department. Armando G. Villa Planning Department City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 PERSONS AND AGENCIES Wayne Daniel, Chief of Police County Sheriff Department Michael Gray, Fire Captain Specialist County Fire Department Donald Hemme, Engineer Elsinore Valley Municipal Water Dist. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The subject site is will be considered for mining and reclamation activities. This environmental evaluation does not address impacts resulting from those activities. This Negative Declaration only evaluates impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change actions. Since no specific physical development is being proposed with this request, 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 proposed actions. All future physical development including mining activities will be consistent with the proposed GPA and ZC and will be reviewed on a project -by- project and site /project specific basis. Any future action will be required to comply with applicable City environmental review and other jurisdictional processes and regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 (Initial Study) which pertain to the proposed actions. 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 92530; ph: (909) 674 -3124. 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. '' PACEL OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92 -5 ZONE CHANGE NO. 92 -4 FOR HOLLORAN & ASSOCIATES - NIYLMID[ CORONA v LAKE LLSINOI VICINITY MAP NDT TO SCALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION N THE CRY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY Of 9VCRSDE. STATE OF GALSDRSIIA. BEING A OMSION OF A PORTION Of SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP B SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNAMM MERIDIAN, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RELV[7EED OC70M 17, 930, AS NSTROMEW NO. 31120110. OFFICIAL RECORDS OF NNERODE CWRY. G AGENDA ITEM NO. PAC_ / 3 of 3S I. INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC=ST FORM CITY OF LARE ELSINORE Background 1. Name of Proponent: William J. Holloran and Associates 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: P.O. Box 1239 Vista, CA 92085: (6191 727 -0878 3. Date of Checklist: October 20. 1992 4. Agency Requiring Checklist:_ City of Lake Elsinore Planning S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: General Plan Amendment 92 -5. Zone Change 92 -4 II. Environmental Impacts Explanation of all "yes ", "no ", and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. Yes Maybe No 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of 4 ACE;:OA ITEM NO. P?.C_ V OF 9. 2. AIR. a. b. C. 3. WATER a. b. C. d. e. f. a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Will the proposal result in: Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or loss of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? 3 Yes Maybe No JL -X_ X • JL X --X- -X- ACEDA ITEM NO. AGENDA * OF 3 Yes Maybe No q. Change In the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an X b. aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ _ X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise X C. available for public water supplies? _ �L i. Exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _X_ d. Flood Zone Designation: n/a 100 -Year Flood Level: n/a X 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a: Change in the diversity of AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE 4 OF 3S species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X 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? X 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)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered 6 AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE 4 OF 3S 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 emergency evacuation plan? 7 Yes Maybe No -X- - -Z- - - - - - - -X -X -X -- --I- -X- AGENDA ITEM NO. I P/.CaL OF 3S il. 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? b. Effects on parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 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? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? a Yes Maybe No X — — X —X X —X X .X_ X —X- ACENDA ITEM NO.` p"r. °.tLOF fJ f. Other governmental services? 15: 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? b. Communications systems? C.- Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 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)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 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 offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the 9 Yes Maybe No --X- X -X -X X_ - ._8_ X X X — X -L NDA ITEM NO. F:.=� o= 3 Yes Maybe No quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. CULTURAL a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d: Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a 10 RCrt DA ITEM NO. PACE: Zd OF 3 Yes Maybe No relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ — AL 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.) _ _ JL III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of potential environmental impacts is attached) IV. Determination on the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. — I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA is required. IQ- ZO-Q2. Date Armando G. Villa. Assistant Planner For the City of Lake Elsinore 11 ACENDA IT_M NO. --L. Fh`° Z* OF s.. DISCUSSION OP ENVIRONMENTAL I34PACTS General Plan Amendment No. 92 -5 Zone Change No. 92 -4 1. EARTH a. No. Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would not create unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures, since no physical development is being considered. However, the approval of these two actions will allow mining and quarrying which can potentially have an impact on the environment. Subsequent development proposals will be evaluated specifically for the project development and will be subject to site specific environmental evaluation. Assuming that future development will comply with all established mitigation, no impacts are anticipated. b. No. Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone. Change would not result in any disruptions, displacements, compactions or overcrowding of soil due to the aforementioned reason. c. No. The GPA and ZC are merely actions and do not proposed. any physical development therefore, adoption of the documents would not change existing topography or ground surface relief features. d. No. Since no site development is proposed with the two proposals, no direct destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features are anticipated. e. No. No site development is proposed with the two requests, therefore no direct alteration of soils through wind or water is likely to occur. f. No. No changes in the deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which could modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any inlet or lake are anticipated, since physical improvement and development are not being proposed with the two requests. g. No. Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone. Change would not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failures or similar hazards, since development is not being proposed. l.O.-ENDA ITEM NO. +� 2. AIR a. No. Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change actions would not increase air emission or deterioration of ambient air quality, since intensive improvement or development is not being proposed with the two requests.: b. No. Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would not create objectionable odors, since physical development would not be proposed with the request. c. No. Approval of the General'Plan Amendment and Zone Change would not result in any alteration in air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally, since intensive physical development is not being proposed. 3. WATER a. No. No changes in currents or the course or direction of. water movements would occur with the proposed actions, since physical improvements which alter such features are not proposed. b. No. No changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff are anticipated; development is not being proposed. c. No. No changes to the course or flow of flood waters would occur; development is not being proposed. d. No. No changes would occur.in the amount of surface water in any water body as a result of the approval of the two actions. e. No. No significant impacts to surface waters or water quality are anticipated with the approval of the two actions. f. No. The direction or rate of flow of groundwater would not be directly affected if the GPA and ZC are approved, since physical development-is not being proposed. g. No. The approval of the proposed actions would not result in changes to the quantity or quality of groundwaters. h. No. No substantial reductions in the amount of public water are anticipated as a result of the approval of the two actions. 13 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2"2- PAC=ffOF 4. 5. 6. 7. i. No. There is no opportunity for people or property to be exposed to water related hazards, such as flooding or tidal waves. PLANT LIFE a. No. The GPA and ZC would not change the diversity of species or deterioration of vegetation since it is only an action to amend text and to change the zoning. b. No. Likewise, no unique, -rare or endangered species of plants would be significantly affected. c. No. No new plant species or barriers to replenishment of existing plant species would result. d. No. Agricultural crop would not be reduced with the GPA and ZC approval actions. ANIMAL LIFE a. No. The GPA and ZC would not change the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, birds or other land animals. b. No. Likewise, no unique, rare or endangered "species of animals would be significantly reduced with the approval of the two actions. c. No. No new species of animals, or barrier to migration of existing animal species would result with the,approval of the two actions. d. No. There would be no known deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat as a result of the ,approval of the GPA and ZC. NOISE a. No. The GPA and ZC would not likely increase existing noise levels because no physical development is being proposed.. b. No. People would not be exposed to noise levels which,due to the aforementioned reason. LIGHT AND GLARE No. The GPA and ZC would not expose people to new light or glare because no physical development is being proposed. 14 AGENDA ITEM NO. c v pA^ = Z+ OF 3.< S. LAND USE No. The .General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would not substantially alter present -or planned land uses nor create conflict with any designations, objectives or policies of any adopted plans of the City of Lake Elsinore. The General Plan Amendment would merely include text to allow mining and reclamation as an interim use. The Zone Change will establish the Resource Conservation "RC° overlay district to allow mining and quarrying. Future construction of mining facilities would be evaluated on a project -by- project basis and would be subject to discretionary review including the environmental review process. This would ensure that any potential impact would be reduced to a level of.insignificance. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES a. No._ The GPA and ZC actions would'not increase the rate of use of any natural resource. b. No. The GPA and ZC would not substantially deplete any nonrenewable natural resource, due to the aforementioned reason. 10. RISK OF UPSET a. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not result in the storage, handling or processing of hazardous materials. b. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not result in any risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions. 11. POPULATION No. The approval of the GPA the location, distribution, human population. 12. HOUSING and ZC would have no impact on density or growth rate of the No. The adoption of the GPA and ZC would have no impact upon existing housing and would not result in creating a, demand for additional housing. 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION a. No. No additional vehicular traffic would be generated as a result of the approval of the GPA and ZC.. These two actions do not constitute physical development. 15 AG_I`DA ITEM NO PP,'L.E l OF � � b. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not have any effect on existing parking facilities nor would it create a demand for new or additional parking due to the aforementioned reason. c. No. Likewise, no impacts to the existing transportation facilities are anticipated as a result of the approval of the GPA and ZC. d. No. Likewise the approval of the GPA and ZC would not alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods. e. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not alter waterborne, rail or air traffic. f. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not increase traffic hazards to ' motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. 14. PUBLIC SERVICE a. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would have no effect upon or result in the need for new or altered fire protection services. b. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would have no effect upon or result in the need for new or altered police protection services. c. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not create a need for new or additional school activities. d. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not create a need for new 'or additional parks or other recreational facilities. e. No. No impacts are anticipated upon the maintenance of public facilities or roads as a result of the approval of the GPA and ZC. f. No. No impacts to other governmental services are anticipated as a result of the approval of the GPA and ZC. 15. ENERGY a. No.' - Approval of the GPA and ZC would not result in the use of- abnormally high amounts of fuel or energy. b. No. No substantial increases in demand upon existing sources of energy or requirements for the development of 16 AC_NDA ITEM NO.. 2's OF 16. new sources of energy are anticipated as a result of the adoption of the GPA and ZC. a. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not create a demand for additional power (electricity) or natural gas. No site specific development is being considered. b. No. Likewise, the approval of the GPA and ZC would not create the demand for additional communications systems, c. No. Likewise, no new demands for domestic water would be created with the approval of the GPA and ZC. d. No. No new demands for sewer facilities or septic tanks would be created if the GPA and ZC is approved. e. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not necessitate new storm water drainage improvements. f. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not necessitate solid waste and disposal improvements. 14. a. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not result in the creation of potential health hazards. As previously mentioned, the approval represent policy revisions b. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not result in the exposure of people to potential health hazards due to the reason listed above. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not result in the obstruction of any scenic vistas or view open to the public. 19. RECREATION No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not create any impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES a. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC would not result in the destruction of any archeological, prehistoric or historic sites. b. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC is not anticipated to 17 AGENDA ITEM NO. have any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. Due to the aforementioned reason. c. No. The approval of the GPA and ZC is not anticipated to adversely affect any unique ethnic cultural values. d. No. No known existing religious or sacred uses would be impacted as the result of the approval of the GPA and ZC. I. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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. The proposed actions will allow uses which in turn will be required to undergo discretionary review and therefore site specific environmental evaluation. 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. is AUNDA ITEM NO. �" RESOLUTION NO. 93 -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -5 TO MODIFY THE TEXT WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT ALLOWING MINING AND RECLAMATION USES WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA "D" (NORTH ALBERHILL RANCH) WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Lake Elsinore by Halloran and Associates to amend the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan to modify the text within the General Plan Land Use Element allowing mining and reclamation uses within Specific Plan Area "D" (North Alberhill Ranch); located north of the intersection of Interstate 15 and Lake Street; WHEREAS, public notice of said applications has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the applicant,. Community Development Department. and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this application on March 3, 1993.; ; NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore,DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered Negative Declaration 93 -2 for the proposed General Plan Amendment 92 -5, 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 Negative Declaration 93 -2 is adequate under California Environmental Quality Act ,(CEQA) to analyze the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment 92 -5, and recommends City Council approval, based upon the following findings and determinations:. 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. The proposed actions will allow uses which in turn will be required to undergo discretionary review and therefore site specific environmental evaluation. 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. SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning law and the City of Lake Elsinore the following findings for the approval of General Plan Amendment 92 -5 have been made as follows: a. 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. AGENDA ITEM NO. " 2 PAGE. CL_ OF 3S Page 2 Resolution No. 93 -1 b. 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. C. The proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the surrounding land uses. d. 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. 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 -5. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on March 3, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Pamela Brinley, Chairwoman Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Kevin Shear, Secretary to the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission MEN5 ITEM N0. Pr �= 3o OF 3s I A r. ex: 13 UJ 6 . . . . . . . . . 0 P- V-A J�3 U1 ZX I I A AGENDA ITEM NO.� PAGE -5 1 OF 1-457 r. ex: UJ 6 Z Ed W J�3 U1 AGENDA ITEM NO.� PAGE -5 1 OF 1-457 RESOLUTION NO. 93 --a 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 EISINORE, 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: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 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. 4. The proposed change will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment. AGENDA ITEM NO. �.- PAGE 3Z OF 3S 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: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: 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' "2�' PAGE 33 OF is ORDINANCE NO. _q5 _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO INCORPORATE THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION (RC) OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPA) TO SPA(RC). THE SITE CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 423 ACRES WITHIN SECTION 15 T.5S R.5W S.B.M. IT IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 15 AND LAKE STREET. (ZONE CHANGE 92 -4, HALLORAN AND ASSOCIATES) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONES ZONING RECLASSIFICATION This Zoning Map of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, is hereby amended by changing, reclassifying and rezoning the following described property, to wit: Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 390- 110 -002, 390- 120 - 006, 004 to SPA(RC) on approximately 423 acres, as illustrated in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and the said real property shall hereafter be subject to the provisions and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance relating to property located within such SPA (RC) Zoning District. Approval is based on the following: 1. This project is consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the General Plan. 2. The requested overlay zoning requirements will bring future mining request into conformance with the established zoning for the project area and into conformance with the General Plan. 3. This Zone Change establishes the necessary zoning to conduct mining operation necessary to prepare the site for future development. 4. This request will not result in any significant adverse impact on the environment. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective as provided by law. INTRODUCED AND APPROVED UPON FIRST READING this 23rd day of March 1993, upon the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: AGENDA ITE'.1 NO. o�� PAGE OF : `_-_ — Page 2 Ordinance No. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED UPON SECOND READING this 13th day of April 1993, upon the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: Vicki Lynne Kasad, City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: John Harper, City Attorney City of Lake Elsinore Gary M. Washburn, Mayor City of Lake Elsinore AGENDA ITEtd NO. PAGE.COF -